-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gizmodo gets its hands on the new iPhone prototype
- Thread starter Chorazin
- Start date
- Status
Ninja Scooter
Member
In all seriousness, isn't the proper protocol in this situation that you first try and call the owner or someone they know using their phone (usually contacts labeled "home"
or "mom" or something) and if that fails or the phone is locked you leave it with the bar manager and let them deal with it?
or "mom" or something) and if that fails or the phone is locked you leave it with the bar manager and let them deal with it?
Technosteve
Banned
why do i even read astrolad's comments, it's like he has a phd in shittalking
wave dialwave dial said:
Completely unable to understand satire
It was not an analogy, I was satirizing the position that taking and selling a lost item does not qualify as "stealing," when a similar situation of taking and selling an item is also characterized as stealing.
Who even knows if he contacted customer support, they will not publish his support tickets because they are protecting the source, who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious legal reasons.
Hellsing321
Member
Well when the guy found the Phone it was probably the middle of the night. Calling people in the middle of the night isn't very polite even if its to return lost property. By the time the guy woke in the morning the phone was already wiped.Ninja Scooter said:
Apocryphon
Member
§ 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. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.
CREDIT(S)
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1998, c. 752 (S.B.1785), § 9.)
§ 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. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.
(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.
CREDIT(S)
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1992, c. 138 (A.B.2457), § 1.)
§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner
If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.
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. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.
CREDIT(S)
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1998, c. 752 (S.B.1785), § 9.)
§ 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. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.
(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.
CREDIT(S)
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1992, c. 138 (A.B.2457), § 1.)
§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner
If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.
Interfectum
Gold Member
So basically according to wave dial and AstroLad:
If I were to borrow a computer from my local college that had both my information and the school's information on it and I accidentally left it at a bar... it is completely legal to sell it even though:
- You know who dropped it and how to get into contact with this person
- You know who owns it and how to get into contact with the owner
- You contacted the owner and gave them an arbitrary time limit with no basis in law
- You never contacted the police
:lol
If I were to borrow a computer from my local college that had both my information and the school's information on it and I accidentally left it at a bar... it is completely legal to sell it even though:
- You know who dropped it and how to get into contact with this person
- You know who owns it and how to get into contact with the owner
- You contacted the owner and gave them an arbitrary time limit with no basis in law
- You never contacted the police
:lol
WickedAngel
Banned
Hellsing321 said:
Selling it to a third-party and (likely) getting this engineer fired probably isn't much more polite.
Some people also think this is relevant:Majik said:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ype_back_gizmodo_could_face_utsa_lawsuit.html
Section 3425.1 defines "misappropriation of trade secrets" as a civil code violation, with wording that makes it pretty clear that buying a stolen prototype, determining it is authentic and includes valuable information in the form of trade secrets, and then publishing the information to earn money and notoriety for doing so is something that will expose you to legal liability.
The code section defines these phrases:
(a) Improper means includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
(b) Misappropriation means
1) Acquisition of a secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Disclosure or use of a secret of another without express or implied consent by a person whoA) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the secret; or (B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the secret was: (i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.(c) Person means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(d) Trade secret means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that
1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.The remedies outlined for "misappropriation of trade secrets" which "used improper means [including theft] to acquire knowledge of the secret" are described as follows:
§ 3426.3 (a) A complainant may recover damages for the actual loss caused by misappropriation. A complainant also may recover for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.
(b) If neither damages nor unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation are provable, the court may order payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.
(c) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subdivision (a) or (b).
A following section indicates Apple has three years to file suit against Gizmodo and or Gawker Media.
§ 3426.6. An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Consult AstroLad's tag, chumps.
Interfectum
Gold Member
numble said:
Ouch. :lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_SecretInterfectum said:
Hellsing321
Member
Yeah but as the story goes he tried to contact Apple Customer Service since he no longer had any information on the phone to go off. Were they the best people to contact? Probably not, but I don't think this guy had any malicious intent when he found the phone.WickedAngel said:
Apocryphon
Member
Interfectum said:
The story goes that it was found in a bar at night and had been wiped by the following morning. It's concievable that the person who found it didn't actually have access to the details of the person who lost it and so therefore contacted Apple instead.
Ofcourse, contacting Apple's customer service department wouldn't get anybody anywhere, but he could have taken it to the Manager of his local Apple Store if he intended on returning it to Apple. Failing that, his legal obligation was to hand it into the police. Keeping it (and then selling it) constitutes theft.
Gawker paid several thousand dollars to obtain the item, knowing it was Apple's property (they wouldn't pay for something that wasn't genuine) and had been stolen (regardless of the associated details) and so would be guilty of receipt of stolen goods. They should also be guilty of conversion and profiting from stolen goods (tantamount to theft).
Ninja Scooter
Member
But why would I want it? I'm just saying if I was i that guys shoes I probably would have just given it to the barkeep and never thought about it again...not realizing what I had just been holding would be worth thousands of dollars and potentially cause nerdgasms all over the Internet.gcubed said:
Dreams-Visions
Member
so Apple has no case against Giz, but a case against the guy who originally picked it up? Apple was contacted and the item was returned by Giz in what appears to be a timely fashion.Majik said:
Apple a little worse for the wear, but no harm was done to the device, and from what I can tell, they got it back within a day of Giz getting it.
the original finder, however, broke the law and may be subject to a small fine.
edit: just saw numble's post. alrightey then. parts "B" and "D" might cost their parent company millions (as if they have that much).
Dreams-Visions
Member
$3,000, I believe. may have been $5,000. can't remember, but it's one of the 2.Mr Cola said:
got it for cheap, that's for sure. but if a lawsuit comes, it'll have cost them much more than they realized.
Dreams-Visions
Member
that's the fault of the guy who had picked up the phone. he could have pulled MUCH more...but didn't know how strong his hand really was.Mr Cola said:
nobody sells off a prototype iPhone for $3,000-$5,000. you'd have to give me $30k, minimum. because I *know* that exclusive is going to net you $300k in advertisements alone.
POWERSPHERE
Member
Dreams-Visions said:
Not everyone is an economic tech wizard like you, some dude probably thought $3000 for a phone he nicked was a good price. And it is.
Ready Up Already
Neo Member
Ok, time to get back to the device itself.
Am I the only one bemused that they opened the device up but show no actual disassembly pics, or pics of the chipset? One of the burning questions with the new model is whether it is powered by the A4 or has more RAM than the 3GS or iPad (256 megs each). The questions could have been answered yesterday, which would be just as massive a scoop as the front-facing camera or new design. Instead, we get "clever" (in quotes for a reason) emails about how they didn't know it was stolen (honest!) and pleas to go easy on the kid whose Facebook profile they screenshotted and broadcasted to the world.
Am I the only one bemused that they opened the device up but show no actual disassembly pics, or pics of the chipset? One of the burning questions with the new model is whether it is powered by the A4 or has more RAM than the 3GS or iPad (256 megs each). The questions could have been answered yesterday, which would be just as massive a scoop as the front-facing camera or new design. Instead, we get "clever" (in quotes for a reason) emails about how they didn't know it was stolen (honest!) and pleas to go easy on the kid whose Facebook profile they screenshotted and broadcasted to the world.
Dreams-Visions
Member
really think it requires an "economic tech wizard" to have an idea how much a prototype phone might be worth?666 said:
son, I am disappoint.
I like how that was worded. they paid for "access" to the phone. they didn't pay for the phone itself.Meus Renaissance said:
+1 for the Giz legal team.
Technosteve
Banned
Bill Gates would of handled this more classy like, Bill sends his "mergers" and "acquisition" Team goodbye Gizmodo.
Dreams-Visions
Member
damn. never mind. if they bought it, they're screwed again. :lolnumble said:
WickedAngel
Banned
Who the fuck ever thought I'd be defending Apple about anything?
On the other hand, I do have one negative thing to say; if the new iPhone can handle a front-facing cam, there's no good reason why the iPad couldn't as well.
On the other hand, I do have one negative thing to say; if the new iPhone can handle a front-facing cam, there's no good reason why the iPad couldn't as well.
- Status