“Silicon Valley police are investigating what appears to be a lost Apple iPhone prototype purchased by a gadget blog, a transaction that may have violated criminal laws, a law enforcement official told CNET on Friday. Apple has spoken to local police about the incident and the investigation is believed to be headed by a computer crime task force led by the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office, the source said. Apple’s Cupertino headquarters is in Santa Clara County, about 40 miles south of San Francisco.” Update: “We haven’t been contacted by law enforcement,” said Gaby Darbyshire, chief operating officer of Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo.
I would be surprised if it was NOT illegal.
Of course it was illegal. The morons knowlingly bought something they *KNEW* wasn’t legally availible for sale and then advertised the fact.
If anything they should be thrown in Federal Prision for Sheer Stupidity.
What a drama!!!
All tech press is dedicated more to these “kitchen tales” than to tech stuff… Please Apple, stop your soap opera!
We can’t help it! It’s so dramatic!
Wait just one sec… let me see if I got this right:
1. Someone loses an iPhone prototype in bar.
2. Someone ELSE finds the phone.
3. That someone else sells the phone.
Okay, maybe the person finding the phone could have tried to return it, but I do not believe they are legally obliged to do so.
Y’know the old adage: “Finder’s keepers, loser weepers?”
I mean, I *AM* missing something, right??
–The loon
EDIT:: hmm, shoulda read the 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.
IMHO, that is tantamount to enforced morality. Though we do need some of that.
Edited 2010-04-24 04:07 UTC
I found the keys to your car in a bar and sold the car to Gizmodo.
Nice analogy, but I feel a better one would be ‘I found your car parked on the street and sold the car go Gizmodo’. Taking (as your own) something that you know belongs to someone else if theft, perhaps this is not the legal definition in all jurisdictions, but it is the basic definition of theft.
BTW, with regard to the “enforced morality” comment, isn’t that the whole purpose of laws.
Not really, the car has a title defining its legal ownership. This prototype? Not so much.
Frankly, I am not about to weep when some corporation gets a taste of their own medicine.
“Enforced morality,” in a nutshell, is exactly what “the law” is.
(I think what Gizmodo did was unethical. But, hey, anything for a buck.)
I said exactly the same thing after the original post on OSNews about the whole thing but Thom yelled at me for it. It’s the LAW.
What I said:
Member since:
2005-07-06
Gizmodo knows/knew who that phone belongs to. Not only did they make no effort to return it, they took it apart.
I dropped a phone at PHX (Phoenix airport) when I got back from a long trip. I realized it on the ride home, got my wife’s phone and called my phone. Person answered, asked if she would be willing to send it back to me, COD, she said “Sure! I’ll do it tomorrow!” 2 weeks later still no phone. Called the number again and no answer.
In my opinion, at that point it is (at the very least borderline) theft. I tried to make it as easy as possible for her to send it back, I even offered to meet her at the airport again to get it. Instead I had to replace the phone.
She had no idea who lost the phone when she picked it up, but these guys, they knew. They were excited and jumped at the change to pry it open and pick it apart… maybe you are right, maybe it is more like corporate espionage and not theft.
What THOM said:
Silly comparison. Your phone is not a prototype from one of the most secretive companies in the world – a phone that will most likely sell by the millions and millions and millions, while also being one of the biggest development targets in the mobile world.
This means it has news value, and when something has news value, there’s no shame in shifting the device to the press. I do believe Gizmodo went too far by taking it apart, but for the rest, they’ve done nothing even remotely related to theft (of course, this is assuming they’re going to hand it over to the police).
Oh boo hoo. If that’s yelling, then I’m assuming you’ve never been in a relationship.
I still stand by everything I said: Gizmodo returned the phone to Apple within a week – of course, after first taking all the press shots they need. As I ALSO said QUITE CLEARLY, taking it apart was going too far.
The only person that could’ve been wrong here is the original person who found it. However, he tried to contact Apple directly to give the phone back, and maybe, the police will find that’s enough. OF course, he should’ve handed it over to the bartender or the police.
Gizmodo returned the phone to Apple within a week
They clearly stated they had the phone for over a week.
The only person that could’ve been wrong here is the original person who found it
Gizmodo should never have bought an item they very obviously knew didn’t belong to the seller in the first place.
Oh that could be – I thought they said they had it for a week, then Apple emailed them, then they returned it. I might be wrong.
And what if Gizmodo had never bought it? If Gizmodo ever ends up in court over this, I’d simply tell the judge – thanks to us, Apple has its phone back.
And what if Gizmodo had never bought it?
I can’t predict what the person would have done. And it’s besides the point anyway, the point being that Gizmodo shouldn’t be bying stuff they know doesn’t belong to the seller.
“Oh boo hoo. If that’s yelling, then I’m assuming you’ve never been in a relationship”
LOL!
O.K. so I exaggerate.
This means it has news value, and when something has news value, there’s no shame in shifting the device to the press. I do believe Gizmodo went too far by taking it apart, but for the rest, they’ve done nothing even remotely related to theft (of course, this is assuming they’re going to hand it over to the police).
Not so. Try taking that phone to a Pawn Shop and try selling it to the owner of the shop without proof that you’re owner of the phone.
99 out of 100 Pawnshop owners won’t touch that phone because they know they’ll be in for a world of legal hurt if that phone turned out to have questions about onwership surronding it.
Everyone is blaming Gizmodo, I’m talking about the first guy who found the phone. He obviously knew the value, but I doubt he knew how to get in touch with the owner ( I doubt the person would have thought it out that Apple would be the owner ).
Gizmodo, knowing the owner, is in a different situation.
If you find it at a local bar, can you please send it to me!
Why was there a Iphony-prototype at a bar in the first place???? Its not that smart letting someone bringing a sensitive prototype to a bar, if its not just some publicitystunt.
Is that the person who found the phone sold it to Gizmodo, he knew what it was, he knew whop it belonged to and knew its worth and yet he didnt try to return it he sold it. Why didnt he go to Apple HQ? Obviously, he saw who owned it, why didnt he give it to the bartender? That person in my opinion is guilty of a larceny, Gizmodo is guilty of receiving stolen property, plain and simple.
I guess Apple will need to push up their release of iPhone Rev.3 now. You know they’ve got at least 5 future revs of this thing already locked away somewhere. They milk the current product for every penny, then release the next rev as if it were the newest thing.