

Gizmodo paid $10,000 for "lost" iPhone 4G - anderzole
http://www.edibleapple.com/gizmodo-paid-10000-for-lost-iphone-4g/

======
mikedouglas
California Penal Code, Section 485.

 _One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of
or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property
to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without
first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the
property to him, is guilty of theft._

<http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html>

~~~
hugh3
Hmm. So you can't buy or sell lost property, but there's nothing to say you
can't carefully examine and photograph something you found before you return
it to its rightful owner.

So if the finder had taken it to Gizmodo and offered to let them take a look
at it for $10,000 then he'd be in the clear, but if he actually sold it to
Gizmodo then he's in serious trouble.

~~~
maxharris
Gizmodo is in pretty serious trouble, too. They knew what they were paying for
(they have expertise in these things - they can't just claim they bought the
thing off of Craigslist), and I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Gizmodo
ends up in jail over this.

Apple has the same right to their property that you have to your own private
property because Apple is just a voluntary association of employees and
shareholders. Their individual rights give rise to Apple's rights. If someone
stole something you made, like your private journal and plastered it all over
the Internet, you'd be livid, and the perpetrator should go to jail (how long
is for the courts to decide). For that same reason, whoever was involved with
this at Gizmodo belongs in jail (again, how long is a judicial matter).

~~~
jonknee
No one will go to jail. This is the highest profile leak of the kind, but
prototypes get shown online all the time against company wishes. It's usually
a lot more shady than finding it a bar too--Apple would be a lot more
concerned if their supply chain was compromised.

~~~
anigbrowl
I am not so sure about that. A number of things make this case quite
different, such that it may violate federal criminal statutes in multiple
ways. The effects might spread beyond Gizmodo, at that.

Gizmodo offers (some) more details... <http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-
lost-the-next-iphone>

...while Gawker Media head honcho Nick Denton seems to confirm they bought the
thing... <http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12474394397>

Either their lawyers are no good or they didn't bother to check with them in
advance, or they would have been told about their (federal) criminal liability
under the economic espionage act of 1996, which can result in prison for up to
10 years, or fines of up to $5m for the organization.

Seriously - there is not much room for interpretation here:

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832----...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832
----000-.html)

 _Edit: Gizmodo is in SF, not NY. D'oh._

I am not a lawyer.

Edit: Apple already sent a cease-and-desist letter in January to Gawker Media,
warning them they were inviting a violation of California Trade Secrets law.
[http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-
prize-...](http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-
tablet-scavenger-hunt)

~~~
jonknee
I'll let the lawyers sort that out, but I don't think Apple wants to take the
PR hit of sending a blogger to jail for taking pics of a gadget that was left
in a public place. It didn't even have a material effect on stock price, Apple
will have a hard time proving anything but an ego was hurt.

I could be way off base, so if Denton get hauled odd to jail feel free to
reply and get in your kicks.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
Apple has filed lawsuits based on much less[1] and was willing to take the PR
hit for it. I'm aware the circumstances are different, but Apple's obsession
with secrecy has led it to take PR hits before.

[1] - <http://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does>

~~~
jonknee
A lawsuit is much different than criminal charges and yet they also lost the
cases you linked. This time they would be up against a much more formidable
defense too--Gawker has money and connections.

It would be a really tough sell to send a blogger to jail for taking pictures
of something that was in a public place.

~~~
anigbrowl
Indeed so. But as Gizmodo paid for, took possession of, and then publicized
the device, it seems pretty clear that they've crossed a line into
criminality. The US customs service spends money on finding and seizing
knockoffs, including the iPhone, and I wouldn't be that surprised if they
moved on it; even though they might only seeks a token penalty like 1 day in
jail.

 _Gawker has money and connections_

And Apple doesn't? :) Really, the only reason I can think of _not_ to come
down on Giz like a ton of bricks right now is the perception that they've been
throwing their weight around with developers lately.

------
ryandvm
Man, they're gonna be pissed when Apple drops the price 30% in two months...

------
jbyers
Forget the buyer and seller. The person that lost their iPhone prototype in a
bar is the one who's going to get crushed by Apple.

~~~
tuacker
There was an IAMA at reddit a while ago from someone who dropped a prototype
(of a macbook) in public. You can read it here:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a8an1/i_was_part_of_th...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a8an1/i_was_part_of_the_product_design_team_for_apple/c0gb7dk)

~~~
eogas
That exchange sounds as if it was made up by a teenager who has seen Pirates
of Silicon Valley one too many times.

------
tptacek
Someone track down 'grellas; I really want to know what he thinks about this
debacle.

------
toSeeBees
This is pretty reprehensible of the buyer and seller. What if you found a big
bag of money? Would you keep it? If so, fuck you.

Edit: This isn't a matter of what's legal or not, or that it's Apple or not –
it's a general issue with peoples' opportunistically predatory nature.

~~~
SamAtt
It's unquestionably dishonest but I suspect it will make for an interesting
court case as Gizmodo tries to claim the person who sold it is a "source" and
hence they should have a right to anonymity. I don't think it holds up but
it's up for debate. There's no question that people like Mark Felt (aka Deep
Throat) stole documents from the White House which is a much bigger crime than
this.

~~~
tptacek
There is no actual right to anonymity for sources, is there? That's just a
convention among journalists. They go to prison when they refuse to cough up
sources.

~~~
jrockway
Not true:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States)

------
jonknee
Apparently more of the story is coming out soon. They're going to milk it all
they can of course, but it should be interesting.

<http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12472344531>

~~~
brown9-2
I think this is going to end badly for all parties involved, named and
unnamed: <http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12479140215>

------
jeiting
There is nothing in this article that lends any credence to the claim that
Gizmodo paid for the phone. Why should I believe this? Sources are important
people. Not that a site as well known as edibleapple.com would post hearsay to
get views...

~~~
booticon
Nick Denton is more or less confirming it:
<http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12467349291>

------
ig1
There is of course the possibility that it's a fake. The Gizmodo article says
how much work it would be to put together a fake, obviously they haven't been
paying attention to all the fake iphones coming out of China, often with extra
features such as USB and mini-sims.

Edit: In fact the flat plastic back makes it seem similar to the fake covered
in:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_TZfpEvzrQ&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_TZfpEvzrQ&feature=player_embedded)

------
InclinedPlane
Gizmodo is in a bad place here. If Apple chooses they could nail Gizmodo to
the wall. Firstly, Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen merchandise, that is a
criminal offense and the owner (the Apple employee or Apple themselves,
depending on the legalities) could press charges. Secondly, this could be
considered corporate espionage and Apple could make a case in court that they
have been financially damaged by it, to the tune of millions.

~~~
brown9-2
IANAL but there is probably a legal divide between stolen merchandise and lost
merchandise.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Not much of one. You'd need to prove that the merchandise was abandoned, not
just lost. And you'd have to prove the finder did due diligence in locating
the proper owner before taking ownership. Good luck with that in this case.

If Apple had the inclination they could have Gizmodo's balls in a vice.

~~~
Frazzydee
What if Gizmodo does its due diligence after the fact?

ie. First take all the photos they need, then contact Apple

~~~
protomyth
I think paying the money is the trigger point for some problems.

~~~
jrockway
Exchanging money doesn't mean exchanging ownership. If you pay an agency
$10,000 to photograph a model, you don't _own_ that model. Why would a
telephone be any different?

~~~
anigbrowl
Per Gizmodo themselves, they got the phone and held onto it until contacted by
Apple's Bruce Sewell who requested its return. Nick Denton has been quoted in
several other news stories as saying he paid $5000 for it.

------
paul9290
To me i don't believe everything I see and hear. This could be Apple doing
this to create buzz, as well it could be Gizmodo and Engadget making this up
for buzz/traffic.

~~~
angstrom
I'm skeptical in part because my first reaction would be to email Steve and
ask him if they lost anything the size and shape of an iPhone lately. If he
did and he can tell you what it looks like they can have it back. If they
didn't I hock it to the highest bidder and discard the email from Steve.

------
towndrunk
So what processor is in this thing? Does it have the A4 like the iPad?

------
bwag
I keep waiting for this headline: "Gizmodo Digs Deeper: Reveals iPhone
Prototype to Actually be a Nexus Two Prototype"

------
rdl
It seems vastly more likely to me that someone "arranged" to "lose" a phone
ahead of time, to get it to Gizmodo with some kind of plausible deniability.

Presumably also there are uniquely identifying IDs in the phone (IMEI, but for
a dev phone maybe that is in flash), or just a limited number of these phones,
so Apple can do inventory and find out who lost the device. At that point,
extensive interviewing to make sure the loss was actually a loss.

------
pier0
Gizmodo Lost and Found: who owns the phone in the pictures?

------
saikat
Just saw this on Sachin's blog - [http://sachinlet.posterous.com/the-leaked-
next-generation-ip...](http://sachinlet.posterous.com/the-leaked-next-
generation-iphone-looks-amazi) .

------
pier0
I wonder how much Apple paid to the guy that "misplaced" the phone.

------
niekmaas
And the author of this article doesn't take in to account the possibility that
Apple gave Gizmodo the phone to build up the hype for the new iPhone?

It's the oldest trick in the book. Costs just one prototype and the whole
internet is talking about it. I don't believe anything of the "stolen", "lost"
or perhaps even "mugged" stories. The "mugged" I came up with myself. Makes as
much sense as stolen etc.

~~~
czhiddy
This post says it better than I could:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bt3cp/this_is_ap...](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bt3cp/this_is_apples_next_iphone/c0ofitw)

~~~
jsz0
I dunno. With all the fake photos out there I feel like maybe Apple had to
step up their slow-leak campaign to include actual hardware this time around.
There's some pretty strong competition out and iPhone 3G owners on a 2 year
contract are now looking at a small early termination fee if they wanted to
jump ship. Now is a pretty good time to build hype post-iPad -- let consumers
know Apple hasn't forgotten about the iPhone. Between this, the iPad launch,
iPhone OS 4 and new MacBooks Apple has pretty much dominated the tech media
for the last 4 weeks.

------
CoachRufus87
head(s) are certainly rolling in Cupertino; can't wait to get my hands on one
though

------
confuzatron
Gizmodo should have given it back to Apple. Apple probably had to go ahead and
buy themselves a new iPhone so they could make and receive calls. They're out
of pocket here!

------
ck2
I have to laugh at how Apple was able to remotely disable that one specific
phone at their will. If that's not alarming to anyone who owns an apple
product, they simply deserve to lose control of whatever they buy.

~~~
robgough
Isn't that the entire point of mobile phones having an IMEI number? Hardly new
to the iPhone. In fact, it looks as if all they've actually done is the
remote-wipe feature of mobile me ... and no one outside apple can get it
working again, as you need the right "image" to restore on to it. Which
obviously isn't available yet.

edit: I presume IMEI isn't something that's unique to the UK?

~~~
jacquesm
> I presume IMEI isn't something that's unique to the UK?

Definitely not, though depending on the underlying system the acronym will
change a bit, the function is the same, to identify a phone independent of the
identity card in it.

This is why people that prank call 911 with their identity card removed from
the phone are caught.

~~~
viraptor
Not always... there are lots of mobile phones where you can change the imei
with simple tricks - temporarily or permanently. I know it was trivial to
reprogram this on many siemens sets ~6 years ago.

