We know the answer... Theif since he made no attempt return. If i leave my keys in my car running on the street and someone takes it. Yes i am dumb, but its stolen. I am sure the bar has a lost and found. If it was a anything other than a new iphone i am sure it would be in lost and found....
I am enjoying feeding the fire Personally could care less about an Iphone or any apple product for that matter.
August Knights Ventrilo status
Don't let your Alligator mouth overload your Canary ASS!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."- Albert Einstein
If you find yourself in a losing battle....your tactics suck!
The pawn store standard sounds about right - with the note that this store then tracked down who they thought was the rightful owner and returned it upon written confirmation.
As to Powell, he sure took his time putting in that theft claim.
As to who cares? I'm not vested in any of this, I just find it really interesting! No fanboy, but I do know a cool phone when I see it, and look
forward to handling this one. I just hope I don't need written documentation of ownership before I handle one in the store!
The owner called the bar repeatedly, checking to see whether or not anyone had turned it in.
The "finder" behaved like an ass by A) not turning the phone over to the bartender and B) not attempting to get in touch with the guy who's name he saw on facebook, and C) attempting to sell to mulitple media sources (Engadget, Wired, at least, before settling on Gizmodo.)
If it didn't start as a theft, it quickly got shady looking.
Gizmodo acted like asses by publishing the name of the engineer who "lost" the device. One could argue that they shouldn't have bought the phone, but I'm up in the air on that one.
Apple is attempting to make it uncomfortable for Gizmodo to (hopefully) make other companies think twice about doing what Gizmodo did (purchasing and publishing.) Given what both parties did above, it's hard for me to feel sad for the "finder" and Gizmodo (and by proxy, their editor.)
Personal example - I was at Disney a couple weeks ago. I was picking up some drinks at a poolside bar, and while I was waiting for the bartender to complete my order, I found a credit card on the bar. The bar surface was wildly multicolor, so it kind of blended right in. I could've kept the credit card. I instead gave it to the bartender.
The guy should've handed the phone to the bartender. When the true owner called later that evening, he would've had his property back. End of story.
The sun has fallen down
And the billboards are all leering
And the flags are all dead at the top of their poles.
The difference with the pawn store analogy is that in this case the pawn store (Gizmodo) didn't simply possess the item and then return it. They took it apart and then published detailed pictures and information on the item. They profited from the item. Only AFTER they had done all this did they then make sure it got back to Apple.
[AK]Bribo
If you were a zombie and I had to kill you, I'd feel sad.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
---
Hustedia.com | Husted Visuals | The Racing Historian
[AK]Bribo
If you were a zombie and I had to kill you, I'd feel sad.
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.
The sun has fallen down
And the billboards are all leering
And the flags are all dead at the top of their poles.