Hacker News Reader

Comment by InclinedPlane | Hacker News Reader

Gizmodo is in a bad place here. If Apple chooses they could nail Gizmodo to the wall. Firstly, Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen merchandise, that is a criminal offense and the owner (the Apple employee or Apple themselves, depending on the legalities) could press charges. Secondly, this could be considered corporate espionage and Apple could make a case in court that they have been financially damaged by it, to the tune of millions.

View on HN

IANAL but there is probably a legal divide between stolen merchandise and lost merchandise.

Not much of one. You'd need to prove that the merchandise was abandoned, not just lost. And you'd have to prove the finder did due diligence in locating the proper owner before taking ownership. Good luck with that in this case.

If Apple had the inclination they could have Gizmodo's balls in a vice.

What if Gizmodo does its due diligence after the fact?

ie. First take all the photos they need, then contact Apple

I think paying the money is the trigger point for some problems.

Exchanging money doesn't mean exchanging ownership. If you pay an agency $10,000 to photograph a model, you don't own that model. Why would a telephone be any different?

Because It doesn't sound like they paid for the photographs, it sounds like they paid for iphone

Per Gizmodo themselves, they got the phone and held onto it until contacted by Apple's Bruce Sewell who requested its return. Nick Denton has been quoted in several other news stories as saying he paid $5000 for it.

I imagine Apple's lawyers can shred that ruse. As an expert site, they knew exactly how likely it was that this was lost (near zero), and they knew they could profit from its clandestine possession. Whether they give it back afterward is immaterial to Gizmodo's profits and to the secrecy Apple wanted to protect.

Not that I doubt what you said, but the 'due diligence' comment reminds me of this: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/89kto/student_finds_cel...

Stolen? He probably decided he didn't want the phone and threw it away.

No. Taking possession of lost property creates a "bailment", a legal relationship between the possessor and the owner, governed by local bailment laws. The offense by Gizmodo, if any, would be failure to report found property. It would not be espionage, since Gizmodo had no contractual obligation to maintain secrecy, and since Apple failed to take due care not to abandon the secret in a public place.

Assuming the story is truthful. If Gizmodo paid for misappropriation of trade secrets by an Apple employee, they are toast.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com