Any legitimacy to this?

[GKnight]

So I had some Dev consoles running on eBay a while back and a guy with no feedback messages me one day saying this:

"
This item is a proprietary Nintendo development kit assigned to Activision and cannot be sold. Please contact us for instructions on returning this hardware to Activision.

HardwareAssetMgmt@activision.com
"

I ignored him and then a few days later eBay took my auction down saying that there was an issue of copyright infringement & I could not list the consoles for sale. I've sold lots of dev equipment on eBay up until now & never had a problem so I assumed that the guy who messaged me was the one who filed a complaint. After a while I got back to him asking about this & told him that my dev consoles were either bought at an auction of old unused equipment from the Activision subsidiary company who previously used it or collected as junk the company was throwing out, which is how I believe the person who I bought it from got it because he gets lots of stuff like this. Anyway, the guy then replied saying this:

"
Game Development Hardware is proprietary equipment owned by the associated manufacturer (Nintendo, SONY, Microsoft). This equipment is licensed to Video Game Developers and Publishers for game development purposes only and is not resalable under any circumstances.

Regardless of how you acquired this equipment, the seller did not have the right to offer it for sale. This equipment must be returned to Activision or Nintendo directly.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter in further detail.
"

Anybody in the industry know if this is true or not? As far as I knew all the old dev equipment is generally auctioned off as old parts by video game companies or chucked because they are not used any longer. Shouldn't people be able to resell this type of equipment if the company who actually owns it sells it off or gets rid of it first? Is this guy trying to scam me or are his facts correct?

[Bojay1997]

So I had some Dev consoles running on eBay a while back and a guy with no feedback messages me one day saying this:

"
This item is a proprietary Nintendo development kit assigned to Activision and cannot be sold. Please contact us for instructions on returning this hardware to Activision.

HardwareAssetMgmt@activision.com
"

I ignored him and then a few days later eBay took my auction down saying that there was an issue of copyright infringement & I could not list the consoles for sale. I've sold lots of dev equipment on eBay up until now & never had a problem so I assumed that the guy who messaged me was the one who filed a complaint. After a while I got back to him asking about this & told him that my dev consoles were either bought at an auction of old unused equipment from the Activision subsidiary company who previously used it or collected as junk the company was throwing out, which is how I believe the person who I bought it from got it because he gets lots of stuff like this. Anyway, the guy then replied saying this:

"
Game Development Hardware is proprietary equipment owned by the associated manufacturer (Nintendo, SONY, Microsoft). This equipment is licensed to Video Game Developers and Publishers for game development purposes only and is not resalable under any circumstances.

Regardless of how you acquired this equipment, the seller did not have the right to offer it for sale. This equipment must be returned to Activision or Nintendo directly.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter in further detail.
"

Anybody in the industry know if this is true or not? As far as I knew all the old dev equipment is generally auctioned off as old parts by video game companies or chucked because they are not used any longer. Shouldn't people be able to resell this type of equipment if the company who actually owns it sells it off or gets rid of it first? Is this guy trying to scam me or are his facts correct?

He is absolutely correct. All of the dev gear Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft "sells" is subject to a license agreement wherein it must be returned to them should the developer no longer need or want it. Essentially, developers don't own the gear, they simply license it in exchange for a fee and technical support from the manufacturer. This keeps coming up in liquidation sales and just was an issue on the 38 Studios auction which occured a few days ago and will have another session tomorrow. Dev kits cannot be resold because they remain property of the manufacturer.

Whether he can force you to return it is another question, but in theory Nintendo and Activision as a party to the license agreement could file a lawsuit to force you to return the hardware and seek monetary damages against you. Ebay will likely give up your contact info so they can serve you with the lawsuit. Of course, it could also be that Activision is just trying to engage in a CYA campaign if Nintendo is cracking down on them and wants to know where the hardware has gone and they may not follow up at all.

[Satoshi_Matrix]

Yes, dev units are illegal to sell, but people do so anyway. You could be in deep trouble for trying to sell whatever it is you had, but since you were unsuccessful, you're probably fine.

What exactly were you selling? Dev units of what? I can't thin of what would involve both Nintendo and Activision.

[Compute]

Sounds legit. Depends how badly Nintendo wants it back or Activision doesn't want to lose their dev license. I say send it back to 'em in pieces.

[goatdan]

It's like half legit. As far as I understand it, it works like this...

The agreements that these companies make with Nintendo or whomever have it so that the hardware must be either kept by the company or sent back to the original company. The idea, essentially, is that if let's say Nintendo licenses the Wii U to a company, as part of that agreement if the company that licenses the dev kit goes bankrupt immediately, they cannot sell their kit or license to someone who doesn't sign the same paperwork with Nintendo to keep everything proprietary and whatnot.

What generally happens though is that in a lot of circumstances, these companies do not come back and ask for these items back. I picked up a few displays at the closing of Circuit City a few years ago that I had to wait until the last day because they were the property of another company until they officially opted not to pick them up. What it is that these companies essentially have to decide is if it is worth the trouble to ship things back, and if not they fall through the cracks...

The not-so-legit part is that you were never under that same contract, so you are not one of the parties that agreed to do whatever with this item that the contract states. As long as it was not sold to you under that understanding, you have a case to argue that you obtained it legally and were not part of that contract.

Having said all of that, you would need a good lawyer to really help you through that, and it almost definitely isn't worth it. I would just ignore it for now, and see what happens. They should try contacting you again if they are serious to try to explain more.

[Bojay1997]

It's like half legit. As far as I understand it, it works like this...

The agreements that these companies make with Nintendo or whomever have it so that the hardware must be either kept by the company or sent back to the original company. The idea, essentially, is that if let's say Nintendo licenses the Wii U to a company, as part of that agreement if the company that licenses the dev kit goes bankrupt immediately, they cannot sell their kit or license to someone who doesn't sign the same paperwork with Nintendo to keep everything proprietary and whatnot.

What generally happens though is that in a lot of circumstances, these companies do not come back and ask for these items back. I picked up a few displays at the closing of Circuit City a few years ago that I had to wait until the last day because they were the property of another company until they officially opted not to pick them up. What it is that these companies essentially have to decide is if it is worth the trouble to ship things back, and if not they fall through the cracks...

The not-so-legit part is that you were never under that same contract, so you are not one of the parties that agreed to do whatever with this item that the contract states. As long as it was not sold to you under that understanding, you have a case to argue that you obtained it legally and were not part of that contract.

Having said all of that, you would need a good lawyer to really help you through that, and it almost definitely isn't worth it. I would just ignore it for now, and see what happens. They should try contacting you again if they are serious to try to explain more.

I agree with some of what you posted, but I can tell you that simply arguing that you are not bound by the contract is not a valid defense. If it was, people who bought stolen goods would be able to argue that all day. You can use the ignorance or non-party to contact defense to avoid criminal liability and monetary damages, but it won't prevent you from having to return the unit if they are serious and possibly having to pay their court costs if you choose to fight them. I agree with you that he should just ignore them for now as there really is no down side to doing so and I can't imagine they are going to put much effort into pursuing this one unit.

[wiggyx]

So I had some Dev consoles running on eBay a while back and a guy with no feedback messages me one day saying this:

"
This item is a proprietary Nintendo development kit assigned to Activision and cannot be sold. Please contact us for instructions on returning this hardware to Activision.

HardwareAssetMgmt@activision.com
"

I ignored him and then a few days later eBay took my auction down saying that there was an issue of copyright infringement & I could not list the consoles for sale. I've sold lots of dev equipment on eBay up until now & never had a problem so I assumed that the guy who messaged me was the one who filed a complaint. After a while I got back to him asking about this & told him that my dev consoles were either bought at an auction of old unused equipment from the Activision subsidiary company who previously used it or collected as junk the company was throwing out, which is how I believe the person who I bought it from got it because he gets lots of stuff like this. Anyway, the guy then replied saying this:

"
Game Development Hardware is proprietary equipment owned by the associated manufacturer (Nintendo, SONY, Microsoft). This equipment is licensed to Video Game Developers and Publishers for game development purposes only and is not resalable under any circumstances.

Regardless of how you acquired this equipment, the seller did not have the right to offer it for sale. This equipment must be returned to Activision or Nintendo directly.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter in further detail.
"

Anybody in the industry know if this is true or not? As far as I knew all the old dev equipment is generally auctioned off as old parts by video game companies or chucked because they are not used any longer. Shouldn't people be able to resell this type of equipment if the company who actually owns it sells it off or gets rid of it first? Is this guy trying to scam me or are his facts correct?

Call the guy and see what he says. Did you purchase it at auction? If so, I'd redirect him to the company that handled the auction and have them sort out who was responsible for letting this item slip through the cracks. You do have some rights in this instance. As others have said, it could cost a small fortune fighting something like this, but you may also be able to pass the buck on to the party or parties that are actually responsible for this mistake.

[kedawa]

Ignore it. They can't do shit.

[Bojay1997]

Ignore it. They can't do shit.

Actually, under US law they can. Whether or not they will is a whole other question.

[Jorpho]

Someone should point out that the other possibility is that this guy works for Activision but also happens to have a fondness for building his own collection of dev hardware and sees this as an opportunity to get some on the cheap. But that is probably assuming too much malice.

I should also add that, now that almost thirty years have passed (ack) it would seem to me unlikely that they could produce the relevant documentation stating that the unit has anything to do with them.

[Leo_A]

I should also add that, now that almost thirty years have passed (ack) it would seem to me unlikely that they could produce the relevant documentation stating that the unit has anything to do with them.

He never said what system it was for.

[Kitsune Sniper]

What exactly were you selling? Dev units of what? I can't thin of what would involve both Nintendo and Activision.

The Gamecube and the Wii come to mind.

[goatdan]

I agree with some of what you posted, but I can tell you that simply arguing that you are not bound by the contract is not a valid defense. If it was, people who bought stolen goods would be able to argue that all day. You can use the ignorance or non-party to contact defense to avoid criminal liability and monetary damages, but it won't prevent you from having to return the unit if they are serious and possibly having to pay their court costs if you choose to fight them. I agree with you that he should just ignore them for now as there really is no down side to doing so and I can't imagine they are going to put much effort into pursuing this one unit.

I was trying to, but didn't say it well, state that if it was sold in a legal bankruptcy auction or something like that, where Nintendo and / or Activision did not pursue the return of the system before that time, it sort of changes the rules.

It shouldn't be a mystery to whatever company when someone who obtains a dev kit goes bankrupt, and if they do not pursue their assets at that time, it becomes much tougher to enforce that right at a later point in time. It would be like you knew that someone was going to steal your TV, but you were okay with that. A few months later, that person no longer has your TV, and you see someone else listing it, so you go to them and *now* say that it is stolen.

It's something that you could theoretically argue in court - that by the company being complacent in the original sale that was similar to them approving of it - but in the case of something like this, those lawyers got much deeper pockets then that.

[Guy Bramsworth]

Sounds like someone messing with you to be honest. I don't see any indications it's official, doesn't take much to type up something that sounds authoritative like that and put in an email that's likely publicly available on the net. Someone's just trying to scare you because they think they gotta police these things, maybe. Whatever system it is, I'm going to assume not current gen? In which case I don't think they'd be trying to get something so old back after all these years, they got better things to worry about.

[Bojay1997]

I was trying to, but didn't say it well, state that if it was sold in a legal bankruptcy auction or something like that, where Nintendo and / or Activision did not pursue the return of the system before that time, it sort of changes the rules.

It shouldn't be a mystery to whatever company when someone who obtains a dev kit goes bankrupt, and if they do not pursue their assets at that time, it becomes much tougher to enforce that right at a later point in time. It would be like you knew that someone was going to steal your TV, but you were okay with that. A few months later, that person no longer has your TV, and you see someone else listing it, so you go to them and *now* say that it is stolen.

It's something that you could theoretically argue in court - that by the company being complacent in the original sale that was similar to them approving of it - but in the case of something like this, those lawyers got much deeper pockets then that.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. There is quite a bit of case law for the proposition that simply changing hands multiple times doesn't make a piece of property more legitimate if it was stolen or never authorized for sale. A rightful owner also does not have a positive obligation to actively search out their lost or stolen property. While the OP may have a cause of action for damages from whoever he bought it from, that is not going to be a valid defense against the rightful owner of the property from reclaiming that property. Again, this all could be moot because I hardly think a company is going to pursue something like this very hard, but it doesn't change the fact that if it does, the OP has no valid defense to the claim unless he can show documents from the rightful owner releasing ownership and allowing it to be transferred.

[wiggyx]

We're talking civil law here though, not criminal.

The rules change a bit because of the bankruptcy that is involved. It's very likely that Activision has absolutely zero legal claim to said hardware, which would leave it up to Nintendo to decide whether it's worth it for them to pursue (if they are even informed about it at all). I can't see it being a big deal for them, especially seeing how many dev kits come up for auction on eBay and run their course. It doesn't appear that Nintendo is all that concerned.



Regardless, I'm really interested in hearing what comes of this.

[Griking]

Sounds like someone messing with you to be honest. I don't see any indications it's official,

I'm probably take it at least a little bit serious since eBay pulled the auction for copyright reasons right after this person contacted you.

[tom]

Sounds like Activision (and Nintendo is already) is turning like Atari into the NAZIS of gaming companies.

You can always give it away for free, and the other party could give you money as a gift.

[wiggyx]

I'm probably take it at least a little bit serious since eBay pulled the auction for copyright reasons right after this person contacted you.


It actually takes a surprisingly small amount of effort to make a claim with eBay in order to have an auction pulled. They will pull the auction right away without much, if any, investigation if you can provide ANY sort of proof of ownership. I think they do so in order to protect themselves. No sense in riskig being party to a transaction that it either illegal, in violation of copyrights, patent infringement, etc. if all it takes is pulling an auction which, by comparison to any litigation that could potentially come from letting the auction run its course, costs them next to nothing.

The claim may be totally legitimate, but I wouldn't use the fact that eBay pulled the auction as a measurement of its legitimacy.


OP, I would still consider contacting the person who you've already spoken with and ask for some sort of formal request/demand in writing. As in a certified letter from an attorney or such, not an email from some unknown party.

[RCM]

This seems legit to me. Pro Tip: don't sell gray market items on ebay, especially when it's essentially been "stolen" from a big fish like Activision.

[Bojay1997]

Actually, we don't really know if a criminal act was involved or not. It really depends on how the hardware went from Activision to the OP. It could have been sold at auction from a liquidating Activision affiliated developer in which case you're right that Nintendo is probably the only one that has a valid claim to the property. On the other hand, someone at the developer could have simply taken the item home and then resold it in which case it would be stolen property. We just don't know.


We're talking civil law here though, not criminal.

The rules change a bit because of the bankruptcy that is involved. It's very likely that Activision has absolutely zero legal claim to said hardware, which would leave it up to Nintendo to decide whether it's worth it for them to pursue (if they are even informed about it at all). I can't see it being a big deal for them, especially seeing how many dev kits come up for auction on eBay and run their course. It doesn't appear that Nintendo is all that concerned.



Regardless, I'm really interested in hearing what comes of this.

[Bojay1997]

It actually takes a surprisingly small amount of effort to make a claim with eBay in order to have an auction pulled. They will pull the auction right away without much, if any, investigation if you can provide ANY sort of proof of ownership. I think they do so in order to protect themselves. No sense in riskig being party to a transaction that it either illegal, in violation of copyrights, patent infringement, etc. if all it takes is pulling an auction which, by comparison to any litigation that could potentially come from letting the auction run its course, costs them next to nothing.

The claim may be totally legitimate, but I wouldn't use the fact that eBay pulled the auction as a measurement of its legitimacy.


OP, I would still consider contacting the person who you've already spoken with and ask for some sort of formal request/demand in writing. As in a certified letter from an attorney or such, not an email from some unknown party.

That's bad advice. I would let the other party take the initiative and take on the burden of pursuing the claim. If you continue to respond to them, you lose the ability to claim you thought it wasn't a legit demand. You don't need to suggest how they should proceed. If they really care that much about this, they can subpoena Ebay and get your contact info and then serve you with a formal demand by personal service or registered mail.

[Rickstilwell1]

Just have a video game sale lot on craigslist and when the people come to see what you have try to sell it to them. They'll probably think "whao, way rare" and buy it from you. Then you can tell that bozo you threw it in the trash.

[goatdan]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. There is quite a bit of case law for the proposition that simply changing hands multiple times doesn't make a piece of property more legitimate if it was stolen or never authorized for sale. A rightful owner also does not have a positive obligation to actively search out their lost or stolen property. While the OP may have a cause of action for damages from whoever he bought it from, that is not going to be a valid defense against the rightful owner of the property from reclaiming that property. Again, this all could be moot because I hardly think a company is going to pursue something like this very hard, but it doesn't change the fact that if it does, the OP has no valid defense to the claim unless he can show documents from the rightful owner releasing ownership and allowing it to be transferred.

See... but that is the thing. Was the item stolen if the auction company sold it? No. Was the item originally authorized for sale? It's more of a gray area, but the way that the auction houses stuff is set up, it's hard to say straight up no.

Having said all this, my opinion is formed thanks to another large company which left some of their property at a place that had it get liquidated off. I know some people at this company, and I was trying to use this material to set up a display for the company at the MGC and get it more or less "officially" blessed. I was told that due to the fact that I bought the items legally at a sale of assets, they no longer had any legal claim to those items... but that they also didn't want me representing their company with materials that they did not officially supply.

Maybe they were being nice to me because I know some of the other people there, so maybe my experience was skewed, but that was their legal team that told me that...

[Bojay1997]

See... but that is the thing. Was the item stolen if the auction company sold it? No. Was the item originally authorized for sale? It's more of a gray area, but the way that the auction houses stuff is set up, it's hard to say straight up no.

Having said all this, my opinion is formed thanks to another large company which left some of their property at a place that had it get liquidated off. I know some people at this company, and I was trying to use this material to set up a display for the company at the MGC and get it more or less "officially" blessed. I was told that due to the fact that I bought the items legally at a sale of assets, they no longer had any legal claim to those items... but that they also didn't want me representing their company with materials that they did not officially supply.

Maybe they were being nice to me because I know some of the other people there, so maybe my experience was skewed, but that was their legal team that told me that...

I've actually had some experience with this issue as well and I can state for a fact that under the agreements Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have with developers, the development gear remains property of the manufacturer unless the manufacturer itself releases them for disposition. The agreements developers sign are basically licensing and lease agreements and so they never really acquire the rights needed to sell or otherwise dispose of them as they see fit. Just because an auction company gets involved, that doesn't change the status of the equipment. I realize a bankrupt developer could probably care less what is sold and what isn't, but as has been shown recently with the Accolade and now 38 Studios auctions, manufacturers can and do assert their rights to the gear and prevent the sale from going forward. As for the OP's issue, my personal belief is that Activision is not going to expend a lot of time and money pursuing him, but at the same time, he probably has little or no defense if they actually do follow through. As someone else pointed out, the lesson here is not to sell development gear on Ebay or other public places where the manufacturer or developers could be watching.

[MachineGex]

I would not respond to the person or list any of those items again. I would just wait for it to fade anyway. If you contact him, he may push it further. Sell them on gaming forums, quietly.

If the person contacts you outside of ebay, I would tell him you have returned the item to the person you bought it from and no longer have it. That way you have some type of documentation that you no longer have it if things go to the next level. After that, tell the person you do not wish to be contacted anymore.

[goatdan]

I've actually had some experience with this issue as well and I can state for a fact that under the agreements Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have with developers, the development gear remains property of the manufacturer unless the manufacturer itself releases them for disposition. .... Just because an auction company gets involved, that doesn't change the status of the equipment.

Right. What I was told though is that if a manufacturer does not claim them after they have essentially been released for disposition by not collecting them from a company claiming bankruptcy - which they are notified of - then by not claiming them back they have essentially also broke the contract and they don't really have the rights to that material any more. They basically said that if they didn't collect them, they count as disposal of the units on their books.

Having said that, I will also note that they can exploit the loophole of "not knowing when the items in question were sold" and/or claiming they were demanded back and not returned, either of which would putt his into their camp very easily.

I think we're basically agreeing though. At the end of the day, they have more lawyers than anyone just randomly selling one of these has, and it isn't worth enough to sell one to pay lawyer fees, so for all intents and purposes... yeah, they can demand them back if they so choose.

It's why I'm happy to just keep my stuff what it is for now :)

[dendawg]

Having said that, I will also note that they can exploit the loophole of "not knowing when the items in question were sold" and/or claiming they were demanded back and not returned, either of which would putt his into their camp very easily.

Not necessarily. The "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" card can be played both ways. :vamp: