or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

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...
I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below). Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station. What they should NOT have done is sold the phone. What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. ...
California Penal Code Section 485 One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft. IANAL, but I believe over $400 is a felony and as such this would qualify, same goes with...
I'm going to go with Shantanu Narayen. He's from India and used to work at Apple. Do it as part of the overall Adobe merger.
Count me as someone who has been waiting a long time for these. I wouldn't have expected anyone to be offering discounts, so this *is* news to me. Also, if it were an ad, I wouldn't mind at all. AppleInsider has given me tons of information, and they deserve to get paid.
New Posts  All Forums: