Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse • Hacker News Board

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#61

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

dexen wrote: post #34

cr1895 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your own link: "A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven: The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property. The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce. The items had a value in excess of $5,000. The person acted knowingly and willfully." So that doesn't really answer the question asked, because it's o…

A subsequent section on Wikipedia (link [1] in GP) tells us the following: >All US states also have laws regarding receipt of stolen property; however, there usually is no minimum dollar amount in many jurisdictions, and, of course, the requirement in Federal law regarding interstate commerce does not apply. i.e., USA-wide >Also, in many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as string…

Curiously, the references backing those statements are both dead :)

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#62

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:16 PM UTC

Azeolus wrote: post #32

malik9 wrote: post #3

Previously owned devices sales next? If they are including blacklisting code like this their software simply cannot be trusted.

No. There is a simple explanation too. Once a valid sale happens ownership changes. They still own these devices, because they were stolen. That means they can do whatever they please, the devices are still theirs.

Ownership change doesn't magically disable their remote control, though.

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#63

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #57

sandworm101 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to know more about the "theft". I suspect that this wasn't a robbery in the dead of night. UCC § 2-403 states: When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though ... the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403 Basically, if an employee to other person who was "entrusted" wi…

That's not what the law states. It actually says: (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. The part you're quoting refers to the recipient being the fraud, not the seller. The recipient never acquires more rights than the seller had. This is why stolen goods…

But see (2)

(2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business

We need to know more about how the seller acquired the goods. Often such ebay sales are by people who had legitimate possession, just not any right to sell them. This is why experimental and demo electronics aren't normally investigated as stolen goods. Nobody should be selling them, nobody had the right to sell them, but a great many merchants do legitimately possess them.

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#64

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #57

sandworm101 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to know more about the "theft". I suspect that this wasn't a robbery in the dead of night. UCC § 2-403 states: When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though ... the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403 Basically, if an employee to other person who was "entrusted" wi…

That's not what the law states. It actually says: (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. The part you're quoting refers to the recipient being the fraud, not the seller. The recipient never acquires more rights than the seller had. This is why stolen goods…

The seller doesn't have to give up their rights:

"Suppose Ed takes his bicycle to Merv, a bicycle dealer, for repairs, but instead of making repairs Merv sells the bicycle to Betty. Who now owns the bicycle? Section 2-403(2) states that "[a]ny entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business." Ed has entrusted possession of goods to Merv, a merchant dealing in goods of that kind. Assuming Betty is a buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC), Merv now has the power to transfer all of Ed's rights in the bicycle to Betty. Betty now owns the bicycle, and Ed cannot validly assert any ownership claim against her. Ed's only remedies would be against Merv."

https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#65

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #63

gamblor956 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the law states. It actually says: (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. The part you're quoting refers to the recipient being the fraud, not the seller. The recipient never acquires more rights than the seller had. This is why stolen goods…

But see (2) (2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business We need to know more about how the seller acquired the goods. Often such ebay sales are by people who had legitimate possession, just not any right to sell them. This is why experimental and demo electronics aren't normall…

We need know nothing about the person selling the stuff on ebay. It's irrelevant how the ebay merchant got the goods, what matters is how the manufacturer gave up the goods.

If it was theft--easy case. Stolen property is not covered by UCC. (It's the Uniform Code of Contracts, so there must be a chain of contracts connecting the property from the manufacturer to the innocent buyer for the UCC to apply.)

If it was theft by fraud--now we're talking. This could mean, for example, that the eBay merchant ordered the goods from the manufacturer but then never paid, or lied about who they were, or some other such misrepresentation or fraud or crime. In this case, there's a chain of contracts, so an innocent buyer from the eBay merchant would be protected by the UCC. (Note that if the eBay merchant knowingly does not pay, it could be both theft or theft by fraud depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances.)

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#66

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #60

eric-hu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does this mean the people who were fraudulently sold the Brooklyn bridge actually own it?

No. It has to be things that someone can clearly possess, something movable. The seller also has to be someone authorized to possess the thing and deals with such things regularly. The standard scenario: You take your guitar to a music store to be fixed. Some evil sale guy at the store instead deliberately sells your guitar. Your issue is now with the store. You cannot go after the guy who bought and is how holding "…

What you're ignoring is that the guitar guy never had the ownership rights to your guitar, and thus could not give the ownership rights to the buyer. The UCC only allows the middleman bad actor to pass on the rights they actually had. The provision you quoted early merely contemplates that the middleman acquired ownership rights through deceptive means (i.e., fraud), which isn't the case here. The guitar guy acquired custodial rights, but not ownership.

Thus, in pretty much every state in the US, you go to the police, and they take the guitar back, and the buyer has to go back to the store and get refunded.

EDIT: The following provision is why the guitar guy never gets ownership. (From California's Commercial Code, but most states have made the same change to the UCC text in redefining what "entrusting" means):

3) “Entrusting” includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession for the purpose of sale, obtaining offers to purchase, locating a buyer, or the like; regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#67

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, May 17, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #64

gamblor956 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the law states. It actually says: (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. The part you're quoting refers to the recipient being the fraud, not the seller. The recipient never acquires more rights than the seller had. This is why stolen goods…

The seller doesn't have to give up their rights: "Suppose Ed takes his bicycle to Merv, a bicycle dealer, for repairs, but instead of making repairs Merv sells the bicycle to Betty. Who now owns the bicycle? Section 2-403(2) states that "[a]ny entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of busines…

Guys, the UCC isn't the only law that applies to the situation...

Ed might not have rights under the UCC, assuming it applied to the transaction, which is questionable since Ed does not appear to be a merchant. He would have rights under state laws that override the provisions of the UCC.

[Edit] Most states actually override this provision of the UCC to define entrusting narrowly. See, e.g, California's provision:

3) “Entrusting” includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession for the purpose of sale, obtaining offers to purchase, locating a buyer, or the like; regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#68

Post by gambiting » Thu, May 17, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #60

eric-hu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does this mean the people who were fraudulently sold the Brooklyn bridge actually own it?

No. It has to be things that someone can clearly possess, something movable. The seller also has to be someone authorized to possess the thing and deals with such things regularly. The standard scenario: You take your guitar to a music store to be fixed. Some evil sale guy at the store instead deliberately sells your guitar. Your issue is now with the store. You cannot go after the guy who bought and is how holding "…

That is absolutely not true. If you found the guy with your guitar you can take it back(without harming that person in the process, obviously!), the ownership has never transferred from the store to the buyer because the store never had it in the first place.

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#69

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, May 17, 2018, 7:42 PM UTC

Azeolus wrote: post #59

pavel_lishin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with the fact that the company has any say in the matter at all, tbh. I dislike devices that phone home and can be disabled remotely as a matter of principle. But you're right, in the end they are stolen goods.

> I take issue with the fact that the company has any say in the matter at all, tbh. What? How does that make any sense. Someone stole their property, it's still theirs, of course they have a say in what happens to it. "Finders Keepers" is not how the world works...

But they can also brick non-stolen equipment. I don't want a company to be able to remotely disable a device I own.

Re: Manufacturer 'make worthless' users devices after some stolen from a warehouse

#70

Post by dazhbog » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:50 PM UTC

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #51

dazhbog wrote: post #46

I used to always be pro-consumer in cases where the manufacturer does something like that to clones (Salae and FTDI cases) After slowly getting into the manufacturing game myself and after USPS auctioned some of my cute early engineering samples that ended up on ebay, I definitely think this is totally reasonable from the manufacturer. Also the title of the article is already attacking the manufacturer. If you brick…

i'm curious to hear more about your story! if i'm understanding you correctly, the postal service somehow ended up in possession of your early prototypes and they sold them to somebody who then re-listed them on ebay. was this a lost parcel situation?

We sent the prototypes with USPS, within US, and down the line they said they couldnt deliver and we asked them to re-route it to another address because of that. They even gave us a tracking number.

After a month went by (adding to the already another month of delay) they said its on its way, etc. We randomly searched ebay with our brand name and saw an active listing with our prototypes in it. Other things in the box like our gopro were gone, but at least we found the prototypes and contacted the seller. The seller said that she got the items at an auction for items that couldnt be delivered a MONTH earlier, while USPS was telling us it was on the way.

Seller ended up giving us the prototypes for a small fee.