The phone was not stolen it was lost. You could see that the original finder reasonably attempted to return the phone but this wasn't successful. Then he sold the depositary rights (ie need to try to return it, or if you can't return it you can keep it) to Gizmodo.
Show me where in the statutes it says that a finder is allowed to sell the depositary rights. There is no provision made for that that I can find. The law is very specific and narrow--you either return the found item to its owner or turn it in to the local law enforcement agency; anything else is theft. He sold the phone, which was not his to sell. According to the law, that's theft.
So far none of this is far from the facts that we know. Then Gizmodo used its website to confirm that apple was indeed the owner and returns the phone.
Gizmodo going public didn't hurt the item or its value at all.
Chen disassembled the phone and damaged it in the process. Even if one accepts that the depositary rights were transferred to him--which I don't--that hardly meets the "obligations of a depositary for hire," as stated in the law.
The trade secret stuff doesn't fly because they released the phone in the "wild." Plus, none of this will lead to any damages that apple can prove.
I'm not arguing the trade secret stuff because I don't care about it. The only thing I'm concerned about is all the people here on Slashdot who are singing the "Finders keepers, losers weepers" song. They obviously haven't progressed much beyond kindergarten, let alone read any California law about found property.
There is a reasonable argument that nothing was illegal here.
Perhaps, but I sure wouldn't want to submit myself to the tender mercies of a jury with it
The easy response to that is that the phone had been returned prior to the issuance of the warrant. They didn't withhold it from the owner once Apple officially claimed it. The detective even officially stated it.
And if the alleged loss of profit is an indication of Apple's business plan I'd say consumer beware. There are lots of companies that pre-release information about products that don't suffer this detriment--Microsoft and Google being two of them.
I can't really comment on the loss of profit angle, nor do I really care about it. What I do care about is the fact that Hogan, regardless of when the warrent was issued and in direct violation of California law, sold an item that was not his to sell and Gizmodo bought it from him. Your statement shows a profound lack of understanding of the applicable law in this case. FYI, here is the text relevant 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.
According to the Gizmodo article, Hogan had searched the phone and discovered the owner's name but did not attempt to return it to him. When he put the iPhone prototype up for auction to the highest bidder, as per his roommate's statement in the affidavit, he appropriated it for his own use and became guilty of theft. When Gizmodo bid on it, they became guilty of buying stolen goods.
Remind me to never hire you as my attorney. You apparently haven't read the relevant California criminal and civil code sections that have been reprinted all over the Web since this thing first hit:
Section 2080. Duties of finder
Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire.
In other words, if you take charge of a found object, you are as responsible for taking care of it as you would be if the owner had placed it in your care. Selling it off to the highest bidder hardly satisfies that, nor does disassembling it (and damaging it in the process), as Chen did.
They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed.
Nope:
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.
The minute the finder offered it up for auction to the highest bidder, as per his room mate's statement, he was "[appropriating] such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto" and guilty of theft. Gizomodo, by bidding on it, was guilty of buying stolen property.
EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal.
Actually, under California law, it does make it illegal. The relevant law:
Section 2080.1. Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges
(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.
In other words, the only legal thing for someone who finds lost property to do is either make a good-faith attempt to return it to it's owner or turn it over to the local law enforcement agency. If you don't wish to do either of those things, then you should just let it lie there.
If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
That's totally absurd. It was a cell phone. Cell phones need extensive testing out in the real world before they hit the market. Would you want to buy one that hadn't been tested out on the street first?
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
No, I want Gizmodo to do good tech journalism, not write checks stolen goods. Print leaked info, by all means but do not commit felonies in the name of page hits.
Google is the new Apple which was the new Microsoft.
In other words, you can't really trust any big corporation. Enjoy the good stuff they may produce but keep one hand on your wallet (or your personal data).
If a person is going to be a garbage man for the rest of his life, is he happier if he know music, literature, science and all that? I REALLY want the answer to be yes [...]
Hey, it worked for this truck driver. I was an art major, graphic design and typography, but there were a lot of general art classes involved in that including art history. Which was really great the time my co-driver blew the clutch out on our tractor (a story all by itself) in Chicago, giving me a day to take in the Art Institute.
Beyond that, though, my arts education has culturally enriched my life as a blue collar worker, even if it hasn't done much in the way of enriching me economically.
However, it's clear to me where the Gizmodo guys went wrong was to disassemble the device.
And, speaking as someone who has successfully disassembled and repaired his own iPhone 3G, what bothers me is that the phone was damaged in the process. I mean, really--what kind of true geek couldn't manage to take it apart, look around inside and then put it back together again without breaking it?
It would be considered stolen by any rational people.
FTFY. Because I'm a rational person and I would consider it stolen. I'm also a resident of California and I know what the law says about found property; as fellow CA residents, Mr. Chen and Mr. Hogan should have known too.
I was expecting something much more exciting. Say, like Apple has plans to come out with a console. That would be much more interesting than this garbage.
I was hoping to read that Steve Jobs had slept with Satoru Iwata's wife.
Yep, he's missing the point. People don't get college degrees in order to go cut down trees, they get them in hopes of making a career in their chosen field. They end up cutting down trees (or, as in my case, driving a truck) only after they've failed to accomplish that goal. Perhaps they didn't make the wisest choice about what to study but sometimes it's kind of hard to know that in advance.
In any case, an economist denigrating a history major is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
I have a feeling a vast majority of people do think of computers and electricity as not necessarily the dictionary's definition of magic, but something very similar.
Indeed. The obligatory Arthur C. Clarke quote:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
definitely applies. Even when you know something about the technology, it can still seem like magic.
This can't be right... TFA doesn't make a single reference to magic.
It's a given. All electronic components operate via the Magic Smoke they contain. That's why it's such a big concern when see smoke rising from a device--once the Magic Smoke has leaked out, they stop working.
Put a man in orbit. First! {Grab genitalia and grunt here).
Not to disagree with your post in general, which is rather insightful IMHO, but NASA was not the first to put a man in orbit. The Soviet Union beat them to that.
Of all the things that Obama is doing, am I the only one who feels that him killing NASA really struck a nerve? It's literally the only thing he's done that made my blood boil.
He's not killing NASA. Far from it, in fact. From TFA:
Mr. Obama is actually proposing to increase NASA's budget, but he wants to terminate the $108 billion Constellation project, which the United States has already spent more than $10 billion on. Instead, the administration wants to outsource many of NASA's current manned exploration programs to private spaceships and focus on developing a new heavy-lift rocket for eventual manned flights to a variety of deep space targets, ultimately including Mars.
Obama just wants to terminate one particular project that he feels is going nowhere and has become a money sink. You may disagree with his decision but it's still not "killing NASA."
Slashdot Mirror
...I'm just glad that I'll never be nominated for an appointment to any US government position.
I'm quite sure banks are really friendly to you if you have enough money.
Yeah, good point. I'll bet Warren Buffet gets a better reception when he walks into his bank than I do when I walk into mine.
Except in 50 years, they'll need a new phrase because the concept of a "lawn" will be as unfamiliar as say, rewinding cassette tapes, is today...
"You kids get off my minefield and out of my clear-fire zone!"
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
You take way to narrow of a view of the statutes.
The phone was not stolen it was lost. You could see that the original finder reasonably attempted to return the phone but this wasn't successful. Then he sold the depositary rights (ie need to try to return it, or if you can't return it you can keep it) to Gizmodo.
Show me where in the statutes it says that a finder is allowed to sell the depositary rights. There is no provision made for that that I can find. The law is very specific and narrow--you either return the found item to its owner or turn it in to the local law enforcement agency; anything else is theft. He sold the phone, which was not his to sell. According to the law, that's theft.
So far none of this is far from the facts that we know. Then Gizmodo used its website to confirm that apple was indeed the owner and returns the phone.
Gizmodo going public didn't hurt the item or its value at all.
Chen disassembled the phone and damaged it in the process. Even if one accepts that the depositary rights were transferred to him--which I don't--that hardly meets the "obligations of a depositary for hire," as stated in the law.
The trade secret stuff doesn't fly because they released the phone in the "wild." Plus, none of this will lead to any damages that apple can prove.
I'm not arguing the trade secret stuff because I don't care about it. The only thing I'm concerned about is all the people here on Slashdot who are singing the "Finders keepers, losers weepers" song. They obviously haven't progressed much beyond kindergarten, let alone read any California law about found property.
There is a reasonable argument that nothing was illegal here.
Perhaps, but I sure wouldn't want to submit myself to the tender mercies of a jury with it
The easy response to that is that the phone had been returned prior to the issuance of the warrant. They didn't withhold it from the owner once Apple officially claimed it. The detective even officially stated it.
And if the alleged loss of profit is an indication of Apple's business plan I'd say consumer beware. There are lots of companies that pre-release information about products that don't suffer this detriment--Microsoft and Google being two of them.
I can't really comment on the loss of profit angle, nor do I really care about it. What I do care about is the fact that Hogan, regardless of when the warrent was issued and in direct violation of California law, sold an item that was not his to sell and Gizmodo bought it from him. Your statement shows a profound lack of understanding of the applicable law in this case. FYI, here is the text relevant California penal code:
According to the Gizmodo article, Hogan had searched the phone and discovered the owner's name but did not attempt to return it to him. When he put the iPhone prototype up for auction to the highest bidder, as per his roommate's statement in the affidavit, he appropriated it for his own use and became guilty of theft. When Gizmodo bid on it, they became guilty of buying stolen goods.
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here.
Remind me to never hire you as my attorney. You apparently haven't read the relevant California criminal and civil code sections that have been reprinted all over the Web since this thing first hit:
In other words, if you take charge of a found object, you are as responsible for taking care of it as you would be if the owner had placed it in your care. Selling it off to the highest bidder hardly satisfies that, nor does disassembling it (and damaging it in the process), as Chen did.
They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed.
Nope:
The minute the finder offered it up for auction to the highest bidder, as per his room mate's statement, he was "[appropriating] such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto" and guilty of theft. Gizomodo, by bidding on it, was guilty of buying stolen property.
EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal.
Actually, under California law, it does make it illegal. The relevant law:
In other words, the only legal thing for someone who finds lost property to do is either make a good-faith attempt to return it to it's owner or turn it over to the local law enforcement agency. If you don't wish to do either of those things, then you should just let it lie there.
If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
That's totally absurd. It was a cell phone. Cell phones need extensive testing out in the real world before they hit the market. Would you want to buy one that hadn't been tested out on the street first?
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
No, I want Gizmodo to do good tech journalism, not write checks stolen goods. Print leaked info, by all means but do not commit felonies in the name of page hits.
Google is the new Apple which was the new Microsoft.
In other words, you can't really trust any big corporation. Enjoy the good stuff they may produce but keep one hand on your wallet (or your personal data).
If a person is going to be a garbage man for the rest of his life, is he happier if he know music, literature, science and all that? I REALLY want the answer to be yes [...]
Hey, it worked for this truck driver. I was an art major, graphic design and typography, but there were a lot of general art classes involved in that including art history. Which was really great the time my co-driver blew the clutch out on our tractor (a story all by itself) in Chicago, giving me a day to take in the Art Institute.
Beyond that, though, my arts education has culturally enriched my life as a blue collar worker, even if it hasn't done much in the way of enriching me economically.
However, it's clear to me where the Gizmodo guys went wrong was to disassemble the device.
And, speaking as someone who has successfully disassembled and repaired his own iPhone 3G, what bothers me is that the phone was damaged in the process. I mean, really--what kind of true geek couldn't manage to take it apart, look around inside and then put it back together again without breaking it?
Chen should turn in his geek card.
Come back when you've grown a sense of morality.
Not to mention learned to spell PRIORITIES.
It would be considered stolen by any rational people.
FTFY. Because I'm a rational person and I would consider it stolen. I'm also a resident of California and I know what the law says about found property; as fellow CA residents, Mr. Chen and Mr. Hogan should have known too.
I thought FOX (bastards!) canceled that show over 5 years ago [...]
The bastards at Fox did cancel the show. The new episodes are going to run on Comedy Central.
I was expecting something much more exciting. Say, like Apple has plans to come out with a console. That would be much more interesting than this garbage.
I was hoping to read that Steve Jobs had slept with Satoru Iwata's wife.
And who do you suppose supplies that online, verified history information source? An economist?
Yep, he's missing the point. People don't get college degrees in order to go cut down trees, they get them in hopes of making a career in their chosen field. They end up cutting down trees (or, as in my case, driving a truck) only after they've failed to accomplish that goal. Perhaps they didn't make the wisest choice about what to study but sometimes it's kind of hard to know that in advance.
In any case, an economist denigrating a history major is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
...to get our hands on good cheese.
Not according to these guys.
I have a feeling a vast majority of people do think of computers and electricity as not necessarily the dictionary's definition of magic, but something very similar.
Indeed. The obligatory Arthur C. Clarke quote:
definitely applies. Even when you know something about the technology, it can still seem like magic.
This can't be right... TFA doesn't make a single reference to magic.
It's a given. All electronic components operate via the Magic Smoke they contain. That's why it's such a big concern when see smoke rising from a device--once the Magic Smoke has leaked out, they stop working.
Put a man in orbit. First! {Grab genitalia and grunt here).
Not to disagree with your post in general, which is rather insightful IMHO, but NASA was not the first to put a man in orbit. The Soviet Union beat them to that.
Of all the things that Obama is doing, am I the only one who feels that him killing NASA really struck a nerve? It's literally the only thing he's done that made my blood boil.
He's not killing NASA. Far from it, in fact. From TFA:
Obama just wants to terminate one particular project that he feels is going nowhere and has become a money sink. You may disagree with his decision but it's still not "killing NASA."
That's soooooo nerdy my brain hurts. Well played!
Thanks. I was beginning to think that no one got the joke.
To quote the great Mojo Nixon:
Soon, all will become Elvis; all will be born again in the Elvis light because Elvis is the perfect being.
Elvis is everywhere
Elvis is everything
Elvis is everybody
Elvis is still The King
I thought the dear leader was busy flying fighter jets, memorizing phone books, breaking golf records, and leading the NBA in rebounding.
No, you've got that wrong. Kim Il-sung is only in second place for NBA rebounds.
The mothers of both Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons received Mother's Day card from their sons postmarked Pyongyang.