cjvitek
Well-known member
From what I have read, there are a few issues.
First, it appears that according to California law, if you find something and have a reasonable opportunity/ability to return it to the rightful owner, your are obligated to do so. This is not the law in other states, where basically you have "finders keepers". If you do not try to return it in California, then it is stolen property (from what I can determine).
Now, for Gizmodo, ultimately it depends what they guy who sold it to them said. If he told them he tried to return it to Apple and Apple did not claim it, then didn't they guy make a "reasonable attempt" to return it (or at least claim to)? If so, then it would no longer be stolen property. On the other hand, if they guy just said "I found this iPhone prototype in a bar, what to buy it?" then no reasonable attempt was made, and it would be considered stolen (and Gizmodo should not have bought it.).
So without know exactly what the guy who found the iPhone claimed to have done, we can't really place judgement on Gizmodo. When Apple finally did say it was theirs, Gizmodo returned it without question. From what I can understand, when Gizmodo got the phone, it was already "bricked", so Gizmodo didn't have any way of finding the actual owner (other than it just being an Apple prototype).
Personally, I think the guy who found the phone is more at fault than Gizmodo, given California law and simply ethics. He knew who the phone belonged to (both the engineer and the company). He says he made no attempt to return it (he "thought" about calling Apple, or something like that) and instead arranged to sell the phone to someone. The bartender says the engineer returned repeatedly asking about the phone. The guy knew the engineers name, yet never tried to contact him.
Regardless of what he told Gizmodo, according to California law, he was selling a stolen device. At best he simply didn't know about California law (and he should have looked into it before he did anything). At worst he knowingly ignored the law. Either way, he didn't seem to behave very ethically.
Chris
First, it appears that according to California law, if you find something and have a reasonable opportunity/ability to return it to the rightful owner, your are obligated to do so. This is not the law in other states, where basically you have "finders keepers". If you do not try to return it in California, then it is stolen property (from what I can determine).
Now, for Gizmodo, ultimately it depends what they guy who sold it to them said. If he told them he tried to return it to Apple and Apple did not claim it, then didn't they guy make a "reasonable attempt" to return it (or at least claim to)? If so, then it would no longer be stolen property. On the other hand, if they guy just said "I found this iPhone prototype in a bar, what to buy it?" then no reasonable attempt was made, and it would be considered stolen (and Gizmodo should not have bought it.).
So without know exactly what the guy who found the iPhone claimed to have done, we can't really place judgement on Gizmodo. When Apple finally did say it was theirs, Gizmodo returned it without question. From what I can understand, when Gizmodo got the phone, it was already "bricked", so Gizmodo didn't have any way of finding the actual owner (other than it just being an Apple prototype).
Personally, I think the guy who found the phone is more at fault than Gizmodo, given California law and simply ethics. He knew who the phone belonged to (both the engineer and the company). He says he made no attempt to return it (he "thought" about calling Apple, or something like that) and instead arranged to sell the phone to someone. The bartender says the engineer returned repeatedly asking about the phone. The guy knew the engineers name, yet never tried to contact him.
Regardless of what he told Gizmodo, according to California law, he was selling a stolen device. At best he simply didn't know about California law (and he should have looked into it before he did anything). At worst he knowingly ignored the law. Either way, he didn't seem to behave very ethically.
Chris