It's theft and purchase of stolen property. Wait and see.
Printable View
The whole thing is a sham. If I found a phone in a bar I couldn't tell an IPhone from some crazy Chinese export. Yet some guy in a bar can identify prototype apple hardware by sight and begins a bidding war? The Apple Engineer and his buddies concocted this whole affair to make money.
edit[*]
I did not find this to be very well written, and a bit preachy (now that's saying a lot coming from me! :laugh:). I think the crux of most arguements is did Gizmodo knowingly participate as a party to theft when it purchase the phone? This article assumed absolutely yes. I think absolutely yes is an iffy statement.
In my opinion, no - because they did not know for certain it was stolen (it hadn't been reported as so) and they did go out of their way to contact Apple and see to it that it was returned.
My guess is the reason they published Powells name is to document that they did not obtain the phone via industrial espionage - a serious crime. And yes, it was still a dickish move, and not one I'll defend. They were jerks to do it.
As to the original finder, I would not hand a lost iPhone over to a random bartender. Walking out with it - he assumed responsibility to try and find the owner. Now that we're learning how little he actually did, it's very questionable if he can defend that as sufficient. Dumbass - even odds that Apple would have paid him 5k reward as a thank you, and sign here please about not breathing a word of this.
In any event, not Gizmodos problem - they were assured it was not stolen and were told that efforts were made to find the rightful owner. They then did due dillegence anyway. The fact that they took pictures in the meantime - sucks to be Apple, don't abandon your prototype phone in a bar.
The whole REACT heavy handedness still gives me the creeps.
[*] originally posted from my iPhone (which seems so fitting). Which isn't always the best for posting from. That will get better once the awesome new iPhone 4 comes out. ;)
The guy that "found" the phone picked it up and turned it on. The new phone has over 2x the resolution, so despite it being disquised in a faux case, it probably was evident that he had something unique in his hands.
He should've turned it over to the bartender or immediately to the police.
If the engineer was in on it (and I don't think he was) it brings into play a litany of industrial secrets law, which actually would be far worse for Gizmodo.
Out of their way? Weeks later after they had disassembled it and published the results? After they had outed the engineer for no good reason?
Apple approached Gizmodo first, and Gizmodo replied with a snarky letter. Then they forced Apple to issue a request for return in writing?
Hardly seems like Gizmodo went the extra mile to return the device.
Whatever the outcome, it sure did create a lot of buzzzzzzzzzzz. Now I want one :)
Just an update:
http://goo.gl/n1rw
Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) drove the investigation into the “lost” iPhone G4 that had police knocking down the door of the Gawker Media Gizmodo editor who paid for the prototype device after it was discovered in a bar. Cnet has the details in an affidavit. Apple complained the the device was “stolen” after it was accidentally forgotten in a by an employee bar not far from Apple’s headquarters. The company said that the device was priceless and that the disassembling of the iPhone by Gizmodo caused damage to Apple’s property. The big news here is that police were tipped off by the roommate of the person who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.
Apple also complained that the publication of the images and video of the forthcoming iPhone hurt its sales, since prospective buyers of the device were likely to wait until the new one came out. Still, this argument seems a bit specious, since Apple consumers tend to expect constant updates to the company’s devices.
From Wired:
"Police closed in on the man who found and sold a prototype 4G iPhone after his roommate called an Apple security official and turned him in, according to a newly unsealed document in the ongoing police investigation.
The tip sent police racing to the home of 21-year-old Brian Hogan, and began a strange scavenger hunt for evidence that a friend of Hogan’s had scattered around the Silicon Valley community of Redwood City. Police recovered a desktop computer stashed inside an area church, a thumb drive hidden in a bush alongside the road, and the iPhone’s serial number stickers from the parking lot of a gas station."
And...
"Apple discovered Hogan’s identity as the iPhone finder the day Gizmodo’s story broke, after Rick Orloff, directory of information security at the company, received a phone call from one of Hogan’s two roommates, Katherine Martinson. She told Apple that Hogan had found the phone and had been offering it to news outlets in exchange for a payment, despite having identified Powell as the rightful owner from a Facebook page visible on the phone’s display when he found it.
“Sucks for him,” Hogan allegedly told Martinson about Powell. “He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.”
Martinson turned Hogan in, because Hogan had plugged the phone into her laptop in an attempt to get it working again after Apple remotely disabled it. She was convinced that Apple would be able to trace her Internet IP address as a result. “Therefore she contacted Apple in order to absolve herself of criminal responsibility,” according to the detective who wrote the affidavit.
Police were preparing a search warrant affidavit for Hogan’s apartment two days later, when Martinson phoned them to report that Hogan and a second roommate, Thomas Warner, were in the process of removing evidence from their Redwood City apartment: a desktop computer, stickers from the iPhone, a thumb drive and a memory card. Police raced to the apartment, but by the time they arrived, Hogan and Warner had left in separate cars with the evidence."
Sounds like the act of a guy who found a phone carelessly left behind. /Sarcasm
Anyway:
"it’s generally considered theft under California law if one “finds lost property under circumstances that give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner” and yet appropriates the property for his own use “without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ommate-iphone/
He's toast
And well he should be. We'll see what happens to Giz. I think they walk.
Fuel youR guys fire again.
Another possible iPhone 4G prototype surfaces in Vietnam!
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/05/12...s-own-a4-chip/