Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

<< < (10/26) > >>

JavaJones:
Just to be clear, at no point have I been arguing the moral or philosophical implications of any of this. I am simply talking about whether Apple and the police did the legal, "correct" thing (legally and practically speaking, not morally). All the possibility of a Supreme Court trial would seem to go out the window if it's an action taken on the basis of handling/purchasing stolen property, as I mentioned before. Everyone is trying to make it a case of journalistic protection, which muddies the waters significantly and certainly should be a matter for the Supreme Court to rule on, should it be challenged. But I'm not sure that's really the correct interpretation of the situation. At the very least - right or wrong - the police can probably claim that following up a theft investigation was their intention.

I think the articles Wraith linked to perhaps state all this better than I could, particularly:
http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20100428/10501799/The-Official-Verdict-In-The-STOLEN-iPhone-Case.htm (see compelling Mercedes ever-popular car analogy, except replace "call automotive magazines" - which is silly - with "call Mercedes").

- Oshyan

Gothi[c]:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/jon-stewart-takes-aim-at-apple-appholes/story-e6frfro0-1225860319639

Dormouse:
I'm surprised at the number of vehement opinions given, which appear to take no account of a legal definition of theft. Not even with a brief read of wikipedia. Juristictions vary somewhat, but they all include aspects of unlawful taking (or not attempting to return) and the intent of keeping (permanently depriving the owner). Here, the finder attempted to return and the 'buyer' (it's unclear exactly what was being 'bought', probably just the transfer of the item) then advertised their possession of the article with sufficient information that the owner was able to identify their property and get it back when they asked. Trying to make this stick as theft would prove exceedingly difficult if there was a fractionally competent lawyer involved in the defence. And quoting a blog from  a competitor (claims to be an erstwhile competitor, but there's a surprisingly long paragraph on the previous competition), who shows no knowledge of the situation at all and appears to be using it as a rant against Gizmodo scarcely bolsters any argument.

wraith808:
The legal definition of theft in this case is defined by California code- and it is a bit wider than your comment takes into account.  There is a legal responsibility in California to return found material.  That's where theft and possibly felony actions come into play.  Were they wrong for their actions in their raid?  Yes.  But does this make Giz, Gawker, and Chen less wrong for what they did under the law?  Money is on no right now...

Deozaan:
That it was bought goes a long way to showing it was also considered a valuable item to others too. Just because 'most people' wouldn't see the value in it doesn't inherently devalue the item.
-Eóin (April 29, 2010, 06:23 AM)
--- End quote ---

I disagree. In fact, I think I take quite the opposite stance in most cases.

For instance, does any Toasted Cheese sandwich have an intrinsic value of over $100? How about $1,000? GoldenPalace bought one for $28,000.

Just because 'a few people' are willing to spend crazy amounts of money on something doesn't inherently give the item great value.

Although I must concede on the following point:

This phone was a very valuable commodity beyond just the sums of it's parts as it represents highly prised IP.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page