Since 37prime doesn't have any evidence to prove the finder was lying about repeatedly attempting to return the phone to Apple, I'd like to assume he's not.

Lest, you know, someone make a similar accusation about either:

- me

- you

- 37prime

sometime in the future. This is one of the basis' upon which society works.

Yeah, that hypothesis seems a little fishy to me. 4 reasons:

1. He took money for the phone. You gotta know this is wrong.

2. He shopped around trying to dump the phone.

3. Unless the bar is keeping quiet, he didn't try to return it.

4. Apple seemed to reclaim it in a huge hurry once it got public on Gizmodo. That suggests they were taking its disclosure seriously. Did they think it WOULDN'T cause a huge uproar before it showed up on Gizmodo and then say, "Oh wait, the press _tells people about things!_ Duh, we should have seen this coming."

The story we've got so far has some pretty bizarre turns, and they really don't seem consistent with a bunch of unfortunate coincidences besetting good samaritans.

Fortunately, our opinion is meaningless. The whole point of these investigations is to determine wrongdoing.

I don't have any evidence one way or the other. I did not accuse anyone of anything. At this point everything is hearsay.

The fact is that the finder of the iPhone Prototype "sold" the property that never belonged to him to Gizmodo.

In most places, if the owner doesn't collect it, the item does indeed belong to you.

The "owner" of the phone, which the finder of the phone knows the name of, where it was found etc, was actively looking for the phone.

The words of the finder was published by none other than Gizmodo, who definitely has everything to gain if the statements were true. That's conflict of interest.

To cite some others who had found this specific California Law: California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property."

Now, where was the name dropping by Gizmodo came from? The finder of the phone claimed that the phoned was "remotely bricked" the day after. Certainly someone knew who the phone was assigned to.

Those are the facts.

Gizmodo identified the owner of the phone. The finder knew some items, but not enough.

By the time the owner contacted the finder, it was in Gizmodo's hands (which I believe was a few days after the finder contacted apple).

You misread my post. I have edited it for clarity.