or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

In California: The "finder" is guilty of theft. Gizmodo is guilty of purchasing stolen goods. See sections 496 and 485 of California Penal Code and 2080 of California Civil Code In New York: Assuming the iPhone was transported and purchased there... The phone was still stolen in California, so it would be purchasing of stolen goods in New York. It's not "finders keepers" in New York either. So even under New York law, it would be considered both theft of...
There are two issues. One is it douchebaggery? The other is it legal?Is it douchebaggery?I think it's douchebaggery if it promotes the name beyond the impact of the original release. In the case of the iPhone, it's not douchebaggery. There's a story here, and the impact of the original release of the name had already been played out. The negative impact for Powell was that any future employer most likely will Google him as they will with all candidates. What...
I'll say that! Gizmodo broke the law by receiving stolen goods. They admit they paid $5,000 for the phone that was found. California Penal Code Section 496 prohibits this. In doing so, there may also be trade secret issues. Plus they're total jerks for outing the guy who lost the phone. Sure Apple already knew who he was, but now any potential employer in the future with access to Google will see what he did. AI isn't breaking the law. They didn't break the law. ...
I don't get this argument. I've seen it elsewhere. I can understand an attractive nuisance argument (for other cases), but in this case it's a bit like saying, "You forgot to lock the door to your house, and so a person came in and stole things. Then afterward, said thief sold the items to somebody else who knew they were stolen. Sorry, but you were drunk and forgot to lock the door to your house." That doesn't seem right to me. I could also understand if they were...
Take a closer look at the quotation mark placement:It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law. I wasn't saying that specific statement was made (although see previous posts and the term "finders keepers" was actually used here). My comment was more of an observation how many people here and elsewhere think that what is "right" is something that goes entirely against California Civil Code section 2080 and...
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law. I definitely think this is one area where a large number of people think what is "right" is actually against the law...and perhaps this says something about where are values are today.
Could you clarify this? Gizmodo has blogged on their site that they paid $5,000 to the person who said they found the phone. How is it not theft of property under California penal code section 485 and receiving stolen goods under California penal code section 496? As far as pursuing the case... The retail price of the phone would make it a felony even if the $5,000 wasn't what was used as the basis for the price. Why would a DA not take the case when it's high profile...
Yes, I admit California *is* a little out there, but be that as it may... I think you (and others) are confusing mens rea with actus reus. Taking something that doesn't belong to you would be the actus reus which isn't illegal in of itself. Mens rea is the intent. If someone had found the iPhone 4 prototype and thought it was a cheap knockoff that didn't work anymore so they threw it in a garbage bin, there would be actus reus in the taking, but no mens rea since there...
One of 4 acceptable courses of actions: 1) Yes, take it to the police station. They do this. 2) Turn it into the management of establishment. 3) Leave it where it is. 4) Determine who it belongs to and return it. If unable to do either, do one of the above. What you should absolutely *not* do: 1) Sell it 2) Buy it 3) Use it, play with it, damage it, etc... 4) Do anything that prevents its return to the ownerOk, let's go with the thought that it's not from Apple and its a...
The problem is that Gizmodo knowingly paid for something that was considered stolen. It doesn't matter what Gizmodo intended to do with the property. As I mentioned before there is precedence for people being found guilty when they claimed they intended to turn in the purchase merchandise for a reward. It also doesn't matter if it was legit or not. If I find something and sell it to you, and tell you that it's something I just found...boom, you're guilty of receiving...
New Posts  All Forums: