Police Begin Investigation of Prototype iPhone Leak



+ Add a Comment


Claiming a lost phone,, by an employee who admits it was lost,, does not in any fashion make it stolen later.

 Finder, may have been remiss in selling the phone since he didn't own it... if he'd published somewhere in some paper for ten days on finding an unidentified phone.. could make a case... sounds like corporate sour grapes to gain publicity . 



The very wayward son of Frank Leslie Horsley, Lone Pine Creek Ranch, Larimer County, Fort Collins, Colorado, from 1882 give or take a year or two.... Hardway Horsley who loves to gadgets of the 21st Century while living in the 19th.



I mentioned this on another article about this.  This is a big cover up of the failed iPad fiasco.  Nothing more.



OK. So some office decided not to wait until Apple even file a case, but they are going to do it anyway. C'mon real smart guys. 


Electronically charged



First off the guy that found it tried to return it but was rejected so in other words Apple gave him the phone or would they rather just have him run too Google or Microsoft saying hey i think i found the next iphone! I would just say Apple was lucky that it went to gizmod.



 The phone was forgotten and the phone was returned to its owner. It's that pesky little question about how long was the phone held before it was returned and was it because of the publicity that the phone was returned? This is going to be a headache if it comes to a criminal case. Then throw in the $5K reward for the phone eventual return. Uhhh...



"The goal of the inquiry, which is headed by the Santa Clara County
District Attorney's office, is to determine if there is sufficient
evidence to file a criminal case."

 Uh... shouldn't the goal of the inquiry be to discover if a crime was actually commited first? Sounds to me like the DA's already made up his mind, which immediately earns this mess a mistrail if it ever does see the inside of a courtroom. My two cents: Phone was lost, phone was found. He who found it made a documented effort to return said phone to it's owner (the owner being Apple, *not* the tech who lost it btw) to no avail, something that would make no sense if he did in fact steal it. Finding that the owner had no apparent interest in retreiving their lost merchandise, the finder decided to shop around for someone who was, eventually making a deal with a tech website. Tech website is interested enough to shell out 5K, but dubious as to the authenticity of item, and goes about examining it while going to great lengths not to damage it. In the meantime, others at the website reach out to Apple to see if the item is indeed missing from their stock. Apple's legal department eventually responds with an affirmative, and asks for their property back, which the website cheerfully agrees to. Here's the kicker: 1) at time of purchase, Gizmodo was under the impression that the item was found, and had no reason to assume it was stolen; 2) in all the published correspondence, at no time does Apple state or imply that the item was stolen and not found, nor do they ask or demand that Gizmodo not publish anything about the incident or the phone itself; in the week since the story originally ran, at no time has Apple issued a cease and desist order to any website that has chosen to run it; and finally 4) at no time since the incident, or since the publication of the story detailing the incident, has Apple publicly refuted Gizmodo's (or the gentleman who found it) claim that the phone was found and not stolen. They did, however, verify that the gentleman did in fact attempt to return it *before* selling it to Gizmodo. Sorry California DA... no crime bub. I'm sure common sense won't stop you from wasting the tax payers money looking for one anyway, however, because come on... it's California after all. 


Mighty BOB!

It was abandoned property, not stolen property.  (Well, that's how the story goes anyways.)


Keith E. Whisman

Gizmodo is only guilty of buying a stolen phone to return it to it's rightful owner. How is that bad or wrong?






I still think the iPhone was intentionally lost. Whether to throw people off what the real deal is or to start hype since it's release is probably right around the corner, either way Apple wins. 


Ryan Whitwam

Do you really think Apple needs to go to these extremes to get publicity? They get massive coverage without pulling stunts like that, and they know it.



I would say that the only one at fault would be the one who, while testing mind you, lost the phone in the first place.  If one was to be trusted with such a "valuable" item, how stupid could one have been to have just lost the phone.  That engineer is probably the one who sold it as a lost and then found item.



It was an abandoned or lost phone. Personally I would have given it back but actually, do most people really care? (yet one more iPhone, sheesh.... )



What was wrong with Gizmodo to post and pay.. its their money they wanted to spend. It got found and all Apple dudes fault.. sucks but nothing should get the police involved...



Pretty good viral advertising, I think.


Did I make it past the filter?  WooHoo!!!


Zachary K.

finders keepers, losers weepers.



In this case the phone should be considered abandoned property.  It might not have been the ethical thing to do by trying to sell it, but I don't see anything illegal about it.



One thing that is clear is that theft and receiving stolen property is a crime that is punishable by jail time if you are caught with this property. You do not have be the thief, but if you are in receipt of the stolen goods you are guilty as well. If you were not aware of the receipt of stolen property you have to be proven in a court of law of your innocence. But in this case it is very difficult and you will be in a position to prove that you were not aware that the items were stolen. If you are in receipt of property valued at five thousand dollars and over then this is one of the conditions for a felony prosecution. If the stolen property that is being prosecuted for is fewer than five thousand dollars then it is considered a misdemeanor but charges will still be brought up. You will still need to prove that you were not aware the property was stolen.

 Seeing as Gizmodo's only defense is that it paid for the property from an unknown and as of yet untraceable person who claimed that they found it at a bar. When they get sued by Apple, Gizmodo and it's parent company Gawker, which also runs Kotaku will lose.



I don't think it wrong to find it, and post about it like what happened, but I don't think someone should benefit from it.  Buying it for 5K is wrong.  To me that should be criminal.  Do it for free.  Do it for the love of tech.  Don't do it for profit like a pirate.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.