iPhone HD Leaked?

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by valo403

Uh yeah, that's pretty obvious. I was just pointing out that the aspect you indicated was unimportant is actually at the crux of the whole criminal case.

a number of people seem to be angry/surprised that the police are even investigating this (wasting tax dollars). its these people that I was directing my argument at.

I do suspect that you are correct in that the legal argument will fall onto defining whether the phone was stolen or not. I'll leave deciding that to the police rather than an Internet message board

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

a number of people seem to be angry/surprised that the police are even investigating this (wasting tax dollars). its these people that I was directing my argument at.

I do suspect that you are correct in that the legal argument will fall onto defining whether the phone was stolen or not. I'll leave deciding that to the police rather than an Internet message board

I don't get that anger, I guess it's people upset that the police are spending time and money going after something that appears to effect only a single corporation, but that happens all the time. I guess Apple just brings out the angry in some people, which is another thing I don't understand as it's all just gadgets to me (the Apple ones are just easier for my technologically deficient brain).

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't get that anger, I guess it's people upset that the police are spending time and money going after something that appears to effect only a single corporation, but that happens all the time. I guess Apple just brings out the angry in some people, which is another thing I don't understand as it's all just gadgets to me (the Apple ones are just easier for my technologically deficient brain).

We are so Canadian.

If we were American this would have shifted into a polarizing debate on politics/religion/etc

Instead, I agree with everything you just wrote.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by valo403

That makes absolutely no sense. I know that I'd have a strict confidentiality clause in the deal with Gizmodo if I was in that guys shoes regardless of whether or not I was genuine. Look at the heat that's come down on gizmodo, why would the source want to volunteer for a similar situation?

No doubt, but the things that have come to light from Gizmodo do not reflect well on the person who found and allegedly tried to return the phone. They had access to Powell's Facebook and Twitter but it ended up with Gizmodo because he couldn't return it to Apple? How hard did he honestly try.

Whether or not it was stolen or found is kind of irrelevant in some ways as well. The person had no right to sell it to Gizmodo in the first place.

They may claim that they paid only for access to the phone and try and protect themselves under shielding laws. Nick Denton has historically played the we are journalists or the we are only bloggers card depending on which would benefit him the most at that time but that's for another discussion.

[kermitology]

You want to know how this is theft? The guy who found the phone figured out who the phone was originally in possession of the phone: Gray Powell. There are mechanisms to contact those people via the same means that he found out who it belonged to. He could have called Apple and asked to speak with Powell to tell him he had his phone. He could have called the BAR where he found the damn thing.

This was theft the moment the FINDER did nothing other than reportedly call the generic apple number and say something that the call centre would know absolutely nothing about. (Uhh.. I think I have some iPhone prototype) and left it at that.

He didn't sell the phone for Gizmodo to do an expose, he sold it to make $5000. That transaction right there, even though Gizmodo went through the same sort of hoops that the finder should have gone through, this turned into theft when the finder did nothing reasonable to contact the original owner.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by kermitology

You want to know how this is theft? The guy who found the phone figured out who the phone was originally in possession of the phone: Gray Powell. There are mechanisms to contact those people via the same means that he found out who it belonged to. He could have called Apple and asked to speak with Powell to tell him he had his phone. He could have called the BAR where he found the damn thing.

This was theft the moment the FINDER did nothing other than reportedly call the generic apple number and say something that the call centre would know absolutely nothing about. (Uhh.. I think I have some iPhone prototype) and left it at that.

He didn't sell the phone for Gizmodo to do an expose, he sold it to make $5000. That transaction right there, even though Gizmodo went through the same sort of hoops that the finder should have gone through, this turned into theft when the finder did nothing reasonable to contact the original owner.

However, he believed the phone to be some sort of prototype, since he went to the electronics websites about it. If the phone is a prototype, why would he beleive that the phone belongs to Gray Powell, and not Apple? What's wrong with him calling Apple and telling them that he found the phone. The guy is probably smart enough to know that calling that number would get that kind of response from Apple, but really, what other number should he call that the number the general public uses to call Apple? It's Apple's fault for not taking the guys claim that he had a prototype that he wanted to return seriously. If Apple says that they don't want it back (even if you are talking to some customer care rep who doesn't know better), the phone is not stolen. They can still ask for it back after that, but there was no stealing here.

There's no way a stealing conviction (or for any other wrongdoing) is going to be made here. I think that the cops that did the property seizure are going to be apologizing profusely.

[Burninator]

If the guy is smart enough to know that it's an iPhone prototype he is smart enough to figure out that the Facebook is tied to Gary Powell the owner of the phone.

Plus someone walked the phone into the bar. It doesn't really matter if Apple paid for it or not. Apple didn't lose it, Gary Powell did.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There's no way a stealing conviction (or for any other wrongdoing) is going to be made here. I think that the cops that did the property seizure are going to be apologizing profusely.

I agree. The whole thing is quite shady all around. If you're entrusted with this ultimate prototype, losing it is really an idiot move on an enormous scale. Everyone is like "aw, I feel so bad for this guy" and I just think, its his job to keep this thing secret, and he failed miserably at it. He should be fired.

Then, the guy that finds it happens to know exactly who to call. I mean, I think he legally covered his ass by calling Apple, because the court will consider that him making an effort to return it. But the fact that it made it from Apple employee to a tech blog in two steps is pretty amazing. If my sister or an average non-nerd found this, they wouldn't have gone to Gizmodo or Engadget, because most people have never heard of either of those.

Gizmodo is shady, but they're part of Gawker, of course they're shady. They offered $100k for a hands-on with the iPad, I believe, so why only $5k for this phone? Is it really only 1/20th as big of a deal? Its all just weird, but I don't think anyone will be going to jail for any of it.

[kermitology]

In regards to legally covering his ass, I imagine the state of California would require that the finder exercise a reasonable level of effort to contact the original owner.

I'd further imagine that they'd find that he didn't. He exercised actions to contact Apple that reasonably wouldn't return the phone to the original owner.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The difference is that a parked car (running or not) and a space shuttle are clearly meant to be left unattended by people in parking lots or hangers for a period of time and then returned to. No one in their right mind would interpret a parked car outside a store as lost and therefore would obviously be intending to take possession from the rightful owner by themselves taking possession.

On the other hand, no one leaves a cell phone sitting around a bar unattended intentionally, planning on coming back to retrieve it. Something like that is clearly lost, and people routinely pick up lost items and attempt to return them to the owners, as this guy clearly did when he called Apple. And given that most people here doubted that the phone was a genuine Apple prototype until confirmed by Apple, I don’t know how everyone can now impute absolute knowledge as to the genuineness on this guy.

You are right. I see that my analogy doesn't work. I appreciate you actually giving me an explanation. I suppose it's up to law enforcement now to determine whether or not his attempt to return the lost phone was reasonable or not. The wording is pretty vague and I would be interested to see what (if anything) happens to the guy that sold it.

The guy must have been right smashed when he lost the phone. Of course people lose phones all the time. But most people aren't carrying a prototype phone from their job working for a company known for it's intense secrecy and unforgiving attitude with a crazy boss. It's like if you are carrying a large amount of cash or something small worth that is worth a lot. You are completely paranoid about losing it and are constantly checking your pockets to ensure it's there. If he doesn't get fired he'll probably have the security clearance of a janitor.

[valo403]

Can we get one thing straight here. Gray Powell was not the owner of the phone, Apple was and is. Any talk of contacting Powell as the owner is forgetting that.

As for whether the court would find that a reasonable amount of effort was exercised in the return, it can be argued both ways. However, the fact remains that a conviction where a major issue is what is 'reasonable' is incredibly difficult to obtain. Add in the fact that utilization of any information obtained from the search likely results in a state supreme court case and I'd be absolutely stunned if there's a theft conviction. People are already somewhat upset about what is perceived by some to be an Apple pushed investigation, imagine how well a multi year hundreds of thousands of dollars court battle would go over.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by valo403

Can we get one thing straight here. Gray Powell was not the owner of the phone, Apple was and is. Any talk of contacting Powell as the owner is forgetting that.

Wait... So, if I lose my iPhone, is the finder required to phone Rogers since I still have two years left in my contract, and therefore still don't fully own my phone?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Wait... So, if I lose my iPhone, is the finder required to phone Rogers since I still have two years left in my contract, and therefore still don't fully own my phone?

If your iPhone is a prototype that you are testing for your employer, then yes.

[Yeah_Baby]

I hear Apple runs the Police. They are solely to blame for the wasteful raid on Chen's house.

/eye roll

Seriously people. Give your heads a shake.

[sureLoss]

It's an authority legal issue, all right, I'll need to refer to the case: "Finders vs. Keepers".

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by kermitology

In regards to legally covering his ass, I imagine the state of California would require that the finder exercise a reasonable level of effort to contact the original owner.

I'd further imagine that they'd find that he didn't. He exercised actions to contact Apple that reasonably wouldn't return the phone to the original owner.

I'm not a lawyer, but I gotta agree with kermitology.

Calling a generic care rep isn't a reasonable effort. It's enough to try and say that you covered your ass and certainly makes for an interesting defense, but, really? Did he expect generic customer care rep #123 to jump on the 'I have an iPhone prototype for you' line? Seems like a better effort could have been made.

I'm not saying that he didn't make any effort at all, I just think he did it with full knowledge of the type of response he would receive and as such it wasn't enough. Not a reasonable effort IMO. We'll see where the state of California draws the line though.

And if it goes the other way...wow, the lawyer sure earned his money!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

I'm not a lawyer, but I gotta agree with kermitology.

Calling a generic care rep isn't a reasonable effort. It's enough to try and say that you covered your ass and certainly makes for an interesting defense, but, really? Did he expect generic customer care rep #123 to jump on the 'I have an iPhone prototype for you' line? Seems like a better effort could have been made.

I'm not saying that he didn't make any effort at all, I just think he did it with full knowledge of the type of response he would receive and as such it wasn't enough. Not a reasonable effort IMO. We'll see where the state of California draws the line though.

And if it goes the other way...wow, the lawyer sure earned his money!

It's pretty easy to argue reasonable v. unreasonable in this setting, but in a court setting it's one of the most difficult things to prove to a jury. Remember what the criminal standard is, beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that there's a credible argument to be made that the effort was reasonable makes reaching that standard near impossible.

The DA would really be rolling the dice to pursue that charge without some sort of evidence that indicates the 'finder' knew the effort had no chance of resulting in the phone being returned. There may well be something that indicates that in the materials uncovered in the search, but that opens up a whole new can of worms as to the privilege law. Like I said above, that's likely a state supreme court case if pursued, and I don't know that the state is up for that kind of costly battle over this. We'll see, at the very least it's made for an interesting discussion.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's pretty easy to argue reasonable v. unreasonable in this setting, but in a court setting it's one of the most difficult things to prove to a jury. Remember what the criminal standard is, beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that there's a credible argument to be made that the effort was reasonable makes reaching that standard near impossible.

The DA would really be rolling the dice to pursue that charge without some sort of evidence that indicates the 'finder' knew the effort had no chance of resulting in the phone being returned. There may well be something that indicates that in the materials uncovered in the search, but that opens up a whole new can of worms as to the privilege law. Like I said above, that's likely a state supreme court case if pursued, and I don't know that the state is up for that kind of costly battle over this. We'll see, at the very least it's made for an interesting discussion.

Wired did report that Apple visited his house before they bricked the phone. He wasn't home and his roommate refused to let them in. He sat on it for a few weeks before selling it to Gizmodo so he had plenty of opportunity to get back in touch with them.

He also was shopping it around as Wired say they received an email from him but didn't pursue it because he hinted at payment and they don't do cheque book journalism.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[LChoy]

No youtube link but I liked Keith Olbermann's take on the issue (well, more correctly, his guest's take). Hmm..only link I found is on Gizmodo's own site, oh well.

As much as it's in vogue to poke fun at Apple and its ways, Gizmodo put itself in this position by conducting "pay check journalism"
http://gizmodo.com/5525388/the-inves...issing-iphone-[updated]

[Azure]

Jon Stewart lashed out pretty hard at Apple too.

I can't quite figure out if it was actually satire.