iPhone 4 Prototype Finder Gets Probation

think_nix writes "Brian Hogan, who found an iPhone 4 prototype last year which was sold to Gizmodo for $5,000, has been sentenced to one year of probation, 40 hours of community service, and a $250 fine. The District Attorney's office was asking for jailtime."

Comments

First post!

[GameboyRMH]

I found this in a Mexican bar.

For contrast.

[Anonymous Coward]

In China, these are called hero's of the people.

Re:For contrast.

[NFN_NLN]

In China, these are called hero's of the people.

In early America they were called heroes as well. In fact, Samuel Slater is known as the the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution" because he illegally smuggled in textile plans from the textile leader of the time: Britain.

"Stitched into the lining of his clothing were his indenture papers, which would prove to any prospective employer that he knew his job. More importantly, in his head he carried all the secrets of the water frame and the continuous spinning process that Arkwright and Strutt had perfected."

Oh... and by today's standard the forefathers of America were also dirty terrorists.

Finders keepers, losers weepers.

[orphiuchus]

Unless the loser makes campaign contributions, then its finders felons.

Re:Finders keepers, losers weepers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that if you look it up, you will find that F. Keepers v. L. Weepers is not, in fact, a Supreme Court case, and the law in the real world is slightly more sophisticated on this matter than a handful of ten year old children would have you believe.

Justice is served

[infernalC]

The right thing to do with something that isn't yours is not to pick it up and sell it. Duh. He will learn a lesson from this.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was just another phone that was stolen, would the punishment be as severe? I dont think so.

Re:Justice is served

[Matt.Battey]

What ever happened to finders keepers? I thought that there was something about abandoning property that made it a free-for-all.

Re:Justice is served

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yes, a Nokia 5160 would have had a different result, you are right. Congrats on the big win, there.

Re:Justice is served

[SirGarlon]

If it was just another phone that was stolen, would the punishment be as severe? I dont think so.

If it had been just another phone, he would not have been able to sell it for $5,000. IANAL but it seems the penalty for selling stolen goods should be proportional to the value of those goods.

Re:Justice is served

[ccguy]

The right thing to do with something that isn't yours is not to pick it up and sell it. Duh. He will learn a lesson from this.

Well, did he pick it up, remove the SIM card so the owner couldn't just call it and ask about it? Or did he keep it at home waiting for the owner to call and after a few days decided to sell it?

Re:Justice is served

[WilyCoder]

Please let me know where you abandon, I mean park your car each day. Thanks.

Re:Justice is served

[Shotgun]

As a hobby, my dad used to go over the school playgrounds and athletic fields with a metal detector. He had some success finding rings and coins. He made some attempts to contact owners of a couple school rings that had identification marks, but ended up selling most of the stuff to a local jeweler for basically scrap prices. It was a popular hobby in the late 70's to early 80's.

I don't think you're sentiment is as cut and dry as you think.

Re:Justice is served

[jeffmeden]

The right thing to do with something that isn't yours is not to pick it up and sell it. Duh. He will learn a lesson from this.

Well, did he pick it up, remove the SIM card so the owner couldn't just call it and ask about it? Or did he keep it at home waiting for the owner to call and after a few days decided to sell it?

Completely not the point. (make way for the car analogy!) Hey I found this sweet car, and the owner never once showed up in the few days that I waited for him to claim it. It's totally mine. I wonder why so many people abandon cars at the airport, anyway? Oh well, finders keepers!

Most jurisdictions require public notification of found goods, as well as a 6 month waiting period. Neither of which this guy even came close to adhering to.

Re:Justice is served

[Asclepius99]

But as you said, he made an attempt to contact the owner if it had some type of identification on it. I found a cell found outside a local bar once and called the number listed as Home in the contacts. Eventually the person was able to get the phone back from me. From what I recall when this story first appeared, Hogan never made an attempt to get the property back to it's owner. Though I could be wrong.

Re:Justice is served

[UnknowingFool]

There is a procedure for that. You turn it into the police. After a certain amount of time, 90 days I think, it's yours if no one claims it. The problem for Hogan was he had the name of the engineer who lost it and where he lost it. Technically selling it is the same as selling stolen property.

Re:Justice is served

[ccguy]

Please let me know where you abandon, I mean park your car each day. Thanks.

So the bar are places now where one can leave his phone for days and pick it up at his convenience a few days later provided he puts money in a meter or something? Seriously?

Re:Justice is served

[Calos]

Analogy, it seems that word means what you think it means... Not only is that a terrible analogy that in no way describes the situation (unless where you come from, it's common to leave phones and other small personal articles in public areas and away from your person), there's also no such thing as proof by analogy.

Re:Justice is served

[smash]

He even got a call from Steve asking him "OK, you've had your fun, can you please give me my phone back now" after he ran an article on it (or words to that effect).

He told Steve to go jump.

Steve didn't like that.

And to be fair, if i had some property stolen, located someone who found it, and it was quite obviously mine, i'd take them to the cleaners as well.

Re:Justice is served

[Adult film producer]

doesn't always work that way. sometimes the police get keep items turned in by honest people.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Dallas-decides-to-keep-cash-found-by-honest-teen-121609364.html

Re:Justice is served

[smash]

I meant to put in that last sentence "and refused to give it back when asked".

Re:Justice is served

[smash]

Steve Jobs called him about it, and he told steve he wasn't going to give it back.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

The right thing to do with something that isn't yours is not to pick it up and sell it. Duh. He will learn a lesson from this.

To be fair, that's not exactly what he did. What he did was pick it up, call Apple, report he had the phone and offer to give it back to them (give back, not sell back). They told him (well, his roommate at the time, who called for him) that they were not missing a prototype phone. Then, and only then, did he sell it. At which point Gizmodo called Apple and offered to give it back because they wanted Apple to confirm it was a prototype, which they would have to do in order to pick it up. Not wanting to give this confirmation, Apple also denied it was theirs to Gizmodo. Then Gizmodo ran the story anyway, Apple freaked out, and all the cops started behaving like they were Apple's mercenaries.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

A $4750 lesson to do it again!
I'll do 40 hours community service for that kind of pay :D

Re:Justice is served

[mapkinase]

What happened to Gizmodo? Were they punished as well in any way?

As far as I know buying stolen goods is also a crime.

Re:Justice is served

[pnewhook]

Proof by similarity is a valid mathematical process. And the analogy (similarity) presented was EXACTLY what happened.

Re:Justice is served

[vlm]

it seems the penalty for selling stolen goods should be proportional to the value of those goods.

That would make life very tough on brick and mortar store owners, if I could walk out of the store with anything I want under a dollar... Hmm steal a $1 candybar and get 1/5000th which would be a fine of one nickel, 28 seconds of community service, and an hour and 45 minutes of probation.

The problem with a micro transaction economic system is its likely to be extended to a micro transaction justice system, where this kind of punishment might actually happen.

Re:Justice is served

[UnknowingFool]

That is BS. I hope there are some lawyers in Dallas willing to take this case pro bono.

Re:Justice is served

[Missing.Matter]

What ever happened to finders keepers?

Do you apply kindergarten playground law to all of your moral dilemmas? Shoving people when they're mean to you, crying when you don't get your way? In adult land, we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than 6 year olds.

Re:Justice is served

[mini me]

IANAL but it seems the penalty for selling stolen goods should be proportional to the value of those goods.

How do you determine the worth of the goods? It was worth $5,000 to a press agency. To Apple, it could have been worth millions of dollars to keep it under wraps. To me, maybe a few hundred dollars; I was able to buy the exact same thing about a month later for no more than that.

Re:Justice is served

[niftydude]

The right thing to do with something that isn't yours is not to pick it up and sell it. Duh. He will learn a lesson from this.

Not sure that's the lesson here: They were paid $5000 for the phone, and only had to pay a fine of $250 each.
That's a cool $4500 profit.

Even if you take into account the 40 hours community service each that the 2 guys have to do - they are still earning a pretty decent rate of $60 an hour.

I guess crime really does pay - even if you are caught.

Re:Justice is served

[Dr_Barnowl]

The penalty should be a MULTIPLE of the value of the goods, thus encouraging you to actually earn the price of the goods and not just steal them. This is, after all, the market-based way.

So for a $1 candy bar, $10 worth of penalty seems appropriate. For a $200 electronic device, $2000 dollars penalty, etc.

And the same for the top end of things. For $20,000,000 worth of environmental destruction, $200,000,000 fine.

Re:Justice is served

[BitZtream]

They didn't take it from the bar days later did they? No in fact, they took it from the table, that night, before the bar staff even got to it.

Seriously? Are you that stupid that you can't make rational comparisons without making one side out to be something completely imaginary that didn't happen?

Re:Justice is served

[Dinghy]

The law there says that unclaimed money gets kept by the city. There's no grounds for a suit. Then again, that hasn't stopped lawyers in the past...

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is that a terrible analogy that in no way describes the situation (unless where you come from, it's common to leave phones and other small personal articles in public areas and away from your person), there's also no such thing as proof by analogy.

First he didn't claim "proof"

Second it may be a flawed analogy but it is an analogy so I'm pretty sure he got the definition correct

Third despite the flaw in his analogy the central point would stand if you changed his airport and car analogy to pretty much anything else where it is not common practice to intentionally abandon something. The phone in the bar being an excellent example of where we don't intentionally abandon things (with the possible exception of apple marketers but it's not the norm).

It was clear he knew it had value, knew it wasn't his, took it, and sold it. The point is you don't sell stuff that isn't yours. He did, now he gets probation...no biggie.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

What a crappy car analogy.

- There is no such thing as a "phone park" where people routinely and intentionally leave their phones for safekeeping
- You can't go to the car at home and call the car you left in the car park to see if anyone decided to drive off in it (and see if they fancy giving it back to you)

Re:Justice is served

[bkaul01]

Well, did he pick it up, remove the SIM card so the owner couldn't just call it and ask about it? Or did he keep it at home waiting for the owner to call and after a few days decided to sell it?

Doesn't matter. The proper approach is to turn it in to the police department, just as if you'd found cash or anything else lying around. If the original owner doesn't claim it within a set time (30-60 days IIRC), they'll call you back and it's yours.

Re:Justice is served

[E IS mC(Square)]

wow, fanboi rage!!

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO Gizmodo are as much to blame for the resulting situation as the guy who sold it.

Remember this is the same company that allowed one of their staff to fuck with CES traders by surrupticiously turning off lots of tv screens with a TV-B-Gone because he thought it would be a fun prank - well that prick is banned from CES now.

Re:Justice is served

[Antisyzygy]

This should apply to downloading music or movies illegally as well, one time fee to the person who did it and they are not responsible for anyone else's fee's.

Re:Justice is served

[ccguy]

Are you that stupid

Go fuck yourself or learn to discuss without insulting. Posts are yours are one of the reasons slashdot is doomed.

Re:Justice is served

[ironjaw33]

Proof by similarity is a valid mathematical process.

First I've heard of this.

Re:Justice is served

[Antisyzygy]

It probably wouldn't have gone to court as easy but it would have been a similar penalty. If I find a wallet that contains someones ID in it, and I just pocket the cash, then sell their wallet off to someone else, I am a thief. Its pretty cut and dry, as this phone probably had contacts or other information on it the person could have used to find out who owns the phone, or if they didn't want the burden of finding this person, they could have given it to the bar management, or given it to the police. This person knowingly pocketed someones property and actively avoided trying to give it back (I mean wouldn't you expect that the person who lost the phone would check the bar making it easiest just to give it to management?), then tried to sell this property. Frankly, I think he got off light on this which I suppose isn't a big deal if he didn't have a record.

Re:Justice is served

[vlm]

The penalty should be a MULTIPLE of the value of the goods, thus encouraging you to actually earn the price of the goods and not just steal them. This is, after all, the market-based way.

So for a $1 candy bar, $10 worth of penalty seems appropriate. For a $200 electronic device, $2000 dollars penalty, etc.

And the same for the top end of things. For $20,000,000 worth of environmental destruction, $200,000,000 fine.

STILL doesn't work. So... lets say a BP-hired subcontractor again dumps some oil, causing $200M worth of fine. Divide the $200M by the number of quarts of oil in the spill, and its $1/quart. Actually sounds believable. So that means when I want to change my motorcycle's oil, I merely park at walmart and dump it right there, just remove the plug and out it pours (don't laugh, I'm told this kind of thing does happen at walmart...) After all, the punishment is only $4, so everyone in America should do this, right?

Re:Justice is served

[Zenaku]

I think you are misinformed. That conversation took place between Steve, and the Gizmodo writer who bought the phone. (And you're simplifying it quite a bit at that -- Gizmodo told Steve they would return the phone if Apple would publicly claim it as their property, which Apple was not willing to do).

This story is about the person who found the phone in a bar and sold it to Gizmodo to start with. I'm pretty sure that person never spoke to Steve Jobs.

Re:Justice is served

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

Oh come on... I had no idea about this but reading your post.. I promptly looked it up

One of the funniest pranks i've ever seen hahaha

where is everyone's sense of humor?
http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces

Re:Justice is served

[gtbritishskull]

He didn't say you should be fined based upon the cost of your supplies to do the damage. He said fine based upon environmental damage (which is usually measured by the cost of cleaning it up). So, basically, you should get charged 10x the cost of having a hazmat crew come out and clean up your spill (probably in the thousands of dollars range).

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that. He pocketed $5k, he's got to do 40 hours community service. That's $125 per hour - not bad for menial work, and after the first couple of hours he can pay off his fine. Wait, did they make him hand back the $5k too? Because that would suck.

Re:Justice is served

[Matt.Battey]

AFIK, there is no expectation in statutory or common law that requires an establishment to retain abandoned items. In fact, there's this huge store ( http://unclaimedbaggage.com/ ) in Alabama, that sells all the stuff people leave behind in airports. I don't think that they routinely get charges of theft applied to them...

Re:Justice is served

[UnknowingFool]

The story says the "policy" is new. I don't know if that means it is an ordinance or law. If it isn't an ordinance, it is at the discretion of the city. Even if it was an ordinance, a lawyer can challenge it especially if it were enacted after the teen found the money. Also such an ordinance may run counter to federal and state laws. After all that, the city might change its mind when faced with an embarrassing lawsuit.

Re:Justice is served

[muridae]

I can prove that P and Q are both part of set K. I can prove that Q has some property. I then make a proof that all parts of set K have this property because of something to do with how I proved Q has it. Therefore, I can prove that P has this same property.

Proof by similarity. Not a proper name, really. And not exactly the same as analogies, since analogies don't really work the same as set theory. So I guess we can say, by this proof, we've proven that "analogies set theory" is only approximately true.

Re:Justice is served

[delinear]

You're asking the wrong question. If you'd said "If it was just another highly secret prototype model phone from a company who only produces a couple variant handsets at any one time and therefore has more vested in anyone one particular model than most manufacturers" then admittedly it wouldn't be as catchy but it would be more accurate. I also think the punishment was harsh considering he hardly mugged someone, just sold something he found in a bar, but this isn't the same as finding 1 Nokia model X of 357,489 sold so far - competitors seeing the model ahead of launch derive benefit at the manufacturer's cost and I'm sure that factored in the sentencing.

Re:Justice is served

[jeffmeden]

You have never been to a bar where people have "parked" their phones on the table/bartop/counter for the duration of their visit? I have observed this routine practice in many places around the US...

Re:Justice is served

[glrotate]

Its been a while since I took the bar exam, but aren't finders of lost items bailees?

Your example of the store selling things left at the security checkpoint would be an example of the rule regarding abandoned property, not lost property. The finder of abandoned property becomes the owner.

Re:Justice is served

[ironjaw33]

I can prove that P and Q are both part of set K. I can prove that Q has some property. I then make a proof that all parts of set K have this property because of something to do with how I proved Q has it. Therefore, I can prove that P has this same property.

Proof by similarity. Not a proper name, really. And not exactly the same as analogies, since analogies don't really work the same as set theory. So I guess we can say, by this proof, we've proven that "analogies set theory" is only approximately true.

It makes more sense when you say it like that; it is a direct proof. I guess the specific example is this: All phones (P) and all cars (Q) are physical property (K). Any element in K is subject to laws regarding stolen property. We have evidence that anyone who steals an element in Q will be busted under said laws. Therefore, if you steal an element in Q, you will be busted.

Actually, I don't think we even need to bring cars into the picture. That phones are physical property (all P are K) is sufficient.

Re:Justice is served

[Shadow99_1]

6 months is silly in our modern world. If I found someone phone (& lets keep this with phones not cars) and they took 6 weeks to come pick it up I'd charge them for having stored it! Law or no it's way to long for a important and expensive item.

This is alot different if it's only a week or two. If I found someones wallet I'd make an attempt to get in touch with them and hold on to it a couple weeks. If they really couldn't be bothered to pick it up in that time frame then they seriously don't want an item.

Re:Justice is served

[Moridineas]

And you're here to save slashdot with your invectives? I think stupid comments are as much a problem as anything these days...

Re:Justice is served

[bell.colin]

You haven't watched politicians on the house/senate floor (or debates in general) have you? They behave exactly like 5 year olds. (kindergarten age is 5, not 6)

Re:Justice is served

[amiga3D]

I've been reading these "posts like yours are why slashdot is doomed" posts for about 10 years now. It's sure taking a long time to die.

Re:Justice is served

[amiga3D]

Sadly this is true. It seems politicians in general like to hold the lowest moral ground possible. This is one reason they keep exempting themselves from all the laws they possibly can.

Re:Justice is served

[amiga3D]

That might cut down on repeat offenders.

Re:Justice is served

[The Moof]

AFIK, there is no expectation in statutory or common law that requires an establishment to retain abandoned items

Actually, the law is pretty clear about what to do when finding property that is not yours.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you're sentiment is as cut and dry as you think.

So you failed regular school as well as the Troll Academy.

The possessive pronoun is your, and the phrase you're (= you are) thinking of is cut and dried .

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that doesn't even match the story Gizmodo told about how they got the phone when they first published the article. Or what Hogan originally claimed. Or what the investigating officer wrote when he filed his paperwork.

Mind if I ask where you get your information? I want to be sure to avoid it.

Re:Justice is served

[thetoadwarrior]

It depends entirely on the situation. If you find money that was stolen in a bank robbery, even if you're completely unaware of the fact you are in possession of stolen property. At least in some areas if you find buried treasure it's not necessarily yours either.

I guess he probably did get punished a bit harder because he knew it was a prototype phone that belonged to Apple and sold it because, let's face it, you wouldn't take an old Android G1 to gozmodo.

Not all property is abandoned and if it is considered mislaid then you have a duty to give it back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property#Mislaid_property

It's was obviously deemed to be mislaid property (as it should have been) and in effect he stole it and sold it.

Re:Justice is served

[roachdabug]

If the original owner doesn't claim it within a set time (30-60 days IIRC), they'll put it in their pocket and it's theirs.

FTFY.

Re:Justice is served

[thetoadwarrior]

Actually it very well could have been if it's deemed to have been mislaid property. In high school I knew someone who ended up doing two weeks community service for stealing from a shop. I would assume he probably did anywhere between 3 to 6 hours a day which would put his total around 40 hours. He didn't get a year of probation but he was also a minor and in another state with its own laws.

Believe it or not you don't automatically get to help yourself to everything you find. Of course in most cases you won't get caught because no one will know but if you take a prototype phone and sell it to a blog who will announce to the world you found it then you're going to get caught.

Re:Justice is served

[dgatwood]

Not sure that's the lesson here: They were paid $5000 for the phone, and only had to pay a fine of $250 each.

Plus his lawyer's fees, unless he was using a public defender.

Re:Justice is served

[scot4875]

And the analogy (similarity) presented was EXACTLY what happened.

No, it wasn't, for the reasons laid out by the GP. It was a stupid analogy because people don't intentionally leave phones and personal electronics lying around unattended in public places and expect them to be there when they get back. Cars get left in public places all the time and people rightfully expect them to stay put most of the time.

--Jeremy

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

Come up with whatever smartass reply you want. The fact of the matter is, you can't take something you find in a bar. You are supposed to turn it in, so it can be reunited with the proper owner. You definitely can't sell that item either.

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

Don't want to be called stupid? Don't say stupid things.

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

Maybe not in common law, but California State Law is pretty clear on the matter. If you find lost property, which the iPhone prototype was, you are duty bound to turn it in so it can be reunited with it's owner.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, the dude specifically emailed Big Red's support and said he had it. They denied it existed instead of asking their supervisor about this "odd case" (who else would claim something like this?).

So being put in jail for something you didn't know was a crime?

If you found a $20 on the ground, would you pick it up and keep it, especially if you asked around and nobody said it was theirs?

Re:Justice is served

[ccguy]

Don't want to be called stupid? Don't say stupid things.

Want to call someone stupid without consequences? Do it in slashdot.
FTFY.

Re:Justice is served

[bell.colin]

$5,000 in most jurisdictions qualifies as "Grand theft" hence the harsher sentence. If he had sold it for $100 it probably would have been a misdemeanor theft charge, $5K is pushing into the felony realm. (not to mention as a prototype apple probably claimed the value as much higher.

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

Well, a good start would be the amount he sold it to Gizmodo for. Following that, the amount of ad revenue Gizmodo brought in from the story.

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

Irrelevant. He was supposed to turn it in. The fact that he also had the name/facebook page of the guy who lost it damns him even more.

Re:Justice is served

[Bucky24]

Well, while you have a point, s733r has a point as well....

Re:Justice is served

[pnewhook]

I'm not even sure why this is an argument. The law is very clear on the responsibilities on people that find lost property and their rights to it.

Re:Justice is served

[Bucky24]

But... but... artists are starving!!!

Actually that's a really good idea.

Re:Justice is served

[Bucky24]

I'd charge them for having stored it!

That's why you're supposed to bring it to the police, that way THEY have to pay to store it (though in the end I suppose if you take that route taxpayers in general pay to store the phone).

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

You wrote something stupid. You got called on it. Seems like you just don't want to face the consequences of what you wrote.

Re:Justice is served

[Jibekn]

If he lost the case, after Apple refused to admit it was their property, his lawyer sucked balls.

Re:Justice is served

[petermgreen]

How do you determine the worth of the goods?

I say take the replacement cost or the amount the thief sold it for, whichever is greater.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that an outta-towner has to explain to you: You can't presume that every state or even neighboring towns in the USA have the same laws.

Re:Justice is served

[UnknowingFool]

The part you are missing is the "unclaimed" part. The objects that are sold in the store are items in which no owner can be found (as in no ID tags) and no one has tried to claim within a reasonable time period (6 months I think).

Re:Justice is served

[Missing.Matter]

Politicians are not adults.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really expect the rest of the world to look into this for you?

Re:Justice is served

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Maybe not in common law, but California State Law is pretty clear on the matter. If you find lost property, which the iPhone prototype was, you are duty bound to turn it in so it can be reunited with it's owner.

You're misinterpreting this a bit. You don't have an obligation to return an item that you find; you can always leave it where you found it. You are obligated to return the lost item only if you take it.

Informally put, the law codifies the idea that returning lost property to its owner is a favor that you can do them. But as such, the only things you can do with lost property are those that you can justify as helping the owner reclaim their property. So, for example, if you take a guy's lost phone to return it to them, you can inspect and operate the phone to identify the owner—and even call the owner using their own phone to tell them that you found it—but you can't use it to go on a 900 number phone sex orgy at the owner's expense.

Another example: you're generally forbidden to sell lost property, but there's an exception that if the property is perishable, you may sell it and later give the proceeds to the owner. Again, the reasoning is that selling the items before they spoil is in the interest of the owner, so you're doing them a favor by selling it on their behalf.

Re:Justice is served

[Americano]

If it was just another phone that was stolen, would he have shopped it around trying to get a payday from a tech site he knew would be interested in it?

Re:Justice is served

[Americano]

The law establishes an expectation that they will do one of three things:
1) Leave the item there, and let somebody else deal with finding it;
2) Take custody of the item, and attempt to return the item to the owner; if you do this, you DO have some legal obligations under the law as a custodial caretaker of the item which you have taken custody of - you may not destroy it, appropriate it, sell it, etc.
3) Take custody of the item for only so long as it takes to deliver the item to the police, with a statement of where you found the item and the circumstances under which it was found; the police will then take responsibility for trying to reunite the item with its owner;

After you do one of those 3 things, several things may happen.

If you choose to take custody of the item, and are unable - for any reason - to return it to its owner, you are then obligated to turn the device over to the police, who will perform the same duties that they would have if you had taken it to them immediately (step 3 above).

If you bring it to the police, and they are unable to return the item to its owner, they will typically *sell* the item in an attempt to recover the department's costs for advertising the found item. At that point, you might be able to take ownership of the item by purchasing it from the police department, often at a significant discount.

There is no "finder's keepers" in law, and when you find and take possession of something, you are obligated under the law to make an attempt to return the item to its owner, or bring it to the police. And that's why this guy is getting fines, community service, and probation.

Re:Justice is served

[froggymana]

Well if you discount the 1 year of probation and only include the the fine and community service as punishment he would be making $118.75/hour throughout the community service. I wouldn't mind doing community service at that rate...

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

He will learn a lesson from this.

What lesson? That selling stolen property costs you 40 hours of community service, but with a profit of $4,750.

Re:Justice is served

[Kalriath]

(And you're simplifying it quite a bit at that -- Gizmodo told Steve they would return the phone if Apple would publicly claim it as their property, which Apple was not willing to do).

Nor should they have been expected to. Acknowledging it is your property, yes. Even providing evidence, yes. However, it's taking it too far to demand something you can stick up on your blog as proof that you exclusively had a real highly valuable prototype in order to bring in more ad revenue. Gizmodo should have been taken to the cleaners.

Re:Justice is served

[Kalriath]

Emailing support? Really? So if I find a Ford on the side of the road, and it looks like something I've never seen before (maybe it's a prototype?!?) I should flick an email to the local Ford dealership saying "oh hi I found a prototype of yours" (disregarding that the dealership is probably a third party company connected only by name with Ford), rather than going to the Ford R&D five minutes walk away and showing them? And I'd be completely in the clear when said dealership says "huh?"

Gotcha.

Re:Justice is served

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats on proving to be an asshole, asshole.

Re:Justice is served

[metaforest]

If it was just another phone that was stolen, would the punishment be as severe? I dont think so.

Had it not been an iPhone prototype... a sad-faced phone owner would have
cried for a moment....and then ordered a new one next day.

The person who took it out of the bar and sold it, would never have been caught. So yes the
punishment would have been less severe -- it would have been non-exisitant.

If we assume that the person who lost the phone had chosen to file a report
with the local authorities:
In the unlikely event the phone, per chance, was recovered later;
(read: some crack-dealer nicked with a cache of stolen and/or
questionably acquired junk) nothing would happen to the clown who
took it in the first place.

And the phone would likely never be returned to it's rightful
owner even then.

Re:Justice is served

[bkaul01]

While I'm sure there are a few corrupt officers out there, I've legally gained $50 cash I found this way. When no one reclaimed it, they did call be back and I just went down and picked it up.

Re:Justice is served

[s73v3r]

You're misinterpreting this a bit. You don't have an obligation to return an item that you find; you can always leave it where you found it. You are obligated to return the lost item only if you take it.

Considering the thief did take it, I don't think I misinterpreted it at all. Yes, if you leave it where you find it, there is nothing that applies to you.

Here let me fix that for you.

[LWATCDR]

If you find a cell phone that doesn't belong to you in a bar and you turn it in to the bar owner, or you turn it into the police, or you turn it into a carrier store that the phone came from you are a finder.
If you find cell phone that doesn't belong to you and you sell it you are a thief.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Cap'n Crax]

What do you do if you find four $100 bills lying on the sidewalk?

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[jedidiah]

And what crime is that exactly?

Unlawful finding?

It's not really theft.

Courts have rules too you know. They are very much like machines or computing devices in this regard. You can't just make sh*t up because you think it sounds good or it benefits your pet corporation.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

that depends on where you found the cell phone. you don't have a legal obligation to find the owner of lost or abbandoned property. if he were the owner of the bar the abbandoned property left in his establishment would be his and he has every right to sell it if he wants.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[firex726]

You should leave it alone, same as if you find someone's wallet on a park bench.

I heard in Japan this actually happened; that someone left his wallet full of money on a bench and came back the following day to collect it, and found it had been left undisturbed despite lots of people frequenting the park.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[theNetImp]

As someone who lives in Japan, that doesn't surprise me one bit. MOST Japanese people are extremely honest, they may borrom your umbrella from the stand at the convenience store if it's pouring out but they'll return it on the next day.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> What do you do if you find four $100 bills lying on the sidewalk?

You are suppose to report it to the police. If no one claims the money after a specified amount of time (usually 30 days) then you can lay claim to it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting in terms that the courts would understand, the defendant went from "finder" to "thief" when he sold an object (the phone) which he did not have title to. You do not get title to an object simply because a tequila-addled engineer left on the counter.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Lumpy]

So I get to suffer in the rain instead of them... how dishonorable.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[LWATCDR]

It has nothing to do with pet corporations. If you dropped your cell phone and someone picked it up and sold it they are a thief. Finders keepers losers weepers only works for the under 5 year old set.
Your right courts do have rules what you seem to miss is that they are not the rules you learned in Kindergarden.
You can not sell property that you do not own.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Lumpy]

"Courts have rules too you know."

Yes they do. And those rules have a price.

Rule #1 - Rich guy get's more justice.
Rule #2 - please see rule #1 when complaining.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Richard_at_work]

I think you need to actually review a lot of the understanding you are basing your comment on...

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

CAL. PEN. CODE 485 : California Code - Section 485

http://www.shouselaw.com/appropriation-lost-property.html

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[LWATCDR]

Actually you should turn it into the police. If no one claims it after x amount of time it is yours free and clear.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[ShakaUVM]

>>As someone who lives in Japan, that doesn't surprise me one bit. MOST Japanese people are extremely honest, they may borrom your umbrella from the stand at the convenience store if it's pouring out but they'll return it on the next day.

A lot of the hotels in Japan have spare umbrellas in the stands by the front door for you to take, on an honor system of returning it later.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[l3v1]

How nice :) They leave you to get wet, but you'll get back the umbrella next day ? :) Awesome :)

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you find a cell phone that doesn't belong to you in a bar and you turn it in to the bar owner, or you turn it into the police, or you turn it into a carrier store that the phone came from you are a finder.
If you find cell phone that doesn't belong to you and you sell it you are a thief.

What about if you find a country that doesn't belong to you and colonize it? Thief or no thief?

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[DJRumpy]

It wasn't theft due to simply finding it. He sold goods that didn't belong to him. Since he was in effect claiming ownership when he sold it, he is trafficking in stolen goods. Simply finding it wasn't a crime. Pretending it was his and selling it to the highest bidder is a crime if you don't own the goods in question or you are not authorized to sell the goods in question.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what crime is that exactly?

Unlawful finding?

It's not really theft.

Courts have rules too you know. They are very much like machines or computing devices in this regard. You can't just make sh*t up because you think it sounds good or it benefits your pet corporation.

Where I live, the courts consider it felony theft by taking. If you find it and leave it, it's not theft. If you find it and take it, it's theft.

The fact that it was a huge billion-dollar corporation that legally owned the device, as opposed to a widowed grandmother on social security, is irrelevant. It's whether it's yours or not that makes it theft.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[mjr167]

So... if I find your purse/briefcase sitting on the floor underneath your chair while you are eating lunch/waiting for a train/whatever, I can take it cause it's not stealing it's finding? Good to know. Does that also apply to unattended children, puppies, houses, and cars?

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[mlingojones]

Courts have rules too you know.

Yes, and in this case those rules state that you must return found property to its owner, or—if you can't find its owner—the police, otherwise it's stealing.

And where is the contention here, exactly?

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[UnknowingFool]

Before anyone starts ranting about this case, here is what I remember about it.

• He found the phone in a bar.
• He got the name of the owner before the phone was remotely wiped.
• He then realized it wasn't a 3G but an unknown design but with Apple logos.
• He had a friend call Apple's general tech support hotline to inquire about it and if any rewards were available.
• Tech support had no information about it (as they are there to help customers with tech problems).
• He then shopped the prototype around.
• His roommate warns him that what he was doing might be illegal.
• Gizmodo agrees to buy the prototype. It is unclear that Gizmodo knew who originally had the phone but they know he is not the true owner.
• Gizmodo buys the phone, takes apart the phone, and posts pictures of the dismantled phone.
• Gizmodo contacts Apple and offers to return the phone if they publicly acknowledge they lost it. Apple does not agree but receive the phone eventually.
• His roommate turns him in not wanting to be implicated.
• With a search warrant, police seize the computers of the Gizmodo reporter to find him.
• With police searching for him, he wipes the HDDs of two computers before the police find him.

That's my recollection of the events. To be clear except for the tech support call, at no time did he contact Apple. I suspect he only called to verify was a valuable prototype and not looking to return it. He knew the name of the engineer who lost it but there is no evidence he tried to contact him. He did not contact the bar. He did not turn the phone into the police.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I find someone's wallet on the park bench, I pick it up and look for an ID to facebook them.

Even got a date out of it!

But leaving it there? That's not...remotely responsible. That's tossing their fate to the winds and saying "not my problem".

To hell with half-assed attitudes about honor. Cowboy up already and admit we live in the real world, where not everybody is good. The solution to that isn't to fucking ignore it, it's to DO SOMETHING.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks! I came here to post the same thing. The above is pretty standard in common law...

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[gnasher719]

It's not really theft.

If you look up California law, which is the one that decided this case, you will find that picking up an item that was lost, and not trying to return it to the rightful owner is theft. In New York, it is a different offence than theft, but treated just as badly. In Germany, it would depend on the situation. If found in a bar, or on a train, or an airport, or a similar place that is under the control of someone else, then it would be theft. When found in a public place that is not owned by anyone it would be a different offence.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I'll just point out that your question has absolutely nothing to do with what Brian Hogan did -- he knew what he had and where to return it, and decided to sell it rather than do the right thing.
 
I found $80 in the Downtown Berkeley BART station and went to the guard; they just told me not to worry about it, but I gave them my name and I did my job to be a good member of society/not a criminal. If I found $5000 on the sidewalk, which is what Brian Hogan got for Apple's phone, I'd call the police. For $400, I'd probably go around to the businesses immediately surrounding the area and see if they have security footage of who dropped it since I wouldn't expect that little of a loss to be reported to the police.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[maxwell demon]

that depends on where you found the cell phone. you don't have a legal obligation to find the owner of lost or abbandoned property. if he were the owner of the bar the abbandoned property left in his establishment would be his and he has every right to sell it if he wants.

You have no obligation to find the owner, but you may have the obligation to allow the owner to find his lost property (which he can't if you take it away). In Germany, you definitely have that obligation. There are actually special offices for that, called "Fundamt" ("finding office"). But giving it to the police is also possible. And I'm pretty sure just leaving it where it was is allowed too.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[LWATCDR]

You mean finders keepers isn't the law of the land! I am so going to take my kindergarden teacher to court.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

that depends on where you found the cell phone. you don't have a legal obligation to find the owner of lost or abbandoned property. if he were the owner of the bar the abbandoned property left in his establishment would be his and he has every right to sell it if he wants.

Most places, if you want to legally keep or sell the "abandoned" item, you do have an obligation to notify the owner of the property, or the police, and wait a period of time before you can claim the property as yours.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[hduff]

As someone who lives in Japan, that doesn't surprise me one bit. MOST Japanese people are extremely honest, they may borrom your umbrella from the stand at the convenience store if it's pouring out but they'll return it on the next day.

And if they borrow your umbrella when it's raining, what are you supposed to use? That does not sound "extremely honest" to me. An honest person would 1)ask before borrowing and 2) if given permission, always return it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[spire3661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost got it right.

Gizmodo did not buy the phone, they paid the guy for the story about the phone and access to it.

Gizmodo tried to contact Apple to acknowledge the phone was a prototype because otherwise it was a Chinese knockoff and less of a story than a scoop about a new iPhone.

Apple denied the phone was theirs several times, until they admitted it.

Apple calls up their pocket police department and claims stolen property, intellectual secret misappropriation, doom, end of the world.

Police raid Gizmodo writers house instead of the much more reasonable call their lawyers and arrange return of their property, because it's Apple and F*** You and your journalism crashing Steve's surprises, that's why.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

The law says you must take reasonable steps to find the owner. Anything else is theft. In the case of money, here in NY, you need to take the $400 to the police station. If no one claims it, in some period of time it becomes yours.

INHO What the person does is a good test of a persons character.
The type of person who just keeps the cash or property is the type of person who will do whatever they can get away with.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Revotron]

I highly doubt you're educated in any form of law, but luckily I am, so let me break it down for you.

"Unlawful taking" is actually a crime and is exactly what it sounds like - taking something that you don't own, with the intention of making it yours. And it stands quite well legally that his intent to sell the device constituted him making it his own property. Therefore, the selling of the unlawfully taken phone to a third party (a crime in and of itself) signifies the lack of intent to return the device to its owner.

Oh, by the way, even if you're going to assume that the Apple employee left it there specifically so someone would find it, the fact that somebody did pick it up and take it as their own property to sell counts as Conversion, the legal definition of which is taking sole possession of something you have been given control over with no intent to return it. It's like embezzlement, but without money.

The courts DO have rules. They're called laws. And everything I just explained to you IS the law.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[a_nonamiss]

You're dead wrong

California Penal Code section 485: One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

VERY easy to prove intent here, as he sold a phone worth, maybe, $800 tops, for $5000. He knew exactly what he had, and he acted criminally in not returning it to the bar owner or Apple itself. Moreover, he clearly tried to profit from his theft. He's lucky he didn't get jail time.

Think what you want about the morality of the law. However, it's clearly spelled out, and he clearly broke it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[jo_ham]

If he finds it or steals it, he must turn it into the police if he doesn't know who it belongs to (let's assume the phone was locked and they didn;t have all of the guy's personal details for a moment), and then after a set amount of time you can claim it as your own if the real owner doesn't claim it first. Then you're free to do what you want with it.

He didn't do that, so he broke those "rules that courts have too" that is very specific in CA.

Apple has nothing to do with this, the guy was a prize idiot for breaking the law in a very public way that made it extremely easy to get a conviction (he incriminated himself, and then had it solidified by gizmodo's printed evidence), regardless of how he came by the phone in the first place.

I know you want to somehow spin this in as anti-Apple way as possible, but scrunching up your face and wishing *really hard* won't make it so.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

> turn it into the police

That would be a great magic trick!

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[jo_ham]

That's pretty much it. He also claimed he "tried to return it to Apple, but the tech support line thought he was a prank caller", and seemingly didn't think to call the press/PR number on Apple's website instead of the AppleCare tech support line.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[BitZtream]

The other umbrella in the stand. They (stores, public businesses) have spares in the stand for just such purpose, as they may not get the one borrowed back tomorrow, but they'll get one back tomorrow even if its a different one or from some other store.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you do if you find four $100 bills lying on the sidewalk?

Look around for some college students filming a video of true Human behavior for a project. If I don't see them, assume it's someone other than a college group filming. :)

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[nomorecwrd]

Law in Chile has a term for that "Hurto por hallazgo" (theft by finding - or something like that)
and it is treated very similar to simple theft.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think it's just a stand of umbrellas that are there to be of service to the community. Probably you gain some benefit because people will have to come back to your store, and will probably feel well-disposed to you and buy something.

The Japanese are very community minded. The reason you see so many people wearing surgical masks in Japan is not because of poor air quality or some kind of cultural germ phobia ; people with a respiratory illness will wear a mask to avoid transmitting it to others. I would love that to be the case in other countries. Whenever I'm forced to use public transport my chance of catching a respiratory illness is fairly high, not because I'm a weakling, but because the trains I have to travel on are overcrowded, and full of people spraying virus-saturated droplets of snot into the warm, moist air. No-one seems to cover their face when they cough or sneeze anymore. I've had people literally soak my face with a sneeze, and not apologize or even acknowledge my existence.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[BitZtream]

It wasn't the law of the land in Kindergarten either, then, just as now, that was just justification for stealing from someone.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[LWATCDR]

I aleady posted but this just ticks me off too much for words.
"And what crime is that exactly?
Unlawful finding?
It's not really theft."
You are wrong. It is theft when he discovered the owner of the property that he found and then tried to sell it to another party.
"Courts have rules too you know. They are very much like machines or computing devices in this regard. You can't just make sh*t up because you think it sounds good or it benefits your pet corporation."

You are so right in this statement and so hypocritical at the very same time.
CAL. PEN. CODE 485 : California Code - Section 485
Which reads
"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
That law applies to everyone. If someone finds your wallet with ID in it and they keep the money they are a thief. If they find your cell phone and do not make a reasonable effort to return it they are a thief.
By the definition of this law they where thieves.
So It is you that is making stuff up and do not seem to know the law all they while insulting someone that was correct. You may make your apologies or sulk in shame.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[LWATCDR]

Dude someone found your sense of humor and didn't return it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

How come "unlawful taking" doesn't apply to land all the time? Does it only apply to individuals, and not governments?

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese are very community minded. The reason you see so many people wearing surgical masks in Japan is not because of poor air quality or some kind of cultural germ phobia ; people with a respiratory illness will wear a mask to avoid transmitting it to others.

If that is the case (and I've seen footage where every third person is wearing a mask, so it might be a nice excuse but unless they're a very sickly race it is likely just an excuse) then it's pretty pointless. Even in surgery, where people are at their most vulnerable, doctors don't wear masks to prevent the patient picking up their germs, they wear them to protect against blood spatter, the masks do nothing to prevent air borne disease spreading.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Forbman]

Holy Crap! I'm going to Gitmo then for all the pens in my desk that are not "legitimately" mine! (It's a lot of pens!) Please, I beg of you, don't call HR!!!

There's also a lot of the form of law that takes into account intent and the scale of the action, too, that you don't seem to (or want to) get.

Technically, if someone walks away from a bunch of french fries and doesn't come back, and some homeless person comes in (after waiting awhile) and starts eating them, in your world he's just as guilty of a serious crime as a car thief, you know, by applying that "unlawful taking" or "unlawful gains" thing...

So, should I throw a fit at the manager of the restaurant until he calls the cops when I come back in, remembering I left my order of french fries at the table, and find some dude is there eating them down?

(Yes, I know that cars are granted a de facto real property status legally, and french fries are definitely chattel in the eyes of the law...but by most measures, cell phones are going to be considered chattel as well).

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[camperdave]

You mean finders keepers isn't the law of the land!

...under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner...

Not if it's got your name on it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Revotron]

Land is different. Land is not treated as a physical good in all senses of the law - it's a combination of a good and a right. For instance, when you buy a house you're paying the previous owner for the right to use that land freely (within the limits of any encumberances of course, like HOA regulations).

Government seizure of land? I assume you mean eminent domain. Eminent domain requires that the government pay a fair and reasonable compensation for all land seized for government use. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[thetoadwarrior]

It may or may not be ok to take it. If it was there from a bank robbery you just stole evidence.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[AvitarX]

In America too

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Revotron]

I seriously can't believe you just made that comparison. Your employment of reductionism to the absurd proves that you have no better arguments to present, so obviously I must have been effective in debunking jedidiah's shady legal claims.

How the hell would you possibly think that a car is real property, but an $800 electronic device (possibly more expensive because it was an engineering sample) isn't? You can hold it and touch it and own it. It is real property. Same with the french fries. You can own french fries.

The difference is in subject-matter jurisdiction. No DA in his right mind, and no court in its right mind(s) would pursue criminal charges over theft of $.99 french fries. An $800 electronic device that was illegally trafficked for $5000 is a different story. It's illegal all the same but subject-matter jurisdiction also has elements of common sense.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[s73v3r]

It's purely theft. He took something which was not his, and sold it.

And as far as "making shit up" (you can swear on the internet, it's ok), California State Law declares that if you find something that is considered to be misplaced, you must make an effort to reunite the item with it's owner. Either that, or turn it into the police, or the person in charge of the establishment. This thief did neither.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[s73v3r]

WRONG. It wouldn't be considered abandoned property. Not to mention, the thief had the guy's facebook page. He easily could have returned it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[s73v3r]

They bought the phone. They gave the guy money, and in exchange got the phone.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[s73v3r]

Or actually contacting the person who lost it, as he had the guy's actual name and FB page.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, leaving it would be stupid here (we aren't Japan you know). Turn it into the local police station with details about where you found it.

Some homeless guy in my city did that last year. Some lawyer accidentally dropped an envelope full of cash (I think it was a down-payment for one of his clients), the homeless guy found it and gave it to the police who somehow found the lawyer and returned it to him. I forget how they found him exactly, I think they put out some kind of notice because of the huge amount of money in it. And no, before someone makes a snarky comment, the police didn't take any of the cash. If anyone is interested, the lawyer rewarded the homeless man.

But yeah, even if no one steals it, there's wind, animals (enough dogs seem to have a taste for cash in my experience), rain... There are reasons we pay taxes for police outside of arresting people.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Jibekn]

And what happens when you contact the owner and he says "Its not ours, we're not missing a phone" then you sell it, but are somehow found guilty? Judges need to get out of the bloody corporations pocket.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Bucky24]

No, you just take someone else's umbrella instead of yours. Until the stand runs out of umbrellas I guess... Kinda like playing musical chairs.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Jibekn]

Like the footage when SARS was going around, and 1 in 3 were actually sick? /gasp

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[UnknowingFool]

At what point did Hogan contact the owner (Apple) and they claimed it was not theirs. He had a friend call a general tech support hotline and inquire about a reward. The person on the support hotline had no information because they deal with customer with problems with current products. And that is vastly different than them giving him the right to sell it. Even if Apple wasn't missing a phone; the phone still didn't belong to him but it belonged to somebody and he had no right to sell it.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[snowgirl]

The difference is in subject-matter jurisdiction. No DA in his right mind, and no court in its right mind(s) would pursue criminal charges over theft of $.99 french fries. An $800 electronic device that was illegally trafficked for $5000 is a different story. It's illegal all the same but subject-matter jurisdiction also has elements of common sense.

I was in court when a guy was being charged with a misdemeanor of theft for shoplifting a 99 cent candy bar... the courts will pursue it, if the DAs choose pursue it. The courts don't really have the same prosecutorial discretion that the DAs have, namely, a judge can't just be all "well, I don't think a crime was committed here, so we're not going to have this trial."

I also don't really get how a criminal court in full competence to hear a misdemeanor theft case would lack subject matter jurisdiction because the value of the theft was only 99 cents. Misdemeanor theft is misdemeanor theft is misdemeanor theft. It's up to the DA and his prosecutorial discretion to decide its not worth the court's time... but that doesn't take the case out of the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

"Conversion is like embezzlement but without money." ... wha? Embezzlement isn't just about money either. Embezzlement is a quirk of common law, whereby a bank teller got out of a criminal theft charge by arguing that the money was given to them freely and without coercion, and thus no theft. Embezzlement is a criminal offense designed to close that loophole. (It's stealing anything when no actual theft is involved.) Conversion however is a civil tort, and can be brought in parallel to a theft charge, or if a theft charge fails to find a guilty verdict. (Analogy: the various unlawful homicides is to wrongful death, as theft is to conversion.)

IANAL, but what you're talking about is just a little too off... it honestly sounds like something I would right up... namely, close to the facts, but ill-researched.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

O noes! Better kill yourself.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Americano]

If there's no identifying information on the sidewalk with it (e.g., a wallet or purse), then I would turn the money in to the police, and tell them where and when I found it, as well as how much money was found with an inventory of denominations. (e.g., "I found $500, 10 $20's, 2 $50's, and 2 $100's, on the sidewalk outside Radio Shack at some address on date X, time Y." I'd also go inside to tell the owner of the store I found it outside that if anybody came in looking for the money, they should go to the local police department and pick up their lost items.

If there is identifying information with it, I'd try to contact the person first, using the phone book, facebook, and linkedin. If I couldn't find them through any of those means, I'd revert back to bringing the items to the police, and tell the police what methods I had tried to contact the owner already.

In fact, I did this about 3 years ago when I found a wallet on the sidewalk. And the person who lost the wallet got their money back, and I refused the hundred bucks he offered me as a reward. And I felt pretty good knowing that I helped make somebody's crap day turn out pretty good.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Americano]

Actually, it is really theft - it is defined as theft in the applicable laws.

What else do you call "appropriating something that doesn't belong to you," if not theft?

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Kalriath]

If the country isn't already colonized, then it didn't really belong to anyone. If you colonize an already occupied country however, be prepared to listen to whining and pay out compo for the next 10 centuries.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Money usually stays in the wallet, umbrellas rarely get returned. They're even stolen when they are left (hooked into the bicycle so it wont fall out while riding) attached to a parked bicycle and it rains or appears to almost be spitting out.

It all depends on the person and location... sometimes you're lucky.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[Revotron]

I am also NAL. (Just to retroactively disqualify all previous statements as being possible legal counsel.)

Based on the other commentators' perceived legal knowledge, I didn't want to get into the more granular types of theft. The first thing someone thinks about when they hear "embezzlement" is the taking of money, so I opted to use "conversion" in a criminal law aspect as a more graspable definition despite its roots in civil law. But I thank you for making that distinction where I was too lazy (and, I admit, rather rushed) to. I'm out of car analogies for the day, I guess.

The point still stands, whether you approach it as civil tort or criminal (it's both), the "finder" (as the sugarcoat brigade would put it) wronged Apple through the unlawful taking of property. The wrongs committed include conversion on the civil side and, depending on how the situation actually played out, theft/embezzlement on the criminal side. (See my previous comments regarding why it could qualify as embezzlement, i.e. the Apple employee knew that someone else would find it.)

I'm not sure where everyone else gets off insinuating that it's somehow not illegal because it's happened before in the past (ridiculous), or that maybe the Apple employee wanted someone else to find it and take it (rampant speculation, which apparently is perfectly acceptable in court.)

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[JumperCable]

If you find a cell phone that doesn't belong to you in a bar and you turn it in to the bar owner,

That isn't as clean cut as you think. I found a wallet in a bar. I gave it to bartender in case the owner of the wallet came looking for it. It turns out the wallet belonged to a friend. We go back to the bar. A different bartender returns the wallet sans a few hundred dollars (my friend is an idiot who can't keep a bank account).

So doing the "right thing," doesn't always mean the right thing happens.

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[snowgirl]

I am also NAL.

I suspected that were the case. Terminology was being thrown around like you knew what it meant, but it was still being thrown around wrong. (I won't admit that I'm necessarily any better... just more pedantic.)

I'm not sure where everyone else gets off insinuating that it's somehow not illegal because it's happened before in the past (ridiculous), or that maybe the Apple employee wanted someone else to find it and take it (rampant speculation, which apparently is perfectly acceptable in court.)

Because they have an incomplete understanding of the legal aspects involved. Learning just a little bit of law can make you a dangerous. You might immediately start thinking you know everything and so you're qualified to explain how XY is illegal, but YX is actually legal. It's primarily why it's highly recommended not to represent yourself in court. (There are other good reason for why even lawyers shouldn't represent themselves.)

Re:Here let me fix that for you.

[ObiWanKenblowme]

It's very much clean cut - it's the difference between you or the bartender who pocketed the money having committed a crime under California law. The "but Your Honor, someone else would've taken it, so therefore I'm not guilty" defense isn't going to get you very far.

and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicide

[Joe_Dragon]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/21/worker_commits_suicide_after_iphone_prototype_goes_missing_reports.html

He may of been killed and they made it look like a suicide.

Sounds about right

[UnknowingFool]

Yes the DA wants jailtime but I don't see that will do much good. I think at worst this was an E felony. Besides the CA jails are already overcrowded. Putting someone in jail for their first offense (as far as I know) when they are going to release them in 1/3 of their time anyways would not have served much purpose. I hope that the $250 didn't include forfeiture of $5000 that he got.

Re:Sounds about right

[vlm]

Yes the DA wants jailtime but I don't see that will do much good. I think at worst this was an E felony. Besides the CA jails are already overcrowded. Putting someone in jail for their first offense (as far as I know) when they are going to release them in 1/3 of their time anyways would not have served much purpose. I hope that the $250 didn't include forfeiture of $5000 that he got.

Its useful to compare to typical shoplifting convictions.

Basically the courts decided on a penalty that locally is only a little harsher than shoplifting an average iphone, much less than he would typically get for stealing $5K.

I have not looked into the guys prior record, if any, which at this low level has a pretty big influence on the court's punishment.

Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

For buying and destroying goods that were obviously not the property of the person selling them?

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[retech]

And then trying to extort Apple. Brian Lam by his own account try to extort Jobs on this. Demanding something in return for the hot property... He should be charged and sentenced.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[hedwards]

Hopefully not, this kind of bullshit could easily curtail the ability of news organizations to conduct their business. Really the whole business was Apple's fault for being a damned cult. If they didn't want the phones lost, then perhaps they shouldn't have bothered testing them in the real world, it's not like they were doing real testing anyways with that camouflage case covering it anyways.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Lam didn't try to extort Jobs. He did nothing illegal; he simply stated that they couldn't return the phone unless Apple acknowledged the phone was theirs. This is 100% within the confines of the law; in fact, it's standard and expected practice. The real issue is that Lam knew the phone was Apple's and, in the interest of friendly relations, probably should have just returned it without making such a fuss. But it was well within his rights not to.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Sockatume]

The DA's already decided that they're not pursuing criminal charges against Gizmodo, but that doesn't preclude a civil action.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[UnknowingFool]

The DA has said no. Their contention is that Gizmodo crossed a line but they were in a very grey area in terms of journalistic rights because they did technically report on it. I think the DA would have won but the battle wasn't worth it.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Daemonik]

Disassembling an iPhone is destroying it? I'm sorry, I missed the part where Gizmodo tried to blend the phone.

Any 'destruction' was Apple remotely disabling the hardware after they realized the phone was missing.

Gizmodo disassembled the phone to identify the chipsets used, as it was highly likely the phone was some sort of Chinese clone.

Gizmodo is a news organization, previews about a new iProduct are huge news so yes, they bought the story and tried to contact Apple multiple times about it, Apple denied anything to do with it until they couldn't deny it any longer and then in typical Jobs fashion when someone spoils his secrets, they got vindictive and called in the SF Police, even though they knew exactly where to find the phone the entire time and were a lawyer meeting away from a reasonable return of their property.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[smash]

Steve said "can i please have my phone back". As CEO of apple, it was his phone. Lam wanted Steve to publicly out it as being "Apple's" for the purposes of a scoop. Steve already claimed it was HIS. That should have been enough.

Lesson: if you are on extremely shaky legal ground, and attempt to fuck with multi-billion dollar megacorps, expect them to fuck back. Even if you are on a first name basis with the CEO.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law still requires it in writing though. So yeah, in terms of business relations, Lam fucked up pretty bad (and he's admitted such), but he didn't actually do anything illegal.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Antisyzygy]

if you are on extremely shaky legal ground, and attempt to fuck with multi-billion dollar megacorps, expect them to fuck back

This is the injustice. Do you think Joe Schmoe would be able to get anything done like Apple did? Mega-corps should be held to the same or higher standards and have the same treatment or less preferential treatment as individuals (not that I think they should be considered people).

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Antisyzygy]

PS. That being said however, he probably could have returned the phone and got some reward.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[BitZtream]

Gizmodo disassembled the phone to identify the chipsets used, as it was highly likely the phone was some sort of Chinese clone.

Look, just because you think you're being clever doesn't mean anyone is actually going to believe your lie. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it or what excuse you make up, everyone knows you're just spewing bullshit.

Gizmodo is a news organization

Thats debatable, even on a good day. They're more like a gang of hoodlums who write about their exploits on a blog than a journalistic organization. Most highschool journalism classes are more advanced, more professional, and more useful than the immature douches at Gizmodo.

and tried to contact Apple multiple times about it, Apple denied anything to do with it until they couldn't deny it any longer and then in typical Jobs fashion when someone spoils his secrets

No, Steve and douche bag were talking on the phone, Steve said 'give me my phone back', Gizmodo said 'only if you admit PUBLICALLY that its your phone'.

That is not journalism, that is extortion, Google it. You want to call someone spoiled? You might want to look at the extortionists.

they got vindictive and called in the SF Police, even though they knew exactly where to find the phone the entire time and were a lawyer meeting away from a reasonable return of their property.

When I steal your phone, and you locate it via GPS, what exactly are you going to do other than call the police? Would you not attempt to get your phone back when you know where its being held hostage? You'd just let me have it?

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[thetoadwarrior]

Anyone who takes mislaid property is stealing as was the guy in the article. Anyone who buys it is buying stolen goods and when you approach the owner and they say give back my phone you do it unconditionally. Extorting a normal citizen will likely get you in trouble and they could probably also sue you and you could be damn sure if a blog tried extorting me before giving back my own property I'd do as much as possible to make their life hell.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. The phone was damaged, and rendered non-functional during the process of dis-assembly and reassembly by the Gizmodo staff. Gizmodo knew when they bought the phone that it belonged to an Apple employee (and explicitly mentioned that fact in the first article). In fact, they knew *which* Apple employee it belonged to. We know they got that information from Hogan, because by the time the phone was in their possession, it had been remotely wiped.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Antisyzygy]

The point is that because its Apple, the police treated them favorably. got on the case quicker, basically fast tracked it. This guy is a douche and did the wrong thing, but justice shouldnt be only for the rich and powerful.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[s73v3r]

Lam did extort Jobs. They had the name of the person who lost it. If they honestly wanted to return the phone, they would have contacted that person.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Bucky24]

What surprises me, reading through all the comments like this, is that this surprises anyone. Of course the case got taken care of quicker. This happens all the time with corporations (and on slashdot shouldn't everyone know that? ;) )

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Daemonik]

I put 'criminal' in quotes be cause honestly I don't feel he committed a crime. Is it a crime on the books? Sure, so's spitting on the sidewalk, carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket and a woman driving while wearing a house coat. My personal feeling is it's one of those laws prosecutors like to pile on, in the hopes maybe one will stick. It's totally up to the prosecutors discretion if they wish to pursue the case.

Thats debatable, even on a good day. They're more like a gang of hoodlums who write about their exploits on a blog than a journalistic organization. Most highschool journalism classes are more advanced, more professional, and more useful than the immature douches at Gizmodo.

So, I guess you hate Gizmodo then.

That is not journalism, that is extortion, Google it. You want to call someone spoiled? You might want to look at the extortionists.

Yes, because Steve did not have a well known and publicized history of throwing hissy fits when people reveal well known product details before his big spotlight moments. He's never crushed hobbyist blogs, had a guy fired for showing Woz, the same guy who built the first Apple an iPad for 2 minutes before it's official reveal.. nope, not spoiled there.

Also, interesting that the the same system you cheer for convicting this guy didn't find evidence to support extortion or theft charges against Gizmodo.

When I steal your phone, and you locate it via GPS, what exactly are you going to do other than call the police? Would you not attempt to get your phone back when you know where its being held hostage? You'd just let me have it?

But they didn't just call the police. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/business/20877418_1_iphone-tech-blog-gizmodo-steering They went to their special tech task force, which they have a seat on the steering committee of.

Yes, I'd try to get my phone back. Just they way I stated. Go to the house of the person possessing it, with a lawyer and perhaps an officer if I, being a normal person, could convince one to spend the time on my case, and politely say "Hey, you found my phone, that I lost. Kindly return it, and here's a small reward for finding it. Btw, keeping it is a crime and I'd rather not take it further but I will."

End of drama, minimal cost.

Instead, how many govt. man hours & public tax money were wasted on this, in a cash strapped state with honestly, way more important things to deal with.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[Daemonik]

Not exactly. The phone was damaged, and rendered non-functional during the process of dis-assembly and reassembly by the Gizmodo staff. Gizmodo knew when they bought the phone that it belonged to an Apple employee (and explicitly mentioned that fact in the first article). In fact, they knew *which* Apple employee it belonged to. We know they got that information from Hogan, because by the time the phone was in their possession, it had been remotely wiped.

Odd, you note that Apple had remotely wiped the phone prior to Gizmodo coming into possession of it, and then claim they rendered it non-functional. How does that sequence of events work?

BTW, Apple disabled the hardware, they've even got a patent application for it. http://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/08/apple-will-be-able-to-remotely-disable-iphone-after-detecting-unauthorized-activity-such-as-hacking-jailbreaking-unlocking.html

Before you say that this isn't enabled in iPhones, remember this was a prototype.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[UnknowingFool]

I put 'criminal' in quotes be cause honestly I don't feel he committed a crime. Is it a crime on the books?

Yes, it is.

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

Sure, so's spitting on the sidewalk, carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket and a woman driving while wearing a house coat. My personal feeling is it's one of those laws prosecutors like to pile on, in the hopes maybe one will stick. It's totally up to the prosecutors discretion if they wish to pursue the case.

There might be somewhere but California police considers selling property which does not belong to you the same as selling stolen property. This isn't some ancient ordinance about not sneezing in the presence of horses.

But they didn't just call the police. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/business/20877418_1_iphone-tech-blog-gizmodo-steering [sfgate.com] They went to their special tech task force, which they have a seat on the steering committee of.

By calling a task force of the police, did they not contact the police? Did you expect Apple to call 911 for what was not an emergency situation? Did you expect them to call Homicide division? Your complaint is that they contacted the division that specifically deals with the situation that they were in?

Yes, I'd try to get my phone back. Just they way I stated. Go to the house of the person possessing it, with a lawyer and perhaps an officer if I, being a normal person, could convince one to spend the time on my case, and politely say "Hey, you found my phone, that I lost. Kindly return it, and here's a small reward for finding it. Btw, keeping it is a crime and I'd rather not take it further but I will."

And would you then complain about how Apple sent their thug lawyers after some poor guy who found a phone? And do you know if that person isn't a dangerous unstable individual with a cache of weapons? I would let the police do their jobs.

Re:Will anyone at Gizmodo be charged?

[UnknowingFool]

Odd, you note that Apple had remotely wiped the phone prior to Gizmodo coming into possession of it, and then claim they rendered it non-functional. How does that sequence of events work?

So what you're saying is there is no difference between physically damaging a phone that does not belong to you and remotely wiping a phone (which can be recovered later)?

BTW, Apple disabled the hardware, they've even got a patent application for it. http://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/08/apple-will-be-able-to-remotely-disable-iphone-after-detecting-unauthorized-activity-such-as-hacking-jailbreaking-unlocking.html [iphonehacks.com]

And you know Apple cannot restore this phone, how?

Re:and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicid

[UnknowingFool]

And you have evidence of this? In the same vein, how do we know you didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990? I'm not saying you did but I find it interesting that you never denied it either. I'm just asking questions, that's all.

And how was society harmed?

[yog]

What crime was committed? He found some prototype in a bar and sold it to some news website. What crime was committed, exactly? The guy didn't sign an NDA or anything.

It would be like finding a $100 bill on the sidewalk and being convicted of theft because you didn't turn it in to the police. Who knows? Maybe that is a misdemeanor.

Sure, it wasn't the most ethical thing to do. An ethical person presumably would have turned the device in to its presumed owner, if there were any ownership markings on it.

The whole thing is kind of sleazy and it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth about Apple. Come on, you're already a rich corporation; how much could this guy have possibly hurt you? Did it stop even one person from buying one of your products?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[firex726]

His crime was not having enough money to "donate" to the right people to get off.

But seriously I agree with you, worst case I could see is being fined for the money he earned as a result of the sale.
As I recall the phone was disguised to looks like a 3GS so he did not even know at first that it was a prototype.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[mlingojones]

What crime was committed? He found some prototype in a bar and sold it to some news website. What crime was committed, exactly? The guy didn't sign an NDA or anything.

Theft? Selling stolen property? If you lost your phone and the person who found it decided to sell it instead of return it to you, would it be a crime then? Or does it only become okay when it happens to a company you dislike?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[jeffmeden]

What crime was committed? He found some prototype in a bar and sold it to some news website. What crime was committed, exactly? The guy didn't sign an NDA or anything.

It would be like finding a $100 bill on the sidewalk and being convicted of theft because you didn't turn it in to the police. Who knows? Maybe that is a misdemeanor.

Sure, it wasn't the most ethical thing to do. An ethical person presumably would have turned the device in to its presumed owner, if there were any ownership markings on it.

The whole thing is kind of sleazy and it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth about Apple. Come on, you're already a rich corporation; how much could this guy have possibly hurt you? Did it stop even one person from buying one of your products?

Correction, it would be like finding a $5000 bill (or its equivalent of 100's) and keeping it instead of notifying the local police, which in the US is *not at all different with stealing $5000 (or an iphone) out of someones wallet/purse and having no intent of giving it back*. You can understand that stealing $5000 from someone would meet with severe consequences, can't you?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[UnknowingFool]

Once he remove the outside case he realized it was not a 3GS. But he shopped it around as a prototype. Even if it was a 3GS, he had no right to sell it. By law, he had to make an effort to return it.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[jo_ham]

He sold a phone that was not his. Even if he "found" it in the bar instead of actively stealing it from its owner (say, by pick pocketing or grabbing it from the table while the guy was looking the other way), the law in CA is very specific on what you can do with that item once you have it - if you found it you must inform the police, and then a period of time then passes after which you can claim it as your own if the rightful owner does not come forward. This supposes that you do not know who the owner is, but given that they clearly did (all his personal details *were on the phone*), as well as realising enough that it was an Apple prototype (hence selling it for $5000 to gizmodo)...

Yeah, pretty cut and dried case for the PD there.

So, even if he found it abandoned (and let's face it, we're being generous on this point, but so be it - we don;t know for sure one way or the other), the published facts of what he (and gizmodo) did next once he was in possession of the phone by their own admission are contrary to the law in California.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[jo_ham]

Well, he clearly did - since he sold it for $5000.

It doesn't matter though, even if he found it rather than stole it, the law in CA is clear about what you must do. He did none of the things specified, and instead sold it on to a third party by his own admission. Law broken, regardless of how he came by the phone in the first place.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[firex726]

And he did, remember?

He contacted Apple several times and they disavowed all knowledge of it. Even if he contacted the wrong people there, how much due diligence should one expect?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[smash]

What crime was committed? He found some prototype in a bar and sold it to some news website. What crime was committed, exactly?

Selling stolen goods. If it was YOUR phone i'm sure you'd be pissed.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[Daemonik]

How about you be more careful with your $5000 and not dropping it where anybody can just pick it up?

Now if someone pulled out a gun and made you hand over the $5000, that is a crime, bring out the police and the criminal justice system.

The only reason we're talking about this is because it's an iPhone and Steve got his pickle in a twist that someone saw his secret and ruined his big reveal at MacWorld. A billionaire's tantrum, more or less.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[UnknowingFool]

No he did not. He had his friend call Apple's tech support line once asking about prototypes and if there were any rewards. The tech support line had no information about it as their job is to assist customers with current products. As for due diligence, if he did not believe it was a prototype owned by Apple but a 3GS owned by someone else, that does not give him the right to sell it. Turning it to the bar or the police is the thing to do. Notice that he did not do either. My suspicion is that he only contacted the tech support line to confirm it was a prototype so he could sell it.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[firex726]

You did not answer my question, how much due diligence should be expected?

It's a large corporation, its not like he can just call of the research team who was working on it. These corporations limit access to their internal people so he would have to go through the normal support channels.

If you drop your wallet and the only contact information in there is for your dry cleaners, then you have no standing to be mad when I am unable to return it to you.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[mini me]

I found a nice car on the street. Looks like a never seen before Ferrari. Want to buy it? I'll take $5,000.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[maxwell demon]

He wrote: "Turning it to the bar or the police is the thing to do."

To which you answered:

If you drop your wallet and the only contact information in there is for your dry cleaners, then you have no standing to be mad when I am unable to return it to you.

So you are saying you are unable to find the bar you found it in (and that while you are actually there)? And you are also unable to find the police?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[UnknowingFool]

How about some due diligence. He had the name of the engineer. Did he contact him? No. He knew where he found the phone. Did he talk to them or turn it into them? No. Did he turn into the police? No. Instead he had a friend call call a generic support line asking about a reward. Did he call himself? No. To me he wasn't interested in returning it but trying to profit from it.

Hypothetically if there were no ID in my wallet but the dry cleaning stub, turn it into the dry cleaner or the police. You don't get to keep it and sell it. But that wasn't the case here as he had the name of the engineer who lost it.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[maxwell demon]

How about you be more careful with your $5000 and not dropping it where anybody can just pick it up?

So would you say it's OK to take things out of a house if its door happens to be unlocked? Because after all, the house owner should have been more careful and have locked the door, right?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[jeffmeden]

How about you be more careful with your $5000 and not dropping it where anybody can just pick it up?

Now if someone pulled out a gun and made you hand over the $5000, that is a crime, bring out the police and the criminal justice system.

The only reason we're talking about this is because it's an iPhone and Steve got his pickle in a twist that someone saw his secret and ruined his big reveal at MacWorld. A billionaire's tantrum, more or less.

Care is not at issue; there is simply no such thing as "finders keepers" in any nation observing modern property laws. This guy was punished like the thief he was, end of story. If you had "lost" a $5000 phone that someone found and immediately hocked instead of returning it, would you really think to yourself "oh well it was his to sell" and just move on with your life?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[Americano]

The crime was theft. Under California Penal Code. This is what he was sentenced for. Do you think that judges routinely hand out sentences for the monstrous crime of "being a big poopy head"?

He found some prototype in a bar. It was not his. By taking possession of it, he took on custodial obligations for that phone, which include returning the phone to its rightful owner, or turning it in to the police, so that the police may find the rightful owner. Those are your only two options as a finder of lost items over a certain dollar value under the law. You either return it to the owner, or turn it in to the police and tell them that you couldn't find the rightful owner. If you try to find the owner, and you are unable to, your ONLY OTHER LEGAL OPTION is to turn the phone over to the police. You don't get to hold it, take 3 days to half-assedly search for the owner, and then say "Wow, it's mine!" If you do anything but reuinte the item with its owner, or turn it over to the police, this is considered theft.

If you take an item that is, in the eyes of the law, stolen, and attempt to sell it to another person, then you are selling stolen goods, which simply compounds the crime you've committed.

This has nothing to do with "Apple making its own laws" - these laws have been on the books in California for YEARS. The phone was obviously valuable. The guy who found it did not perform the duties required of a custodial caretaker under the law, and thus went from custodian to thief. When they tracked him down, they charged him with theft, and now he gets slapped on the wrist for it. Sounds like the legal system is working exactly as intended.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[Daemonik]

Care is not at issue; there is simply no such thing as "finders keepers" in any nation observing modern property laws. This guy was punished like the thief he was, end of story. If you had "lost" a $5000 phone that someone found and immediately hocked instead of returning it, would you really think to yourself "oh well it was his to sell" and just move on with your life?

Well, one, I will probably never own a $5000 phone, and if I could afford one I could afford to replace it.

In all honesty, yes, if through my stupidity I lost my $50000 phone I would not be shocked or surprised if someone else took it. This, btw, is why there are password locks to keep people out of your phone, remote wipe and insurance.

Let me ask you a question. With the limited and dwindling funds that state and federal government has at its disposal, would you rather they spend their time tracking and prosecuting violent offenders or tossing mad-dog phone picker uppers in prison?

Re:And how was society harmed?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

how much due diligence should be expected?

How about "some", for starters. If I drop my wallet with only my dry cleaning receipt, but you know who I am and you know it's my wallet, you have an obligation to do more than just call the cleaners and ask whoever answers the phone there. Like, say, turning it into the police.

Re:And how was society harmed?

[jeffmeden]

With the limited and dwindling funds that state and federal government has at its disposal, would you rather they spend their time tracking and prosecuting violent offenders or tossing mad-dog phone picker uppers in prison?

So, what part of "iPhone 4 Prototype Finder Gets Probation" made you think he spent time in prison? RTFT much?

Re:and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicid

[GameboyRMH]

I did a writeup on this and submitted it:

http://slashdot.org/submission/1042991/blood-iphone

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone finds my lost phone and doesn't return it, I can send him to jail. Good to know.

Re:Interesting

[GameboyRMH]

It's funny to see the difference in response to a "priceless" Apple prototype being lost in a bar and some poor guy in the ghetto getting his cheapo Blackberry stolen as part of a mugging, considering that much more value is at stake to the victim and a more heinous crime was committed in the latter case.

Re:Interesting

[Tsingi]

So if someone finds my lost phone and doesn't return it, I can send him to jail. Good to know.

Only if, behind your AC tag, you are a huge corporation. Otherwise you'll be lucky if they don't fine you for wasting their time.

He'll be fine

[Anonymous Coward]

By my calculations, after the fine, he still has $4,750 profit.
www.awkwardengineer.com

Re:He'll be fine

[GameboyRMH]

Even if you tack on the 40 hours of work that's damn good pay.

not a felony

[Anonymous Coward]

it is not a crime if it was left there on purpose, to be discovered by some tech junky.

come on this has now happened twice, large company's have the money for advertising, they don't need to play stupid games with the media/police

Re:not a felony

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why did you shoot your own theory in the foot?

Re:not a felony

[Lumpy]

It's more convincing if the theory has a limp.

Re:not a felony

[Revotron]

This is legally false.

Leaving something in a location does not mean it's no longer your property. Even if he did trust it to the hands of a "tech junky", it's still Apple's property. By selling the device, the "finder" illegally converted the phone to HIS sole possession and control. Why? Because you can't sell something that's not yours, so obviously he took the phone to be his own property.

When you maintain control over something that is not your property and you make it your property with no intent to return it to the owner, that is a crime, and it's called "conversion". It's like embezzlement, but without money - you've been trusted with something and you misappropriated it. The fact that he then SOLD the goods that were unlawfully converted constitutes a second crime, the sale of stolen property.

Nice attempt at spinning it into a harmless "finders-keepers" bit, but you failed miserably. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer.

Re:not a felony

[snowgirl]

When you maintain control over something that is not your property and you make it your property with no intent to return it to the owner, that is a crime, and it's called "conversion". It's like embezzlement, but without money - you've been trusted with something and you misappropriated it. The fact that he then SOLD the goods that were unlawfully converted constitutes a second crime, the sale of stolen property.

CONVERSION IS NOT A CRIME. It is a civil tort.

The criminal counterpart to conversion is THEFT.

Gizmodo: Handling stolen goods

[bool2]

The whole thing seems a bit one sided. Given that Gizmodo knowingly paid for stolen goods, where is their equivalent fine, community service and probation?

Re:Gizmodo: Handling stolen goods

[Daemonik]

Gizmodo didn't buy the phone. They paid the guy for the story and access to the phone.

Re:Gizmodo: Handling stolen goods

[UnknowingFool]

Please. They got possession of the phone and they paid money. They can say they didn't buy it just like johns can say they aren't guilty of paying for sex but that "loaned" a stranger some money after sex but we all know different. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Re:Gizmodo: Handling stolen goods

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure they would have been... but they cooperated with the Police... gave up their source. Punishment would have been too good for those Gizmodo bozos.

Lucky to get probation

[sl4shd0rk]

Seems like *knowingly* selling stolen items could turn into a sh^Htstorm of legal charges very easily. Especially if you can prove intent; and it wouldn't be too hard to prove with a $5k pricetag.

Re:Lucky to get probation

[L4t3r4lu5]

Seems like *knowingly* selling stolen items could turn into a sh^Htstorm of legal charges very easily. Especially if you can prove intent; and it wouldn't be too hard to prove with a $5k pricetag.

I agree completely! Now, what's a ststorm?

Re:Lucky to get probation

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely! Now, what's a ststorm?

A L4t3r^H^H^H^HOL.

Re:Lucky to get probation

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what ^H means do you.

apple shmapple

[Essequemodeia]

If you are a gigantic corporation that doesn't give two shits about anyone who doesn't invest in your corporation and you entrust a prototype of a forthcoming product to a nincompoop lackey who loses it in a fucking BAR, you bring the full force of your influence over the local police department right down on the head of the stupid sonofabitch who finds said prototype. High profile embarrassments demand ACTION! NOW! HARDER! GET HIM!

Re:apple shmapple

[BitZtream]

I'm sure you're great at making sure your customers get the product they want.

You clearly understand product testing and making sure all possible customers have been considered ... which is why you wouldn't give any high profile products to 'lackeys'.

Of course, you are also beyond mistake and would never do anything like that yourself, ever, at any point in your life, would you? You've never lost anything, you don't even know the meaning of the words lost or lose (I bet you fully understand the feeling of being called a loser however).

You sir, clearly are a caring compassionate person, we can tell by the statements you've made since they are so caring, considerate and compassionate ...

Just kidding, your a douche, a pot calling the kettle black. You're railing against the machine ... that you act exactly like ...

Hypocrite, google it, its what you are.

Re:apple shmapple

[Essequemodeia]

I was playing devil's advocate in the same stylistic fashion as another commenter. Would you like eggs with that hate?

Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have just returned the phone back to Apple, I'm sure a reward would have been in order.

That's very pre-9/11

[BenSchuarmer]

In the post-9/11 world you should assume it's a terrorist plot of some kind. Call Homeland Security immediately. They will cordon off the park, blow up the wallet, set up check points, and do body scans on everybody going in or out of the park.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[firex726]

Like that electric toy robot they found in some street, I forget the details but the police were called because some kid left his toy robot in the street and they got the bomb squad out there to detonate it.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[pnewhook]

Yup. Or like my friends Dad who was selling the contents of his apartment as he was leaving town for another job. The FBI showed up and questioned him because one of the neighbors thought he was selling his stuff 'suspiciously' and called the FBI (he was Indian).

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a toy horse... At a park. And they blew the fucker right up.
Why? Because we gave them money for a dedicated squad of people who have the job of blowing shit up.
Pay someone to blow shit up and they will find a reason, ANY reason to blow shit up.

If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/florida-police-blow-up-st_n_711046.html

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[maxwell demon]

(he was Indian)

American Indian or Indian Indian? (Damn Columbus! :-))

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[firex726]

Must be different one, I remember they had pics of it being in the street which had been cordoned off.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

Rofl... so they are keeping us safe by scanning our bodies with cancer rays and groping us all over... yet they are afraid to simply examine or use their nifty high tech scanner technology on a goddamn toy horse.... so they blow it up!

stay classy, orlando

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[ColdWetDog]

Like that electric toy robot they found in some street, I forget the details but the police were called because some kid left his toy robot in the street and they got the bomb squad out there to detonate it.

This one? Priceless.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Like that electric toy robot they found in some street, I forget the details but the police were called because some kid left his toy robot in the street and they got the bomb squad out there to detonate it.

try again. Someone cemented a toy that looked like it was big enough to contain explosives, to the base of a support column for a bridge that went over another roadway(it was spotted by motorists driving by it.). I dont remember if there was a message or not, but it was done as an "art piece" pr stunt type deal.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[pnewhook]

Indian Indian, otherwise I would have said Native American.

Europeans generally called things wrong which is also why the Turkey is called a Turkey.

Actually even the term 'American' is wrong as it almost universally refers to those who reside in the US, however Columbus never landed in what is now the US, but the Bahamas. So he discovered America the continent, but not America the land, nor did he ever see who we now refer to as American Indians.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

American Indian or Indian Indian?

You misspelled "Feather or dot?"

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[Belial6]

I am a Native American. I am not an American Indian.

Re:That's very pre-9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

So... feather, not dot?

Make it a lot easier if you'd just use that designation.

Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

If you spot a lost cell phone, ignore it. Don't touch it, don't look at it, don't ponder it, and above all, don't be the one who calls attention to it. Just keep moving. In today's environment of runaway government, chances are high you will be punished for trying to do right, rather than rewarded as one should be.

I'm not just talking about lost cell phones, of course. Unless it is a life-or-death situation, or somebody is likely to get hurt, the smart policy is to stay the hell out of any situation that is likely to involve government.

Remember that (1) the police are in the business of convicting people, not praising altruism, and (2) we live in the country with the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. Clearly, the US government's objective with the legal system is not justice -- and therefore it is prudent to regard the workhorses of that legal system (the police) as liabilities, not assets.

Re:Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the government wants us to report it to them. After all, it might be TERRORISTS planting a tiny, phone resembling, bomb in a random bar. We need the government to protect us and make decisions for us. We need to report on our neighbors to the government so they can decide if they're TERRORISTS or not.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Re:Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on, this guy wasn't trying to do anything even close to 'right'. In his own version of the story he's a thief. And who knows what really happened. It could even be more clear cut that he was up to no good, but the best possible light based upon his what he says happened is pretty darn clear that he wasn't even trying to do the right thing.

Re:Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, it might be TERRORISTS planting a tiny, phone resembling, bomb in a random bar.

Sort of like the, random commas you seem, to have, planted in that, sentence? They're tiny and, they look, like bombs! They've, got a fuse and everything!

Re:Here's the lesson

[jo_ham]

If he had handed the phone in to the police he wouldn't be in the mess he's in (wrt a conviction). He didn't do that - he sold the phone on to a third party very publicly.

People finding lost phones are in no more danger than they were before, assuming they actually return it or hand it in to the police in the absence of any information on who the thing belongs to.

Re:Here's the lesson

[jeffmeden]

If you spot a lost cell phone, ignore it. Don't touch it, don't look at it, don't ponder it, and above all, don't be the one who calls attention to it. Just keep moving. In today's environment of runaway government, chances are high you will be punished for trying to do right, rather than rewarded as one should be.

Holy tinfoil hat... Michelle Bachmann, is that you? This case is not even remotely about someone trying to do the "right thing", by any stretch of the imagination. A guy found some lost property and immediately tried to sell it, which in almost every sane, law abiding nation, is a CRIME. He got punished. I think the protest down at the Crymeafuckin river is missing you sorely, why don't you get back to it?

Re:Here's the lesson

[PIBM]

Your name is well deserved!

Re:Here's the lesson

[hack slash]

I actually found a "cell phone" (where I come from they're called mobile phones) on the side of of the road in the grass on Monday whilst cycling, I took it because I thought someone had just dumped an old scratched mobile they didn't want anymore and I could salvage spare parts from it, but it turned out to still work (albeit missing the battery) and the SIM in it was on a montly contract instead of an anonymous pay-as-you-go type, so Tuesday I took it to the local mobile phone shop of the phone network of the SIM, hopefully because it was on a contract the company will have a valid billing address to contact the true owner and get their property back (along with their long list of contacts in the SIM - how many millions of mobile phone owners don't have their contacts written down/backed up?).

If everyone took your attitude towards property and people this world would be a much more miserable place.

Re:Here's the lesson

[sunderland56]

If you spot a lost cell phone, ignore it. Don't touch it, don't look at it, don't ponder it, and above all, don't be the one who calls attention to it.

No, no, no. The *correct* thing to do is to bring it home and put it in your blender.

Extremely satisfying, zero chance of legal repercussions.

Re:Here's the lesson

[delinear]

It's also not like he can even claim he had no way of tracking down the owner. He must have known exactly what he had if he sold it for $5k - how hard is it to pick up the phone to Apple and call it in. Of course, it might have been in Apple's interests to offer a finder's fee that exceeded the magazine's fee since they were at least partially responsible in letting an employee go visit bars without cuffing the phone to his wrist (I understand these things need to be tested in the wild, but at least give it to someone with a hint of responsibility).

Re:Here's the lesson

[xclr8r]

That is really really paranoid thinking.

Re:Here's the lesson

[amiga3D]

I don't think he got in trouble for doing right unless your definition of doing right is taking something you know isn't yours and selling it. He took it, he sold it, he got caught. 3 strikes equals probation in this case, he got lucky I think. I'd like to have seen him do 30 days in the hole. Preferably with a 300 pound gay cellmate named bubba who likes to play house. But I'm am a little on the sadistic side I admit so maybe that's too harsh. I'd settle for just having him do the 30 days....kind of a meet in the middle thing ya know.

Re:Here's the lesson

[amiga3D]

Sadly most people do take his attitude. If more people had your morals then maybe it would improve a bit. I'm depressed by how many here are defending this thief.

Re:Here's the lesson

[s73v3r]

Wow, you are full of shit. The guy did NOT try to "do right," he sold a prototype phone that he stole from a bar.

Re:Here's the lesson

[s73v3r]

They're only defending the thief because they hate Apple. That's it. Had it been Samsung's phone that was stolen, they'd be up in arms against the guy.

Re:Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no lesson to be learned from you.

1.) Police don't convict people. That's the Judicial branch of your despised government.

2.) You ever been incarcerated? The US has a prohibition issue that fills its jails, which has done nothing but lined the pockets of a private industry that should never have been allowed to exist. Even so, I would much rather be in jail in the US than anywhere else, excepting Norway. While it is reprehensible that such a circumstance exists, it can only be solved by people working to change this system by eliminating private industry involvement in a very very sensitive government responsibility. Have you done anything to this end, or simply suck the Govt. tit when it serves you?

It's easy to point fingers at a keyboard, at a government, or anyone else. It's harder to make a cogent argument, and even harder still to do so without being a parrot. Good luck on both counts.

Re:Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

I think YOU should serve that sentence before you suggest meting it out on others. I'm sure we can find some crime that you're guilty of -- with over 10,000 laws, many of which incorporate other countries' laws by reference, can you guarantee that you're blameless?

No, I think not.

Re:Here's the lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you want to free all non-violent drug offenders from jail, and legalize weed?

People like you are all the same. You paint the police as bad guys because you keep having brushes with the law. The rest of the law abiding populace will never understand you.

Re:Here's the lesson

[amiga3D]

I'm not a thief. I find it disturbing that you are so ready to defend one. I figure you must be one too. You like taking things that aren't yours?

Re:Here's the lesson

[amiga3D]

I don't believe that. I think they honestly think it's okay to take something that isn't theirs. It's the way society is going lately.

A man walks into a bar

[Tsingi]

A man walks into a bar in Cupertino, has a drink, and gets up to leave.
On leaving the bartender notices that he has left his iPhone on the table.
Bartender: "Charlie, you left your iPhone again."
Customer: "sorry Phil, but it's cheaper than buying commercials."
Bartender: "Maybe, but my customers customers keep ending up in jail."

Re:A man walks into a bar

[jo_ham]

Customer: "well, perhaps your customers should stop breaking the law."

Re:A man walks into a bar

[Anonymous Coward]

Bartender: "Perhaps, but you do realize I have had always strong feelings for you?"

Re:A man walks into a bar

[Daemonik]

Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.

When Joe Schmoe can call down a police taskforce to find his keys every time he drops them when he's out drunk, I'll start feeling like there was a crime here.

Re:A man walks into a bar

[jo_ham]

Well, maybe he shouldn't have made such a prize fool of himself. He effectively stood in front of a cop and said "I'm going to break the law, do you have a camera on hand to record the evidence".

He self-incrimintaed, and as a bonus had Gizmodo back it up with printed information. The PD and court never had it so easy to get a "case solved" marker for their stats.

It's amusing how it's "selective enforcement" when it's a company you dislike, but it's "justice!" when it's against that same corporation....

There's a word for that. Starts with H. Help me out here?

Re:A man walks into a bar

[Daemonik]

Don't recall saying it was justice or that Apple somehow was asking for it, or that I hate Apple. Weird how you insert facts that fit your own version. There's a description for that.. oh yes, Weird Liar.

I did say that 99.99999% of times that this situation happens, the police wouldn't even bother writing down a report if you did bother reporting your phone stolen. The only reason it's gone this far is because Apple pushed it. They could have quietly gotten their phone back dozens of other ways, before the guy started trying to sell the story. It has GPS, they knew exactly where it was. Drive a lawyer to the guys house, give him a check and walk away, for far less than $5000, even including what they pay their lawyers.

Instead they tie up the court system for who knows how much but I'm sure it's more than 5 grand, because.... why exactly?

Re:A man walks into a bar

[itchythebear]

Customer: "In fact I have, which is why I left the phone. My personal phone number is on there." *winks*

Re:A man walks into a bar

[jo_ham]

Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.

...in a story about how a guy just got convicted of a crime for stealing and reselling an iPhone prototype...

If you're unsure where I got your spin from, maybe you should re-read your comment. You used air quotes around "criminal" to indicate that you disagreed with the court's decision that he had, in fact, broken the law. Then you said that it's selective enforcement, because it happened to be a case involving

[a] giant corporation[s] that make more money per minute [...]

and that this conferred special treatment over

Joe Schmoe

and then threw in a non-sequitur about a "police taskforce" (that would be the police, investigating crime) as if they were on some sort of Batphone link to Apple's HQ.

If you weren't taking a stab at the police being the personal private security of a large fruit-logo-themed company than what exactly *was* your point, because it got missed in your post.

You say they had "dozens" of ways to get the phone back, and then effectively suggest vigilantism - ie, taking the law into their own hands. If the phone is stolen, they did what anyone else would do - they reported it to the police.

Or are you suggesting that if Joe Schmoe loses his phone and finds where it is by GPS that he go over to the thief's house with his lawyer and cuts the guy a cheque?

Talk about selective enforcement! Is Apple not allowed to use the same route that any other person or business can pursue?

Re:A man walks into a bar

[DrXym]

So it's okay to commit crimes against giant corporations and expect leniency? Why do you suppose that? If anything it seems like a surefire way to attract heat given that a motivated corporation has the resources and contacts to make sure that the authorities prosecute you.

Re:A man walks into a bar

[BitZtream]

This wasn't finding keys left when drunk, and the keys don't have a GPS ... and typically the police don't do shit to a guy who calls and returns the keys or just leaves them. The cops will go after pretty much anyone that calls them up and says I found this guys keys, and I'll sell them back to your for $5000 however.

Get a clue.

Re:A man walks into a bar

[Bucky24]

I'm gonna assume you're not a fanboi and you just didn't get the joke.... The customer (Charlie) WANTED someone to steal the phone, hence the comment about commercials.

Re:A man walks into a bar

[jo_ham]

Oh I got it, but I was merely following on with the logical train of thought - the bartender in the joke is blaming charlie for his customers going to jail.

I think the following line is "we'll I'd be lying if I said my customers didn't commit crimes...."

Re:A man walks into a bar

[Daemonik]

Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.

...in a story about how a guy just got convicted of a crime for stealing and reselling an iPhone prototype...

If you're unsure where I got your spin from, maybe you should re-read your comment. You used air quotes around "criminal" to indicate that you disagreed with the court's decision that he had, in fact, broken the law. Then you said that it's selective enforcement, because it happened to be a case involving

[a] giant corporation[s] that make more money per minute [...]

and that this conferred special treatment over

Joe Schmoe

and then threw in a non-sequitur about a "police taskforce" (that would be the police, investigating crime) as if they were on some sort of Batphone link to Apple's HQ.

If you weren't taking a stab at the police being the personal private security of a large fruit-logo-themed company than what exactly *was* your point, because it got missed in your post.

You say they had "dozens" of ways to get the phone back, and then effectively suggest vigilantism - ie, taking the law into their own hands. If the phone is stolen, they did what anyone else would do - they reported it to the police.

Or are you suggesting that if Joe Schmoe loses his phone and finds where it is by GPS that he go over to the thief's house with his lawyer and cuts the guy a cheque?

Talk about selective enforcement! Is Apple not allowed to use the same route that any other person or business can pursue?

I put 'criminal' in quotes be cause honestly I don't feel he committed a crime. Is it a crime on the books? Sure, so's spitting on the sidewalk, carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket and a woman driving while wearing a house coat. My personal feeling is it's one of those laws prosecutors like to pile on, in the hopes maybe one will stick. It's totally up to the prosecutors discretion if they wish to pursue the case.

And 'police taskforce' wasn't a non-sequitur, Apple is on the steering committee of the task force that investigated these events and performed the highly unnecessary raid on the house of a Gizmodo writer. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/business/20877418_1_iphone-tech-blog-gizmodo-steering

Where, in your world, is contacting the person in possession of the phone vigilantism? Do you think the only way to resolve a dispute is police in riot gear?

You have a lawyer contact the person in possession of the phone and offer a reward for finding the thing. Minimal fuss or drama. Have them sign some contract so your trade secrets stay secret a little longer and then you walk away.

And no, Apple is not 'any other person'. Apple is not a person, it's a corporate entity with a legal fiction of some person like rights. Like any other corporation they have an interest in minimizing bad press and not presenting themselves to the world as shady. Everything they've done in this case, and in the more recent case of a second lost iPhone, in regards to how they handled the event and their use of, indeed their ability to access the use of, strongarm police tactics, screams shady however.

DONT FUCK WITH STEVE JOBS

[cod3r_]

newb

Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear back

[QuasiSteve]

Quick summary timeline...

Dude sees an old MacBook Pro on Craigslist listed by Seller as broken.
Dude buys it thinking maybe he can fix it.
Dude does indeed fix it, requiring reflowing of parts, adding parts (ram, HDD, etc.), chronicles it at Anandech, noting that it seems to be no ordinary MBP.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2165252&highlight=macbook+antenna - Prototype Macbook Pro with 3G: In my shop now!

Dude then sells it on Craigslist himself as he has no use for it and doesn't yet realize its uniqueness.
Buyer takes it to an Apple Store for some service, Apple Store Genius bar says "This is not an Apple product." on account of weird things in there.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/30/apple-genius-bar-didnt-recognize-macbook-pro-3g-prototype-apple-now-wants-it-back/ - Apple Genius Bar Didn't Recognize MacBook Pro 3G Prototype

Buyer sues Dude, wins (in part based on Apple Store findings), Dude is out moneys.
Dude thinks 'wtf', though, and takes a closer look at the MacBook Pro, asking around on forums.
Dude learns that the red motherboard implies it's a prototype.
Weeks pass and Dude does what anybody who isn't a fanboy would do - puts it up for sale on e-bay.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20092180-248/3g-equipped-macbook-prototype-pops-up-on-ebay/ - 3G-equipped MacBook prototype pops up on eBay

e-bay bids go up to $70k, listing is pulled due to request from Apple.
Dude then hears nothing, sits around waiting for some manner of official explanation for days on end.
CNet, however, now wants to know what happened, so arrange an interview, in which they of course also call Apple.

Apple suddenly takes very keen notice.
http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20099494&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-248 - Apple wants its 3G MacBook prototype back

Dude gets call - Apple wants their hardware back and they can have somebody stop by Dude's private residence that evening.
Dude says 'I think not, my lawyer will be in touch'.

Lawyer says Apple have no case.
Lawyer and Apple chit chat.
Lawyer says having no case matters shit all when you're Apple, so give up or incur huge costs.

Apple thus sends over a PI to pick up Prototype MBP.
Dude hands over the MBP.
Dude then sits around again wondering wtf just happened while waiting to see if he gets compensated in any way at all.
Apple does nothing.
Dude then petitions to Apple to get his shit back.
Apple says nothing, but does send an unmarked FedEx box with parts back.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20117512-248/prototype-3g-macbook-buyer-gets-parts-back - Prototype 3G MacBook buyer gets parts back

Dude now left with little option but either go "oh well", or sue the original Seller for incurred costs. Seller however says he received the MBP in earnest.

It would have been nice of Apple if they had arranged an exchange for a shiny new MBP and cover Dude's costs, as there's no reason to believe that this prototype was stolen and - as of the latest reports - Apple never filed it as such either.

The 'best' part? Being on IRC, watching a guy go from not being a fanboy but certainly an admirer of Apple, to being completely disenchanted.

What was the crime?

[PortHaven]

He didn't steal it. He found lost property. Oh my.

It just goes to show that if you're a big company, you can get anything turned into a crime.

A man just robbed & shot a Social Security worker in Baltimore last week. He had just been released from a 10 year sentence for armed robbery after a mere 9 months time served.

Seriously, we have issues when downloading a music track can get you a stiffer sentence and fine than mugging and shooting someone.

Tell me our justice system isn't bought....

Re:What was the crime?

[Lifyre]

Selling a found item without making an effort to return the property to the owner makes you a thief.

Re:What was the crime?

[amiga3D]

9 months is light for shooting and robbery yes, but this guy got no jail time. Both deserved stiffer sentences. Finding lost property worth 5 thousand dollars isn't like finding somebody's gymbag complete with sweaty jock strap and sneakers. In all reality though taking either one is wrong. If it's not yours why in hell would you take it? Seriously the lack of morality today is insane, no wonder we have lying crooks for leaders in government. It's a representative government, when you look at the leaders you see the people. Out for number one and screw everybody else.

Re:What was the crime?

[PortHaven]

Let's be honest...

ALL this was, was a typical example of the LAW SYSTEM being there for big companies.

We're the case reversed, and Apple found some small tech start-up's prototype. They would never face any penalty.

It's akin to SONY suing thousands for copyright theft, then stealing someone's software to create a CD with anti-theft protections.

Wait...it's okay for SONY to violate copyright. Oh, let's talk about penalties. Since SONY put that on thousands of CDs. Each being a $150,000 fine. They should not pay the programmer several hundred million dollars.

Oh, wait...

Sorry silly rabbit, IP Laws are only for BIG FIRMS.

---

And if that makes me a troll. Than I am darn proud to be a 900 lb fuzzy pink bunny troll. :P

You may not know who the phone belongs to...

[SwedishChef]

But you know it's not yours.

Re:You may not know who the phone belongs to...

[Lieutenant_Dan]

Exactly.

What a decent person would do:
a) leave it (aka Japanese approach) and let the owner return and pick it up
b) pick it up and give it to the establishments staff so that the owner can come by and pick it up
c) pick it up and take it to the police station as found property
d) pick it up and provided the phone is not locked:
1) contact the carrier
2) determine the ownership if possible and contact owner
3) if not possible, do a, b, or c

I know we don't live in harmony and a, b, and c wouldn't work in many seedy/corrupt places, but that's no way to rationalize keeping something that obviously has an owner.

Sale vs. "finders fee" vs. "bounty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say I find a laptop. The laptop has standard laptop security and I have no way of identifying ownership. Even going to the OEM and asking them "who purchased this laptop?" would be inconclusive. I personally have purchased several hundred systems for resale to my customers. I post on CraigsList that I found a laptop. "Call me to claim this laptop I found. I expect a $5000 reward." You really want your data so you contact me immediately and agree to the reward/finders fee. You show up and can't really produce anything that says this is your laptop but you are really happy someone found it and you don't mind paying the finders fee to get it back. I have no way to prove otherwise and it really must be yours if you are willing to pay $5000 for it.I get paid, you take home your laptop. We are both happy.

Now replace the word "laptop" with "mysterious prototype cell phone". There is no way to prove the cell is or is not yours. What would I get charged with? If the guy we are discussing would have called someone from Gizmodo and said "hey did one of your guys lose a prototype iphone 4 at such and such a bar? If so, Id like to return it for a $5000 finders fee" we wouldnt be having this discussion. We would only be talking about Gizmodo fraudulently receiving stolen goods.

Re:Sale vs. "finders fee" vs. "bounty"

[Lieutenant_Dan]

Let's say you find a lost child in a mall? And ask for $5,000 for his/her safe return?

Walking a fine line with extortion or ransom with your analogy ...

Putting a price tag or expecting a reward means that you're going to refuse handing someone his/her property back.

I get your point and I agree on the part where the burden to verify the ownership is on the person contacting you, but you're stretching it a bit ...

and what happened to finders keepers?

[cod3r_]

When playground rules are no longer followed.. .well it's pure anarchy

California Penal Code 485

[a_nonamiss]

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html

IANAL, but it's spelled out pretty clearly in black and white. He's lucky he didn't get jail time.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

[xyourfacekillerx]

It's not legal to find things in America? The article doesn't say what law he violated. I never would have thought the dude did anything illegal at all....

According to this article,

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple. Lost phones don't automatically revert ownership to the company that originally sold them.

But, according to that article, precedent follows from a ruling where Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.

Ok. So having something that you know you did not have before, qualifies as theft, because knowing you did not have the thing and now you do have it, is tantamount to knowledge you have stolen it? Yeah, right! That seems just wrong. I can see that extending to countless cases it should not otherwise apply... I suppose the only thing preventing a slippery slope is the whim of the prosecutor/judge. does anyone know if California is the only state that has such bizarre property law? Are there more elucidating precedents I can read? Cause it's early in the morning and having trouble understanding how Hogan did anything wrong.

Re:I'm inclined to agree with you.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this article,

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple

The law says, "...under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner"

If you find a phone...any phone...there are several means inquiry that would allow you to find the owner:
1. Look in the contacts list for an owner name, or leave a message with a contact who would know the owner ("Home" or "Office" or "Mom")
2. Contact the cellular carrier
3. Leave your contact information with the owner of the business and wait for someone to claim and identify it sufficiently

Anybody finding any phone has those means of inquiry available to them; anyone who doesn't exercise at least one of them would be considered stealing under that law. The fact that the phone in fact belonged to Apple has no bearing on the matter.

Re:I'm inclined to agree with you.

[vlm]

Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple.

Private citizens can "own" property. End of argument.

I suppose the only thing preventing a slippery slope is the whim of the prosecutor/judge.

Absolutely not, there's tons of case law mostly containing the key phrase "The reasonableness of the explanation is a jury question."

Google for the phrase and be prepared to be entertained. Usually, this kind of appeal is made when a bunch of individual theft cases add up to one big conviction. So, the cars plates were stolen property although the driver claims he had no idea ... attached to a car that may have been rented in a receipt-less cash transaction but the car dealer claims was stolen ... with a trunk full of rifles that the registered rifle owner claims were stolen but the defendant (again) claims were sold in an illegal receipt-less cash transaction ... The jury might believe some of those separate claims, but no way they'd believe them all, and the appeal usually revolves around the idea that there should have been three separate court cases rather than one.

Rarely do appeals come up with that phrase for just one simple piece of property and one simple transaction.

Re:I'm inclined to agree with you.

[BitZtream]

He was trying to sell the phone to people as 'an apple prototype', how the fuck could you be stupid enough to try to claim he doesn't know who owns the phone?

Not THAT kind of Finder

[pudge]

I thought someone wrote a Finder for iOS.

Re:Not THAT kind of Finder

[pavon]

As did I. My first thought was that they finally FTFF, although one OS too late :)

Re:Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear ba

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude should have contacted Apple as soon as he knew what he had, and told them what happened.

Dude chose to be a doofas and attempts to cash in.

Dude is an insignificant individual, bought something that wasn't legally for sale, and was clearly going to be crushed by the biggest and most secretive IT company on the planet.

Dude gets a lesson in life.

Apple don't miss his fanboyism or loss of his purchases.

People can get jail time, corporations can't...

[Shoeler]

Look - first off, the idiot screwed up. He never owned the device. Finders are NOT keepers, you deucebag. Be a man and try to find its owner instead of trying to profit.

However.

Realize that had another company done something like this, NO ONE GOES TO JAIL. Thomas Jefferson (who was kind of a big deal) showed quite a bit of distrust and disliking of them: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Abraham Lincoln too (specific to banks):

"As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

So as you're lobbing your scathing remarks at this stupid man, also realize that the company whose interests are being protected by this legal act would itself not be held to these same standards.

Re:People can get jail time, corporations can't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Abraham Lincoln too (specific to banks):

"As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Misattributed

Your quote lives here, backed by a letter in NYT circa 1896. Sorry, I wish he had said it too.

Re:Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear ba

[QuasiSteve]

Dude should have contacted Apple as soon as he knew what he had, and told them what happened.

why? Keep in mind that this was an old prototype from years ago. Not a prototype of a model not yet released (like the case in TFA). I have several prototype things, ebay is also full of them. There isn't a law saying you can't own or sell prototype things. There may have been such a stipulation in an agreement between Apple and the original Seller (or whoever they got it from) but that's something Dude couldn't possibly know.

He also couldn't have suspected the Seller of being a fence (and I'm not saying Seller was) as it wasn't being sold in a shady way or well below market price. In fact, Dude didn't know what it exactly was at the time of purchase.

Dude chose to be a doofas and attempts to cash in.

No actually he repaired it, because that's what he does. He chronicles this, and it's reported on several mac-centric sites.
He doesn't really want to keep it, so he sells it on, himself, on Craigslist. He gets a few hundred dollars for it.
That could well have been the end of the story right there if not for the fact that the Buyer took the thing to an Apple Store who then stated that it's not an Apple product.
Yes, later on, once he learns it may have some value to collectors, he puts it up on e-bay. However he only expected to get maybe $2000 - never in a million years would he have thought it'd go up to $70k.

He wasn't trying to 'cash in'.

Dude is an insignificant individual, bought something that wasn't legally for sale,

Matter of contention and certainly wouldn't have been known to him.

and was clearly going to be crushed by the biggest and most secretive IT company on the planet.

Except that he wasn't, not even after the ebay listing got pulled. Only once Apple heard from cnet did they start taking a closer look.

Dude gets a lesson in life.

Apple don't miss his fanboyism or loss of his purchases.

Those two are obvious, yes.

$250 is a great deal for an iPhone 4

[pseudorand]

I've been shopping on craig's list for an iPhone recently and $250 is a killer price, especially for a 4G model. He got a great deal. True, he does have to do 40 hours of community service, but with the power of the iPhone and super fast 4G LTE network speeds, he can totally multitask, so it's really only like about 10 hours. I think I'll be on the lookout for misplaced prototypes now too. WAY cheaper than retail.

Re:and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicid

[Anonymous Coward]

While we are doing this "asking question" thing, let me ask you - now that Steve Jobs is gone, whose balls are you licking?

Not bad!!

[nomorecwrd]

So, as I understand it from the summary (who RTFA, right?) its $4750 for a 40 hours job?

Not bad!... it's the only the one year probation that doesn't allow this to transform into a full time job.

Re:Not bad!!

[Matt.Battey]

And with probation comes random drug testing, and usually an order to not drink any alcohol as well. Makes for a slow year.

Re:Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear ba

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'best' part? Being on IRC, watching a guy go from not being a fanboy but certainly an admirer of Apple, to being completely disenchanted.

The "best part'? Reading another biased story.

In California (at least), if you mistakenly buy stolen property, you can expect to get it confiscated - this happened to a co-worker of mine.

Re:and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicid

[UnknowingFool]

Actually I'm a time-traveling dinosaur and yes I was on the Grassy Knoll. I'll let you connect the dots. As everyone knows, we dinosaurs hate balls.

Intrinsic Value and Ciscumstance

[SpaghettiPattern]

The intrinsic value of the phone was in it's monetary. The value lies in the newsworthiness.

The circumstance is that Apple losses such devices much more often than I would deem "normal".

I myself would probably not have touched the phone. Most people would have remained honest. But that's beside he point.

The point is that it would be very possible that Apple, knowingly that a similar thing would happen, "planted" the device and that the convicted was just the idiot of the moment.

In most law systems providing the opportunity in itself is punishable. Did the DA sufficiently consider this possibility?

Mostly-relevant Question:

[eepok]

Why is it that people who are found guilty of taking money or profiting off criminal actions rarely have to give back the money taken... or fined appropriately so that they make no profit on the transaction?

The guy took $5,000 for property that wasn't his. He is found guilt of that. His fine? $250.

Why not have him pay a $5,000 fine?!

Re:Mostly-relevant Question:

[mjr167]

Because then crime wouldn't be profitable. This way everyone makes money.

Re:Mostly-relevant Question:

[Forbman]

They probably get 1099'd, though. "Ill-gotten monetary gains" is taxable income in the eyes of the IRS.

If you don't want to sic the cops on them, sic the IRS on them...

Re:Mostly-relevant Question:

[UnknowingFool]

It's not reported but I suspect that the $5000 was seized as evidence and he was not allowed to keep it.

Troll Much?

[tanveer1979]

You are trying to say if he had turned it over to the police he would have been jailed?
Huh?
Or you just wanted to make a sensationalist post...?

Re:and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicid

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm sorry, that doesn't parse.

Did you mean, "He may have been killed..."?

Semantics does matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't pay the girl to have sex with you. You pay her to star in the porno you are making and then it is perfectly legal. Or you just give her some nice gifts and call it 'dating.'

Re:Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear ba

[Lifyre]

What evidence was there that it was stolen? Apple never reported it as such.

Apple Justice

[Nom du Keyboard]

This prosecutor sounds more like he was trying to enforce Apple Justice than Real Justice. I'd like to see an investigation of his bank accounts for any recent large deposits.

Note to Apple: If you want to keep your secrets, keep them on your campus and don't let them out into the Real World.

Re:Apple Justice

[snowgirl]

This prosecutor sounds more like he was trying to enforce Apple Justice than Real Justice. I'd like to see an investigation of his bank accounts for any recent large deposits.

Note to Apple: If you want to keep your secrets, keep them on your campus and don't let them out into the Real World.

Yeah, the prosecutor was totally acting as a de facto Apple corporate officer. The DA would have no reason to otherwise prosecute someone who stole a ~$500 piece of property, and then knowing that he is not the legitimate owner, sold it to another person for $5000... I mean, come on, it's obvious that there is no social good to be done by pursuing such a case.

Re:Apple Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if it was a Super Secret Skunk Works iPhoneX, or just some guy's phone, if you pick up someone's property, make no attempt to return it and then sell it, you've broken numerous laws. "Finders keepers losers weepers" doesn't actually carry any legal (or moral) weight.

Re:Apple Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you writing a "note" to Apple on Slashdot? Why not use their contact page to send them a message http://www.apple.com/contact/ ?

Oh, hang on, I see what you're doing. You are pretending to give advice to Apple, advice that we (your esteemed audience) can all see. Wow, that's smart. Makes us feel privy to an otherwise private conversation. Well done. This makes you look smart too.

Would it be Illegal?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Would it be illegal if I got my time-machine working again (spares are really hard to find for these things), went a month into the future (okay, 2 months to avoid the crowds), legally bought an iPhone 4S, brought it back, and sold it now for a huge markup (to pay for those spares)?

Or a year ahead for an iPhone 5?

Or would a better use of it be to see what people are using now, go back 5 years to patent it myself, and become a Super Patent Troll? Has anyone checked out these other patent trolls for illegal time machines lately?

Re:and in china loseing a prototype = faked suicid

[LingNoi]

It's simple statistics. Foxconn has over a million employees. The suicide rate in China is 27.8 people per 100,000 people.

It pretty much is theft

[sjbe]

It's not really theft.

Actually it's pretty easy to argue that it is theft. It was not his, he knew it was not his, he intended to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently, it had value, he moved it physically thereby taking possession of it, and it was taken without consent. I believe the proper term is larceny. By fulfilling all those criteria, he committed theft.

Obviously it is up to the courts to decide whether or not it is theft and what the punishment should be (if any) if it is determined to be theft. It sounds like in this case the court determined it to be theft but considered the offense to be rather minor in nature. Sounds roughly appropriate to me.

Say you found it on a drifting boat

[Anonymous Coward]

Maritime law applies and any distressed vessel and cargo falls under salvage law. Or fabricate a "bill of sale" in earnest, you shouldn't need much to excuse yourself of any wrong doing. What if he said he thought the phone was owned by Gizmodo and called to them to return it and they offered a reward to him in return for the phone. This is totally plausible since they could be phone testers for many prototype phones. And having Steve Jobs submit a proof of ownership is not extortion, it is more like covering your ass, especially when there is a law that says "finding lost property is equivalent to theft". Why would I give something I found to someone unless the are the rightful owner. Once they prove they are rightful owner, I can tell them where they can find their lost property. ;) Ha! no law against that you fuckin' legislative dickheads!

California law is plenty specific about this

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

AFIK, there is no expectation in statutory or common law that requires an establishment to retain abandoned items.

As I recall it, in California law indeed nobody is obligated to retain lost property or do anything to restore it to the owner—but the law does spell out obligations that you assume if you take the lost property. In every case you can always turn the item over to the police to rid yourself of any obligation. Also, the only way you're allowed to claim somebody else's lost property is to go through a process that involves turning it in to the police for them to hold for a specified time period before surrendering it to the finder.

There's even more detail than this in California law, for things such as lost perishable goods (you can sell them and give the proceeds to the owner) and recovery of the finder's reasonable costs (e.g., if you lose your horse and I find it, choose to house it and feed it for a week until you're reunited).

Re:Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear ba

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the prototype was in fact stolen he is not legally entitled to it.

I don't see how the lawyer could say they have "no case."

Re:Prototype MacBook Pro 3G dude gets some gear ba

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple keeps doing this! Either they are the biggest bunch of incompetent fuck wads, or "losing" shit is just a marketing ploy. That some poor folks lose money and/or end up with criminal records because of it, the folks at Apple couldn't give a shit.

Fuck Apple. Buying Apple products supports this B.S.

Review then return?

[balajeerc]

I was wondering. In a scenario where I find an iDevice prototype, what if I handed it to Gizmodo for a couple of hours to do a review with, without charging Gizmodo anything for it and then called the original owner and returned it. Would I still be likely to the convicted for a crime like the chap in this article?