Gray Powell, uno de los empleados de Apple se emborrachó en un bar y dejó olvidado el prototipo del iPhone 4G. Alguien que estaba sentado cerca de Powell lo tomó y trató en dos ocasiones de contactar a Apple para devolver el prototipo a su dueño sin éxito. Gizmodo eventualmente adquirió el equipo, por la suma de US$ 5,000, sin saber si era el prototipo del iPhone 4G. Luego de hacer un examen exhaustivo al prototipo, se publicó todo un reportaje en su web. Después de unas semanas, se contactó a Powell para devolver el equipo. Gizmodo recibió una carta de Apple solicitando la devolución del mismo y así se procedió.
Jason Chen, quién hizo todo el reportaje de la evaluación del prototipo, fue visitado por la policia mientras no estaba en su casa y 4 computadoras junto con 2 servidores fueron incautados a manera de investigación.
Se piensa que Apple va a proceder con cargos por el robo del prototipo.
He leído muchos comentarios al respecto, pero en toda honestidad con este es que más me identifico:
Assuming I know the limited information you know, it seems to me that Gizmodo is not guilty of anything here (meaning crimes). Consider this:
1. The phone was not stolen property, it was found property. The Found Property Law applies here.
Apple’s actions to date indicate the DEVICE (that’s what Apple calls it) ended up at Gizmodo exactly as it has described, an engineer forgot it at the bar and someone found it.
California law says that on finding things one does NOT have to take charge of it and look for the owner. But if you do pick up the property and can easily ascertain the owner you should try to contact the owner so the owner can arrange for its return to him or her. The law does NOT say when this all must be done, it must be a reasonable time. Supposedly attempts were made by the finer to contact Apple and they allegedly shrugged off the calls as crank calls or suspected the person found a Chinese knock-off.
So until Apple’s letter, it appears no one knew if this was in fact an iPhone, a fake, or whatever. Whatever it was, the finder discharged his obligations under the law, making an attempt to return the property to the owner.
EVEN IF THE FINDER’S STORY IS BOGUS (ABOUT CONTACTING APPLE) HIS CRIMINAL INTENT (SOME ACCUSE HIS INTENT WAS TO SELL THE DEVICE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER) DOES NOT TRANSFER TO GIZMODO. After it acquired the DEVICE, Gizmodo expected Apple to contact them if it was in fact Apple property. Gizmodo even said words to the affect “So far Apple has not asked for it back, if it does then we can assume it’s real.”
2. Gizmodo did not KNOWINGLY receive or buy stolen property.
After the fact, sure it has been confirmed that the DEVICE was Apple’s property, but think about it, until Apple’s lawyer sent a letter asking for its DEVICE back no one knew if it was in fact the next iPhone or anything from Apple.
3. Apple eventually sent a letter to Gizmodo REQUESTING (not demanding) for the DEVICES RETURN (Apple did not even call it a phone!) Note the letter did not even contain a deadline to respond. It simply said “Please let me know where to pick up the unit.” This is not the tone of someone demanding for the return of stolen goods. Until the letter was sent to Gizmodo no one knew: That the DEVICE was in fact an Apple device, that it belonged to Apple or what it was (and we still do not know what it is. Yeah, we can guess by looking at it, but legally we still don’t know).
4. Yes, there’s California’s shield law that protects journalist sources. But this is not Gizmodo’s best defense. While the law may be relevant to defending against civil liability, the main concern at this time is criminal jeopardy. If the DA can’t prove intent, there’s no case, end of inquiry.
¿Qué piensan ustedes?