Come take a look at the next iPhone

[giblets]

Hold on. They didn't beg Apple for forgiveness, and offer each employee's firstborn son as restitution????

[Solomwi]

Asher, you're putting it better than I could, but know that I'm right with you on these douchetastic apple****ers.

[notyoueither]

In the criminal realm, the law generally requires the item be stolen. And profit motive isn't an element. Of course, the poster also ignored the question of whose it was. Even with California's three-year law, selling it before title passes may subject the finder to civil liability for conversion, but not criminal liability.

I've heard the term 'theft by conversion' and assumed it is a crime.

[Solomwi]

I've heard the term 'theft by conversion' and assumed it is a crime.

It is a crime, but doesn't seem to be something the Apple poster was considering, doesn't apply to all acts of conversion, and doesn't seem to apply in this case for reasons stated above. Also, theft by conversion wouldn't necessarily implicate the buyer, as the Apple poster is so certain will/should happen.

[notyoueither]

I was thinking of the guy who sold it to Gizmodo.

Since I posted that, I binged the term and it sounds like both the finder and Gizmodo would technically be guilty of a crime in Canada, maybe.

[Solomwi]

That may be. My knowledge of Canadian law comes almost entirely from here. Note, though, that the guy apparently didn't sell it to Gizmodo. I'm on the fence over whether bing makes a better verb than google. Almost sounds dirty.

[Asher]

I'd heard rumours Gizmodo paid $5 - $10K (depending who you ask). Have those been disproven?

[notyoueither]

The bit I quoted mentions 'if it's really true that Gizmodo paid the finder $10K.'

'Google' sounds like a Japanese sex act. 'Bing' is a much more proper, Anglo-Saxon sounding action.

[Solomwi]

The bit I quoted mentions 'if it's really true that Gizmodo paid the finder $10K.'

'Google' sounds like a Japanese sex act. 'Bing' is a much more proper, Anglo-Saxon sounding action.

The way I understand it, they paid him so they could inspect the phone, which is different from buying it. Apple apparently got the phone back in one piece and in a fairly timely manner, which isn't good for any claim or charge based on conversion. So it can really be true and the guy's analysis still blows donkeys.

[Zevico]

I was wrong on all counts.

[Robert]

So, Apple once again releases a phone that does what all other phones already do for years, but is once again able to create a marketing campaign where everybody think that's something really cool is going to happen and all average guys will wannabe the owner of such a phone.

Good job Apple!
I do have respect for their marketing capabilities.
Too bad that their phones are so.... average...

[Asher]

The latest Apple stupidity:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/21/apple_strikes_back_at_adobe_says_flash_is_closed_and_proprietary.html

Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'

Because iPhone OS is a wide-open space with unlimited possibilities, right? Right?

...

[giblets]

From the article, I get the impression that Apple was just responding to Adobe's charge by pointing out that Flash is also closed.

[notyoueither]

The way I understand it, they paid him so they could inspect the phone, which is different from buying it. Apple apparently got the phone back in one piece and in a fairly timely manner, which isn't good for any claim or charge based on conversion. So it can really be true and the guy's analysis still blows donkeys.

The Canadian code mentions 'temporarily' depriving someone of their property. I'm not arguing the US law. Not even arguing the Canadian law since I have no diea how it is actually applied.

However, there's something about this that rings wrong even if Gizmodo only had the phone for an evening.

Assuming Apple had an interest in keeping the device under wraps and did not arrange for it to find it's way to Gizmodo, can you think of worse people for the phone to end up in the possession of?

Return to the diary for a moment. You find the diary of a famous person. You claim you cannot find the rightful owner of it or their agents, and so you 'rent' the diary to the National Enquirer... You see nothing a bit dodgy about that?

[Asher]

From the article, I get the impression that Apple was just responding to Adobe's charge by pointing out that Flash is also closed.

Except they go to great lengths to explain how they're open because they support ze HTML.