Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Nintendo IT

Sega Accused of Using Police Raid To Recover Nintendo Dev Kits After Office Disposal Error (timeextension.com) 73

Posted by msmash from the your-trash-is-my-legal-nightmare dept.
Sega allegedly orchestrated a police raid to recover Nintendo development kits it had accidentally disposed of during an office relocation from Brentford to Chiswick Business Park. An anonymous UK reseller purchased the items -- including Game Boy Advance, DSi, 3DS, Wii, and Wii U development consoles plus prototype games like Sonic Chronicles and Mario & Sonic at the Winter Olympic Games -- for roughly $13,575 from a removals worker handling Sega's office clearance.

City of London Police arrested the seller July 14, 2025, on money laundering charges, deploying approximately ten officers to seize the hardware. The seller claims the search warrant was defective and authorized Sega representatives to participate in the raid. Nintendo development kits remain the hardware manufacturer's property regardless of possession, outlet Time Extension writes. Police requested the seller relinquish ownership two days after releasing him from eight hours in custody, which he refused. Sega has not responded to multiple legal letters or six separate pre-action protocol claims from the seller.

Sega Accused of Using Police Raid To Recover Nintendo Dev Kits After Office Disposal Error More | Reply

Sega Accused of Using Police Raid To Recover Nintendo Dev Kits After Office Disposal Error

Comments Filter:

  • ...in the olympics of awful company behavior
    We should all boycott them

  • It took me a bit to understand this (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @04:25PM (#65654454)
    So these are Nintendo development kits Sega used to make games on Nintendo hardware and Nintendo are absolute dicks when it comes to their development hardware.

    Sega sold the hardware by accident and now they're panicking because they're worried Nintendo is going to rake them over the coals over it.

    So rather than do the sensible thing and contact the buyer and ask to buy it back after explaining the situation the idiots called the cops and of course the cops rolled in with 10 guys. It's UK so not sure if they were armed. If it was America they probably have assault rifles and a tank.

    So to summarize Sega sold something they didn't have the right to sell according to their agreements with Nintendo and because Nintendo is one of the nastier companies to deal with they panicked and did something incredibly stupid.

    As far as video game preservation goes there's no reason to panic anymore than we already are since this is par for the course for any Nintendo owned hardware.

    • Re:It took me a bit to understand this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @04:40PM (#65654480)
      Sega sold the hardware by accident

      To me, it reads as though they threw it out, and the company handling the office waste sold it to the person who was raided.

      • but what if the hardware was sold to cover unpaid rent / debts?

        • You can't sell what you don't own, it's still Nintendo's property.

          • but can Nintendo's say it's there property due to some EULA BS? while telling Sega they are buying an dev kit?
            Can tesla sell dev kit cars with an car TITLE but hide in the EULA that they still own the car?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              but can Nintendo's say it's there property due to some EULA BS? while telling Sega they are buying an dev kit?
              Can tesla sell dev kit cars with an car TITLE but hide in the EULA that they still own the car?

              It's not through the EULA. Sega acquired the devkits by leasing them from Nintendo. In a similar way you can lease a car from Tesla. In both cases the car is owned by the leasing agent - Nintendo or Tesla.

              The leasing agent may give the option to buy out the lease for a certain amount, or they may demand th

          • Re:but what if the hardware was sold to cover unpa (Score:4, Informative)

            by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @05:36PM (#65654612) Journal

            You can't sell what you don't own, it's still Nintendo's property.

            I think it would qualify as abandoned, which would put it in a legal grey area in the UK. I don't think that it is clearly Nintendo's.

            This is the City of London police, who seem to think that one of their roles is protecting the intellectual property of large companies.

            This is interesting:
            "Police requested the seller relinquish ownership two days after releasing him from eight hours in custody, which he refused."
            "requested" ... sounds like the police know they are on thin ice.

            The fact that there has not been any indictments for handling stolen property also speaks volumes.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Yep, it's a civil matter. The buyer had no reason to believe that the sale was not legitimate. The goods were not stolen, it's simply that Sega has broken its contract with Nintendo, which is their problem, not the buyer's.

              I hope he gets a good lawyer and gets compensation from the police for this. It's wrongful arrest for something they knew was not a crime.

          • Not after it's been thrown out.

          • You can't sell what you don't own, it's still Nintendo's property.

            So all the more reason why Sega should have no involvement and get collectively ass fucked by the courts? They orchestrated a raid on something that wasn't theirs?

      • Based on the company selling them as if they knew exactly what they were; I'm wondering if they actively participated in the process and "accidentally" took them with other stuff that was intended to go.

      • Yea, further... from a contracts perspective it looks like Sega are on the hook for losing leased hardware (or would be if nintendo was going to follow up on decades old devkits, which... are we going to pretend we think every studio that shuts down dutifully sends their dev kits back when there's nobody on staff who even knows what they are any more...?).

        I sort of can't see why they'd make a mess like this for themselves... maybe Nintendo's lawyers are breathing down their necks about it on principle, or m

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      More often than you think.

      Engineering and Military firms often hire these third parties to "haul away e-waste" and they don't wipe anything, they assume the stuff is going to be destroyed, not resold.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The City of London is a small part of London that is basically run by corporations. The City of London Police are basically corporate cops, they are the henchman of companies like Sega.

  • Belongs to the arrested man, not Sega. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @04:29PM (#65654466) Homepage

    Look, Sega paid someone to sell their stuff. He mistakenly sold something he should not have.

    The guy purchased it fair and share, legally. It is his.

    The fact that the Sega employee made a mistake is not relevant. He was authorized to sell Sega property and he did it.

    Similarly, if you drop a box of old clothes at a charity, they get everything in the box. Even if you accidentally put something in the box you did not want to give away.

    The principal is the same. Sega has no leg to stand on. They mistakenly sold something, the guy gets to keep it.

    They should have offered to buy it back at a profit. Offer most guys a ten X profit and they will jump at it - especially if you mention your lawyers think it will be cheaper to buy it back at that price than to sue.

    • This is my thought too. Like finding cash in an old jacket. Or buying a painting and it turn out to be a masterpiece

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 )

      The guy purchased it fair and share, legally. It is his.

      Technically, it's not. As the summary mentions, Nintendo retains ownership of their dev kits. As such, Sega would not be authorized to sell the dev kits. From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure if that would provide grounds for Sega to demand the property back. From what little I can easily gather, I don't think Sega has any right to demand the reversal of sale, only request it. Nintendo, however, would still have the right to reclaim the property.

      • I bet you return old milk crates you find too, right. Sweet summer child

      • Sega may not have had the right to sell them but if they did, the buyer cannot be said to have acted in good faith.

        The seller was authorised to sell them. Buyers should not be required to backtrack through the chain of contacts every time they buy something offered for sale.

        For example, you buy a house but it turns out the house was stolen from a Palestinian family two levels away from the seller - should you be able to buy it?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          From how I'm reading what you wrote, it sounds like you either made a grammatical mistake or are contradicting yourself. As such, I'll just state how it generally is. I'm absolutely sure there is more nuance, but the general concept is correct.

          In short, Sega was not authorized to sell the dev kits. The dev kits are the legal property of Nintendo. Functionally, this situation would be similar to the selling of stolen goods. That is, the person selling the goods does not have ownership or authorization to se

      • Technically, it's not. As the summary mentions, Nintendo retains ownership of their dev kits.

        Technically it means Sega has not authority to request recovery, police raid or otherwise. They should get collectively ass fucked by lawyers for what they have done and the purchaser of the dev kits should be showered in Sega money as he gives Nintendo their dev kits back (something they haven't asked for yet apparently)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's a contractual issue between Sega and Nintendo. Sega can't get the dev kits back, except by buying them. So it's up to Nintendo to recover their losses from Sega now. It being the UK they would have to prove monetary losses, which on old dev kits for obsolete consoles that have already been completely reverse engineered and opened up for homebrew, is going to be very small.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          That is just factually incorrect. Nintendo very much has every right to take the buyer to court to recover their property. It is their property, regardless of what Sega did with it. That is just how the law actually works.

    • Re:Belongs to the arrested man, not Sega. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @04:51PM (#65654498) Homepage Journal

      Look, Sega paid someone to sell their stuff. He mistakenly sold something he should not have.

      The guy purchased it fair and share, legally. It is his.

      The fact that the Sega employee made a mistake is not relevant. He was authorized to sell Sega property and he did it.

      Actually, he sold Nintendo property that was being held in Sega's custody, which makes it a very different matter legally. Now whether Sega has any legal right to repossess it is another question. Nintendo likely does, but Sega's only right is probably the right to tell Nintendo what they did and let Nintendo go to court to try to get it back.

    • Re:Belongs to the arrested man, not Sega. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @04:57PM (#65654516)

      Look, Sega paid someone to sell their stuff. He mistakenly sold something he should not have.
      The guy purchased it fair and share, legally. It is his.

      Actually It is his until a civil court rules otherwise.

      This is not a criminal matter in that Sega did not deliberately steal Nintendo's property: They had legitimate possession of the property AND it was not a deliberate conversion, either -- it sounds like they negligently lost track of property that was bailed with them, and released the property to someone else.

      So yes, Sega and Nintendo obviously have possible legal claims to the property. But having a claim does Not mean you can just take it from the seller. At best you can run to court and file a lawsuit, and then very quickly apply to the court with either an application for a Temporary Injunction forbidding the holder from disposing of the property, Or a Motion asking the court to take possession of the property which can then be executed through the police and place the disputed property in the custody of a 3rd party, for fear that the seller will dispose of it.

      With no crime committed You have to have the lawsuit filed and obtain the court order first, and until you have the order it belongs to the possessor, and they can do whatever they want with it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rta ( 559125 )

        ^ this exactly.
        I'm a little surprised that the Police were so easily led around by the nose and used force without establishing ownership.

        idk UK law, but i hope this guy sues both Sega and the the Police for damages. And that the police fine Sega for filing false reports.

        • Re:Belongs to the arrested man, not Sega. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @05:38PM (#65654618) Journal

          I'm a little surprised that the Police were so easily led around by the nose and used force without establishing ownership.

          This is the City of London Police. I am not surprised at their actions.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          idk UK law, but i hope this guy sues both Sega and the the Police for damages.

          US states basically copied the fundamental principles regarding how this works from English law regarding property, and the biggest difference will be the US Police have blanket immunity from being sued "qualified immunity" for police actions, even when they break the law - if their actions are in good faith and not barred by clearly-established precedent the lawsuit would go nowhere. The UK doesn't have that, and the police

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cstacy ( 534252 )

        With no crime committed You have to have the lawsuit filed

        Wrong.
        (At least in the USA. Dunno about the UK.)
        Unlawful Conversion is a strict liability crime.
        The only fact that matters is: did you do the act that resulted in the unlawful conversion. Doesn't matter why, or what you were thinking.

        Sega can be charged criminally first, based on the fact that you knowingly converted the property. The criminal intent element of Unlawful Conversion does not require mens rea, only that the defendant exercised unauthorized dominion or control over the plaintiff's property and

    • There is no way to know for sure how many units that person actually possesses, and upon making the offer, one can always lie and say they have less than the total number for any reason, a simple reason being disposing of a non-functional unit in the trash. All a nice under the table offer would result in is a sale of the majority of them with a massive profit, but with a few inevitably retained. A surprise raid by the cops offers a plausible way for SEGA to claim all possible lost devices which have not al

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )

      Look, Sega paid someone to sell their stuff. He mistakenly sold something he should not have.The guy purchased it fair and share, legally. It is his.

      I don't know about the UK, but that's not the law in the US. The property was stolen by Sega: they did that by giving it to a disposal company. (They probably actually paid for them to take it away. Immaterial.) Sega did not own that property: they were leasing it under contract. It was never theirs to dispose of. By law, everyone down the chain after that is in receipt of stolen property. (And they are fucked.) Even if they had no idea at the time that it was stolen property. When the rightful owner discov

  • if they where thrown out in the trash and recovered then nintendo no longer owned them , sinmply taking them from the officve is likely theft,

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      if they where thrown out in the trash and recovered then nintendo no longer owned them

      Nintendo would still have legal title to them if Nintendo was the legal owner and somebody else threw them in the trash without Nintendo's permission. They just don't have a criminal charge, AND they don't have a prima facie case. Nintendo would actually have to build a case disputing the ownership and providing evidence in court, then convince a Judge that they are in the right, And that money damages are not su

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by butlerm ( 3112 )

        It is a remarkable stretch to claim that copyright extends to turning something on. Copyright doesn't deal with that sort of thing at all. You could say that he did not have a license to turn the device on, but you cannot have a license violation against a party you have no privity of contract with, you can only go after them for some sort of alleged copyright violation.

        There is a *reason* why every software company on the planet tries to have users accept a license electronically before installing or usi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          the First Sale Doctrine or something like it generally applies, and the purchaser gets to do all sorts of innocent things

          The First Sale Doctrine is a US legal precedent which does not apply in the UK. Also: The first sale doctrine generally does not apply to Unpublished work -- suppose I wrote a book, never published, but lost a copy of the book, Or the company I had do the printing made an extra without my knowledge and was lost in shipping. In theory you could find my lost book, but No first sale

    • if they where thrown out in the trash and recovered then nintendo no longer owned them , sinmply taking them from the officve is likely theft,

      They might have abandoned them. That puts Sega's rights to them in a grey area.

      Someone at Sega needs to get a cheque book out and make this right. Clearly Sega screwed up, and is trying to weasel out of responsibility.

    • The real shame is when folks be throwing away a perfectly good white boy.

  • City of London Police (Score:5, Informative)

    by LainTouko ( 926420 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @04:52PM (#65654500)
    It's worth knowing that the City of London Police are not the London police force. That would be the Metropolitan Police. The City of London is a tiny "city" measuring just one square mile within London as you'd normally think of it, filled with finance businesses and little else. (London also has a second tiny "city" within in, the City of Westminster.) Being officially a city, it has its own police force, but being a city of banks, its police are complete corporate stooges and used to do dirty business like this across the country.
    • And it's also worth knowing that when the City police wear full ceremonial uniform, they don't wear those high helmets with silver badges like other British police forces, they have gold badges instead to show what they really are about. Donald Trump would love them.

  • To Serve And Protect (Score:3)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday September 11, 2025 @05:31PM (#65654592)

    The wealthy and the state.

  • Nintendo development kits remain the hardware manufacturer's property regardless of possession, outlet Time Extension writes.

    Maybe, maybe not. If a developer gets a dev kit, yes that's a lease not a sale and the company still owns the hardware. HOWEVER, if Sega or Nintendo signed a contract asking a third party liquidator to sell off the office contents, and the reseller purchased the hardware from the liquidator, that would constitute a legal sale.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being poor is that it takes up all your time.

Close