Depends on the state and country. If something is left in public and you pick it up....that doesn't make it stolen property.
Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Having 4 plain clothes detectives come to someone house over a lost phone is abuse of power and wasted resources. Remember no crime had been committed and no stolen property was found.
Do you think you or i could have 4 police detectives help us find our lost phones? With no evidence to back up our claims? So it was a IP5 prototype? Big deal...it was more likely not fully functional and not what the finished product would look like anyway. Plus the real thing will be released to the public in a few weeks so competitors will have the real thing shortly.
Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?
Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.
And the value is millions of dollars. It's not like losing a commercial iPhone. Given the way the entire industry revolves around duplicating what Apple does, a few weeks or months headstart would be of immense value to the competition.
Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.
Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?
Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.
Did you sleep through the Gizmodo case? Not one part of what you just posted is true.
California civil code, lost property statutes:
Quote:
§ 2080. Duties of finder
Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.
§ 2080.1. Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges
(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.
(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.
§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner
If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.
California penal code:
Quote:
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.
You will note a couple things
-Nowhere does it say or suggest that the finder is to turn it into the establishment. In fact, it states that by taking charge of it, they become "depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire". So, if they subsequently hand it over to the staff and it disappears, they have failed in the legal duty the assumed upon taking charge of it. There is no stipulation in the statute for relinquishing that responsibility to anyone other than the police or the rightful owner.
-The penal code can only apply if the person that took charge of the item did so in order to "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". If however, the intention was to restore it to the owner or the police, as called for in the civil statutes, then it is not theft.
So, it is consider stolen at the moment that you took it for your own use. This would be made apparent by selling it (hence selling stolen property), using it for your own purposes or hiding it.You don't know Sergio did any of this. You don't know what person did remove it from the bar. And you don't know what the intentions of that person, upon taking charge of it, were.
Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.
Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?
Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.
And the value is millions of dollars. It's not like losing a commercial iPhone. Given the way the entire industry revolves around duplicating what Apple does, a few weeks or months headstart would be of immense value to the competition.
How do you come up with millions of dollars? Do you really think as smart as Apple is about their business that they would entrust something worth millions to a schmuck that would leave it at a bar? Especially after the last time? If it was a one of a kind irreplaceable prototype it would never have left the labs. Especially when the final product will be released in a few weeks. Plus they had no evidence this guy had it. If they did they would have had a warrant and did an official police raid and search. they did that the last time.
Even if a competitor got hold of it by the time they could dissect and find value the final product would have been released...value diminishes greatly.....
Wow, that's a very long post for one that manages to avoid any single discussion of the topic.
And why are you asking a dude to work on his gag reflex? You might find Ashley Madison or craigslist a better forum for your particular interests.
That's not very nice. Earlier I suggested he work on his swallow reflex, because he's taking this story in hook, line and sinker, as they used to say.
This story deserves no comment whatever, other than how sketchy it is and has been. We know nothing. The only thing of interest here is the psychology of hysterics who are looking for ways to label Apple evil on the basis of hearsay and a patchwork of half-stories.
Disgraceful. The chihuahuas are stirred up again and they won't stop yapping. Are you one of them, or are you arguing with them? I can't figure it out.
-Nowhere does it say or suggest that the finder is to turn it into the establishment. In fact, it states that by taking charge of it, they become "depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire". So, if they subsequently hand it over to the staff and it disappears, they have failed in the legal duty the assumed upon taking charge of it. There is no stipulation in the statute for relinquishing that responsibility to anyone other than the police or the rightful owner.
I didn't say that it had to be turned over to the owner of the establishment. In fact, IIRC, I specifically said that it had to be turned over to the authorities - which did not happen.
In fact, your own quote says:
"(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:"
Since the Gizmodo people didn't do that, they violated the law. And the same appears to be true in this case.
That's not very nice. Earlier I suggested he work on his swallow reflex, because he's taking this story in hook, line and sinker, as they used to say.
This story deserves no comment whatever, other than how sketchy it is and has been. We know nothing. The only thing of interest here is the psychology of hysterics who are looking for ways to label Apple evil on the basis of hearsay and a patchwork of half-stories.
Disgraceful. The chihuahuas are stirred up again and they won't stop yapping. Are you one of them, or are you arguing with them? I can't figure it out.
I'm neither. I am a very long time Apple fan. I've developed a pretty thick skin to the nonsense that the Apple-haters bring to the table. They don't bother me much anymore, because Apple won.
The group tat bothers me more, is those that, just as irrationally as the Apple haters, feel they need to defend anything that might possibly put Apple in a bad light. I am an Apple-fanatic, in the old sense of the word. The more nouveau Apple-cultists are embarrassing. That's who I will most often reply to these days.
Face it, it is completely true that if every part of this story that says Apple said Google instead, those same people would reminding us how evil this all make google.
I didn't say that it had to be turned over to the owner of the establishment. In fact, IIRC, I specifically said that it had to be turned over to the authorities - which did not happen.
Actually, you don't know if it was or not. If the visit to Sergio's house was the same night, who knows if the person that actually had it was planning to return it. Maybe they did. We don't know. Don't let that stop you lobbing accusations though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In fact, your own quote says:
"(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:"
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Since the Gizmodo people didn't do that, they violated the law.
The gizmodo people did in fact get in touch with Apple and arrange for it's return. You may not like the time it took. Perhaps it was not reasonable, in your opinion. They were never charged, so I guess that remains you opinion. The dude that found it and sold it has been charged. Because, the facts, show he took it with no intent to return it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And the same appears to be true in this case.
Does the same appear to be true here? Perhaps, in your opinion. If you are comparing it to the guys as Gizmodo, your opinion seems not to be shared by those that matter.
Additionally, you have no knowledge of what happened when and since the phone was lost, you are are making a very premature assumption to claim 'the same appears to be true'. The person that found it may have returned it to Apple the next day and Sergio's home was searched the night it was lost. Does that sound like what happened in the Giz case? You could make up al sorts of scenarios and try to make it sound the same, but that would be all you would be doing...making stuff up. The info, as we have it, doesn't sound that similar to the Giz case itself, other than another Apple employee losing it in the bar and someone (you have no real idea who) took charge of it. That's the end of the similarity, as far as we know. Could be identical from that point. Could be totally different.
Comments
Depends on the state and country. If something is left in public and you pick it up....that doesn't make it stolen property.
Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.
Having 4 plain clothes detectives come to someone house over a lost phone is abuse of power and wasted resources. Remember no crime had been committed and no stolen property was found.
Do you think you or i could have 4 police detectives help us find our lost phones? With no evidence to back up our claims? So it was a IP5 prototype? Big deal...it was more likely not fully functional and not what the finished product would look like anyway. Plus the real thing will be released to the public in a few weeks so competitors will have the real thing shortly.
Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?
Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.
And the value is millions of dollars. It's not like losing a commercial iPhone. Given the way the entire industry revolves around duplicating what Apple does, a few weeks or months headstart would be of immense value to the competition.
Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.
Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?
Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.
Did you sleep through the Gizmodo case? Not one part of what you just posted is true.
California civil code, lost property statutes:
§ 2080. Duties of finder
Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.
§ 2080.1. Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges
(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.
(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.
§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner
If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.
California penal code:
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.
You will note a couple things
-Nowhere does it say or suggest that the finder is to turn it into the establishment. In fact, it states that by taking charge of it, they become "depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire". So, if they subsequently hand it over to the staff and it disappears, they have failed in the legal duty the assumed upon taking charge of it. There is no stipulation in the statute for relinquishing that responsibility to anyone other than the police or the rightful owner.
-The penal code can only apply if the person that took charge of the item did so in order to "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". If however, the intention was to restore it to the owner or the police, as called for in the civil statutes, then it is not theft.
So, it is consider stolen at the moment that you took it for your own use. This would be made apparent by selling it (hence selling stolen property), using it for your own purposes or hiding it.You don't know Sergio did any of this. You don't know what person did remove it from the bar. And you don't know what the intentions of that person, upon taking charge of it, were.
Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.
Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?
Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.
And the value is millions of dollars. It's not like losing a commercial iPhone. Given the way the entire industry revolves around duplicating what Apple does, a few weeks or months headstart would be of immense value to the competition.
How do you come up with millions of dollars? Do you really think as smart as Apple is about their business that they would entrust something worth millions to a schmuck that would leave it at a bar? Especially after the last time? If it was a one of a kind irreplaceable prototype it would never have left the labs. Especially when the final product will be released in a few weeks. Plus they had no evidence this guy had it. If they did they would have had a warrant and did an official police raid and search. they did that the last time.
Even if a competitor got hold of it by the time they could dissect and find value the final product would have been released...value diminishes greatly.....
Wow, that's a very long post for one that manages to avoid any single discussion of the topic.
And why are you asking a dude to work on his gag reflex? You might find Ashley Madison or craigslist a better forum for your particular interests.
That's not very nice. Earlier I suggested he work on his swallow reflex, because he's taking this story in hook, line and sinker, as they used to say.
This story deserves no comment whatever, other than how sketchy it is and has been. We know nothing. The only thing of interest here is the psychology of hysterics who are looking for ways to label Apple evil on the basis of hearsay and a patchwork of half-stories.
Disgraceful. The chihuahuas are stirred up again and they won't stop yapping. Are you one of them, or are you arguing with them? I can't figure it out.
You will note a couple things
-Nowhere does it say or suggest that the finder is to turn it into the establishment. In fact, it states that by taking charge of it, they become "depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire". So, if they subsequently hand it over to the staff and it disappears, they have failed in the legal duty the assumed upon taking charge of it. There is no stipulation in the statute for relinquishing that responsibility to anyone other than the police or the rightful owner.
I didn't say that it had to be turned over to the owner of the establishment. In fact, IIRC, I specifically said that it had to be turned over to the authorities - which did not happen.
In fact, your own quote says:
"(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:"
Since the Gizmodo people didn't do that, they violated the law. And the same appears to be true in this case.
That's not very nice. Earlier I suggested he work on his swallow reflex, because he's taking this story in hook, line and sinker, as they used to say.
This story deserves no comment whatever, other than how sketchy it is and has been. We know nothing. The only thing of interest here is the psychology of hysterics who are looking for ways to label Apple evil on the basis of hearsay and a patchwork of half-stories.
Disgraceful. The chihuahuas are stirred up again and they won't stop yapping. Are you one of them, or are you arguing with them? I can't figure it out.
I'm neither. I am a very long time Apple fan. I've developed a pretty thick skin to the nonsense that the Apple-haters bring to the table. They don't bother me much anymore, because Apple won.
The group tat bothers me more, is those that, just as irrationally as the Apple haters, feel they need to defend anything that might possibly put Apple in a bad light. I am an Apple-fanatic, in the old sense of the word. The more nouveau Apple-cultists are embarrassing. That's who I will most often reply to these days.
Face it, it is completely true that if every part of this story that says Apple said Google instead, those same people would reminding us how evil this all make google.
I didn't say that it had to be turned over to the owner of the establishment. In fact, IIRC, I specifically said that it had to be turned over to the authorities - which did not happen.
Actually, you don't know if it was or not. If the visit to Sergio's house was the same night, who knows if the person that actually had it was planning to return it. Maybe they did. We don't know. Don't let that stop you lobbing accusations though.
In fact, your own quote says:
"(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:"
Indeed.
Since the Gizmodo people didn't do that, they violated the law.
The gizmodo people did in fact get in touch with Apple and arrange for it's return. You may not like the time it took. Perhaps it was not reasonable, in your opinion. They were never charged, so I guess that remains you opinion. The dude that found it and sold it has been charged. Because, the facts, show he took it with no intent to return it.
And the same appears to be true in this case.
Does the same appear to be true here? Perhaps, in your opinion. If you are comparing it to the guys as Gizmodo, your opinion seems not to be shared by those that matter.
Additionally, you have no knowledge of what happened when and since the phone was lost, you are are making a very premature assumption to claim 'the same appears to be true'. The person that found it may have returned it to Apple the next day and Sergio's home was searched the night it was lost. Does that sound like what happened in the Giz case? You could make up al sorts of scenarios and try to make it sound the same, but that would be all you would be doing...making stuff up. The info, as we have it, doesn't sound that similar to the Giz case itself, other than another Apple employee losing it in the bar and someone (you have no real idea who) took charge of it. That's the end of the similarity, as far as we know. Could be identical from that point. Could be totally different.
And has the phone
Of course the guy is an illegal alien, was at the dive bar,
And has the phone
The original SFWeekly story is here and adds some additional information to the AI blog.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ple_police.php
Apparently this prototype is merely $300 worth to Apple. A bit strange no one is discussing that on this thread.
Thanks for the link.