Gawker sez they didn't know for sure it was genuine Apple until they had
the iPhone in hand and disassembled it, but before buying it, if it was to
be genuine Apple, they surely knew the person they bought it from
wasn't the rightful owner. (So why buy it? If it's not genuine, then it's
next to worthless; if it is genuine, then it's illegal.) Once they had it
disassembled and knew for sure it was genuine Apple, they had to know
public disclosure of the photos would be a very bad thing.
Discussion on:
How do they expect to defend themselves. They knew it
was stolen (removed without the owners consent - "lost" or
lifted, the owner didn't consent, it wasn't handed to the
proper authorities) they bought it. Even if you accept they
didn't "know" until the disassembled it, clearly they hoped
is was genuine (and hence stolen). Then the revealed Apple
trade secrets for profit (and they didn't do a very good job
of that).
What's the defence? "We're idiots", "We've got a blog",
"Look, it's funny" - none of these are terribly compelling.
What did we learn? Apple are doing a new iPhone (hardly
news) it has a front facing camera (Hmm... alright) it might
look different (my guess is it will look very like the
prototype - but we don't know for sure) it's got a big
battery (I could have guessed that). Hardly seems worth
the world of hurt Apple legal will put them in.
Maybe the defence "We're idiots" is plausible, but I don't
think it helps much - legally.
was stolen (removed without the owners consent - "lost" or
lifted, the owner didn't consent, it wasn't handed to the
proper authorities) they bought it. Even if you accept they
didn't "know" until the disassembled it, clearly they hoped
is was genuine (and hence stolen). Then the revealed Apple
trade secrets for profit (and they didn't do a very good job
of that).
What's the defence? "We're idiots", "We've got a blog",
"Look, it's funny" - none of these are terribly compelling.
What did we learn? Apple are doing a new iPhone (hardly
news) it has a front facing camera (Hmm... alright) it might
look different (my guess is it will look very like the
prototype - but we don't know for sure) it's got a big
battery (I could have guessed that). Hardly seems worth
the world of hurt Apple legal will put them in.
Maybe the defence "We're idiots" is plausible, but I don't
think it helps much - legally.
people go to jail for recieving stolen property everyday, and they seriously think that buying a stolen prototype phone doesn't count?
Tabloid news people are the lowest lifeform on earth, and this is solid proof of that.
Tabloid news people are the lowest lifeform on earth, and this is solid proof of that.
What did they expect to happen? You let a person leave campus with an unreleased product! You should know it could be lost or stolen!
The real question is why don't they have an app for that?
The real question is why don't they have an app for that?
Hey Apple stop wasting taxpayer money because you are too stupid to keep track of what you should be keeping track of.
Why are us taxpayers and the Gov. responsible to protect you from your own stupidity.
Somewhere out there a lady was raped --RAPED-- and her rape kit may lie untested because you are too stupid Apple to keep your phones where they belong.
Why, with limited resources, does a task force have to deal with this?????????????
California likes to kiss Job's rear end while some rapists tiptoes through the valley.
--written on a sweet 27" imac
Why are us taxpayers and the Gov. responsible to protect you from your own stupidity.
Somewhere out there a lady was raped --RAPED-- and her rape kit may lie untested because you are too stupid Apple to keep your phones where they belong.
Why, with limited resources, does a task force have to deal with this?????????????
California likes to kiss Job's rear end while some rapists tiptoes through the valley.
--written on a sweet 27" imac
and just as someone stealing your phone and selling it to someone else is illegal, so is stealing a phone from Apple. Prototype or not, it is THEIR property.
As much as I don't like Apple, they are clearly within their legal rights here as afforded to them under the Constitution of the United States.
As much as I don't like Apple, they are clearly within their legal rights here as afforded to them under the Constitution of the United States.
"As much as I don't like Apple"...yep, really??. They lost a phone, someone found it and sold it, what is wrong with that??..APPLE you make me puke.
"They lost a phone, someone found it and sold it, what is wrong with
that?"
In California, it's illegal. Someone who didn't own the phone took it and
sold it. By law, the finder should have turned it over to the bar owner or
the police. No reprieve for not knowing that. The most obvious thing to
do was also the right thing to do by law.
that?"
In California, it's illegal. Someone who didn't own the phone took it and
sold it. By law, the finder should have turned it over to the bar owner or
the police. No reprieve for not knowing that. The most obvious thing to
do was also the right thing to do by law.
by selling the phone to a magazine, the seller knew that the owner would
see the magazine article and attempt to claim the phone.
in general, why is the bartender trustable? In general, I don't see anything
wrong with using the publicity engines of an online magazine as a tool for
finding the phone's owner...
see the magazine article and attempt to claim the phone.
in general, why is the bartender trustable? In general, I don't see anything
wrong with using the publicity engines of an online magazine as a tool for
finding the phone's owner...
Give the iPhone to the bartender or to the police--that's the law. Gray
Powell called the tavern numerous times to find it. How easily this
whole fiasco could have been avoided.
Until the thief played with the device at home, he didn't even realize it
was a new prototype disguised in an old case.
The thief didn't trust the bartender or the police more than himself.
That's a good one!
Sure, selling the prototype to Gawker was like giving it back to Apple,
but with details of its design and innards publicized a couple months
early. This could be very damaging to Apple, with the extent of
damage difficult to measure. And did Gawker privately share even
more details with Apple competitors?
Powell called the tavern numerous times to find it. How easily this
whole fiasco could have been avoided.
Until the thief played with the device at home, he didn't even realize it
was a new prototype disguised in an old case.
The thief didn't trust the bartender or the police more than himself.
That's a good one!
Sure, selling the prototype to Gawker was like giving it back to Apple,
but with details of its design and innards publicized a couple months
early. This could be very damaging to Apple, with the extent of
damage difficult to measure. And did Gawker privately share even
more details with Apple competitors?
You make a good point about the bartender, legally you're handing
responsibility to him. You'd have to argue that there was a reasonable
expectation he'd try and return the phone to the owner. I think anyone
would accept that - you're not going to wait in the bar all night for the
owner to return leaving it with the staff seems quite reasonable.
You could choose not to do that and hand it to the police (I'm sure you
could argue that if you'd recognised it was a prototype - and hence
had greater value so you were unsure about handing it into the bar).
But selling it (for a profit mind you) to a magazine? Hardly getting it
back to its owner... You're never going to be able to argue that.
responsibility to him. You'd have to argue that there was a reasonable
expectation he'd try and return the phone to the owner. I think anyone
would accept that - you're not going to wait in the bar all night for the
owner to return leaving it with the staff seems quite reasonable.
You could choose not to do that and hand it to the police (I'm sure you
could argue that if you'd recognised it was a prototype - and hence
had greater value so you were unsure about handing it into the bar).
But selling it (for a profit mind you) to a magazine? Hardly getting it
back to its owner... You're never going to be able to argue that.
I bet not....
iPhones are great but not so precious. From all outward appearances, the
lost device was just an ordinary iPhone. And by morning, it was an
ordinary, inactivated iPhone.
lost device was just an ordinary iPhone. And by morning, it was an
ordinary, inactivated iPhone.
It's against the law. Simple, doesn't matter who it is. Against the law,
why do you think the cops are interested? There is no "if", "but" or
"maybe" here a crime has been committed and admitted to. Do you want
to live in a country where the cops DON'T act under such conditions?
why do you think the cops are interested? There is no "if", "but" or
"maybe" here a crime has been committed and admitted to. Do you want
to live in a country where the cops DON'T act under such conditions?
In this country that commonly occurs. Ask the rich and famous.
I guess next time you run a red light, drop a candy wrapper on the sidealk or simple j-walk across the street we'll have to make sure the cops are there to hang you....LAW is LAW right?
Franlky....Item lost. Item found. Item sold. This is more of trade secrets then simple theft.
And bottom line. If they need such a TAST FORCE to decide who gets charged and charged with what, then its a waste of time.
My 2 cents anyways
Franlky....Item lost. Item found. Item sold. This is more of trade secrets then simple theft.
And bottom line. If they need such a TAST FORCE to decide who gets charged and charged with what, then its a waste of time.
My 2 cents anyways
Lost and stolen are 2 different things.
BTW, the Constitution does not have anything about things getting stolen. This is a local "event" and the only crime that was committed was that the employee may have taken it out to show it off to his buddies without asking permission.
BTW, the Constitution does not have anything about things getting stolen. This is a local "event" and the only crime that was committed was that the employee may have taken it out to show it off to his buddies without asking permission.
Correct me if I'm wrong the difference between stealing and finding a lost object is intent. Stealing requires intent to go take something that doesn't belong to you. Finding something that was lost and not returning rightful owner if the object is marked as such in a "reasonable" period can constitute stealing depending of laws. If the object doesn't have any marking of it's rightful owner like the iPhone in question or so many other devices we see, how can one correctly determine who is the rightful owner and contact them. However, in this case, Gizdomo did return the iPhone to the rightful owner (Apple) in question and now is the "reasonable" period of time I think is in question.
That said, Apple is in the right but I wish the
constabulary would show the same enthusiasm
towards my crime reports as they do towards
Apple's, or those of that cop running the speed
trap out on the interstate.
constabulary would show the same enthusiasm
towards my crime reports as they do towards
Apple's, or those of that cop running the speed
trap out on the interstate.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363036,00.asp
"Fox News reports that it will likely be under the jurisdiction of the
district attorney's office computer crime task force"
Hint: computer crime task force doesn't usually investigate rape, either
real or virtual.
And taxes on the revenue and valuation lost by Apple might be capable
of funding the DA's office for years.
"Fox News reports that it will likely be under the jurisdiction of the
district attorney's office computer crime task force"
Hint: computer crime task force doesn't usually investigate rape, either
real or virtual.
And taxes on the revenue and valuation lost by Apple might be capable
of funding the DA's office for years.
WOW...Apple is so generous.
or whatever med you need to even yourself out. For one it is a entirely different division of the police department that deals with theft (as opposed to rape or murder victims) and that is really beside the point. Apple, as does any other company or person in the US, has the right to report property that was stolen from them. And ANYONE can have something stolen from them, ANYONE could be absent minded, distracted, or as in this case drunk enough to leave a phone or something behind. Your attacks on Apple are entirely unwarranted in this case. And yes I'd say the same thing if it was Microsoft or any other company.
The problem is no one can prove one way or the other that it was stolen, handed to someone, or left behind. and this is to be expected seeing as Apple likes to be in the lime light. just like any actor leaving behind anything someone can sell. Apple is also a target. no one can prove if something was left behind or stolen. unless you have proof. welcome to hollywood Apple.....
For a criminal conviction, it only needs to be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. In a civil suit, it only needs to be proven more likely than not
(better than 50:50).
doubt. In a civil suit, it only needs to be proven more likely than not
(better than 50:50).
Under Californian Law, you cannot remove and claim the item without
making an effort to return it to the owner - I think it has to go 3 years
before you can consider it "lost".
Does it matter if the guy just left it on the bar? No, doesn't matter a jot.
You pick it up and walk off with it then it's stolen. You don't need to
remove it from his person.
making an effort to return it to the owner - I think it has to go 3 years
before you can consider it "lost".
Does it matter if the guy just left it on the bar? No, doesn't matter a jot.
You pick it up and walk off with it then it's stolen. You don't need to
remove it from his person.
The problem is no one can prove one way or the other that it was stolen, handed to someone, or left behind.
Doesn't matter. The phone belongs to Apple, not the employee, so unless Apple gave their permission, the phone was stolen. On top of that, the employee could also be held responsible.
and this is to be expected seeing as Apple likes to be in the lime light. just like any actor leaving behind anything someone can sell.
Apple is also a target. no one can prove if something was left behind or stolen. unless you have proof. welcome to hollywood Apple.....
Your perception that a crime can't be proven is typical of crackheads, theives, and stoned out hippies. I worked in law enforcement for 4 years, and from my experience, no matter how much people like you wish the law would bend around them, it doesn't. Proof is what the investigation is about. The polive will collect all the evidence. Welcome to US law.
Doesn't matter. The phone belongs to Apple, not the employee, so unless Apple gave their permission, the phone was stolen. On top of that, the employee could also be held responsible.
and this is to be expected seeing as Apple likes to be in the lime light. just like any actor leaving behind anything someone can sell.
Apple is also a target. no one can prove if something was left behind or stolen. unless you have proof. welcome to hollywood Apple.....
Your perception that a crime can't be proven is typical of crackheads, theives, and stoned out hippies. I worked in law enforcement for 4 years, and from my experience, no matter how much people like you wish the law would bend around them, it doesn't. Proof is what the investigation is about. The polive will collect all the evidence. Welcome to US law.
@ Nsaf
You probably won't understand this until the next time you
lose your own phone. You get home one night and realize
that your phone is gone. Where did you leave it? You retrace
your steps back to the bar and ask the bartender if someone
found a phone. The guy says, 'yes, the guy sitting next to
you turned it in.'
This has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do
with being human.
You probably won't understand this until the next time you
lose your own phone. You get home one night and realize
that your phone is gone. Where did you leave it? You retrace
your steps back to the bar and ask the bartender if someone
found a phone. The guy says, 'yes, the guy sitting next to
you turned it in.'
This has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do
with being human.
I keep hearing people say its against the law JUST because the police are investigating. Post the code of the law or a link to it. Fact is, there is no law in California that says if you find a phone or electronic device that you have to return it to the owner. You say there is - Prove it!
The law doesn't specifiy phones, but rather property in general.
Taking someone else's personal property without consent is illegal in 50 states, and buying or recieving stolen property is at least in most states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s484
Now for future refference, arguing over whether this was against the law or not is pure BS. There is no doubt the taking of the phone was illegal, as the phone did not belong to either the guy that took it, nor the people that bought it. It really is that simple.
The question is whether Apple plans to file criminal or civil charges. In some states, you can even file both.
Anymore arguement over the legality of this issue is really a waste of time.
Taking someone else's personal property without consent is illegal in 50 states, and buying or recieving stolen property is at least in most states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s484
Now for future refference, arguing over whether this was against the law or not is pure BS. There is no doubt the taking of the phone was illegal, as the phone did not belong to either the guy that took it, nor the people that bought it. It really is that simple.
The question is whether Apple plans to file criminal or civil charges. In some states, you can even file both.
Anymore arguement over the legality of this issue is really a waste of time.
Nifty site reference for CA law. But that same
site shows under a search for "lost property"
code section 2080
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/6
/4/1/s2080
This code says - quite logically - that if you
find something you are now responsible to
return it. So TAKING the phone was NOT
illegal. At all. Definitely do not have to
hand it over to the bartender. That's a made
up rule.
But SELLING the phone, now that's where the
finder gets in trouble.
If you read the law reference above, it gives
any finder "reasonable" time to find the owner.
Doesn't say whether you can post pictures of it
or not. So, curiously, Gizmodo may have acted
within the law by a) finding the owner via
their post, and b) returning the phone without
compensation.
Of course, taking it apart and posting that
gets into a completely different legal issue,
that of corporate espionage.
site shows under a search for "lost property"
code section 2080
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/6
/4/1/s2080
This code says - quite logically - that if you
find something you are now responsible to
return it. So TAKING the phone was NOT
illegal. At all. Definitely do not have to
hand it over to the bartender. That's a made
up rule.
But SELLING the phone, now that's where the
finder gets in trouble.
If you read the law reference above, it gives
any finder "reasonable" time to find the owner.
Doesn't say whether you can post pictures of it
or not. So, curiously, Gizmodo may have acted
within the law by a) finding the owner via
their post, and b) returning the phone without
compensation.
Of course, taking it apart and posting that
gets into a completely different legal issue,
that of corporate espionage.
a reasonable amount of time to return the property to it's owner BUT selling it to Gizmodo was NOT returning the phone, at that point it was selling stolen property. And by extension Gizmodo is equally guilty for buying stolen property with the added crime of taking apart said property which in this case can and should be considered corporate espionage.
kcmaclaren made an interesting and entirely valid point.
Now, assume Gizmodo get away with not knowing it was stolen property, since it was an old case. They might have wanted it to be a new iPhone, but it could just as easy have been a ripoff. In which case, taking it apart to find out is justifiable.
Then, they get it back to the person who lost it. And as long as the court thinks that was reasonable time, then Gizmodo is fine. The person who sold it, not so fine.
Now, assume Gizmodo get away with not knowing it was stolen property, since it was an old case. They might have wanted it to be a new iPhone, but it could just as easy have been a ripoff. In which case, taking it apart to find out is justifiable.
Then, they get it back to the person who lost it. And as long as the court thinks that was reasonable time, then Gizmodo is fine. The person who sold it, not so fine.
The police might be investigating because one or more crimes
might have been committed. I have no idea why you would see it
any other way.
First we have common law, which says the lost iPhone should have
been given to the bar owner (or the police) for the rightful owner to
reclaim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property
"Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has
a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that
the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his
misplaced item."
Gray Powell is reported to have called the tavern numerous times to
see if the iPhone had been turned in.
Then we have the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which provides
for the assessment of damages:
http://w3.uchastings.edu/patent_01/Handouts/California%20Uniform
%2
0Trade%20Secrets%20Act.pdf
Sorry if you were ignorant of these laws, but ignorance isn't an excuse
under the law either.
might have been committed. I have no idea why you would see it
any other way.
First we have common law, which says the lost iPhone should have
been given to the bar owner (or the police) for the rightful owner to
reclaim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property
"Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has
a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that
the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his
misplaced item."
Gray Powell is reported to have called the tavern numerous times to
see if the iPhone had been turned in.
Then we have the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which provides
for the assessment of damages:
http://w3.uchastings.edu/patent_01/Handouts/California%20Uniform
%2
0Trade%20Secrets%20Act.pdf
Sorry if you were ignorant of these laws, but ignorance isn't an excuse
under the law either.
Oregon law states someone must make a reasonable attempt to return lost property to its rightful owner. The property may be kept if no one comes forward in 30 days. Here's an example that led to an arrest:
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/26/1123703-pair-learn-finders-not-always-keepers
If California has a similar law, somebody's going to be in trouble.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/26/1123703-pair-learn-finders-not-always-keepers
If California has a similar law, somebody's going to be in trouble.
1. as I remember, the finder CONTACTED apple with information that the phone had been found, they denied the existence of such a device, and flatly refused it.
2. there is a legal difference between FOUND and STOLEN.
3. "Reasonable effort" can be as simple as what the finder did, and not an exhaustive search of the owner, at cost of time and energy of the finder. Just ask a cop what "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable cause" means in reality, as it's not specifically set in the law, no more than asking around the bar (not even loudly) if anyone had lost a phone need be done. It's a very subjective term.
4. I will agree that if the finder had returned it to the bartender it would be more likely that the owner would get it back. However, that would rely on the honesty of the bartender as well, and the intelligence of the person who lost the phone to call the place after finding it missing.
2. there is a legal difference between FOUND and STOLEN.
3. "Reasonable effort" can be as simple as what the finder did, and not an exhaustive search of the owner, at cost of time and energy of the finder. Just ask a cop what "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable cause" means in reality, as it's not specifically set in the law, no more than asking around the bar (not even loudly) if anyone had lost a phone need be done. It's a very subjective term.
4. I will agree that if the finder had returned it to the bartender it would be more likely that the owner would get it back. However, that would rely on the honesty of the bartender as well, and the intelligence of the person who lost the phone to call the place after finding it missing.
No one lost a phone and no one found a phone. I am
never allowed to take prototypes out of my lab and I
doubt Apple employees are either. Apple decided to do
viral promotion of their new iPhone. Read through all
the articles again with your mind open to the fact that
Apple might be completely behind this as a way to get
attention to something that isn't all that special.
Only the geekiest care about a 4g iPhone, yet they
managed to get their boring device on national non-tech
news.
Besides, if you're going to break the law by selling
something that you don't own, why not sell it to a
rival phone maker for a lot more than $5000.
never allowed to take prototypes out of my lab and I
doubt Apple employees are either. Apple decided to do
viral promotion of their new iPhone. Read through all
the articles again with your mind open to the fact that
Apple might be completely behind this as a way to get
attention to something that isn't all that special.
Only the geekiest care about a 4g iPhone, yet they
managed to get their boring device on national non-tech
news.
Besides, if you're going to break the law by selling
something that you don't own, why not sell it to a
rival phone maker for a lot more than $5000.
I don't believe you develop anything as significant as a new iPhone.
Do you develop devices that interact with cellular communications
systems? In one of the busiest cellular usage areas of the world (Silicon
Valley)? Expected to sell tens of millions of units? On AT&T's network?
Any new device like this needs field testing in worst-case scenarios.
Any of Apple's competitors would be unlikely to buy the stolen device.
Can you imagine the fall-out when (not if) that was discovered?
Do you develop devices that interact with cellular communications
systems? In one of the busiest cellular usage areas of the world (Silicon
Valley)? Expected to sell tens of millions of units? On AT&T's network?
Any new device like this needs field testing in worst-case scenarios.
Any of Apple's competitors would be unlikely to buy the stolen device.
Can you imagine the fall-out when (not if) that was discovered?
You leave them behind in the bar, someone "finds" them and sells them to someone else who helps himself to your laptop's contents and pokes around in its innards, or drives around in your car. They then look up the owner's info and offer to give them back to you when they're done. Explain to me how this is defensible.
The story goes, of course we don't know if it's true or not, that the guy that found it tried to call Apple about it numerous times. No one got back to him or took him seriously, so he went to Gizmodo. There's no way of knowing who the phone belonged to, but they will defend it by saying that they all made every effort to return it. Once they had it and had published the photos, Apple's attorneys contacted them to get it back (the letter has been posted on the site as well).
Will that stand up in court? I'm not an attorney, so I have no idea, but if they can prove the calls were made and no one at Apple took them seriously, they at least have a defense.
Will that stand up in court? I'm not an attorney, so I have no idea, but if they can prove the calls were made and no one at Apple took them seriously, they at least have a defense.
Gizmodo was only too happy to give the phone back to it's original owner and they did. If I buy something that you lost, and I did it with every intention of returning the item to you it's rightful owner, and I actually do return it without asking for any kind of payment, what wrong, or what law have I broken?
Don't get me wrong.... I was just as excited / intrigued to see the pics as the
next guy, but what they did was wrong. They knew it was a prototype, it had a
commercial "property", and it was offered for trade(you could even argue
illegally, since it wasn't the guys property to sell).
Gawker should have either followed Engadgets lead, or contacted Apple and
allowed Apple to do the deal (or at least do the deal on Apple's behalf).
I actually wondered if the "too many drinks, left at the bar" story was true...
And it appeared to me that the "finder" knew before it was found what the
object was....
next guy, but what they did was wrong. They knew it was a prototype, it had a
commercial "property", and it was offered for trade(you could even argue
illegally, since it wasn't the guys property to sell).
Gawker should have either followed Engadgets lead, or contacted Apple and
allowed Apple to do the deal (or at least do the deal on Apple's behalf).
I actually wondered if the "too many drinks, left at the bar" story was true...
And it appeared to me that the "finder" knew before it was found what the
object was....
If the guy who bought your laptop knew it was
stolen property, then he bought stolen goods
and the person selling it, sold stolen goods.
Gizmodo willingly bought a stolen item to use
the intellectual property within the item to
further their business...
There is no grey area here... Why are people
having such a hard time grasping the painfully
obvious? It's a slam dunk case for both
criminal and civil courts.
stolen property, then he bought stolen goods
and the person selling it, sold stolen goods.
Gizmodo willingly bought a stolen item to use
the intellectual property within the item to
further their business...
There is no grey area here... Why are people
having such a hard time grasping the painfully
obvious? It's a slam dunk case for both
criminal and civil courts.
What is wrong with that? The same thing that's wrong with
me finding your baby and selling it to someone else.
me finding your baby and selling it to someone else.
Apple is simply acting like the spoiled child in this case. The person who found it tried to return it, what happened to possession is 9/10 of the law? I'll be glad when Apple receives a kick square in the nuts; they're too big for their britches.
Seriously, they need to shut up and sit down. Why does this need to occur? Using tax payer dollars to prosecute people that are NOT criminals, and do NOT have an unlawful intent.
Goes to show what a waste Apple is to us all.
Goes to show what a waste Apple is to us all.
Fact: The phone was left in a bar.
Fact: The phone was picked up by someone who did not own it.
Fact: That person then did not leave it with the bartender but took it home - perhaps intent to steal, perhaps not.
Fact: The person who found and removed the phone from where it was lost then "tinkered around" with the phone and in the process discovered it was not a 3GS but a different device.
Fact: The person then decided to call Apple - and perhaps got in touch with the wrong people who had no clue about the device so naturally they would claim that it does not exist... happens with every other corporate company every day.
Fact: The person then sold the device to Gizmodo for $5,000. At that point the device is or should be considered stolen property as the finder did not even wait the 30 days where common law would have given ownership to the finder.
Fact: Gizmodo took apart the device and posted pictures as well as the backstory - so there is proof in their own words and pictures that they did receive/ bought stolen property and knowing did so.
Fact: Once Apple was aware that one of their devices was out in the wild they then took action to reclaim their stolen property which included contacting the police - as any other company and citizen has the right to do.
The intent does not matter nor does ignorance of the law - the law is the law and applies equally... and yes I'd say this if it was any other company.
Goes to show what a waste your post is to us all.
Fact: The phone was picked up by someone who did not own it.
Fact: That person then did not leave it with the bartender but took it home - perhaps intent to steal, perhaps not.
Fact: The person who found and removed the phone from where it was lost then "tinkered around" with the phone and in the process discovered it was not a 3GS but a different device.
Fact: The person then decided to call Apple - and perhaps got in touch with the wrong people who had no clue about the device so naturally they would claim that it does not exist... happens with every other corporate company every day.
Fact: The person then sold the device to Gizmodo for $5,000. At that point the device is or should be considered stolen property as the finder did not even wait the 30 days where common law would have given ownership to the finder.
Fact: Gizmodo took apart the device and posted pictures as well as the backstory - so there is proof in their own words and pictures that they did receive/ bought stolen property and knowing did so.
Fact: Once Apple was aware that one of their devices was out in the wild they then took action to reclaim their stolen property which included contacting the police - as any other company and citizen has the right to do.
The intent does not matter nor does ignorance of the law - the law is the law and applies equally... and yes I'd say this if it was any other company.
Goes to show what a waste your post is to us all.
Even if the iPhone "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" looked identical to an
HTC product, Apple may have documentation of its AYBABTU design
that predates HTC's filing of any design patent application on the Droid
Incredible [sic]. This would be what's called "prior art". We also don't
know if this is the final design for the iPhone AYBABTU. Until the device
is offered for sale, the whole issue of whether the two devices look
similar or even alike doesn't even matter.
HTC product, Apple may have documentation of its AYBABTU design
that predates HTC's filing of any design patent application on the Droid
Incredible [sic]. This would be what's called "prior art". We also don't
know if this is the final design for the iPhone AYBABTU. Until the device
is offered for sale, the whole issue of whether the two devices look
similar or even alike doesn't even matter.
Join the conversation!
IBM Sponsored Resources
Resources from our Sponsor
- Oracle Exadata vs IBM: Netezza Compared
- Forrester TEI Report
- CIA Whitepaper
- Harnessing the Power of Advanced Analytics
- Tapping into Unleashed Business Potential with Advanced Analytics
- Unlock Analytic Performance with Revolution R for Enterprise and IBM: Netezza Data Warehouse Appliance
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
