isn't this a bit excessive over something that would have been out in ~3 months anyway?
An engineer leaves phone in a bar. Gizmodo purchases phone, does their expose, then returns phone. Cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc.
An engineer leaves phone in a bar. Gizmodo purchases phone, does their expose, then returns phone. Cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc.
When was that ever established?
I call bullshit.
Especially since it was an iPhone prototype. You know it's Apple's property, you know they want it, and you know how to contact them. You also know that the person selling it to you knows the same thing -- they're selling it, after all. You are participating in breaking the law by buying it from them unless you're buying it with the intent of immediately returning it and reporting the offender to the police.
Really, that's the end of the story. The rest is bullshit.
More to the point: the folks at Gizmodo, being reporters on this very industry, were uniquely positioned to know exactly what the phone was. The five thousand dollars that exchanged hands drives home that point. They'll have a very difficult time mounting an ignorance-based defense here.
Note: this was my thinking before I found out CA has weird laws about this (see other replies in this thread).
Making money on the story about the expired condom is tacky, but i don't think it's in bad faith. bob got his wallet back, not a dollar missing.
Buying the wallet from a junkie who's more that capable of giving bob his wallet back, that's not right.
Between that and the half-assed attempts of the "finder" to try to return the phone, according to California state law, the phone is almost certainly considered stolen.
Apple has cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc.