

  (Source: Gizmodo)
Wired apparently didn't think buying potentially stolen goods was a good idea




They claim the $5,000 "sale" described by 

The finder is reportedly a college-aged Silicon Valley man.



Comments     Threshold


By mostyle on 4/28/2010 8:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
Okay I'm not trying to defend either party here but seriously.. If the guy really just 'found' the phone and did indeed exercise due diligence in trying to contact Apple to return the product I still don't understand where that diligence entitled him to transfer the property to another entity since it was never his thereby concluding that he had no power of transfer. Now with regards to Chen it would seem logical that there was indeed some communication between he and the finder with regards to terms of the exchange. If the whole spin about the $5k being a fee to ensure the alleged exclusivity is true then I think Chen would hold little culpability in the matter. This however does seem like a gray area since unless implicitly documented prior to the whole thing coming to light it would be hard to validate this (at least with a straight face) to anyone with half a clue. Wait... That means it could be validated to our judicial system.


RE: Theft
By bupkus on 4/28/2010 11:35:20 AM , Rating: 4
I have hesitated to comment on the "finder" because I really didn't feel comfortable supporting any assignment of innocence to his cause. As bits of information accumulate I feel even less likely to do so.

I believe we, each of us, encounter a time when we're faced with an opportunity to make a tough decision which may benefit us in a material way or help another person recover something of value. It comes to a moment of decision where we reveal to ourselves what we are made of. Often times we may surprise ourselves in our choices. I will relate a story.

I was at happy hour at a bar across the street from the Biltmore Fashion Square in Scottdale, AZ. This area is often frequented by employees of the encircling investment firms. I was their for a cheap burger and fries as my own finances were not so good and led to a booth by the receptionist. When I sat I noticed next to me was an expensive looking wallet. I looked and thought and thought and called the waitress over and handed her the wallet without even opening it to look inside. I swear to God I didn't want to see whatever money was inside as I was afraid of the temptation. She took the wallet, ran outside and gave it to her previous clients, one of which looked surprised as he apparently hadn't noticed it was lost.

The "finder" of the phone could have simply handed it to the owner of the establishment as that would have been the easiest solution for himself, but his instinct was a profit motive and that was a mistake. I doubt the $5000 he gained, even if he were allowed to keep it, which he won't, would even begin to cover his legal fees.

AS for the blogger dude, lots of luck. You'll need it. At the very least, you're gonna be paying some serious legal fees.

RE: Theft
By HalJordan on 4/28/2010 4:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The first, easiest, and most practical approach when finding any stray item is to hand it over the owners, manager, waitress, etc... I'm guessing 99% of the time the owner is going to come back and ask about their errant property. Lets give "finder" the benefit of the doubt, say he didn't' trust the bartender to not pocket the phone, and he did call Apple. Apple gives the guy the runaround, so the next step is to hand it over to the authorities. If the finder doesn't trust the cops, he could always ship it back to Cupertino himself for about 5 bucks. My point is that there were many options available to the guy before going to the press. I honestly feel he knew the importance of the prototype, attempted a half-hearted effort to return it to Apple, and then immediately went looking to get paid.

RE: Theft
By tmouse on 4/29/2010 8:33:57 AM , Rating: 3
The police have some case against the seller but then again it has some weaknesses. There is no requirement to give something to the police or the owner of an establishment but you then assume all the responsibility so it is the wisest choice. There is also no crime in not doing so thinking you could get a reward for its return (although you cannot demand one). You do not have to place any ads if you have an idea who owns the device but you should make sure you can document your efforts to contact them. The problem he has is when (if) Apple told him it was not theirs he should have placed an ad and waited since presumably he now does not know the owner. He certainly made a serious mistake in selling the item since it put him in the place of depriving the owner of their property. Although not a valuable if he waited a year after placing the ads he still would have had a collector's item that would be valuable and legally his (provided Apple is not saying it was obtained by pick pocketing) and here again any contact initiated by him to Apple would pretty much destroy that case.

Gizmodo will probably be paying nothing, the EFF will more than likely do this for free. The police have NO case and I believe the search will be declared illegal and possibly open the police and the city to a lawsuit. To prove receivership of stolen goods they have to PROVE either Gizmodo paid the guy to get the item in question, or had knowledge the item was stolen AND real and they planned to permanently deprive Apple of the item (this if KEY in a receiving of stolen goods case). It's perfectly legal to buy something and lose your money by returning it to the owner. All Gizmodo has to do is say they were not 100% sure it was even real and that they planned to return it to Apple if it was and the police have to PROVE they did not think that way (pretty hard to do beyond a reasonable doubt). They have already documented that once they got the item and determined it was in fact real they initiated contacted with Apple. Now I'm not sure of this but I believe the item was sent directly back to Apple by their request (they did not send the police to pick it up), IF that happened the seller may even get a pass because now the phone itself is totally inadmissible as evidence since the chain of custody has been broken. The police have to get it from Gizmodo directly to connect it with the seller and Apple cannot get it back until either the criminal investigation is dropped or the trials are over. It is supposed to be evidence but now I cannot see it being allowed.

IF it goes to any trial it will be interesting since any competent defense will request ALL of Apples internal e-mails and their phone records from the period in question and they will totally grill the employee about this "theft" that could answer questions about the incredible timing of the release of this story. If this case just gets dropped then there should be some form of investigation to determine if Apple used the police to intimidate the press. This sets a BAD precedent; if it goes unchallenged then expect the police to use the excuse of "a felony has been committed " to size any news agencies records and that would be worse for all of us in the long run.

