I missed the "got away with it" quote.
A moron lost a phone in a bar. Someone found it and thought it might be worth something to a media outlet. When the lawyers asked for it back, they got it back. Screw the emotions of the LEOs.
If Gizmodo was the NYT, this would not have happened.
Must not have had a dog or the cops would have shot it. Just to be safe and sure...
This is really a lot of overkill.
Apple surely knows who took the phone and “misplaced” it in the hands of the blogger. Why no mention of that clown and no raids of Apple employees?
A moron lost a phone in a bar. Someone found it and thought it might be worth something to a media outlet. When the lawyers asked for it back, they got it back. Screw the emotions of the LEOs.
Well, from what I've read in several articles, the police are acting on this because they believe the law was violated and they are investigating right now. They obviously were able to get a judge's order on this based upon the facts that are known. Now we'll see if charges are filed and if they figure that a crime was committed. And they obviously do think that a felony violation of the law happened here.
We'll see how it pans out ...
How do you know the Apple employee who “lost it” didn’t actually sell it?
How do you know Apple got it back before proprietary information was sold?
"Finders keepers" - except that CA law runs to the contrary. If you know who it probably belongs to, you're obligated to return it to its owner.When the lawyers asked for it back, they got it back.
. . . not that the onus was legally on AAPL to ask for it back. The fact that "someone" thought it would be of value to a reporter is basically proof that he was pretty sure who owned it - and made profiting from possession of it into basically theft.Of course that "someone" could claim, with some justice, that the law against "finders keepers" was inspired by Christianity - and claim, with less justice, that that fact made the law an establishment of religion . . .