You're threading an interesting needle here, between saying they weren't offering to give Apple the phone, while (in earlier comments on this thread) saying they weren't refusing to return the phone. What's the word you would use for their action in response to Apple's request?
He wasn't offering to return the phone and he wasn't refusing to return the phone. He was trying (successfully) to get Apple to acknowledge that they lost the phone, that they want it back, and that it wasn't a marketing stunt, all in a way that Gizmodo can report. I guess his point at the end was "you thought you could blackball us, but we showed you we don't need your help." Not very classy, IMO, but smugness isn't a crime.
I am not a lawyer, but I am curious about the legal ramifications of the case for many reasons. I am trying as best I can to interpret the email literally and objectively, because I think that's the only way that it will be interpreted in court in any future court cases on this matter.
Wait. What? Apple asked for the phone back. If I take your phone away, and you ask for it back, and my response doesn't offer to give the phone back to you, what's the thing I can be doing other than refusing to return the phone?
It is pretty normal to request verification of ownership from somebody who claims to be the rightful owner of something lost. For example, let's say you found an iPhone (or bag of cash) on the street and posted a "Found iPhone" (or "Found Bag of Cash") ad on Craigslist. I bet somebody--probably multiple people--would reply that it is theirs pretty quickly. Are you going to ask them to verify in some way that it is theirs? If so, would your request for verification constitute a refusal to return it to the rightful owner? I don't think so. In particular, if you "returned" it to someone who wasn't the rightful owner, the rightful owner could sue you and/or worse, so it's in your best interest to verify that you are returning it to the correct people.
I think one aspect of this case is particularly interesting: I have the impression that the phone was much more likely to be returned by Gizmodo than by the "finder." And, I think Gizmodo paid for access to the phone, knowing that they would have to return it to Apple if it was Apple's. The thing I'm really curious about is whether the court thinks they really "bought" the phone, or whether they paid for temporary access to the phone and agreed to return it to Apple if it was theirs, or whether there's no difference legally. In other words, it seems likely that Gizmodo's payment for the phone enabled and/or accelerated its return to Apple. (Compare it to the case of the other lost iPhone prototype in Vietnam this week, which Apple will almost definitely never get back.)
And here we run right off the cliff, with the tendentious message board argument that Gizmodo had any reasonable expectation that the phone might not have been Apple's after Steve Jobs called them to get the phone back. Due respect, but give me a break, Brian.
You don't think there is even a slight possibility that the phone belonged to somebody else, like, say, the person who actually lost it? Do you really think it was unreasonable for Gizmodo to ask Apple to simply state--not prove, merely state--that it belonged to them and that the person who left it in the bar didn't "lose" it on purpose? I think it is more than reasonable to ask. Especially, it's silly to speculate when when Apple was willing to confirm it.
If this was some random person, or even some random company, laying claim to the device, you may have a leg to stand on. It's Apple. Do you really think they'd go out and ask journalists for some iPhone knockoff prototype? Come on.
Ah yes, the venerable "come on It's Apple" defense.
If this ever goes to trial the lawyers will demand a change of venue out of the bay area, they'll never get a fair shake with the serious infestation of Apple fanboys around here.
Bear in mind, I'm not using the "come on It's Apple" defense in terms of all of their actions; I don't know enough about this case to say anything either way, and really don't care enough in general. But I think it's a pretty fair assumption that if they're calling someone and saying "uh, hey, you have our phone", it really is their phone.
In a nutshell, Lam was bargaining with Jobs - 'your phone, which is my possession, for documentation I can use to post another story on the subject.' Consider - it's not good enough for Jobs to come by the gizmodo office and collect it - that leaves gizmodo open to jibes that they are just part of Apple's PR machine. Lam wants a written admission, the publication of which will inevitably undermine Apple's reputation a bit.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I feel pretty sure than any objective reading of it will be interpreted by a court as withholding of stolen property, which is yet another felony offense in what seems to have been a long string surrounding this device. I wonder if Lam has hired an attorney yet, as Chen did.
