3 ms·
It is pretty normal to request verification of ownership from somebody who claims to be the rightful owner of something lost. For example, let's say you found a
by briansmith 16y ago
It is pretty normal to request verification of ownership from somebody who claims to be the rightful owner of something lost. For example, let's say you found an iPhone (or bag of cash) on the street and posted a "Found iPhone" (or "Found Bag of Cash") ad on Craigslist. I bet somebody--probably multiple people--would reply that it is theirs pretty quickly. Are you going to ask them to verify in some way that it is theirs? If so, would your request for verification constitute a refusal to return it to the rightful owner? I don't think so. In particular, if you "returned" it to someone who wasn't the rightful owner, the rightful owner could sue you and/or worse, so it's in your best interest to verify that you are returning it to the correct people.
I think one aspect of this case is particularly interesting: I have the impression that the phone was much more likely to be returned by Gizmodo than by the "finder." And, I think Gizmodo paid for access to the phone, knowing that they would have to return it to Apple if it was Apple's. The thing I'm really curious about is whether the court thinks they really "bought" the phone, or whether they paid for temporary access to the phone and agreed to return it to Apple if it was theirs, or whether there's no difference legally. In other words, it seems likely that Gizmodo's payment for the phone enabled and/or accelerated its return to Apple. (Compare it to the case of the other lost iPhone prototype in Vietnam this week, which Apple will almost definitely never get back.)
- tptacek 16y agoAnd here we run right off the cliff, with the tendentious message board argument that Gizmodo had any reasonable expectation that the phone might not have been Apple's after Steve Jobs called them to get the phone back. Due respect, but give me a break, Brian.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- briansmith 16y agoYou don't think there is even a slight possibility that the phone belonged to somebody else, like, say, the person who actually lost it? Do you really think it was unreasonable for Gizmodo to ask Apple to simply state--not prove, merely state--that it belonged to them and that the person who left it in the bar didn't "lose" it on purpose? I think it is more than reasonable to ask. Especially, it's silly to speculate when when Apple was willing to confirm it.
- daeken 16y agoIf this was some random person, or even some random company, laying claim to the device, you may have a leg to stand on. It's Apple. Do you really think they'd go out and ask journalists for some iPhone knockoff prototype? Come on.
- guelo 16y agoAh yes, the venerable "come on It's Apple" defense. If this ever goes to trial the lawyers will demand a change of venue out of the bay area, they'll never get a fair shake with the serious infestation of Apple fanboys around here.
- daeken 16y agoBear in mind, I'm not using the "come on It's Apple" defense in terms of all of their actions; I don't know enough about this case to say anything either way, and really don't care enough in general. But I think it's a pretty fair assumption that if they're calling someone and saying "uh, hey, you have our phone", it really is their phone.