Lost iPhone story getting ugly
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPhone ringtones
Next: Non-Flash flashing ads
From: Graeme on 28 Apr 2010 08:02 In message <1jhnmeu.135ihspfcxxoaN%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > On 2010-04-28, zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > > I heard it suggested on MacBreak Weekly or This Week in Tech that Apple > > > should get the guy who lost the phone to introduce it at the keynote. > > > That would be exceptionally magnanimous - even if all he did was bring > > > it on stage and hand it to Jobs. > > > > > > I'd love it if they did. > > > > Especially if he did the whole 'searching through his pockets to find it' > > bit. > > And then Jobs smiles magnanamously, and as he walks off jobs presses a > button, and the floor pulls away and he falls into a tank full of > piranhas. > I think it would send a clear message > > Obviously if there is an ugly fluffy white cat around too, it may help > with the image. > But would you really want Ursula Andress in a bikini these days? -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Jim on 28 Apr 2010 08:19 On 2010-04-28, SM <info(a)that.sundog.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> > > Obviously if there is an ugly fluffy white cat around too, it may help >> > > with the image. >> > >> > White fluff + black polo - not going to happen. >> >> Ahh - good point. That could be a disaster. > > Maybe one of those hideous hairless cats. ala Dr. Evil? Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 28 Apr 2010 15:31 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > ><http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers> > > > > Police raid Jason Chen's house, take computers and drives apparently > > using an invalid search warrant. > > As I undertand it they're claiming it's invalid due to the time (9.45pm). > However, it was valid between 7pm and 10pm, so it appears fine. The claim of invalidity is that it's invalid to serve a warrant on a journo on the specified grounds, or so El Reg reports. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/gizmodo_iphone4_raid/> > What gets me is this: Gizmodo _knew_ that they were buying a device that was > being sold to them by someone other than the actual owner. How is that not > theft? Easy peasy: because it's not the reality of the situation, that's how come. They were paying a finder's fee, not a purchase price: that is a standard journalistic modus operandum and nothing like theft. They can't have bought it, since it was not the property of the person who possessed it *and they knew that*. The people concerned knew very well that the phone in question was and is Apple property - as they all are, until launch day, right? <shrug> Latest: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/28/gizmodo_crimewatch/> I think the main question is: does the current possessor have an obligation in law to make an effort to see it returned to its original owners? I suspect the answer is "a qualified damned right they do". [snip] Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 28 Apr 2010 15:58 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > The people concerned knew very well that the phone in question was and > is Apple property - as they all are, until launch day, right? Right. So Gizmodo should have immediately called the police and arranged a sting operation. They certainly _shouldn't_ have touched that unit with a ten foot pig-tickling pole. Instead, they exploited the situation to their commercial advantage. They held onto the unit for a week, *dismantled it*, photographed it, and virtually held to it to ransom in so much as they forced Apple to admit _in writing_ that the device was Apple's, something that was of commercial value to Gizmodo. And no matter what you call it, Gizmodo paid for stolen goods. They became stolen (as opposed to merely 'found') when the 'finder' charged money in exchange for it. If you think Gizmodo was acting altruistically in this, then...well, I don't know how to reply to that. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Rowland McDonnell on 28 Apr 2010 17:26
smurf <smurf(a)smurf.com> wrote: [snip] > In England, theft requires the intention to permanently remove it from its > rightful owner. And in Wales - comes out of English common law, which also applies (with different modifications) in the USA. > I dont think that applies to the website owner, but the fact > that the finder sold it on to him, suggests that the finder did indulge in > theft, and that website owner knowingly bought goods from someone who was > not the owner of the device. The story is that the iPhone was lost and found, and the fee paid was a finder's fee. If so, it's 100% legit, the whole business. > Handling stolen goods is quite a serious > offence more so then the theft (and easier to prove). You've got to prove theft first, so it's not easier to prove handling stolen goods. In this case, the iPhone wasn't nicked, merely lost and recovered. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |