Jeffgrado | # 41 | 2010-04-27, 08:14 | Report

A company needs to legally protect their brand. If that means setting a precedent like this for future similar cases, then it's what needs to be done. Apple is a publicly traded company, so it has obligations, even if that means some bad-will for PR.

In other news, Nokia is littering the streets with prototypes in hopes of some attention.

Dancairo | # 42 | 2010-04-27, 08:16 | Report

Hi John

I'm no lawyer but my ex GF is, I remember her saying that (in UK at least) that if you find something and you know who it belongs too (even if you don't, you are obliged to hand it in to the police) and do not return it, it's basically (in law) the same as stealing.
Therefore, if you buy something off a person who has found/stolen an item, you would be receiving stolen goods, especially, as in this case, Gizmodo knew it was lost/found/stolen.

There was a case recently of a couple who found a winning lottery ticket and banked the money...They were arrested, tried, convicted and had their bank accounts emptied to return the money...Not quite the same but similar principle.
I would never buy an apple product but i'm inclined to side with them on this...

Of course, this is assuming USA has similar laws...hmmmm!!!

---

Last edited by Dancairo; 2010-04-27 at 08:25.

Lazarpandar | # 43 | 2010-04-27, 08:18 | Report

I agree with this on one level, but on another Gizmodo didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Oh well, ignorance of the law is no excuse.. Gizmodo should have contacted a lawyer to ask what the limits were before posting Apple's intellectual property.

AlMehdi | # 44 | 2010-04-27, 08:24 | Report

Well.. Apple = 1984 = true.. This only confirms it.

lol! And.. Nokia = 1968 = True

Dancairo | # 45 | 2010-04-27, 08:26 | Report

Excellent Jeff

SirMuttley | # 46 | 2010-04-27, 09:07 | Report

The way I see it gizmodo broke the law and then told everyone about it online.

I'm no fan of Apple, but I'm not sure why people are having a go at Apple about this.

SirMuttley | # 47 | 2010-04-27, 09:16 | Report

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

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.

It was lost, until the guy sold it. Then it became theft.

ysss | # 48 | 2010-04-27, 09:23 | Report

I can understand Shield law being used to protect whistleblowers and other informants that leak information for the benefit of the people, but this whole thing is just about Gizmodo capitalizing on Apple's trade secrets for their own blog's benefit. Nothing more.

Royalridge | # 49 | 2010-04-27, 09:27 | Report

And in another FAIL, Giz broke the news on a day when they had pre-sold the entire days advertising to Kodak for a fixed fee so they didn't earn any extra from the additional 3.6M visitors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/bu...l?ref=business

---

Last edited by Royalridge; 2010-04-27 at 09:28. Reason: Added link to source.

nidO | # 50 | 2010-04-27, 09:32 | Report

Actually thats not where it directly becomes theft, but where it becomes rather more unclear.
As was reported, the guy tried numerous times to return it to apple, and the reports say that he was told by Apple what he has is just a knock-off, and not to bother them about it.
Granted, he was probably only talking to monkeys on apple's helpdesk and only got a TR for his trouble, but if theyre the only point of contact apple will provide to him, then by the law you just quoted he clearly did make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property" by contacting them, whereupon the owner told him the device wasnt theirs and they didnt want it.
Both the guy and Gizmodo clearly had strong evidence the device was Apple's, so no effort was reasonably needed to locate any other potential owner, and he made all reasonable effort to return it to Apple before selling it (as reported, anyway).