OK, so supposedly Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the phone, but he wasn't there, so he didn't. Then presumably having heard about this from his roommate who was there, he nonetheless sells the iPhone to Gizmodo.
It still looks wrong to me. PC World reports this part of the story as "unconfirmed" by the way, not as a fact. On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:00 AM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: > [email protected] > Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:13:28 -0700 > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the > > phone. He didn't. > > Let's do get the facts straight. The PCWorld article you referenced > was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine. > > The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the > person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able > to confront the person they were looking for. When they arrived, the > individual they were interested in was not there. His roommate was, > and it was he who answered the knock on the door. The Apple Corp. > folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but > the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was > not present. I would have done the same thing in that situation. I > would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the > belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been > specifically told by that individual to allow it. > > Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to > recover the phone at that address. > > Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that > Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in > question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for > the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple > would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already > knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have > provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in > the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple > Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were > initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the > execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner > (consultant) with them? > > Steve > > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
