# Legality of found iPhone prototype **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 19, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630 "2010-04-19T15:32:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![\_cc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/e19b73/32.png) [@\_cc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_cc)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630/1 "2010-04-19T15:32:38Z")
So as related in [this Gizmodo story](http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone), someone found a new iPhone prototype left behind at a bar. According to the story, the phone’s data contents were remotely wiped, but there’s now photographs and video available, as well as detailed analysis of the dissected components. So my question is, what’s the legality of all this? Besides the simple point that disassembling a lost phone seems like theft and destruction of private property, are there even more potentially serious repercussions of poking around the device? Leaking company secrets? Manipulating the market? What might happen to these folks over their zeal to tinker with a device that doesn’t belong to them? ---
**Author:** ![tanstaafl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ba8739/32.png) [@tanstaafl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tanstaafl)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630/2 "2010-04-19T18:12:13Z")
Well, given that it looks like the phone [was stolen, not lost](http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/04/19/iphone-stolen-lost/?awesm=tnw.to_15zEA&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main) I would say that Gizmodo may be in trouble for purchasing stolen property at the least. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630/3 "2010-04-19T18:24:40Z")
Even the story linked to in the OP made it clear that Gizmodo knew who it belonged to. If you find something on the street, and it says, “property of Bob Wumpus,” what obligation do you have to return it? Does it make a difference if the contact information is clearly presented? Paging our lawyer Dopers! ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630/4 "2010-04-23T21:20:40Z")
As an update, [a nerd speaking legalese](http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/540967372/gizmodos-trade-secret-liability) seems to be of the opinion that Gizmodo could very easily be held liable for damages, and even says that “a court would find their actions willful and malicious and award up to 2x the original damages.” If it was indeed stolen, I’m all for it. But if it was accidentally lost, I am curious if the law would apply here. If Apple was dumb enough to lose a prototype, don’t they deserve whatever trade secret repercussions occur? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630/5 "2010-04-23T21:37:12Z")
[The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmodo-paid-iphone-4g) discussed this: > [@](#): > > The reason is the California civil code, which is referred to in my earlier story: > > ``` > "§ 2080. Duties of finder: 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 money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, 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. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal." > > ``` > > So basically, if you come into possession of something, you’re meant to tell the owner and give it back. You can ask for some payment for your trouble (but only the trouble). If you then sell it - ooh, things get complicated. That would be, in effect, theft: depriving the rightful owner of their property. And it’s very, very clear who the rightful owner is here, isn’t it? > > Which also makes Gizmodo’s buyer both an accessory to theft (possibly even having performed incitement to theft) and a receiver of stolen goods. Though an added complication is that presumably Gizmodo can claim they brought it with the intention of giving it back to its rightful owner (once they had poked, prodded, and photographed it a little). I don’t know if that would work as a defence. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-found-iphone-prototype/536630/6 "2010-04-23T22:10:54Z")
A police officer once told me, when I left my wallet in a movie theater and it disappeared, that something is considered “stolen” for legal and insurance purposes when you lose it like that – after all, if somebody hadn’t stolen it, it would still be where you left it, right? I don’t know how accurate his information was, but I thought it was interesting.