So in your scenario, once they took it apart and and confirmed that it was indeed Apple's property. They then paid the guy and published the information on their website. That means they knowingly PAID for STOLEN property (it wasn't theirs, and they are buying it from someone who doesn't own it), and then PROFITED from the wrongly appropriated information. And this doesn't seem at all illegal? You really think a jury would give an automatic pass to that kind of behavior?
It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss.
They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to Apple. At that point they had every intention to return the phone to Apple (doing so extra-confirms its ownership).
If my phone is taken or "found" by someone, and then I call my phone and no one answers, that person has no intention of returning the item. Period.
I have lost a phone before, and so has my wife. We both called our phones to see if they would answer, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, in her case, there were international calls made immediately after she lost it. Luckily AT&T credited my account.
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.
But, would you think it was reasonable for some random, drunk bar patron to recognize the OS as an advanced version? I am surprised he even recognized it wasn't the current version. And he didn't know it was owned by an Apple employee until he turned it on and checked facebook. I can't recall the exact timeline, but I thought that was after he got home.
I don't think any ruse was required. People that work with technology forget that normal people don't think along the same lines. they don't think 'prototype' or 'advanced OS'. If I saw a new Honda drive by that I hadn't seen, I wouldn't think prototype. I would think, 'hey, a new Honda'. I see RIM folk walking around every day with their BBs. I saw one with a touch screen model a couple years ago at Tim's before the Storm was released. I knew it was the storm (probably) because I had read about it on tech sites. I pointed it out to my wife and said "hey the new touch screen BB". She replied "what makes you say that? It looks like your iPhone." She is no idiot, but she doesn't work with technology much.
So when exactly did this 'normal' unknowledgeable person suddenly realise it was a prototype?
What triggered the person to think, I can make money from this?
What led them to Giz and to ask for £5k?
Also if I see you drop your iPhone on the street and watch you walk away from it.
Then go pick it up, is that theft or lost / found?
If i shout to you (quietly), so that you can't here me, is that a reasonable attempt at trying to return the device to you. Does the iPhone now belong to me?
I feel sad for that apple engineer ... humans do forget ...
Taking a super top secret development device with you to go drinking shows a likely lack of judgement. Even if a person doesn't tend to get drunk, there's no point in risking even a 0.01% chance of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleqc
What a piece of crap. What do you have on the backside? "iPhone". Maybe, it's a Microsoft prototype? We are not stupid Denton.
As others have stated, possible fakes too, working fakes can be bought.
Your right of course, drunk people are careless, but my question is, who was buying the free drinks?
I'm also on the same trail. I could use a few drinks right now! You know, coming to think of it I have a iPhone in my pocket...
By the way - Gizmode stated they outsmarted Apple somewhere. Well, they will not get another chance. And the more we here the less smart Gizmodo seems. Panic maybe fits better as description.
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.
It appear the 'finder' did not follow the laws of which you speak.
I said he may not have met all of the conditions. he met some.
If my phone is taken or "found" by someone, and then I call my phone and no one answers, that person has no intention of returning the item. Period.
I have lost a phone before, and so has my wife. We both called our phones to see if they would answer, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, in her case, there were international calls made immediately after she lost it. Luckily AT&T credited my account.
YOUR phone may have been stolen. This phone was not. The phone was bricked. The finder called Apple to get in touch with someone who knew what it was. Apple call center dismissed him as a hoax.
It's obvious it was stolen (not handed to the guy by a drunk), that there was no real effort to return it (they had the guys name and facebook information...what more do you need?), and that Gizmodo knew what they were probably getting for 5 grand.
It is funny to me that many people seem to have taken Gizmodo and the person who profited from the stolen prototype at their word (I'm sure the phone was handed to him by a drunk...). As if someone who stole it would say "yeah I saw it sitting there and I swiped it and got the hell out of Dodge."
I feel bad for the engineer, I think releasing his name and everything publicly was a little low...and by a little low I mean a lot low...but still, that's kind of what you get when you bring the phone out drinking with you.
It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss.
They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to Apple. At that point they had every intention to return the phone to Apple (doing so extra-confirms its ownership).
Wrong.
The first thing they should have done BEFORE taking apart and potentially damaging the equipment was contact Apple to see if it was theirs or not. That would have been the right thing to do. No point wasting time opening devices trying to see if it belonged to Apple or not, just ask them.
But of course that would not have given them a story or the ability to profit from it.
Instead the are trying to use a feeble argument that "We had to open it to see who it belonged to".
That was not the easiest way to find out at all, it was the most profitable.
Obviously not. They knew what they were paying for, and that is what makes Gizmodo's behavior a criminal one.
You're assuming they bought it. But if they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner, is that actually buying it? Are they attempting to gain title to the prototype phone?
Vandalism implies permanent damages. AFAIK, there was no permanent damage.
If they didn't know the rightful owner, they should have handed it to the police. Instead they took it apart. The device is not meant to be taken apart as part of its day to day use. It might be rebuildable, but that's not the point. Anyway, all it does is identify the manufacturer, not the owner - so in this case they knew that it was a prototype, and then the trade secret law kicks in.
By the way, the reality that Apple will just let it lie and just not invite Gizmodo or sister companies from ever attending an Apple event again as punishment is not the point.
So when exactly did this 'normal' unknowledgeable person suddenly realise it was a prototype?
What triggered the person to think, I can make money from this?
What led them to Giz and to ask for £5k?
From the story, he realized it when he sobered up and woke up. After his attempts to call Apple failed, he sought money. They likely was not kosher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder
Also if I see you drop your iPhone on the street and watch you walk away from it.
Then go pick it up, is that theft or lost / found?
If i shout to you (quietly), so that you can't here me, is that a reasonable attempt at trying to return the device to you. Does the iPhone now belong to me?
What a bad analogy. If you found it, waited for me and I did not return and then called me, told me the story and I ignored you, well that is closer. I guess you could have come to my home and handed it to me. That would be reasonable.
Comments
They dismantled the phone! They had a duty of care.
They didn't know the owner. The code says they should hand it in to the police. Simple.
Still no crime!
So in your scenario, once they took it apart and and confirmed that it was indeed Apple's property. They then paid the guy and published the information on their website. That means they knowingly PAID for STOLEN property (it wasn't theirs, and they are buying it from someone who doesn't own it), and then PROFITED from the wrongly appropriated information. And this doesn't seem at all illegal? You really think a jury would give an automatic pass to that kind of behavior?
It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss.
They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to Apple. At that point they had every intention to return the phone to Apple (doing so extra-confirms its ownership).
I have lost a phone before, and so has my wife. We both called our phones to see if they would answer, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, in her case, there were international calls made immediately after she lost it. Luckily AT&T credited my account.
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.
In other word, 'when certain conditions are met.
Civil code !=criminal code.
But, would you think it was reasonable for some random, drunk bar patron to recognize the OS as an advanced version? I am surprised he even recognized it wasn't the current version. And he didn't know it was owned by an Apple employee until he turned it on and checked facebook. I can't recall the exact timeline, but I thought that was after he got home.
I don't think any ruse was required. People that work with technology forget that normal people don't think along the same lines. they don't think 'prototype' or 'advanced OS'. If I saw a new Honda drive by that I hadn't seen, I wouldn't think prototype. I would think, 'hey, a new Honda'. I see RIM folk walking around every day with their BBs. I saw one with a touch screen model a couple years ago at Tim's before the Storm was released. I knew it was the storm (probably) because I had read about it on tech sites. I pointed it out to my wife and said "hey the new touch screen BB". She replied "what makes you say that? It looks like your iPhone." She is no idiot, but she doesn't work with technology much.
So when exactly did this 'normal' unknowledgeable person suddenly realise it was a prototype?
What triggered the person to think, I can make money from this?
What led them to Giz and to ask for £5k?
Also if I see you drop your iPhone on the street and watch you walk away from it.
Then go pick it up, is that theft or lost / found?
If i shout to you (quietly), so that you can't here me, is that a reasonable attempt at trying to return the device to you. Does the iPhone now belong to me?
I feel sad for that apple engineer ... humans do forget ...
Taking a super top secret development device with you to go drinking shows a likely lack of judgement. Even if a person doesn't tend to get drunk, there's no point in risking even a 0.01% chance of it.
What a piece of crap. What do you have on the backside? "iPhone". Maybe, it's a Microsoft prototype? We are not stupid Denton.
As others have stated, possible fakes too, working fakes can be bought.
Still no crime!
Vandalism of private property ... really? :-O
Your right of course, drunk people are careless, but my question is, who was buying the free drinks?
I'm also on the same trail. I could use a few drinks right now! You know, coming to think of it I have a iPhone in my pocket...
By the way - Gizmode stated they outsmarted Apple somewhere. Well, they will not get another chance. And the more we here the less smart Gizmodo seems. Panic maybe fits better as description.
This seems clear to me :-
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.
It appear the 'finder' did not follow the laws of which you speak.
I said he may not have met all of the conditions. he met some.
And agin, for those posting civil statutes:
Civil law != Criminal law.
If my phone is taken or "found" by someone, and then I call my phone and no one answers, that person has no intention of returning the item. Period.
I have lost a phone before, and so has my wife. We both called our phones to see if they would answer, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, in her case, there were international calls made immediately after she lost it. Luckily AT&T credited my account.
YOUR phone may have been stolen. This phone was not. The phone was bricked. The finder called Apple to get in touch with someone who knew what it was. Apple call center dismissed him as a hoax.
Vandalism of private property ... really? :-O
Vandalism implies permanent damages. AFAIK, there was no permanent damage.
It's obvious it was stolen (not handed to the guy by a drunk), that there was no real effort to return it (they had the guys name and facebook information...what more do you need?), and that Gizmodo knew what they were probably getting for 5 grand.
It is funny to me that many people seem to have taken Gizmodo and the person who profited from the stolen prototype at their word (I'm sure the phone was handed to him by a drunk...). As if someone who stole it would say "yeah I saw it sitting there and I swiped it and got the hell out of Dodge."
I feel bad for the engineer, I think releasing his name and everything publicly was a little low...and by a little low I mean a lot low...but still, that's kind of what you get when you bring the phone out drinking with you.
+1 Exactly.
They dismantled the phone! They had a duty of care.
They didn't know the owner. The code says they should hand it in to the police. Simple.
The duty of care is why they were unwilling to disassemble it to the point of damaging it.
The code says to hand it over to the police if they cannot contact and return it to the owner. They have done so.
It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss.
They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to Apple. At that point they had every intention to return the phone to Apple (doing so extra-confirms its ownership).
Wrong.
The first thing they should have done BEFORE taking apart and potentially damaging the equipment was contact Apple to see if it was theirs or not. That would have been the right thing to do. No point wasting time opening devices trying to see if it belonged to Apple or not, just ask them.
But of course that would not have given them a story or the ability to profit from it.
Instead the are trying to use a feeble argument that "We had to open it to see who it belonged to".
That was not the easiest way to find out at all, it was the most profitable.
You think they paid before they confirmed that it was real?
Obviously not. They knew what they were paying for, and that is what makes Gizmodo's behavior a criminal one.
Obviously not. They knew what they were paying for, and that is what makes Gizmodo's behavior a criminal one.
You're assuming they bought it. But if they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner, is that actually buying it? Are they attempting to gain title to the prototype phone?
No and No.
The duty of care is why they were unwilling to disassemble it to the point of damaging it.
The code says to hand it over to the police if they cannot contact and return it to the owner. They have done so.
Why not just call Apple before pulling it apart, that would have been easier and more honest, but not profitable.
Vandalism implies permanent damages. AFAIK, there was no permanent damage.
If they didn't know the rightful owner, they should have handed it to the police. Instead they took it apart. The device is not meant to be taken apart as part of its day to day use. It might be rebuildable, but that's not the point. Anyway, all it does is identify the manufacturer, not the owner - so in this case they knew that it was a prototype, and then the trade secret law kicks in.
By the way, the reality that Apple will just let it lie and just not invite Gizmodo or sister companies from ever attending an Apple event again as punishment is not the point.
So when exactly did this 'normal' unknowledgeable person suddenly realise it was a prototype?
What triggered the person to think, I can make money from this?
What led them to Giz and to ask for £5k?
From the story, he realized it when he sobered up and woke up. After his attempts to call Apple failed, he sought money. They likely was not kosher.
Also if I see you drop your iPhone on the street and watch you walk away from it.
Then go pick it up, is that theft or lost / found?
If i shout to you (quietly), so that you can't here me, is that a reasonable attempt at trying to return the device to you. Does the iPhone now belong to me?
What a bad analogy. If you found it, waited for me and I did not return and then called me, told me the story and I ignored you, well that is closer. I guess you could have come to my home and handed it to me. That would be reasonable.
Why not just call Apple before pulling it apart, that would have been easier and more honest, but not profitable.
If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).