Posted on 04/28/2010 11:34:50 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
And this is where we disagree. Under the law, he is only required to make "reasonable and just efforts" to return the property to the owner. I don't know if his efforts met that threshold, but I think a jury may be convinced.
He was rebuffed. At some point, the property is considered abandoned, and I don't see anything in the law that requires him to dispose of the property. Was "several weeks" long enough? I don't know. But, if Apple support made any kind of promise to follow-up and didn't do so in that interval, then the responsibility falls on them.
And this is where we disagree. Under the law, he is only required to make "reasonable and just efforts" to return the property to the owner. I don't know if his efforts met that threshold, but I think a jury may be convinced.
I think it would be extremely easy for any jury to see "reasonable and just efforts" -- to be contacting the bar and either leaving it in "lost and found" and/or leaving his name and number to be contacted by the bar if anyone comes back looking for something lost there.
That would be "one thing" for "reasonable and just efforts"... that would be a "no-brainer" for that.
The second item on "reasonable and just efforts" would be to contact the police department, report an item lost and ask them to either hold it for you, or else, you will hold it and they can contact you if someone shows up to the police department looking for the item. That would be the second on the list of "reasonable and just efforts" for finding the owner.
And then, the last item on the "reasonable and just efforts" would be to put an ad in the local paper, advertising some lost item at a particular bar (but not describe it very completely so the caller has to definitely identify it, and do so very clearly) -- and then wait for a response to the ad.
Lastly, the passage of time to allow any and all these efforts to be used (by the owner of the product) would be the last ingredient for all these items.
This has happened with relatives of mine and the police department was contacted and they said that the relative could hold onto the item and they would contact him directly if someone did come looking for it (it was something significant and somewhat bulky). And the Police Department said they would give it six months and if no one claimed it -- then the finder (my relative) would have claim to it after passage of time and the fact that the police department had been contacted and notified about it and that they would come back and get it from him if the real owner did show up in that six months time.
NOW ... those would be "reasonable and just efforts" to find the owner.
Any jury could easily be convinced of that -- by simply saying to each jury member, "Where would you go to look for the item, if you lost it?"
Think about that for a minute... and think where you would go if you lost an item. The first place you would go is back to the place where it was lost and go to the "lost and found" there.
The second place you might go is to the police department. And the third place you might go is looking in the local newspaper to see if anyone has put an ad in there for some lost property.
Any normal person would do all three of those things, in their normal course of action in looking for their lost property ... so it shouldn't be too hard to convince a jury of that ... :-)
Why? The law requires the finder to make a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. If the finder thought he could do so by contacting Apple, would it be reasonable to give it to a third party of unknown reliability?
justlurking;
“reasonable and just efforts” to return the property to the owner. I don’t know if his efforts met that threshold, but I think a jury may be convinced.
LOL! You’re kidding aren’t you?
He didn’t reasonably do anything but write an article about it, before he ever returned it.
Another poster has suggested that the phone should have been left with the bar. In a better world, I agree that would have been reasonable. In this world, my experience has been that would be the fastest way for the phone to disappear. Yes, I'm being cynical -- but I've had enough experience with employee theft and fraud that I believe that would have been the least desirable option.
The second item on "reasonable and just efforts" would be to contact the police department, report an item lost and ask them to either hold it for you, or else, you will hold it and they can contact you if someone shows up to the police department looking for the item. That would be the second on the list of "reasonable and just efforts" for finding the owner.
For something of significant value, I agree. But, I'm not sure that a phone meets that threshold. I'd be curious if your local police thinks they should be the city-wide lost-and-found department for anything and everything. In a small town where everyone knows each other... perhaps. In a major metro area, the police have more important things to do.
You later described a situation where your relatives contacted the local police regarding a lost item, but didn't describe the item or the circumstances. Was it comparable to a cell phone (albeit a "special" one)? How large was the municipality?
Another factor: did Apple actually file a police report when the phone was lost (but before it was public knowledge)? I think that would go a long way toward determining if "contacting the police" was reqquired for a "reasonable and just effort".
And then, the last item on the "reasonable and just efforts" would be to put an ad in the local paper, advertising some lost item at a particular bar (but not describe it very completely so the caller has to definitely identify it, and do so very clearly) -- and then wait for a response to the ad.
I think this is the least likely to yield results. You would be more likely to find the owner by posting in the "Missed Connections" section of Craigslist.
I know your intentions are good, but this suggestion is really reaching. Do you really think that anyone reads the classified ads any longer, unless they are searching for garage sales?
Vendome, when you stop laughing, you might refresh your memory about the facts.
The original finder didn't try write an article. He claims he tried to return it to Apple.
After he was rebuffed, he sold it to someone who wrote an article. While there are a lot of actions with questionable ethics, I'm not convinced that the phone can be considered "stolen" property after he tried to return it.
Wait... I thought the subject of the article and investigation was the nerd at Gizmodo?
The finder, was paid a finders fee for the article as well.
So, did he try to return it or was the other bid in the best interests of his fiduciaries?
How hard would it have been to drive 10-12 minutes down the road, get off on DeAnnza and drop it off?
The article was. Those specific comments were about the finder.
The finder, was paid a finders fee for the article as well.
He was certainly paid: Gizmodo admitted it. I'm not sure that "finder's fee" is the right term. The $64,000 question is whether the phone was the finder's property to sell, because it was legally "abandoned" when the finder was rebuffed by Apple when he tried to return it.
So, did he try to return it or was the other bid in the best interests of his fiduciaries?
No, Gizmodo did not. And that's one of many actions that I think are (ethically) questionable. However, I'm not convinced that those actions were criminal.
That is my thinking. You might be able to make the case that it is criminal but, one dude tried to return it and was rebuffed. Though he could drove over to Apple and left it at the counter, it may be reaonable to conclude it was abandoned.
After all, how much effort does one have to go through, in returning an object before he can lawfully say “Oh well, finders keepers”.
If it is abandoned and he is now in possession, it is his property to sell, which he did.
The guy at Gizmodo paid for property belonging to “the finder” and wrote an article about it.
Apple had their opportunity for reclaiming their property and blew it off. Seems irresponsible of Apple to simply discard their real property and intellectual property.
So the guy at Giz. wrote and article. That is his vocation.
So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what should these men have done and how exactly are they responsible? One can only conclude it was their property to do with as they saw fit.
Tah Dah!!!! And they are off Scott Free.
Another poster has suggested that the phone should have been left with the bar. In a better world, I agree that would have been reasonable. In this world, my experience has been that would be the fastest way for the phone to disappear. Yes, I'm being cynical -- but I've had enough experience with employee theft and fraud that I believe that would have been the least desirable option.
Well, I agree that I would be somewhat wary of that, but there's an easy solution for that. And I've done this before, too... and with a cell phone. You first make sure you get a hold of the manager of the place (or the owner) and you leave your name and phone number and don't describe the object fully, to leave some solid and identifying details to the possible owner. And then you tell them that this is what was found there and to have the owner contact you or the manager contact you.
That's one way I dealt with it. And I understand your concern about them stealing it. Another way to handle it is to do that and also let them know that you're contacting the police department and letting them know the details, so they're aware that the police department will be aware of what is going on too.
At the very least, the manager or owner of the place should take your name and number for the real owner to contact you. And I wouldn't deal with an employee... only the actual manager (and not a supervisor) and/or the owner. They're a bit more responsible than front-line employees and they understand more fully "ownership of property" and that one should return lost property, more so than front-line employees.... and more so than some FReepers posting here, too -- I see .... LOL ...
For something of significant value, I agree. But, I'm not sure that a phone meets that threshold. I'd be curious if your local police thinks they should be the city-wide lost-and-found department for anything and everything. In a small town where everyone knows each other... perhaps. In a major metro area, the police have more important things to do.
You can only try and see what they say. With the drastic cutbacks and layoffs, they may not do that anymore. And that's understandable. Perhaps if you report it as a "possible crime" where someone may have been accosted or kidnapped and the phone was left. I emphasize the "may have been" and you should say it on those terms, too -- and "put the police on notice" that you're holding them responsible for something like that if it turns up later that someone was assaulted and they didn't do anything about it.
That usually works ... :-)
Remember, you don't have to say that you saw that or that you heard that, but that you can't imagine anyone leaving such an expensive device behind unless there was some "foul play" and someone could have been possibly kidnapped. That usually "perks them up" somewhat ... LOL ...
You later described a situation where your relatives contacted the local police regarding a lost item, but didn't describe the item or the circumstances. Was it comparable to a cell phone (albeit a "special" one)? How large was the municipality?
Well, believe it or not... and this is funny ... it was a riding lawnmower ... big and bulky ... and it was simply sitting outside in the street... LOL ...
So, the police department was called and they made note of it and said they would call the relative back if someone called to claim it. And they asked them (it was my uncle) to keep it in his garage, if he would, which he agreed.
After six months, the police said that no one claimed it and that he could claim it as legitimately lost and no one coming forward to claim it. They did come out and check it out, so I would imagine that they took serial numbers and other identifying information. I don't know for sure, but they may have contacted the manufacturer.
And the town was Tulsa, Oklahoma. It's a town of about 386,000 people in the city limits and about 1,000,000 (one million) people in the Tulsa-Bartlesville Combined Statistical Area.
Another factor: did Apple actually file a police report when the phone was lost (but before it was public knowledge)? I think that would go a long way toward determining if "contacting the police" was reqquired for a "reasonable and just effort".
I don't know if that would be a factor in the law in determining whether the finder did due diligence in finding the owner. I still think there are those methods that I've listed for due diligence.
I think this is the least likely to yield results. You would be more likely to find the owner by posting in the "Missed Connections" section of Craigslist.
I know your intentions are good, but this suggestion is really reaching. Do you really think that anyone reads the classified ads any longer, unless they are searching for garage sales?
Well, let me tell you the way I think about these kinds of things... something lost and what to do about it.
I look at it from the standpoint of what I would be doing and thinking and hoping would happen -- if -- that was my item and it was lost. So I try to think of it from the standpoint of that person who lost it. That "informs me" of what I should do as the "finder" and it also tells me what methodology I should go through in order to find the owner of the object, considering that I'm contemplating his methods of going about finding what he lost.
That's my thinking on the matter.... and I figure that everyone should do that for anyone else.
So, did he try to return it or was the other bid in the best interests of his fiduciaries?
Yeah, exactly! I sure do hope that if I ever lose something -- that some of the FReepers posting here never find it, because I know they would claim it for themselves... doncha know ... LOL ...
It's a sorry situation to have the world see that some FReepers have the same type of thinking as the Marxists/Liberals/Leftists do about "property" ... and I never thought I would "see the day" that some FReepers matched up in their thinking on the same level as those Marxists ... hoo-boy!
You can see my Post #30... for how my relatives treat lost property and what measures I take when I find something lost (and I have and I do that ... ).
The guy at Gizmodo paid for property belonging to “the finder” and wrote an article about it.
Well, people who "find" things like that (normally they're called "thieves" ... doncha know) and those who "buy" them from those who "find" them -- are really euphemisms for crooks...
In other words, the crook says "I found this and no one claimed it so it's mine now!"... and the other guy who buys it (normally called a "fence" or some citizen who closes his eyes about "stolen property" saying, "I didn't know it was stolen!") -- are all part of a "chain of criminality" that exists in some parts of our culture in this society. We saw some of "those kinds of people" and "that kind of mentality" at work from the "liberalism" and "democrat thinking" of some citizens in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit.
And this is quite appropriate for many of the "citizens" (if you can call them that) from the Bay Area, which is a bastion of Marxist/Liberal/Leftist thinking. You can now see the mentality and thinking concerning "property" in the Bay Area from this example. It's no wonder that the liberal/leftists have no concept of what belongs to you and think they can take whatever they fancy, as we see in some legislation and law that come from the Marxist/Liberal/Leftist thinking.
This -- here -- is more an example and "commentary" of the "criminal thinking" of some segments of our society than it is about anything else.
It's stuff like this which exemplifies the breakdown of "true citizenship" and "true conservatism" in our society. It's no wonder that we're having a hard time locating "conservatives" to vote for the right people in elections...
I don't think you should interpret some of the comments that way -- at least not mine. I'm trying to interpret the law the way that a judge or jury would. What the finder of the cellphone "should" have done is different from what he "must" do.
One poster asked earlier: why didn't he just drop it off at Apple HQ? I agree with that, although I wouldn't have done so first. I would have done the same as any other cellphone I might find -- wait for the owner to call it. In this case, I might have saved the poor guy a lot of embarrassment.
But, once the phone was remotely disabled, I would have simply stopped by Apple HQ, walk into the front lobby, and ask to see the head of security. If it didn't occur in the Bay Area, I would have asked to see the manager at the nearest Apple Store.
However, this is what I would have done. I don't see anything in the law that obligates anyone to do what I would have done, or what you would have done. It would fall to the judge and jury to determine whether the finder made "reasonable and just effort" to return the phone. Perhaps there is case law that would clarify the issue.
My question is not whether the finder (or Gizmode) did the "right thing". My question is whether either of them committed a crime under the applicable law. I remain skeptical, but that doesn't mean I agree with what they did.
What the finder of the cellphone "should" have done is different from what he "must" do.
One thing that I know the finder must not do -- and that's treat the property as if he owns it and then "sell the property" ... LOL ...
And it's "that thinking" that I see a number of FReepers posting about, as if the guy "owns the property" (and that's what it means when one "sells" something, because you can't legally sell what you don't own...).
Once it is considered "abandoned", I believe that he can treat it as if he owns it -- similar to the lawnmower you posted about earlier.
The question is how long he must wait. Is 3 weeks enough? I don't know.
The question is how long he must wait. Is 3 weeks enough? I don't know.
Well, it's just not the waiting, but also it has to do with the methodology of how you're notifying people of the lost item (like, for instance, the police station).
And then, after you've done sufficient notification (considering it's been properly done) -- then I would say that a proper time is about six months... I think most people would agree that after six months of trying to find an owner, it can be considered abandoned, and thus, the finder can gain ownership at that time.
You have to consider things like time for someone to notice something is gone (it might not be that particular person that it belongs to, that lost it, being that it was lent to someone and the "loser" is keeping quiet for a while... ya know ...).
And also things like someone had to go out of town for something or many other things that go on in people's lives.
The bottom line is that you have to give time for the "notifications" (wherever they've been put out) to actually "work" and also considering that people do different things and need time to look for something and react.
Thus -- in short -- the methodology should be (1) lost and found at the place where it's lost, (2) police department, (3) ad in local paper -- and then wait for six months for it all to "take effect"...
If the guy did that -- then I wouldn't be saying a single thing against him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.