I see. So if you come across a car in the street, you can not take it because that would be stealing, but if you come across a phone in a bar you CAN take it and it's not stealing?
Care to point to the relevant portions of California law which support that bizarre conclusion?
Seriously? You do this for a living?
Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.
As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
Quote:
CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082
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.
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
I hope to god you are never my lawyer.
(and please everyone stop with the lame stolen vehicles and vagina analogies...they just don't relate)
Seriously? Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.
As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
Aside from your smart remarks, the result is the same.
If you take a phone and do not make an honest effort to return it to the owner, you're just as guilty of theft as if you take a car without permission.
So none of your smart-ass drivel changes the results. Under CA law, taking a phone without making an honest effort to return it to the owner is just as much theft as taking a car.
And don't even try to claim that they made a good faith effort to return it to the owner. Going around to multiple web sites asking if they want to buy a prototype phone while ignoring all the reasonable ways to get ti back (since the knew the owner's name and facebook page and ignored the owner's phone calls) just doesn't meet any standard for 'reasonable'.
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
Let's not even say that the iPhone prototype is considered a trade secret.
So it is legal for you to take apart properties that you know for a fact that doesn't belong to you?
Hey I have several blogs, does that make me a journalist too?
This is only my opinion... a blogger should be considered a journalist if and only if they claim all revenue or income generated to the Federal and State (if applicable) tax authorities.
Aside from your smart remarks, the result is the same.
If you take a phone and do not make an honest effort to return it to the owner, you're just as guilty of theft as if you take a car without permission.
So none of your smart-ass drivel changes the results. Under CA law, taking a phone without making an honest effort to return it to the owner is just as much theft as taking a car.
And don't even try to claim that they made a good faith effort to return it to the owner. Going around to multiple web sites asking if they want to buy a prototype phone while ignoring all the reasonable ways to get ti back (since the knew the owner's name and facebook page and ignored the owner's phone calls) just doesn't meet any standard for 'reasonable'.
Aside from my smart remarks the results are the same, in that using a stolen car as an analogy for lost property is a really, really bad analogy (you know, what you interjected on) and is in fact not much better than an analogy involving rape and vaginas? yes, you are right. The result is the same.
The rest of what you mention, doesn't really differ from what I just posted. So, exactly what did I write in post 79 or 82 do you think you are actually arguing against? Windmills.
Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.
As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
Quote:
CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082
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.
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
I hope to god you are never my lawyer.
(and please everyone stop with the lame stolen vehicles and vagina analogies...they just don't relate)
Actually the legal section you quote from is titled Duties of Finder. Not Rights of Finder. The rights of the finder are covered in the Criminal Code. And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item". Once you take that step you leave all the "depositary for hire" protections behind. They become moot and totally irrelevant.
Let's not even say that the iPhone prototype is considered a trade secret.
So it is legal for you to take apart properties that you know for a fact that doesn't belong to you?
The point is, not everything is reversible.
I didn't say it was. There is a duty of care. If the phone was not damaged during the disassembly, was the duty of care violated? I don't know. I honestly believe that jragosta would know this much better than I, though I might not believe he would provide an unbiased answer.
jragosta: If a found item is in no way damaged but is partially disassembled and then fully reassembled, and in the same state that it was in when it was found, does that violate the duty of care? Does the act of opening it up, even without damaging it, automatically constitute a violation? (I guess you might not choose to answer and might not read this question, but given your activity in this thread, I might take no answer as a tacit No.)
Actually the legal section you quote from is titled Duties of Finder. Not Rights of Finder. The rights of the finder are covered in the Criminal Code. And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item". Once you take that step you leave all the "depositary for hire" protections behind. They become moot and totally irrelevant.
And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.
(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.
And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.
(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.
Except, of course, that it is completely clear that neither the buyer nor Gizmodo made a reasonable effort to return the phone. They knew who the owner was (not to mention any of the other 50 ways to return the phone) and instead they made a call to AppleCare?
Except, of course, that it is completely clear that neither the buyer nor Gizmodo made a reasonable effort to return the phone. They knew who the owner was (not to mention any of the other 50 ways to return the phone) and instead they made a call to AppleCare?
Give me a break.
Again, you are tilting at windmills my friend. I never claimed they met those responsibilities. Obviously, the finder never reported it to the police and the finder didn't wait 90 days. I never claimed they did. I was simply responding to Hiro's comment that the code doesn't allow you to sell found items. Of course it does, since the statute says ownership will transfer after conditions are met. I never said those conditions were met. Never. Strawman or confusion, but you making arguments against some imagined assertions in my posts that I haven't made.
I just don't get it. I guess my life is pretty boring. We are talking about a phone right? a stupid phone! Some of you people need to get a life, get outside, enjoy the outdoors, get some exercise. A Phone! Daddy I lost my phone! Call the police!!!!
I don't like the direction Apple is going in lately. It seems as though they're suing everyone lately.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.
I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.
So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame ? or at least some of it ? onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device ? instead of the "finder" making that proposal ? which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.
I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.
Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.
So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.
Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" ? i.e., Gawker ? "doth protest too much, methinks."
I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.
So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame — or at least some of it — onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device — instead of the "finder" making that proposal — which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.
I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.
Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.
So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.
Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" — i.e., Gawker — "doth protest too much, methinks."
I feel the probable cause was already published by GIZ themselves. They had to have known when buying the phone that the phone was not received through proper channels... My understanding is that Engadget had the first opportunity to acquire the phone and wisely passed on it.
I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.
So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame — or at least some of it — onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device — instead of the "finder" making that proposal — which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.
I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.
Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.
So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.
Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" — i.e., Gawker — "doth protest too much, methinks."
That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.
The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.
The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
You're missing one point. Gizmodo claims to have all sorts of inside information from sources within Apple (which, of course, makes it even more laughable that they didn't know how to return it).
It is not hard to imagine, for example, a secretary letting Gizmodo know that John Doe is an engineer who carries a prototype iPhone who's about 5'8", brown hair, slender and hangs around such and such bar, usually going there Fridays after work.
That'a a lot easier to believe than the long string of coincidences that Gizmodo's story requires.
Comments
I see. So if you come across a car in the street, you can not take it because that would be stealing, but if you come across a phone in a bar you CAN take it and it's not stealing?
Care to point to the relevant portions of California law which support that bizarre conclusion?
Seriously? You do this for a living?
Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.
As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082
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.
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
I hope to god you are never my lawyer.
(and please everyone stop with the lame stolen vehicles and vagina analogies...they just don't relate)
Seriously? Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.
As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
Aside from your smart remarks, the result is the same.
If you take a phone and do not make an honest effort to return it to the owner, you're just as guilty of theft as if you take a car without permission.
So none of your smart-ass drivel changes the results. Under CA law, taking a phone without making an honest effort to return it to the owner is just as much theft as taking a car.
And don't even try to claim that they made a good faith effort to return it to the owner. Going around to multiple web sites asking if they want to buy a prototype phone while ignoring all the reasonable ways to get ti back (since the knew the owner's name and facebook page and ignored the owner's phone calls) just doesn't meet any standard for 'reasonable'.
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
Let's not even say that the iPhone prototype is considered a trade secret.
So it is legal for you to take apart properties that you know for a fact that doesn't belong to you?
The point is, not everything is reversible.
Hey I have several blogs, does that make me a journalist too?
This is only my opinion... a blogger should be considered a journalist if and only if they claim all revenue or income generated to the Federal and State (if applicable) tax authorities.
Aside from your smart remarks, the result is the same.
If you take a phone and do not make an honest effort to return it to the owner, you're just as guilty of theft as if you take a car without permission.
So none of your smart-ass drivel changes the results. Under CA law, taking a phone without making an honest effort to return it to the owner is just as much theft as taking a car.
And don't even try to claim that they made a good faith effort to return it to the owner. Going around to multiple web sites asking if they want to buy a prototype phone while ignoring all the reasonable ways to get ti back (since the knew the owner's name and facebook page and ignored the owner's phone calls) just doesn't meet any standard for 'reasonable'.
Aside from my smart remarks the results are the same, in that using a stolen car as an analogy for lost property is a really, really bad analogy (you know, what you interjected on) and is in fact not much better than an analogy involving rape and vaginas? yes, you are right. The result is the same.
The rest of what you mention, doesn't really differ from what I just posted. So, exactly what did I write in post 79 or 82 do you think you are actually arguing against? Windmills.
Seriously? You do this for a living?
Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.
As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082
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.
Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....
I hope to god you are never my lawyer.
(and please everyone stop with the lame stolen vehicles and vagina analogies...they just don't relate)
Actually the legal section you quote from is titled Duties of Finder. Not Rights of Finder. The rights of the finder are covered in the Criminal Code. And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item". Once you take that step you leave all the "depositary for hire" protections behind. They become moot and totally irrelevant.
Let's not even say that the iPhone prototype is considered a trade secret.
So it is legal for you to take apart properties that you know for a fact that doesn't belong to you?
The point is, not everything is reversible.
I didn't say it was. There is a duty of care. If the phone was not damaged during the disassembly, was the duty of care violated? I don't know. I honestly believe that jragosta would know this much better than I, though I might not believe he would provide an unbiased answer.
jragosta: If a found item is in no way damaged but is partially disassembled and then fully reassembled, and in the same state that it was in when it was found, does that violate the duty of care? Does the act of opening it up, even without damaging it, automatically constitute a violation? (I guess you might not choose to answer and might not read this question, but given your activity in this thread, I might take no answer as a tacit No.)
Actually the legal section you quote from is titled Duties of Finder. Not Rights of Finder. The rights of the finder are covered in the Criminal Code. And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item". Once you take that step you leave all the "depositary for hire" protections behind. They become moot and totally irrelevant.
And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.
(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.
And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.
(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.
Except, of course, that it is completely clear that neither the buyer nor Gizmodo made a reasonable effort to return the phone. They knew who the owner was (not to mention any of the other 50 ways to return the phone) and instead they made a call to AppleCare?
Give me a break.
Except, of course, that it is completely clear that neither the buyer nor Gizmodo made a reasonable effort to return the phone. They knew who the owner was (not to mention any of the other 50 ways to return the phone) and instead they made a call to AppleCare?
Give me a break.
Again, you are tilting at windmills my friend. I never claimed they met those responsibilities. Obviously, the finder never reported it to the police and the finder didn't wait 90 days. I never claimed they did. I was simply responding to Hiro's comment that the code doesn't allow you to sell found items. Of course it does, since the statute says ownership will transfer after conditions are met. I never said those conditions were met. Never. Strawman or confusion, but you making arguments against some imagined assertions in my posts that I haven't made.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.
Wait till you see their new uniforms!
So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame ? or at least some of it ? onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device ? instead of the "finder" making that proposal ? which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.
I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.
Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.
So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.
Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" ? i.e., Gawker ? "doth protest too much, methinks."
You're not cute, you're sick.
Go play on the freeway, Apple hater.
I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.
So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame — or at least some of it — onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device — instead of the "finder" making that proposal — which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.
I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.
Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.
So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.
Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" — i.e., Gawker — "doth protest too much, methinks."
I feel the probable cause was already published by GIZ themselves. They had to have known when buying the phone that the phone was not received through proper channels... My understanding is that Engadget had the first opportunity to acquire the phone and wisely passed on it.
I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.
So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame — or at least some of it — onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device — instead of the "finder" making that proposal — which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.
I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.
Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.
So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.
Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" — i.e., Gawker — "doth protest too much, methinks."
That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.
The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
Think you're cute? Comparisons like this make a mockery of the horror that the swastika represents.
You're not cute, you're sick.
Go play on the freeway, Apple hater.
I'm with you on this, nothing to joke about... it seems that the mods removed it from the thread
That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.
The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
You're missing one point. Gizmodo claims to have all sorts of inside information from sources within Apple (which, of course, makes it even more laughable that they didn't know how to return it).
It is not hard to imagine, for example, a secretary letting Gizmodo know that John Doe is an engineer who carries a prototype iPhone who's about 5'8", brown hair, slender and hangs around such and such bar, usually going there Fridays after work.
That'a a lot easier to believe than the long string of coincidences that Gizmodo's story requires.