Under the law, failure to turn lost goods over to the authorities is considered stealing. Selling said goods is yet another step above & beyond.
No, it is not. Certain conditions have to be met. He finds it, he has responsibilities, yes, but failing to turn it over to the authorities does not make it theft automatically. He is expected to try and contact the owner and/or turn it over to the police.
Simply calling it theft doesn't make it theft. Call it rape if you want, but that doesn't make it rape. Since he did contact Apple, that part is covered. He probably isn't allowed to sell it, and should have turned it into the police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation
Under your logic if you left your credit card at a bar & someone took it & sold it for $5,000 you'd be perfectly ok with that? To many people in this world don't use the brain God gave them.
If he called first asking to return it and you ignored him...
So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found? You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.
The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.
PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.
That may have been my shoe (always leaving shoes behind on my jogs). Damn you for not calling me. It is outright theft!
It's more logical that they didn't completely disassemble the device out of fears that they couldn't get it back together (they were planning on returning it) and that they couldn't identify all of the parts they could see and felt there was no point in posting the images. They did state that there were many unlabeled parts. I guess your backroom deal theory is more exciting though.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a court case after the iPhone is launched. Doing so before would be a public confirmation of the very trade secrets they want to protect.
Perhaps but 'no point in posting the images'... Rumor sites post the most random and often clearly hoaxed images all the time. Not posting even a single image that shows the real internals (even if most of the chips were unlabeled) of a device that they are now all but convinced is an Apple prototype?!?! Yea sure, 'why bother to post it...' The photos 'must have' been taken I mean they went that far to not look under the shielding and snap a few shots? Sorry but I'm never gonna buy it....
I still contend they didn't post the more sensitive stuff for 'other motives' we're not being made privy to... Again, that's just one persons theory. So don't take it as gospel, cause it isn't.
Oh and as for a court case... maybe... if one does show up I'm going to predict the settlement will be concluded behind closed doors.
Also, Lets think about _this_ for a moment... What does Apple do whenever a leaked 'internal photo' or 'prerelease software screen shot' is put up on a rumors site.
1. Apple Legal __ IMMEDIATELY __ issues a C&D letter to the site threatening legal action and demanding the offending photos/documents be removed immediately!
2. Web site compiles and _usually_ thats the end of it. Sometimes things aren't so simple and lawyers get involved for prolonged periods...
Now let me ask you this...
Why are those images STILL being shown on Gizmodo?
Anyone else but me find this more than a little out of character for Apple?
Finally, with Apple NOT issuing a C&D the SECOND the images were made public aren't THEY also responsible for any 'monetary damage' the photos might be causing? If you get caught making a song MP3 downloadable via a web site, the RIAA lawyers demand the swift removal of the song and then will proceed with actions against the criminal. If the RIAA didn't tell the person to remove the file with a legal notice then the RIAA can't very well ask for damages on all the subsequent downloads that happened after the person was caught.
Could you post a photo of it? I've got a hundred dollar bill waiting for you if it's legit!
(oooo top secret tear-down of Nike exclusive here I come!)
Assuming of course you called Nike and they declined your attempts to return. Let's stay ethical about this.
Too late. solipsism sold it to Shoemodo for $200. Won't they be for a surprise when they find out it isn't a Nike prototype but my 10 year old Nike Airs.
I don't see anything that suggests Gizmodo bought the device with non intention of handing it back to Apple. I can see a case for Giz in which they bought the device specifically to verify it was legit, keep it from being lost forever and to return it to Apple if they could prove it was in fact their property and not an elaborate hoax. I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it. It's clear Giz didn't photograph or detail the specifics of the internal chips. This may have been the limit their lawyers told them not to cross.
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 stolen goods. It doesn't matter if the property was legit. It could have been an empty plastic case.
"I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it."
Yes. Gizmodo blew it here. They could have just photographed it. They could have covered the finding of the phone as a story, photographed it and even paid the finder for the story. However, the claim is that they paid the guy for the phone. Also, they took the phone apart. Playing with the phone is against the law and covered by the clause: "who appropriates such property to his own use". In other words, covering it as a story is not illegal. Taking photos and posting it, is not illegal, and could be considered as part of efforts to return. Paying for the phone, playing with it, and taking it apart is where they crossed the line.
There are also issues I haven't addressed in terms of trade secrets (the original point of the article).
So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found?
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 owner
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.
Ok, let's go with the thought that it's not from Apple and its a fake that was found. The finder still broke the law by selling it and Gizmodo broke the law by buying it as they claimed. As a fake, the trade secret issues don't apply, but selling and receiving stolen goods still apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.
No, the idea is that you do one of the 4 things listed above. It doesn't matter if it's the iPhone 4, iPhone 5, or a case filled with rocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.
Do you live in California? If so, (if caught) you would risk prosecution if you didn't do one of the 4 things mentioned above. I'm guessing you did #3, leave it where it was. It wouldn't matter if the shoe was a Nike, belonged to Nike, was a fake, or belonged to anyone other than yourself.
lol @ the typography and apple logo critique ... It might have been sent from the "uncool" department at apple or some left overs form years ago .. :-p nonetheless ... your comment was hilarious
Really? An international technology company that puts so much effort into its own image as Apple would have paper stock lying around that was years old? Here's a link for Apple's corporate identity. They would take it very seriously, here's a link to a PDF of their guidelines to Apple Resellers from November 2009, its very precise about what you can and can't do with an Apple logo, but here's a line from it - http://images.apple.com/legal/certif...guidelines.pdf
"Outdated artwork
Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics. Use only the current artwork for your Apple channel signature."
There's a diagram next to it with a few logos, one of them has Garamond text, a big red line through it, and a bit of text that says "Obsolete signature". Thats for a website footer graphic.
They have enough control over sellers to say "Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics", they are going to have at least as much control over their own materials. So using a letterhead with the old coloured logo and really old font is going to be a big no no. Being uncool has got nothing to do with it, its the Apple brand identity.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
Here is the question though. Did they buy it and then break it down? Or, did they break it down, and THEN buy it. I am betting they met with the guy that had it and he let them take a peak inside. Once they saw all the Apple Branding on the internal components they handed over the money. That is why I think they should be in trouble. They knew it was Apples phone and still handed over the cash. Maybe I am giving Gizmodo to much credit, but would you part with 5K on the chance that it was a real Apple product?
Do you live in California? If so, (if caught) you would risk prosecution if you didn't do one of the 4 things mentioned above. I'm guessing you did #3, leave it where it was. It wouldn't matter if the shoe was a Nike, belonged to Nike, was a fake, or belonged to anyone other than yourself.
Going by your claims and I'm not doubting they are anything but the truth, how do these rules relate to those annoying Goody Two-Shoe nature freaks that want to constantly clean up the town or neighborhood.
1 - Do they simply make them UNABLE to 'clean up the neighborhood' for fear of prosecution?
2 - Do they have to file for a special exemption and wait weeks, months, years, for a 'free pass'
3 - Do they just say screw it and clean up the town blissfully ignorant of the MASSIVE number of legal transgressions they are committing with each item taken from the road, sidewalk, park bench and places into their environmentally friendly garbage containment systems. I was gonna simply say 'garbage bags' but then I knew that would be a lie.
Quote:
"Really Your Honor, I placed my snickers wrapper on the park bench and left the bench for a few minutes AT THE MOST and BANG some lunatic with a biodegradable trash confinement system on his/her back absconds with my wrapper... I shouted 'HEY I WAS GONNA LICK THE CHOCOLATE THAT WAS STILL STUCK TO THE WRAPPER!!! Come back you THIEF!!!' but they didn't even turn around! Needless to say, I was inconsolable over my tragic loss and require ongoing counseling to hopefully make myself whole one day, however the doctors won't make any guarantees if or when that day might someday come.
Would I actually have a case?!?! Could I demand a court trial and have those green-freaks locked up?!!? Now, If you said yes... it certainly wouldn't surprise me... CA has ALWAYS lived up to my expectations.
Wrong. It became theft right after the person who found it didn't return it to the rightful owner or turn it over to the police. Just because you find something, ownership does not transfer.
Let's simplify - if you find a bicycle at a park and start riding it around and the police stop you, how well do you think your logic will hold? "Finders-keepers" isn't sound moral theory, let alone sound legal theory! Now how about if you sell it? And for the person buying it's called Receipt of Stolen Property. Not knowing it was stolen isn't a defense. And it's going to be pretty hard for Gizmodo to claim they didn't know what it was - otherwise why would you pay five times the retail value for the most expensive smartphone? There isn't even a thousand dollar iPhone. They clearly knew what they were doing, and by taking it apart instead of returning it or turning over to the police just compounds their actions. If they don't understand the simplicity and real danger of that letter than they really are stupid or are getting really bad legal advice. Make no mistake, this is a criminal matter. That letter is an opportunity for them to limit future damage. There may also be civil implications, but the criminal ones are decidedly non-trivial. That letter was short and to the point because that's all it had to be.
Their hosed, and they should be hosed. They were unethical and they broke the law. The trade secret statutes in CA are just icing on the cake.
What's really troubling to me are the ignorant comments in these stories that are suggesting they did nothing wrong!
Either way this should be fun to watch over the next several months. Perhaps those defending them will even learn a valuable object lesson.
If YOU (any one of you) found a next-gen Apple prototype sitting on a bar. And no one... no one... no one... came back for it, you would do WHAT, exactly? Keep it? Certainly. Show it off? Probably. Make some money giving the scoop to Gizmodo/AI? Not out of the question.
Way to demonize.
The most interesting post in this thread so far is that one above, regarding whether or not the device was PLANTED on the bar.
I have been thinking about that very thing. Would I have returned it or sold it off to a tech blog? I can honestly say I would have returned it directly to Apple. I then would have asked if they would give me a free Phone this year and every year for the next 10 and pay for my crappy AT&T service.
Perhaps but 'no point in posting the images'... Rumor sites post the most random and often clearly hoaxed images all the time. Not posting even a single image that shows the real internals (even if most of the chips were unlabeled) of a device that they are now all but convinced is an Apple prototype?!?! Yea sure, 'why bother to post it...' The photos 'must have' been taken I mean they went that far to not look under the shielding and snap a few shots? Sorry but I'm never gonna buy it....
I'd agree if they didn't post any images, but they did post images. The images were high quality, showing multiple angles with little redundancy. The fact of the matter is that they did choose what images to include because they had the device in hand. They could have posted an infinite amount of images, at some point they had to decide which images would be most beneficial to the reader and stop there. The *could* have had other reasons for not showing other images but the fact remains that they had to make a conscious decision to stop somewhere, so the fact that they could have shown more images isn't proof in itself of anything at all.
Quote:
I still contend they didn't post the more sensitive stuff for 'other motives' we're not being made privy to... Again, that's just one persons theory. So don't take it as gospel, cause it isn't.
You're free to think that way. I just don't think there is reason to.
Quote:
Oh and as for a court case... maybe... if one does show up I'm going to predict the settlement will be concluded behind closed doors.
That is normal.
Quote:
Also, Lets think about _this_ for a moment... What does Apple do whenever a leaked 'internal photo' or 'prerelease software screen shot' is put up on a rumors site.
1. Apple Legal __ IMMEDIATELY __ issues a C&D letter to the site threatening legal action and demanding the offending photos/documents be removed immediately!
2. Web site compiles and _usually_ thats the end of it. Sometimes things aren't so simple and lawyers get involved for prolonged periods...
Now let me ask you this...
Why are those images STILL being shown on Gizmodo?
Anyone else but me find this more than a little out of character for Apple?
Has a leak of this magnitude ever happened to Apple before? There are no past examples to compare it to. You can't shut this story down with a simple cease and desist letter, you would only verify its authenticity.
Quote:
Finally, with Apple NOT issuing a C&D the SECOND the images were made public aren't THEY also responsible for any 'monetary damage' the photos might be causing? If you get caught making a song MP3 downloadable via a web site, the RIAA lawyers demand the swift removal of the song and then will proceed with actions against the criminal. If the RIAA didn't tell the person to remove the file with a legal notice then the RIAA can't very well ask for damages on all the subsequent downloads that happened after the person was caught.
Lots of things seem 'odd' in this 'story'.
They haven't relinquished any rights, they have 3 years as discussed in this article. The you approved this action because you didn't immediately object to it argument doesn't really work. What you've told me is that if the RIAA wrote to me saying we don't approve of you hosting such and such a song, but didn't ask me to remove it, I'd be free to continue hosting it. For that matter, I'd be free to continue hosting the song the moment the RIAA discovered I was hosting it and didn't act on it immediately. Gizmodo knowingly released information that Apple intended to keep secret, Apples actions (whatever they may be) can't change that.
Really? An international technology company that puts so much effort into its own image as Apple would have paper stock lying around that was years old? Here's a link for Apple's corporate identity. They would take it very seriously, here's a link to a PDF of their guidelines to Apple Resellers from November 2009, its very precise about what you can and can't do with an Apple logo, but here's a line from it - http://images.apple.com/legal/certif...guidelines.pdf
"Outdated artwork
Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics. Use only the current artwork for your Apple channel signature."
There's a diagram next to it with a few logos, one of them has Garamond text, a big red line through it, and a bit of text that says "Obsolete signature". Thats for a website footer graphic.
They have enough control over sellers to say "Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics", they are going to have at least as much control over their own materials. So using a letterhead with the old coloured logo and really old font is going to be a big no no. Being uncool has got nothing to do with it, its the Apple brand identity.
....are the only one's who are crying "Fake!". Sad really.
Well, good to know I'm wrong about "just about everything." I'll be sure to pass that along to my law firm and clients...
Anyway, criminal law is admittedly not my thing, but I can tell you that your little quote there is not extortion. And, even if it was, there's no way any sane company or DA would make such an arugment in a court of law.
As for the theft and receiving stolen goods, I'll just let you run yourself around in legal circles on that one. I don't know enough about the factual background to refute what your saying, but I was simply saying that no one is going to pursue such a small and difficult to prove claim. It just doesn't happen in the real world.
I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.
Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"
Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.
Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"
Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
Right. Apple specifically asked for it's "iphone looking property" back and was actually referring to their corporate mascot "Squirty" the wonder squid - it's so obvious.
Going by your claims and I'm not doubting they are anything but the truth, how do these rules relate to those annoying Goody Two-Shoe nature freaks that want to constantly clean up the town or neighborhood.
1 - Do they simply make them UNABLE to 'clean up the neighborhood' for fear of prosecution?
2 - Do they have to file for a special exemption and wait weeks, months, years, for a 'free pass'
3 - Do they just say screw it and clean up the town blissfully ignorant of the MASSIVE number of legal transgressions they are committing with each item taken from the road, sidewalk, park bench and places into their environmentally friendly garbage containment systems. I was gonna simply say 'garbage bags' but then I knew that would be a lie.
Would I actually have a case?!?! Could I demand a court trial and have those green-freaks locked up?!!? Now, If you said yes... it certainly wouldn't surprise me... CA has ALWAYS lived up to my expectations.
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 was no intent in depriving someone of something that had any value. However, they'd have a hard time proving no mens rea if they then kept the phone or worse, in this case, sold the phone for $5,000.
Also to note, that while you may not face criminal charges for only the actus reus, you may face civil liabilities for that part.
So yes, walk around picking up and disposing trash all day. As long as it can't be shown that you didn't believe it was worthless trash, you're ok criminally. However, if it can be shown that it had value to the owner, and that a reasonable person would believe it would have value to the owner, and that it could be returned to the owner, then you could face civil liability.
IANAL, but I have studied this stuff...for what it's worth\
I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.
Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"
Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
Setting aside the possible violation of 'trade-secrets laws' and the 'buying stolen property' charges, which are much bigger and less than crystal clear.. On the point of Gizmodo getting the property back into the hands of the legal owner Gizmodo seems to have followed the CA law to a tee.
1. Attempted to track down real owner
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
3. Released item to the owner
On that part of the story it seems Giz followed the law... the rest of the story has plenty left to argue about.
(snipped trade secret stuff which I can't speak to)
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
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 and the defendant in the receiving stolen goods case has blogged about their actions in full detail? If Apple decides not to press charges, that's one thing, but is the DA really in the position to say no to Apple on this?
Comments
Under the law, failure to turn lost goods over to the authorities is considered stealing. Selling said goods is yet another step above & beyond.
No, it is not. Certain conditions have to be met. He finds it, he has responsibilities, yes, but failing to turn it over to the authorities does not make it theft automatically. He is expected to try and contact the owner and/or turn it over to the police.
Simply calling it theft doesn't make it theft. Call it rape if you want, but that doesn't make it rape. Since he did contact Apple, that part is covered. He probably isn't allowed to sell it, and should have turned it into the police.
Under your logic if you left your credit card at a bar & someone took it & sold it for $5,000 you'd be perfectly ok with that? To many people in this world don't use the brain God gave them.
If he called first asking to return it and you ignored him...
So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found? You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.
The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.
PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.
That may have been my shoe (always leaving shoes behind on my jogs). Damn you for not calling me. It is outright theft!
It's more logical that they didn't completely disassemble the device out of fears that they couldn't get it back together (they were planning on returning it) and that they couldn't identify all of the parts they could see and felt there was no point in posting the images. They did state that there were many unlabeled parts. I guess your backroom deal theory is more exciting though.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a court case after the iPhone is launched. Doing so before would be a public confirmation of the very trade secrets they want to protect.
Perhaps but 'no point in posting the images'... Rumor sites post the most random and often clearly hoaxed images all the time. Not posting even a single image that shows the real internals (even if most of the chips were unlabeled) of a device that they are now all but convinced is an Apple prototype?!?! Yea sure, 'why bother to post it...'
I still contend they didn't post the more sensitive stuff for 'other motives' we're not being made privy to... Again, that's just one persons theory. So don't take it as gospel, cause it isn't.
Oh and as for a court case... maybe... if one does show up I'm going to predict the settlement will be concluded behind closed doors.
Also, Lets think about _this_ for a moment... What does Apple do whenever a leaked 'internal photo' or 'prerelease software screen shot' is put up on a rumors site.
1. Apple Legal __ IMMEDIATELY __ issues a C&D letter to the site threatening legal action and demanding the offending photos/documents be removed immediately!
2. Web site compiles and _usually_ thats the end of it. Sometimes things aren't so simple and lawyers get involved for prolonged periods...
Now let me ask you this...
Why are those images STILL being shown on Gizmodo?
Anyone else but me find this more than a little out of character for Apple?
Finally, with Apple NOT issuing a C&D the SECOND the images were made public aren't THEY also responsible for any 'monetary damage' the photos might be causing? If you get caught making a song MP3 downloadable via a web site, the RIAA lawyers demand the swift removal of the song and then will proceed with actions against the criminal. If the RIAA didn't tell the person to remove the file with a legal notice then the RIAA can't very well ask for damages on all the subsequent downloads that happened after the person was caught.
Lots of things seem 'odd' in this 'story'.
That may have been my shoe (always leaving shoes behind on my jogs). Damn you for not calling me. It is outright theft!
Could you post a photo of it? I've got a hundred dollar bill waiting for you if it's legit!
(oooo top secret tear-down of Nike exclusive here I come!)
Assuming of course you called Nike and they declined your attempts to return. Let's stay ethical about this.
Could you post a photo of it? I've got a hundred dollar bill waiting for you if it's legit!
(oooo top secret tear-down of Nike exclusive here I come!)
Assuming of course you called Nike and they declined your attempts to return. Let's stay ethical about this.
Too late. solipsism sold it to Shoemodo for $200. Won't they be for a surprise when they find out it isn't a Nike prototype but my 10 year old Nike Airs.
I don't see anything that suggests Gizmodo bought the device with non intention of handing it back to Apple. I can see a case for Giz in which they bought the device specifically to verify it was legit, keep it from being lost forever and to return it to Apple if they could prove it was in fact their property and not an elaborate hoax. I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it. It's clear Giz didn't photograph or detail the specifics of the internal chips. This may have been the limit their lawyers told them not to cross.
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 stolen goods. It doesn't matter if the property was legit. It could have been an empty plastic case.
"I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it."
Yes. Gizmodo blew it here. They could have just photographed it. They could have covered the finding of the phone as a story, photographed it and even paid the finder for the story. However, the claim is that they paid the guy for the phone. Also, they took the phone apart. Playing with the phone is against the law and covered by the clause: "who appropriates such property to his own use". In other words, covering it as a story is not illegal. Taking photos and posting it, is not illegal, and could be considered as part of efforts to return. Paying for the phone, playing with it, and taking it apart is where they crossed the line.
There are also issues I haven't addressed in terms of trade secrets (the original point of the article).
So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found?
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 owner
You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.
Ok, let's go with the thought that it's not from Apple and its a fake that was found. The finder still broke the law by selling it and Gizmodo broke the law by buying it as they claimed. As a fake, the trade secret issues don't apply, but selling and receiving stolen goods still apply.
The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.
No, the idea is that you do one of the 4 things listed above. It doesn't matter if it's the iPhone 4, iPhone 5, or a case filled with rocks.
PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.
Do you live in California? If so, (if caught) you would risk prosecution if you didn't do one of the 4 things mentioned above. I'm guessing you did #3, leave it where it was. It wouldn't matter if the shoe was a Nike, belonged to Nike, was a fake, or belonged to anyone other than yourself.
lol @ the typography and apple logo critique ... It might have been sent from the "uncool" department at apple or some left overs form years ago .. :-p nonetheless ... your comment was hilarious
Really? An international technology company that puts so much effort into its own image as Apple would have paper stock lying around that was years old? Here's a link for Apple's corporate identity. They would take it very seriously, here's a link to a PDF of their guidelines to Apple Resellers from November 2009, its very precise about what you can and can't do with an Apple logo, but here's a line from it - http://images.apple.com/legal/certif...guidelines.pdf
"Outdated artwork
Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics. Use only the current artwork for your Apple channel signature."
There's a diagram next to it with a few logos, one of them has Garamond text, a big red line through it, and a bit of text that says "Obsolete signature". Thats for a website footer graphic.
They have enough control over sellers to say "Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics", they are going to have at least as much control over their own materials. So using a letterhead with the old coloured logo and really old font is going to be a big no no. Being uncool has got nothing to do with it, its the Apple brand identity.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
Here is the question though. Did they buy it and then break it down? Or, did they break it down, and THEN buy it. I am betting they met with the guy that had it and he let them take a peak inside. Once they saw all the Apple Branding on the internal components they handed over the money. That is why I think they should be in trouble. They knew it was Apples phone and still handed over the cash. Maybe I am giving Gizmodo to much credit, but would you part with 5K on the chance that it was a real Apple product?
Do you live in California? If so, (if caught) you would risk prosecution if you didn't do one of the 4 things mentioned above. I'm guessing you did #3, leave it where it was. It wouldn't matter if the shoe was a Nike, belonged to Nike, was a fake, or belonged to anyone other than yourself.
Going by your claims and I'm not doubting they are anything but the truth, how do these rules relate to those annoying Goody Two-Shoe nature freaks that want to constantly clean up the town or neighborhood.
1 - Do they simply make them UNABLE to 'clean up the neighborhood' for fear of prosecution?
2 - Do they have to file for a special exemption and wait weeks, months, years, for a 'free pass'
3 - Do they just say screw it and clean up the town blissfully ignorant of the MASSIVE number of legal transgressions they are committing with each item taken from the road, sidewalk, park bench and places into their environmentally friendly garbage containment systems. I was gonna simply say 'garbage bags' but then I knew that would be a lie.
"Really Your Honor, I placed my snickers wrapper on the park bench and left the bench for a few minutes AT THE MOST and BANG some lunatic with a biodegradable trash confinement system on his/her back absconds with my wrapper... I shouted 'HEY I WAS GONNA LICK THE CHOCOLATE THAT WAS STILL STUCK TO THE WRAPPER!!! Come back you THIEF!!!' but they didn't even turn around!
Would I actually have a case?!?! Could I demand a court trial and have those green-freaks locked up?!!? Now, If you said yes... it certainly wouldn't surprise me... CA has ALWAYS lived up to my expectations.
No theft, no lawsuit. No Sword of Democles.
Wrong. It became theft right after the person who found it didn't return it to the rightful owner or turn it over to the police. Just because you find something, ownership does not transfer.
Let's simplify - if you find a bicycle at a park and start riding it around and the police stop you, how well do you think your logic will hold? "Finders-keepers" isn't sound moral theory, let alone sound legal theory! Now how about if you sell it? And for the person buying it's called Receipt of Stolen Property. Not knowing it was stolen isn't a defense. And it's going to be pretty hard for Gizmodo to claim they didn't know what it was - otherwise why would you pay five times the retail value for the most expensive smartphone? There isn't even a thousand dollar iPhone. They clearly knew what they were doing, and by taking it apart instead of returning it or turning over to the police just compounds their actions. If they don't understand the simplicity and real danger of that letter than they really are stupid or are getting really bad legal advice. Make no mistake, this is a criminal matter. That letter is an opportunity for them to limit future damage. There may also be civil implications, but the criminal ones are decidedly non-trivial. That letter was short and to the point because that's all it had to be.
Their hosed, and they should be hosed. They were unethical and they broke the law. The trade secret statutes in CA are just icing on the cake.
What's really troubling to me are the ignorant comments in these stories that are suggesting they did nothing wrong!
Either way this should be fun to watch over the next several months. Perhaps those defending them will even learn a valuable object lesson.
Oh, COME ON for the love of God --
If YOU (any one of you) found a next-gen Apple prototype sitting on a bar. And no one... no one... no one... came back for it, you would do WHAT, exactly? Keep it? Certainly. Show it off? Probably. Make some money giving the scoop to Gizmodo/AI? Not out of the question.
Way to demonize.
The most interesting post in this thread so far is that one above, regarding whether or not the device was PLANTED on the bar.
I have been thinking about that very thing. Would I have returned it or sold it off to a tech blog?
Perhaps but 'no point in posting the images'... Rumor sites post the most random and often clearly hoaxed images all the time. Not posting even a single image that shows the real internals (even if most of the chips were unlabeled) of a device that they are now all but convinced is an Apple prototype?!?! Yea sure, 'why bother to post it...'
I'd agree if they didn't post any images, but they did post images. The images were high quality, showing multiple angles with little redundancy. The fact of the matter is that they did choose what images to include because they had the device in hand. They could have posted an infinite amount of images, at some point they had to decide which images would be most beneficial to the reader and stop there. The *could* have had other reasons for not showing other images but the fact remains that they had to make a conscious decision to stop somewhere, so the fact that they could have shown more images isn't proof in itself of anything at all.
I still contend they didn't post the more sensitive stuff for 'other motives' we're not being made privy to... Again, that's just one persons theory. So don't take it as gospel, cause it isn't.
You're free to think that way. I just don't think there is reason to.
Oh and as for a court case... maybe... if one does show up I'm going to predict the settlement will be concluded behind closed doors.
That is normal.
Also, Lets think about _this_ for a moment... What does Apple do whenever a leaked 'internal photo' or 'prerelease software screen shot' is put up on a rumors site.
1. Apple Legal __ IMMEDIATELY __ issues a C&D letter to the site threatening legal action and demanding the offending photos/documents be removed immediately!
2. Web site compiles and _usually_ thats the end of it. Sometimes things aren't so simple and lawyers get involved for prolonged periods...
Now let me ask you this...
Why are those images STILL being shown on Gizmodo?
Anyone else but me find this more than a little out of character for Apple?
Has a leak of this magnitude ever happened to Apple before? There are no past examples to compare it to. You can't shut this story down with a simple cease and desist letter, you would only verify its authenticity.
Finally, with Apple NOT issuing a C&D the SECOND the images were made public aren't THEY also responsible for any 'monetary damage' the photos might be causing? If you get caught making a song MP3 downloadable via a web site, the RIAA lawyers demand the swift removal of the song and then will proceed with actions against the criminal. If the RIAA didn't tell the person to remove the file with a legal notice then the RIAA can't very well ask for damages on all the subsequent downloads that happened after the person was caught.
Lots of things seem 'odd' in this 'story'.
They haven't relinquished any rights, they have 3 years as discussed in this article. The you approved this action because you didn't immediately object to it argument doesn't really work. What you've told me is that if the RIAA wrote to me saying we don't approve of you hosting such and such a song, but didn't ask me to remove it, I'd be free to continue hosting it. For that matter, I'd be free to continue hosting the song the moment the RIAA discovered I was hosting it and didn't act on it immediately. Gizmodo knowingly released information that Apple intended to keep secret, Apples actions (whatever they may be) can't change that.
Really? An international technology company that puts so much effort into its own image as Apple would have paper stock lying around that was years old? Here's a link for Apple's corporate identity. They would take it very seriously, here's a link to a PDF of their guidelines to Apple Resellers from November 2009, its very precise about what you can and can't do with an Apple logo, but here's a line from it - http://images.apple.com/legal/certif...guidelines.pdf
"Outdated artwork
Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics. Use only the current artwork for your Apple channel signature."
There's a diagram next to it with a few logos, one of them has Garamond text, a big red line through it, and a bit of text that says "Obsolete signature". Thats for a website footer graphic.
They have enough control over sellers to say "Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics", they are going to have at least as much control over their own materials. So using a letterhead with the old coloured logo and really old font is going to be a big no no. Being uncool has got nothing to do with it, its the Apple brand identity.
....are the only one's who are crying "Fake!". Sad really.
Well, good to know I'm wrong about "just about everything." I'll be sure to pass that along to my law firm and clients...
Anyway, criminal law is admittedly not my thing, but I can tell you that your little quote there is not extortion. And, even if it was, there's no way any sane company or DA would make such an arugment in a court of law.
As for the theft and receiving stolen goods, I'll just let you run yourself around in legal circles on that one. I don't know enough about the factual background to refute what your saying, but I was simply saying that no one is going to pursue such a small and difficult to prove claim. It just doesn't happen in the real world.
I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.
Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"
Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.
Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"
Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
Right. Apple specifically asked for it's "iphone looking property" back and was actually referring to their corporate mascot "Squirty" the wonder squid - it's so obvious.
Going by your claims and I'm not doubting they are anything but the truth, how do these rules relate to those annoying Goody Two-Shoe nature freaks that want to constantly clean up the town or neighborhood.
1 - Do they simply make them UNABLE to 'clean up the neighborhood' for fear of prosecution?
2 - Do they have to file for a special exemption and wait weeks, months, years, for a 'free pass'
3 - Do they just say screw it and clean up the town blissfully ignorant of the MASSIVE number of legal transgressions they are committing with each item taken from the road, sidewalk, park bench and places into their environmentally friendly garbage containment systems. I was gonna simply say 'garbage bags' but then I knew that would be a lie.
Would I actually have a case?!?! Could I demand a court trial and have those green-freaks locked up?!!? Now, If you said yes... it certainly wouldn't surprise me... CA has ALWAYS lived up to my expectations.
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 was no intent in depriving someone of something that had any value. However, they'd have a hard time proving no mens rea if they then kept the phone or worse, in this case, sold the phone for $5,000.
Also to note, that while you may not face criminal charges for only the actus reus, you may face civil liabilities for that part.
So yes, walk around picking up and disposing trash all day. As long as it can't be shown that you didn't believe it was worthless trash, you're ok criminally. However, if it can be shown that it had value to the owner, and that a reasonable person would believe it would have value to the owner, and that it could be returned to the owner, then you could face civil liability.
IANAL, but I have studied this stuff...for what it's worth
I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.
Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"
Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
Setting aside the possible violation of 'trade-secrets laws' and the 'buying stolen property' charges, which are much bigger and less than crystal clear.. On the point of Gizmodo getting the property back into the hands of the legal owner Gizmodo seems to have followed the CA law to a tee.
1. Attempted to track down real owner
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
3. Released item to the owner
On that part of the story it seems Giz followed the law... the rest of the story has plenty left to argue about.
If it's a fake, it's the best fake ever. EVER.
I believe the correct spelling is "evarrrrr"!
Lawyer here. In fact, IP lawyer.
(snipped trade secret stuff which I can't speak to)
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
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 and the defendant in the receiving stolen goods case has blogged about their actions in full detail? If Apple decides not to press charges, that's one thing, but is the DA really in the position to say no to Apple on this?