iPhone 4G
- Started
- Last post
- 143 Responses
- georgesIII0
I'll copy the whole thing, I won't say I agree 100% with the guy, but he does have a decent point
-
None of us know the background details and what actually happened, do we? Without intimate details it's mere speculation on what is what and who did what, wrong or otherwise.Assuming I know the limited information you know, it seems to me that Gizmodo is not guilty of anything here (meaning crimes). Consider this:
1. The Phone Was Not Stolen Property, It Was Found Property. The Found Property Law Applies Here.
Apple's actions to date indicate the DEVICE (that's what Apple calls it) ended up at Gizmodo exactly as it has described, an engineer forgot it at the bar and someone found it. That's too bad for Apple, but no crime has been committed. (And not later either).
California law says that on finding stuff one does NOT have to take charge of it and look for the owner. But if you do pick up the property and can easily ascertain the owner you should try to contact the owner so the owner can arrange for its return to him or her.
The law does NOT say when this all must be done, it must be a reasonable time.
Supposedly attempts were made by the finer to contact Apple and they allegedly shrugged off the calls as crank calls or suspected the person found a Chinese knockoff.
So until Apple's letter, it appears no one knew if this was in fact an iPhone, a fake, or whatever. Whatever it was, the finder discharged his obligations under the law, making an attempt to return the property to the owner.
EVEN IF THE FINDER'S STORY IS BOGUS (ABOUT CONTACTING APPLE) HIS CRIMINAL INTENT (SOME ACCUSE HIS INTENT WAS TO SELL THE DEVICE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER) DOES NOT TRANSFER TO GIZMODO. After it acquired the DEVICE, Gizmodo expected Apple to contact them if it was in fact Apple property.
Gizmodo even said words to the affect "So far Apple has not asked for it back, if it does then we can assume it's real."
This is important because it shows Gizmodo's lack of SPECIFIC INTENT to either keep or receive what it knows to be stolen property (and violating the found property law) nor the specific intent to keep found property instead of making an attempt to return it (and arguably Gizmodo did not have to make an attempt since the finder said he already did that and Apple blew him off as a crank or dumb ass who bought a Chinese knockoff iPhone).
2. Gizmodo Did Not KNOWINGLY Receive or Buy Stolen property.
After the fact, sure it has been confirmed that the DEVICE was Apple's property, but think about it, until Apple's lawyer sent a letter asking for its DEVICE back no one knew if it was in fact the next iPhone or anything from Apple.
While the press and everyone now calls this the next iPhone or a "prototype iPhone," before Apple asked for it back, no one knew what it was or who it belonged to. BECAUSE OF THIS, GIZMODO'S ACTIONS CANNOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DEALING IN SOME MANNER WITH STOLEN PROPERTY.
Yes, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks now say different, but how many of you BEFORE Apple's letter were calling this a Gizmodo hoax? A lot were. Just check out the comments posted BEFORE Apple's letter.
I recall seeing all kinds of comments on the Net (potential EVIDENCE) where people said or speculated the following:
-- The whole thing was an Apple marketing gimmick.
-- It was a Chinese knock-off.
-- Until Apple contacts Gizmodo, they would not believe it was an iPhone or that it belonged to Apple.
-- Others giggled and chortled that Gizmodo "fell for it" and got taken for $5,000.
-- Gizmodo published that it was speculation as to whether this was an iPhone or not.
-- Gizmodo invited people to draw their own conclusions.
-- Look at the Apple lawyer letter. Notice that it does not say anything about the DEVICE being stolen, it's does not say what it is (certainly not the iPhone) and it simply REQUESTS for the property to be returned.
If your phone is STOLEN from your car and you know who the culprit is what do you do, write a letter requesting a time when YOU can go pick it up or do you call the cops to retrieve your phone and have the person arrested?
If Apple is using the police to teach people a lesson and send the message to the press (even blogs can be considered media) that "this is what happens when you mess with Apple" the entire plan will backfire and Apple may even be sued. (You can't use law enforcement to gain business advantage).
Conclusion: Receiving stolen property is a specific intent crime. In order to be convicted of this crime the DA has to prove that Gizmodo knew, or that a reasonable person would know, that the device was STOLEN and not the property of the finder/seller. E.g., you buy an iPad from someone in a parking lot selling iPads out of the trunk of his car, for $100.
And as to violating California's found property law, Apple does not have a chance there, for all the reasons stated above. In fact, ask yourself this. Does anyone even know what this is yet? Apple has not said.
Even if it did, that would not matter since in the chain of events Gizmodo did not have a duty to try a second time to contact Apple.
Moreover, Apple has failed to say what the found device is and declare its value. As far as the law is concerned it might as well be a dummy display device worth $10. In other words, even though its to late to assign a high dollar value after the fact, as long as Apple wants to keep the device confidential and not assessing a dollar value, it cannot press charges against Gizmodo for dealing with stolen property.
If Apple wants to keep this all secret then it can't pursue anyone. Currently the found device has the value of a rock or lump of coal. Apple cannot after the fact attribute a dollar value and then prosecute on that basis.
2. Apple eventually sent a letter to Gizmodo REQUESTING (not demanding) for the DEVICES RETURN (Apple did not even call it a phone!) Note the letter did not even contain a deadline to respond. It simply said "Please let me know where to pick up the unit." This is not the tone of someone demanding for the return of stolen goods. (More on that later.)
Until the letter was sent to Gizmodo no one knew:
That the DEVICE was in fact an Apple device,
That it belonged to Apple
Or what it was (and we still do not know what it is. Yeah, we can guess by looking at it, but legally we still don't know).
The Apple lawyer letter is "Exhibit" A in getting Gizmodo out of criminal legal jeopardy.
3. Yes, there's California's shield law that protects journalist sources. But IMHO this is not Gizmodo's best defense. While the law may be relevant to defending against civil liability, the main concern at this time is criminal jeopardy. If the DA can't prove intent, there's no case, end of inquiry.
4. There's other laws to that protect citizens from others using law enforcement for intimidation, harassment or financial gain. Apple may be guilty and be subject to a lawsuit by Gizmodo for possibly lying to law enforcement so they would search Gizmodo employees' homes, offices and cars. What better way to send a message to anyone who intends to write about Apple than to send the police to search your home.
5. Yes, some of you are railing against Gizmodo because you don't like the editor or whatever. But that's irrelevant to defending against a criminal prosecution. What matters is that Gizmodo did nothing wrong. The real crime here is Apple egging on the police to do its bidding. You just know that Apple, being the big property and business tax payers they are, influenced the police to go forward with this.
- SteveJobs0
^ cliffnotes?