By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Sega accused of using police to recover Nintendo devkits it had "negligently disposed of"

Cerebralbore101 on 13 September 2025
Pemalite said:
psychicscubadiver said:

What?
If someone sells something they don't have a right to sell, then that's selling stolen goods and the original owner has a right to recover it. It doesn't matter if the owner is a company or an individual. The line cerebralbore outlines above shows that the kits belonged to Nintendo so unless someone at Nintendo signed off on the deal, then they *can't* be legally purchased. Not unless the UK has some strange law that allows theft. I'm less inclined to blame the guy who purchased them as he may be unaware that the kits were Nintendo's property, but whether he's aware or not, stolen goods deserve to be restored to their rightful owners.

Under Australian consumer law, it is illegal to knowingly buy stolen goods.
But if the prosecution cannot prove that you knew that the goods you purchased were stolen, then you will be able to defend a charge of receiving stolen goods.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Can you provide a link to U.K. law stating so? Also was it specifically an EULA that Sega was bound to and not a rental contract? 

 I emailed (bolded below) Nintendo's PAL branch with the following email. I also reached out to a U.K. law service for clarification. Maybe we can figure out whether or not U.K. law overrides their agreement. 

Are they renting it? Or is it a license they purchased? Just like when we buy a video game?

Perhaps someone who has an understanding of UK law can chime in on this one.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Hello,

Can I buy a Nintendo dev kit from a reseller?

When purchasing a Nintendo 3DS or DS Dev Kit does it become my property? Or does it remain the property of Nintendo? If it remains the property of Nintendo could you include a copy of the contract that makes it remain the property of Nintendo?

Also, why do you believe everything Time Extension says, telling me to read the article, when the article outright states that the dev kits always belong to Nintendo? Let's say that it is an EULA that Sega was bound to. That would make Time Extension wrong. But if they are wrong about that why trust anything else they say? Do you realize that this entire discussion hinges on Time Extension gullibly believing everything the reseller tells them? 

Even ignoring all that.,,,

Supporting a companies screwup and allowing them to be litigious to destroy an individuals life is not okay.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Pemalite is claiming that 3DS Dev kits are under an EULA and that EULAs don't apply to secondhand purchases, in the U.K. If he can provide a reliable source for his EULA claim. And if it was indeed an EULA and not a different contract, then I would concede. I would love it if LegalEagle or somebody knowledgeable in the law picked this up. 

But if the contract isn't an EULA but instead more like a rental contract or even an NDA then Pemalite would be wrong. 

Keep in mind any and all agreements exist between Sega and Nintendo, not anyone else, that doesn't transfer to a 3rd party as they never signed or agreed to any contracts.

Eula/ToS doesn't override consumer rights either. (Maybe in the USA, but certainly not Australia/UK/Europe which are more pro-consumer.)

You really are going to blatantly assume everything in the article is true without any proof aren't you? Prove your claims that it's an EULA and that EULA agreements are void when selling to a third party in the U.K. What court case can you cite? Either cite a court case or lawyer or stop making this claim. And show something proving that it was an EULA. 



Around the Network
Pemalite on 14 September 2025
Cerebralbore101 said:

You really are going to blatantly assume everything in the article is true without any proof aren't you? Prove your claims that it's an EULA and that EULA agreements are void when selling to a third party in the U.K. What court case can you cite? Either cite a court case or lawyer or stop making this claim. And show something proving that it was an EULA. 

You are missing the point. The EULA was an EXAMPLE of how a company written document does not override your rights as a consumer.

It could be a Terms of Service or a Non-Disclosure-Agreement. They don't override the law.

JFC.

Why are you defending a company that is trying to destroy someones life? Seriously, it's an actual genuine question.
You are a consumer, companies like this are not going to send you cake and flowers for defending them, they don't actually care about us as individuals.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Cerebralbore101 on 14 September 2025
Pemalite said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

You really are going to blatantly assume everything in the article is true without any proof aren't you? Prove your claims that it's an EULA and that EULA agreements are void when selling to a third party in the U.K. What court case can you cite? Either cite a court case or lawyer or stop making this claim. And show something proving that it was an EULA. 

You are missing the point. The EULA was an EXAMPLE of how a company written document does not override your rights as a consumer.

It could be a Terms of Service or a Non-Disclosure-Agreement. They don't override the law.

JFC.

Why are you defending a company that is trying to destroy someones life? Seriously, it's an actual genuine question.
You are a consumer, companies like this are not going to send you cake and flowers for defending them, they don't actually care about us as individuals.

Ok so now you are claiming that all contracts are null and void so long as someone makes a 2nd hand purchase? Can you cite a lawyer or court case demonstrating your claim? 

If company A leases a car, from company B and then sells me that car, company B has no right to getting their car back? Is that how that works? Is that your argument? 

Why do you believe everything based on a single faulty source? Why are you so gullible? Stop acting as if the things written in the Time Extension article are established fact. 

It's not a genuine question it is a loaded question, because it presupposes that everything written in the Time Extension article is factual. It presupposes that Sega is guilty. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/loaded-question.html

It's even dumber than that because if you presume that everything in the article is factual then the dev kits stilled belonged to Nintendo and thus Sega had no right to sell them. 

Either Time Extension is to be taken as fact or not. If Time Extension is not to be taken as fact then the claims against Sega have no merit. If Time Extension is to be taken as fact then it is a fact that Sega did not own the dev kits. And if Sega did not own the dev kits then the purchase was not legitimate. 

Do you realize how bad it is to have a source that contradicts itself as badly as Time Extension does? Stop treating TE like it's gospel. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 14 September 2025

Cerebralbore101 on 14 September 2025

Here's an example of a dev kit lease agreement, which is pretty standard in the tech industry. Notice that it's a lease agreement and not a sale. I cannot stress enough that Sega did not have a right to sell and the reseller did not purchase his dev kits legally. 

https://developer.apple.com/visionos/developer-kit/apply/static/policy/vision-pro-developer-kit-program-terms.pdf

"3. Title. The DK is being loaned to You and is not a gift. Apple will arrange for delivery of
the DK to You at the ship-to address You have designated. Apple retains all right, title, and
interest in the DK (including all Apple Software pre-installed on or otherwise accompanying
the pre-release hardware). Nothing in this Addendum shall be construed as conveying to You
(or any other party) any ownership rights, title or interest in the DK. Any taxes that may be
levied on the DK (or its use) shall be Your responsibility."


Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 14 September 2025

psychicscubadiver on 15 September 2025
Pemalite said:
psychicscubadiver said:

What?
If someone sells something they don't have a right to sell, then that's selling stolen goods and the original owner has a right to recover it. It doesn't matter if the owner is a company or an individual. The line cerebralbore outlines above shows that the kits belonged to Nintendo so unless someone at Nintendo signed off on the deal, then they *can't* be legally purchased. Not unless the UK has some strange law that allows theft. I'm less inclined to blame the guy who purchased them as he may be unaware that the kits were Nintendo's property, but whether he's aware or not, stolen goods deserve to be restored to their rightful owners.

Under Australian consumer law, it is illegal to knowingly buy stolen goods.
But if the prosecution cannot prove that you knew that the goods you purchased were stolen, then you will be able to defend a charge of receiving stolen goods.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Can you provide a link to U.K. law stating so? Also was it specifically an EULA that Sega was bound to and not a rental contract? 

 I emailed (bolded below) Nintendo's PAL branch with the following email. I also reached out to a U.K. law service for clarification. Maybe we can figure out whether or not U.K. law overrides their agreement. 

Are they renting it? Or is it a license they purchased? Just like when we buy a video game?

Perhaps someone who has an understanding of UK law can chime in on this one.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Hello,

Can I buy a Nintendo dev kit from a reseller?

When purchasing a Nintendo 3DS or DS Dev Kit does it become my property? Or does it remain the property of Nintendo? If it remains the property of Nintendo could you include a copy of the contract that makes it remain the property of Nintendo?

Also, why do you believe everything Time Extension says, telling me to read the article, when the article outright states that the dev kits always belong to Nintendo? Let's say that it is an EULA that Sega was bound to. That would make Time Extension wrong. But if they are wrong about that why trust anything else they say? Do you realize that this entire discussion hinges on Time Extension gullibly believing everything the reseller tells them? 

Even ignoring all that.,,,

Supporting a companies screwup and allowing them to be litigious to destroy an individuals life is not okay.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Pemalite is claiming that 3DS Dev kits are under an EULA and that EULAs don't apply to secondhand purchases, in the U.K. If he can provide a reliable source for his EULA claim. And if it was indeed an EULA and not a different contract, then I would concede. I would love it if LegalEagle or somebody knowledgeable in the law picked this up. 

But if the contract isn't an EULA but instead more like a rental contract or even an NDA then Pemalite would be wrong. 

Keep in mind any and all agreements exist between Sega and Nintendo, not anyone else, that doesn't transfer to a 3rd party as they never signed or agreed to any contracts.

Eula/ToS doesn't override consumer rights either. (Maybe in the USA, but certainly not Australia/UK/Europe which are more pro-consumer.)

Okay? I never said the dude should be prosecuted for buying stolen goods, only that the stolen goods should be returned to their rightful owner. 

As to the bolded how are they destroying the guy's life? I get that 10,000 pounds is not a small amount but he hasn't been jailed for any crimes and 10K is hardly life-ruining for someone that owns a business, especially since the article never alleges that this will cause him to go bankrupt. It would be nice if Sega would compensate him what he spent, assuming it is their fault and he can show receipts for what he paid, but regardless the consoles were not theirs to sell and should be restored to their rightful owner.



Around the Network
mjk45 on 16 September 2025
psychicscubadiver said:
Pemalite said:

Under Australian consumer law, it is illegal to knowingly buy stolen goods.
But if the prosecution cannot prove that you knew that the goods you purchased were stolen, then you will be able to defend a charge of receiving stolen goods.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Can you provide a link to U.K. law stating so? Also was it specifically an EULA that Sega was bound to and not a rental contract? 

 I emailed (bolded below) Nintendo's PAL branch with the following email. I also reached out to a U.K. law service for clarification. Maybe we can figure out whether or not U.K. law overrides their agreement. 

Are they renting it? Or is it a license they purchased? Just like when we buy a video game?

Perhaps someone who has an understanding of UK law can chime in on this one.

Even ignoring all that.,,,

Supporting a companies screwup and allowing them to be litigious to destroy an individuals life is not okay.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Pemalite is claiming that 3DS Dev kits are under an EULA and that EULAs don't apply to secondhand purchases, in the U.K. If he can provide a reliable source for his EULA claim. And if it was indeed an EULA and not a different contract, then I would concede. I would love it if LegalEagle or somebody knowledgeable in the law picked this up. 

But if the contract isn't an EULA but instead more like a rental contract or even an NDA then Pemalite would be wrong. 

Keep in mind any and all agreements exist between Sega and Nintendo, not anyone else, that doesn't transfer to a 3rd party as they never signed or agreed to any contracts.

Eula/ToS doesn't override consumer rights either. (Maybe in the USA, but certainly not Australia/UK/Europe which are more pro-consumer.)

Okay? I never said the dude should be prosecuted for buying stolen goods, only that the stolen goods should be returned to their rightful owner. 

As to the bolded how are they destroying the guy's life? I get that 10,000 pounds is not a small amount but he hasn't been jailed for any crimes and 10K is hardly life-ruining for someone that owns a business, especially since the article never alleges that this will cause him to go bankrupt. It would be nice if Sega would compensate him what he spent, assuming it is their fault and he can show receipts for what he paid, but regardless the consoles were not theirs to sell and should be restored to their rightful owner.

The buyer has recourse in the form of requesting  their money back from the 3rd party contractor or suing them for false pretences, now if the contractor is sensible they would simply  admit they weren't made aware by Sega of the kits status and so mistakingly sold the kit as part of the stock sale and then  give the money back. along with an apology.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Cerebralbore101 on 16 September 2025
mjk45 said:
psychicscubadiver said:

Okay? I never said the dude should be prosecuted for buying stolen goods, only that the stolen goods should be returned to their rightful owner. 

As to the bolded how are they destroying the guy's life? I get that 10,000 pounds is not a small amount but he hasn't been jailed for any crimes and 10K is hardly life-ruining for someone that owns a business, especially since the article never alleges that this will cause him to go bankrupt. It would be nice if Sega would compensate him what he spent, assuming it is their fault and he can show receipts for what he paid, but regardless the consoles were not theirs to sell and should be restored to their rightful owner.

The buyer has recourse in the form of requesting  their money back from the 3rd party contractor or suing them for false pretences, now if the contractor is sensible they would simply  admit they weren't made aware by Sega of the kits status and so mistakingly sold the kit as part of the stock sale and then  give the money back. along with an apology.

I mostly agree with this. Assuming the buyer isn't lying to Time Extension, this is the route Sega/Scrapyard (whoever sold the kits to him) should have taken. But that alone is a massive assumption.

Just one small issue.  Nintendo dev kits clearly say sale prohibited on them. This is why I said earlier that it's common knowledge with resellers and high end collectors that this stuff is always the property of Nintendo. So the buyer not having a clue that these things were not the rightful property of Sega or the scrapyard isn't going to hold up in court. There's no playing dumb here. Especially not with the reseller knowing full well these came from a nearby devsite closure. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 16 September 2025