Originally Posted by Texrat

heh... they've probably already approached their ad clients about upping fees.

Originally Posted by gerbick

Apple or the police? I think the paperwork starts/stops with the attorney general.

Originally Posted by Joorin

Apply to? No need to apply. Get educated, as in, learn to be a bit objective when relating events, learn how news is reported. Learn that "journalism" isn't editorializing about your pet peeve or favourite product/company.

If you're running a blog, you're not a journalist by that alone. It's not enough to describe your day, what you wore, what you ate and what you happened to read in the newspaper and reacted to to be a journalist. Getting paid to write your pieces is, for example, one way of separating yourself from the rest and actually be able to call yourself a journalist.

Unless you're going for the "a person who keeps a journal" meaning, which in this context would just be odd.

Originally Posted by nidO

Actually thats not where it directly becomes theft, but where it becomes rather more unclear.
As was reported, the guy tried numerous times to return it to apple, and the reports say that he was told by Apple what he has is just a knock-off, and not to bother them about it.
Granted, he was probably only talking to monkeys on apple's helpdesk and only got a TR for his trouble, but if theyre the only point of contact apple will provide to him, then by the law you just quoted he clearly did make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property" by contacting them, whereupon the owner told him the device wasnt theirs and they didnt want it.
Both the guy and Gizmodo clearly had strong evidence the device was Apple's, so no effort was reasonably needed to locate any other potential owner, and he made all reasonable effort to return it to Apple before selling it (as reported, anyway).

Originally Posted by nidO

Actually thats not where it directly becomes theft, but where it becomes rather more unclear.
As was reported, the guy tried numerous times to return it to apple, and the reports say that he was told by Apple what he has is just a knock-off, and not to bother them about it.
Granted, he was probably only talking to monkeys on apple's helpdesk and only got a TR for his trouble, but if theyre the only point of contact apple will provide to him, then by the law you just quoted he clearly did make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property" by contacting them, whereupon the owner told him the device wasnt theirs and they didnt want it.
Both the guy and Gizmodo clearly had strong evidence the device was Apple's, so no effort was reasonably needed to locate any other potential owner, and he made all reasonable effort to return it to Apple before selling it (as reported, anyway).