If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Google infringes on Apple's patent for losing prototype phones in bars   (foxnews.com) divider line 21
    More: Stupid, SIM card, dessert bars, prototypes, cell phones  
•       •       •

2531 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Oct 2012 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-30 01:23:49 PM
A hipster that had no idea how unknown/unheard of something he had was?

[alanis.jpg]
 
2012-10-30 03:06:25 PM
props to subby.
 
2012-10-30 03:09:10 PM
Why is there a picture of young Nicholas Cage in a Pirates hat in the article?
 
2012-10-30 03:19:31 PM

SirTanon: Why is there a picture of young Nicholas Cage in a Pirates hat in the article?


He's more of a phone protector.
 
2012-10-30 03:28:27 PM
I like how the article not only has a photo but also lists some of the key selling points features of the phone.
 
2012-10-30 03:31:27 PM
I like the 500 club it's a nice dive bar or at least it was in 1996
 
2012-10-30 03:32:27 PM
Ah yes, the Google Gestapo as it was referred to by the TWiT Chat Realm.
 
2012-10-30 03:33:27 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-30 03:36:15 PM
Subby wins headline of the day. Maybe week.
 
2012-10-30 03:39:47 PM

there4igraham: I like how the article not only has a photo but also lists some of the key selling points features of the phone.


the nexus 4 is now offered for sale at google store for $350.
 
2012-10-30 03:50:39 PM
Stealing a prototype and telling the media is illegal?

Un-impossible!

/doesn't matter if it got "lost"; it's still a stolen phone...
 
2012-10-30 04:10:09 PM
Wake me when they have a journalists PC impounded.
 
2012-10-30 04:10:31 PM

SineSwiper: Stealing a prototype and telling the media is illegal?

Un-impossible!

/doesn't matter if it got "lost"; it's still a stolen phone...


I don't think you'd get a conviction. The man works in a position where you'd expect to find the occasional phone and since it lacks a sim card and can't be unlocked he had no obligation to do anything with it. In fact, his retention of lost phones for their owners is a polite service. If you were to start prosecuting bartenders for holding lost phones you'll find the trash bins full of them.
 
2012-10-30 04:12:33 PM
At least Google didn't smash his door in and use out-of-uniform police as their "muscle".
 
2012-10-30 04:22:51 PM
Guy finds Apple prototype: that's a jailin.

Guy finds Google prototype: hey want a free phone to keep quiet?
 
2012-10-30 04:24:21 PM

wildcardjack: SineSwiper: Stealing a prototype and telling the media is illegal?

Un-impossible!

/doesn't matter if it got "lost"; it's still a stolen phone...

I don't think you'd get a conviction. The man works in a position where you'd expect to find the occasional phone and since it lacks a sim card and can't be unlocked he had no obligation to do anything with it. In fact, his retention of lost phones for their owners is a polite service. If you were to start prosecuting bartenders for holding lost phones you'll find the trash bins full of them.


Note the important point there. In many jurisdictions, if you find something that is obviously lost, rather than abandoned, you are obligated by statute to either return it to the owner (if you know who they are), turn it into the authorities or hold it for a specified period of time. Additionally, if something is mislaid rather than lost, the finder has an obligation to turn it into the owner of the property who will hold it for a specified period of time for the true owner.
In other words, you don't prosecute the bartender for holding the lost phone, since they are usually required to do so... Instead, you prosecute the bartender for offering to sell what is obviously Apple's new phone to Gizmodo for $5000. That transitions the bartender from "holding lost property" to "attempting to sell stolen property".
 
2012-10-30 04:25:46 PM

Bullseyed: Guy finds Apple prototype, Guy tries to sell Apple prototype: that's a jailin.

Guy finds Google prototype, Guy calls Google to return it: hey want a free phone to keep quiet?


Imagine that. It's almost as if it's the subsequent actions of the Guy that matter, rather than the origin of the phone.
 
2012-10-30 04:29:58 PM

Theaetetus: Bullseyed: Guy finds Apple prototype, Guy tries to sell Apple prototype: that's a jailin.

Guy finds Google prototype, Guy calls Google to return it: hey want a free phone to keep quiet?

Imagine that. It's almost as if it's the subsequent actions of the Guy that matter, rather than the origin of the phone.


Nonono, that doesn't sound right. Phrase it again, but this time make Apple sound shiatty.
 
2012-10-30 04:42:14 PM

LasersHurt: Nonono, that doesn't sound right. Phrase it again, but this time make Apple sound shiatty.


Guy finds Apple prototype, Guy tries to sell Apple prototype, Apple realizes they're Apple: that's a jailin.

Guy finds Google prototype, Guy calls Google to return it, Google realizes they're not Apple: hey want a free phone to keep quiet?
 
2012-10-30 05:16:50 PM

Theaetetus: In other words, you don't prosecute the bartender for holding the lost phone, since they are usually required to do so... Instead, you prosecute the bartender for offering to sell what is obviously Apple's new phone to Gizmodo for $5000. That transitions the bartender from "holding lost property" to "attempting to sell stolen property".


I wonder if it's actually law on this one or if it's legislated from the bench. Attempting to sell lost property that can have obvious ownership is scumbag, not theft. How much "effort to return" must there be before something becomes yours to do with as you please.

And a second thought: Does the EULA apply to the second person to use such a found device? I know most of an EULA is boilerplate covered by the DMCA and whatnot, but the second person was not the original end user and thus hasn't agreed by clicking something he didn't read.
 
2012-10-30 06:01:09 PM

wildcardjack: I wonder if it's actually law on this one or if it's legislated from the bench.


I believe you mean, "I wonder if it's statutory law or common law determined by judicial precedent." Both are "actually law".

In this case, California's civil code has the answer:
Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any... goods... shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property.

Attempting to sell lost property that can have obvious ownership is scumbag, not theft.

Nope, once you're a "depositary for the owner," and you then sell the deposited item in violation of your obligations, you're a thief and may be liable for conversion as well as criminal penalties.

How much "effort to return" must there be before something becomes yours to do with as you please.

They're listed in the statute. If the value is high - e.g. $5000 in the Gizmodo case - you have to turn it over to the Police. You can keep cheap items for yourself after 90 days.

And a second thought: Does the EULA apply to the second person to use such a found device? I know most of an EULA is boilerplate covered by the DMCA and whatnot, but the second person was not the original end user and thus hasn't agreed by clicking something he didn't read.

Actually, the EULA is a contract and has nothing to do with the DMCA. If you steal someone's car, you haven't entered into a contract with their insurance company, so they don't have to pay you diddly when you crash it.
"Oh, ho!" you say. "This means that the second person isn't bound by the EULA and can therefore copy the software, sell it to others, etc.! I've found a brilliant loophole!"
Bzzt, nope. The manufacturer is obligated under the EULA contract not to sue the other party to the contract for copyright infringement for copying the software or selling it (among other contractual obligations). As noted, you didn't enter into a contract with them... Therefore, they can hold you liable for all of your various acts of infringement.

In other words, you can't get out of a software license by instead stealing the software or otherwise obtaining an unlicensed version, and then claim you have full rights to copy it: the owner never granted you a license to copy it, so you have no such right.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report