iPhone HD Leaked?

[flamingreen]

What I find funny is that they plaster the personal information of the poor soul who lost the iPhone all over the internet but they blur out the personal information of Jason Chen, how nice.

As per the search and seizure, John Gruber of Daring Fireball has this take ...

Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.”

[Yeah_Baby]

And to make matters worse they crucified the engineer who lost the phone a month ago.

[Azure]

I don't get it. Apple had some good legal grounds to ask for the phone back, and didn't they get it?

Why on earth would the police do a search and seizure?

Trying to make a point?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't get it. Apple had some good legal grounds to ask for the phone back, and didn't they get it?

Why on earth would the police do a search and seizure?

Trying to make a point?

Because Gizmodo purchased stolen property.

[QuadCityImages]

If you read all the original articles and posts about finding the phone, supposedly the original finder called Apple and tried to return the phone but was told it wasn't Apple's. If true, would you still consider it stolen?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

If you read all the original articles and posts about finding the phone, supposedly the original finder called Apple and tried to return the phone but was told it wasn't Apple's. If true, would you still consider it stolen?

It's strange that they throw the Apple engineer under the bus but don't say anything about the guy they bought the phone from. That's guy that really stole the phone. His attempts to return it to Apple were weak at best. He phoned and said "uhhh I have an Apple prototype phone" to the first person that picked up the phone. Yet he didn't do the most obvious things someone does when they find lost property; he didn't tell the bar he had it, or give it back to them and he didn't tell the police he had it. I wouldn't be surprised to see that guy get charged with something.

[LChoy]

I missed it somehow
Where did they say Gizmodo paid $5000?

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Exactly.

Gizmodo knew who owned it. They knew how to contact who owned it. They knew exactly what it was. They chose to keep it, they chose to publish details about it and they chose to copy physical evidence of it. Sounds like textbook theft to me (CA law).

The seizure probably has more to do with making sure that nothing was sold or given to any competitors, than anything else.

Edit: Although, I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with sending a message.

The other thing that everybody seems to be missing is that Engadget had a chance to buy the phone. One of their top editors allegedly posted in his twitter something to the effect of "hmm, interesting, state of california laws say if you knowingly buy a stolen item you're fubar'd too." And then, of course, they let gizmodo buy it.

Bet they're laughing now (valid source or not)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Exactly.

Gizmodo knew who owned it. They knew how to contact who owned it. They knew exactly what it was. They chose to keep it, they chose to publish details about it and they chose to copy physical evidence of it. Sounds like textbook theft to me (CA law).

The seizure probably has more to do with making sure that nothing was sold or given to any competitors, than anything else.

Edit: Although, I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with sending a message.

Sounds like textbook reporting to me.

This isn't at all black and white. Theft offenses in general are nuanced in that they have a mental state requirement. I haven't read the CA law, but unless they depart dramatically from the norm the intentions of the recipient at the time of receipt are a major factor. If they obtained the phone with the intent to report on it and return it it's probably not theft, and proving that wasn't the case seems as if it would be pretty tough.

[photon]

Especially since the guy tried to return it and was rebuffed. And they didn't really buy it, they paid the guy $5000 to have it until they could return it to Apple, buying it would imply they were claiming ownership.

[Pastiche]

That's a cool $5000 for a phone that they can't even use. Wow, reveals Gizmodo's revenue stream is pretty significant.

[Russic]

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by photon

Especially since the guy tried to return it and was rebuffed. And they didn't really buy it, they paid the guy $5000 to have it until they could return it to Apple, buying it would imply they were claiming ownership.

Yeah but who did he call? You can't just call up a company and say "I have a prototype of your new XYZ. I found it in a bar".

The person would have no idea wtf you are talking about and if they somehow got a hold of one of the dozen of people that new about the new iPhone "oh, you do?" is an admission that product XYZ exists.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Yeah but who did he call? You can't just call up a company and say "I have a prototype of your new XYZ. I found it in a bar".

The person would have no idea wtf you are talking about and if they somehow got a hold of one of the dozen of people that new about the new iPhone "oh, you do?" is an admission that product XYZ exists.

Well what else can you do? If they won't admit it exists, then you can't return it, so it isn't really stolen then.

Apple lost it, wouldn't accept it back (I admit the difficulties in getting it back, but that's not the guy's fault), Giz pays the guy some money and then examines and reviews the phone before giving it back. If Giz had never given it back then they'd have a point.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by photon

Well what else can you do? If they won't admit it exists, then you can't return it, so it isn't really stolen then.

Apple lost it, wouldn't accept it back (I admit the difficulties in getting it back, but that's not the guy's fault), Giz pays the guy some money and then examines and reviews the phone before giving it back. If Giz had never given it back then they'd have a point.

He could have given it to the bartender, he could have left his name and phone number with the bar so the person that lost it could contact him. The vast majority of the population would have done exactly this. He could have filed a report with the police, he could have walked into the Apple headquarters (which I understand was really close by) and given it to them or given it to an Apple store. He took pretty much the most useless path to give it back. When he phoned they asked for pictures of it (encase it was just a Chinese knockoff) and he didn't even send any. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy did that on purpose so he could get around the selling stolen property law (if he does).

[photon]

I wouldn't have left my # with the bar, I would have just waited for the guy to phone the phone so I could return it (since it was bricked later).

Once it was bricked I probably would have reported it stolen to the police though, showing up at Apple probably would have been as productive as calling them.

Still it was returned. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Burninator

He could have given it to the bartender, he could have left his name and phone number with the bar so the person that lost it could contact him. The vast majority of the population would have done exactly this. He could have filed a report with the police, he could have walked into the Apple headquarters (which I understand was really close by) and given it to them or given it to an Apple store. He took pretty much the most useless path to give it back. When he phoned they asked for pictures of it (encase it was just a Chinese knockoff) and he didn't even send any. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy did that on purpose so he could get around the selling stolen property law (if he does).

Useless yes, but I'm not so sure it was illegal.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

Useless yes, but I'm not so sure it was illegal.

Useless, but it certainly was a reasonable effort. I can't see any court saying he didn't make a reasonable effort to return it.

[FanIn80]

I don't think phoning the Apple toll-free number and telling some random CSR that you've found a top-secret prototype that only 6 people on the entire planet have seen, can be called a "reasonable attempt."

I think leaving your contact information at the bar would be much more reasonable. All the reports I've read say that the guy who lost it was phoning the bar every 15 minutes to see if someone reported finding it.

Personally, I think the guy knew exactly what he was doing. The article even said that he took the fake 3GS case off it and saw it was a new iPhone no one had seen before. I think he knew what it was, and I think he decided on the one avenue that he knew would never amount to anything (calling 800-MY-APPLE). I think he knew he'd be able to make a quick buck on this thing, the moment he saw it.

[csnarpy]

nm....