5 ms·
This article makes a bunch of assumptions. The most important assumption is that they guy who found the phone didn't make a reasonable effort to return it. Ju
by clammer 16y ago
This article makes a bunch of assumptions. The most important assumption is that they guy who found the phone didn't make a reasonable effort to return it.
Just because the phone says "Apple" on the back, doesn't mean Apple owns it. My phone says that too, but I wouldn't want it sent to Apple if I lost it. Also, my understanding was that the phone was bricked remotely. Not much you can do to find the owner of a phone that doesn't turn on.
It would seem to me that this assumption must be proven true before police can take action against Chen, since unless this assumption is true, there is no cause to invade his office.
I don't know what the facts are, but the they need to be set straight in this matter before we declare anyone guilty.
- ubernostrum 16y agoThe most important assumption is that they guy who found the phone didn't make a reasonable effort to return it. The relevant statute, which has been referenced over and over and over, is very clear. It does not award points for effort. Instead, like Yoda, it says that you either do or do not -- there is no "try". Since he did not do what the law required, he's on the hook for theft.
- illumin8 16y agoYou're supposed to turn it into the police office, or else you broke the law.
- Terretta 16y agoA reasonable person would hand it to the proprietor of the premises. It became "stolen" when he walked out with it. I've gotten back lost items at the register of where I left them, or never gotten them back at all. This implies honest people turn things in, while dishonest people walk out with them.
- scott_s 16y agoIt's not possible for the person who found the phone in the bar to both not know the phone is a valuable prototype owned by Apple and know that it would be worth $5000 to a tech news website.
- anigbrowl 16y agoIt doesn't just say Apple on the back. It's disguised with a removable case to look like a previous model, has stickers on it with serial numbers, and the Gizmodo staffers evaluating it are expert commentators on the gadget industry. Now you could say that the Hogan fellow who found it is naive, and it's apparent that a lot of people were not aware of finders' legal responsibilities in California; ignorance is not a legal defense, but that means only that an attorney can't offer it as a reason to have a case dismissed. A jury and judge might well regard his crime as a petty one and find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. But where Chen (and indirectly, his employers) are concerned, they really should know better because the size and practices of the industry they report on is exactly what brings a sufficiently large audience to sell advertising.