4 ms·
isn't this a bit excessive over something that would have been out in ~3 months anyway? An engineer leaves phone in a bar. Gizmodo purchases phone, does their
by darrenkopp 17y ago
isn't this a bit excessive over something that would have been out in ~3 months anyway?
An engineer leaves phone in a bar. Gizmodo purchases phone, does their expose, then returns phone. Cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- amock 17y agoThey purchased known stolen property and used it to make some money before returning it. That's illegal and I don't see why they shouldn't be held responsible for what they did.
- rtrunck 17y ago"Known stolen property" When was that ever established?
- sophacles 17y agoNo. They purchased a phone "found at a bar". They acted in good faith that it had been lost. When asked to return the property, they did. There are exceptions for good faith actions in most "receiving stolen goods" type laws for a reason.
- jolan 17y agoThey're probably after the guy who sold it to Gizmodo since he didn't act in good faith.
- itg 17y agooh please don't pretend to be naive and as if you know all the legal implications of what happened
- rufo 17y agoSeveral sites have posted excerpts of California's penal code detailing how not returning lost property is equivalent to theft. Between that and the half-assed attempts of the "finder" to try to return the phone, according to California state law, the phone is almost certainly considered stolen.
- wmf 17y agoDisassembling the phone and posting pictures on the Web for profit then returning the phone counts as good faith?
- sophacles 17y agoBuying an item that is not blatantly restricted (e.g. is not marijuana), on claims of the seller that it is legit, is good faith. Further, upon request from the original owner, it was returned. This is also good faith... aka "oops my bad". What they did in between is called "I do stuff to my property", and perfectly ok. Note: this was my thinking before I found out CA has weird laws about this (see other replies in this thread).
- wmf 17y agoThere's no way to legitimately acquire a 4G iPhone prototype. So if the seller said "I've got a 4G iPhone here" then it sounds like he was basically admitting at least theft of trade secrets.
- darrenkopp 17y agodo you have a better idea on how to prove that a non-working iphone in a case that looks like an iphone 3gs but has some differences is in fact the next iphone?
- wmf 17y agoThat's the thing: Gizmodo didn't need to "prove" anything. IMO good faith would have been returning it to Apple without blogging about the device.
- jfoutz 17y agoI found a wallet, and gave it back to the owner. vs. I found bobs wallet, he was embarrassed about the condom that expired last year. Making money on the story about the expired condom is tacky, but i don't think it's in bad faith. bob got his wallet back, not a dollar missing. Buying the wallet from a junkie who's more that capable of giving bob his wallet back, that's not right.
- qq66 17y agoRead up on the lost property laws in California. The person who found it had an obligation to return it to the proprietor of the bar, who had an obligation to return it to the original owner for the next three years. Under the law, it was stolen.
- ezy 17y agoLet me get this straight. If someone offers to sell you a cellphone (any cellphone) that they "found", you're going to buy it and keep it until the owner of said property tracks you down and asks for it? And this is "good faith"? I call bullshit. Especially since it was an iPhone prototype. You know it's Apple's property, you know they want it, and you know how to contact them. You also know that the person selling it to you knows the same thing -- they're selling it, after all. You are participating in breaking the law by buying it from them unless you're buying it with the intent of immediately returning it and reporting the offender to the police. Really, that's the end of the story. The rest is bullshit.
- logic 17y ago"You know it's Apple's property." More to the point: the folks at Gizmodo, being reporters on this very industry, were uniquely positioned to know exactly what the phone was. The five thousand dollars that exchanged hands drives home that point. They'll have a very difficult time mounting an ignorance-based defense here.
- anigbrowl 17y agoPrior legal discussions, to avoid reinventing the wheel: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289252 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289252
- rimantas 17y agoApple has cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc. IIRC Apple cannot do that, DA can.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- darrenkopp 17y agoah, i just saw that this was from the REACT team, which appears to be independent. I was under the assumption that this was pursuant of civil action by apple.
- vaksel 17y agonot with Apple...the guy is lucky he didn't "take a walk" off a 12 story balcony http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/ http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/