[gosub100]

Thank you for finding this. As I said, I remembered very little from it. Clearly my recollection was lacking.

> they'd only return the phone (which they knew was stolen at that point) if Apple agreed to a list of terms

so it's wrong to give a T&C to a company that gives T&C to its users? You can't see the irony in this? or you are okay with it? Did apple have to wait in line just like everyone else who reports property crime to (presumably) Cupertino PD? I think not.

[Aurornis]

> so it's wrong to give a T&C to a company that gives T&C to its users? You can't see the irony in this? or you are okay with it?

What? The person had stolen property in their possession. They weren't in a position to be dictating terms of the deal because they legally did not have the right to possess the property, which they were fully aware was not owned by the person they bought it from.

[gosub100]

> stolen

From your article: "It was the last time he ever saw the phone, right before he abandoned it on bar stool, leaving to go home."

Sounds like a clear cut case of theft to me. Absolutely

[estimator7292]

No, it's wrong (and illegal) to hold ransom someone else's stolen property.

The phone belonged to Apple. The phone was stolen (illegal). The stolen phone was then knowingly purchased as stolen property (illegal), and then the reporter demanded payment for the stolen property (once more, illegal).