Ye Macce Threade

[Dusty Chalk]

the facts in this case are pretty well known... some guy takes it...

FIFY. It's not known at this point that it was stolen. Also pretty sure you can't prove Gizmodo knew it was stolen at the time that they bought it. Even if it's proven that the initial person stole the phone, it's a separate legal issue entirely to say in hindsight that they knowingly bought a stolen phone. And the fact that they began machinations to return it before the raid tells me that while their intentions may not have been entirely benevolent, they weren't ...er...larcenic? Felonial? Theft-oriented. I believe there's a statute of limitations involved here, but I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you.

[Knuckledragger]

Law & Order: 4G.

[The Monkey]

The Royal Virginian Mounted Police should be able to sort this out right quick.

[Voltron]

I loved Larcenic and Old Lace, that comedy about two old lady thieves who used Elderberry wine to dope their marks...

California Penal Code Section 487 -- "Grand Theft"

Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:

(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is

of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400) except as provided

in subdivision (.

( Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in

any of the following cases:

(1) (A) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous

fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm

crops are taken of a value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars

($250).

( For the purposes of establishing that the value of avocados or

citrus fruit under this paragraph exceeds two hundred fifty dollars

($250), that value may be shown by the presentation of credible

evidence which establishes that on the day of the theft avocados or

citrus fruit of the same variety and weight exceeded two hundred

fifty dollars ($250) in wholesale value.

(2) When fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, algae, or

other aquacultural products are taken from a commercial or research

operation which is producing that product, of a value exceeding two

hundred fifty dollars ($250).

(3) Where the money, labor, or real or personal property is taken

by a servant, agent, or employee from his or her principal or

employer and aggregates nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) or more in

any 12 consecutive month period.

© When the property is taken from the person of another.

(d) When the property taken is any of the following:

(1) An automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any

caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt,

barrow, or pig.

(2) A firearm.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

California Penal Code 496 -- "Receiving Stolen Property"

(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has

been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting

theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,

or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,

or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to

be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a

state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that

this action would be in the interests of justice, the district

attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of

the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950),

specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a

misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not

exceeding one year.

A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted

pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both

pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.

( Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the

Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal

business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal

property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that

person, who buys or receives any property of a value in excess of

nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) that has been stolen or obtained in

any manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that

should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make

reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the

property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or

deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be punished by

imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more

than one year.

Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the

Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal

business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal

property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that

person, who buys or receives any property of a value of nine hundred

fifty dollars ($950) or less that has been stolen or obtained in any

manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that

should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make

reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the

property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or

deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor.

© Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision

(a) or ( may bring an action for three times the amount of actual

damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and

reasonable attorney's fees.

(d) Notwithstanding Section 664, any attempt to commit any act

prohibited by this section, except an offense specified in the

accusatory pleading as a misdemeanor, is punishable by imprisonment

in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

Seems like theft to me, and it would also seem to me that Gizmodo had every reason to know that the highly secret and valuable prototype of Apple's next iPhone was not obtained by the seller with permission from Apple, its owner, regardless of how the seller came into possession. Moreover, Gizmodo and others have been warned by Apple previously that if they solicit for prototype devices and the like that Apple would consider it theft of trade secrets.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, it would be theft if he was there (I.E. they took it from him); since he left it, that's "protective custody". There are definitely bars where, if someone left their phone, I'd take it (to return to them) rather than leave it with the bartender or any other patron. And yeah, if it was something I or the world had never seen before, I'd rifle through it a bit.

And my point was not intent, but rather that they did not perform any stealing -- at best, they can be considered an accomplice -- or whatever it would be, fencing? -- if they bought known stolen goods. The statute of limitations comment came from "if they try to return it within a reasonable amount of time, then it's not considered stealing". I bet the statute of limitations is pretty long on that one.

But if you want to play armchair judge jury and executioner, Jacob, at least ...you know, be right.

(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has

been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting

theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained...

It says right there that they have to know it was stolen in order to be held liable. I win. Nanner nanner.

And WTH is a 'jenny'? And why artichokes?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Dusty Chalk

[blessingx]

I'm getting tired of the caprine animal lobby and their special treatment.

[tyrion]

Sounds like theft by one and receiving stolen property by the other. I don't know Califiornia law, other than what I just read above but there is no way the statute of limitations has run.

[Dusty Chalk]

there is no reason to pay $5000 for it unless you are pretty sure it's a prototype, and if you're pretty sure it's a prototype, then you are pretty sure it's stolen.

Unless the seller reassured you that they made their darnedest effort to return it, but maybe with your connections, you can get through to Apple in the way that we can't, but we know you're going to look it over before you return it to them, so give us some dosh for our beer habits.

And again, if the person wasn't there to steal from, is that considered theft? The bar's closing, you know they're gone...

Victim of extortion, at best.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Dusty Chalk

[Dusty Chalk]

"We specified artichokes, because we don't know if it's a fruit, vegetable, nut, or 'other', so we just threw it in. Aw, shit, we forgot legumes."

[Dusty Chalk]

Doesn't matter what I believe, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not what happened, Mr. Armchair Prosecuting Attorney.

I mean, if we're going to "try them out of court", as it were.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Dusty Chalk

[Dusty Chalk]

Also: why would they shoot themselves in the foot, and ruin their "it was all a ploy by Apple to leak the phone to us" explanation? Gizmodo were the ones to explain why that couldn't have been the case, not Apple.

[n_maher]

By giving the iPhone back, isn't this effectively what they did -- paid money, got access to it for a limited time? I doubt they asked for their $5,000 back.

Not in my book, no. But I'm sure there are several lawyers on both sides who will enjoy arguing about intent.

[Voltron]

You're wrong, Dusty.

Sorry, got a call I had to take. This is theft. It isn't finders keepers and it isn't holding it until it gets returned. It is Apple's property that was either taken directly from its employee or left unattended by that employee and grabbed by somebody. And as I said before, there is plenty of evidence to support Gizmodo's "knowingly" receiving stolen goods.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Voltron

[Beefy]

But I'm sure there are several lawyers on both sides who will enjoy arguing about intent.

Its a good thing. Without lawyers getting rich from things like this, who would be buying high end audio?

[penger]

Well they found the guy who did it... Man who found — and sold — the missing iPhone unmasked - Yahoo! News Maybe more light will be shed on the situation.

[Dusty Chalk]

...or left unattended by that employee and grabbed by somebody...

Why not this? Is it because it's a super-duper top-secret Apple product? If someone were to leave their regular 3G iPhone in a bar -- in exactly the same manner -- and someone else were to grab it -- in exactly the same manner -- and somehow some magical mysterious way, someone bricked it, took out the sim card and whatnot (I.E. rendered it resellable), and sold it on eBay, do you think the recipient of said sold stolen iPhone would have had a raid on their house, trying to determine if they knew when they bought it on eBay that it was a stolen iPhone?

Really? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but theft shouldn't be a function of what is stolen, only of the value of what is stolen.

It would be an entirely different manner if they were claiming trade secrets/intellectual property, or whatnot, but the only thing different about what Gizmodo did to what Gizmodo usually does is they did it without permission from Apple, and they did it earlier than Apple wanted. Those "trade secrets" were going to be revealed in the future, when Apple was ready to sell the product.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Dusty Chalk

[The Monkey]

Its a good thing. Without lawyers getting rich from things like this, who would be buying high end audio?

God bless us everyone!

[luvdunhill]

when do you guys think the mac mini will get refreshed?

[Salt Peanuts]

when do you guys think the mac mini will get refreshed?

Right after I buy one.

[luvdunhill]

Right after I buy one.

(I figure this .. or never, like Reks said)

Schr

[Knuckledragger]

ISTR it was nearly 600 days between Mac Mini refreshes according to the Mac Rumors Buyer's Guide. I'm currently waiting a cheese grater refresh, which takes nearly as long.

[Salt Peanuts]

Next time I buy a mac, I'm either getting a refurb of a previous gen or right after a refresh, as my last two macs (MacBook and iMac) were purchased with rather poor timings on my part.

[grawk]

I've quit buying anything but refurbs for computers. A long time ago really. I don't need cutting edge tech, it comes at too high a price premium for my needs.

[luvdunhill]

I don't see any refurb minis at Apple's site. Any other places to look?

nm:

http://lowendmac.com/deals/best-mac-mini-prices.html

Edited April 30, 2010 by luvdunhill

[Salt Peanuts]

I don't see any refurb minis at Apple's site. Any other places to look?

I'd just keep going back to Apple site on regular basis. The refurb minis go rather quickly, IME.