I had a similar thought. I appreciate when both system are included, as it usually saves me time getting an exact conversion if I care, but that obviously isn't the way to do it.

The first source I found, cannot vouch for 100% accuracy.

https://www.citizensadvice.org...

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.

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 sell them. Local jurisdiction, and facts specific to an individual case, may change how this plays out in court on an individual level. In general, the legal owner is entitled to the return of their property. That means, usually, that the buyer would have to relinquish possession. At that point, the buyer would have a case against the person that sold them the goods. Situationally, that could mean the buyer is out of luck. They may be able to go after the seller to recoup their losses, but there is no guarantee they'll be able to recover it.

With regards to the buyer's obligations to validate the purchase, they're not obligated to verify the sale is completely legit. They are, however, still subject to the consequences of the purchase. As such, it's in their best interest to at least make some attempt to verify. For example, I wouldn't expect just anyone to know that dev kits aren't supposed to be sold. However, if you're a person regularly involved in those kinds of sales it might be something you should know.

Do you have a point to make, or just here to try and insult me?

I never said, or implied, that. All I said is that Nintendo retains ownership of dev kits it provides to developers. Nintendo would usually have the right to have their property returned. I'm sure there will be jurisdictional differences, but generally the buyer would then turn to the seller to recover their costs.

We're talking about dev kits that are very much under a contract between two businesses. The buyer wouldn't have done anything wrong by buying it, but that doesn't necessarily mean he gets to keep it either. It would functionally be similar to unknowingly buying stolen property.

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.

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree, how is that relevant to this story? They had no involvement.

It's usually a matter of in network vs out of network. In network is free. Usually, only a "small" amount is covered out of network. Local major CU covers $3/mo, my bank covers $10/mo. At the rates being discussed, that is less than one per month from the CU and two from the bank.

I just botched a slightly more thorough wording of this, and I'm heading home. I don't care enough to more thoroughly break it down again. Most of this is from FTC pages I've looked at in the recent past falong with some basic research today. Feel free to do more research on your own. If you still feel you're in the right, and feel the need to prove it, please provide cited examples.

In short, anti-trust laws are designed in a way that the courts have to determine if and how they should apply, based upon the specifics of the case. They don't have a hard line. In the case of exclusivity contracts, generally they're considered enforceable unless/until it's been determined by the court not to be. Usually, this is because an affected company brings it before the court. Anti-trust concerns would be considered in that instance. The reality is that merely holding a majority of the market does not automatically prevent a company from being able to enforce exclusivity contracts. They generally have to also be shown to use their position, exclusivity contracts for example, in bad faith to stifle competition.

The part you overlook is that it has to have gone through court to get to that point. Like now. It's illegal for them, because of all this.

Most exclusivity contracts are legal. It generally only becomes illegal in specific cases like this, where the courts determine it should be.

They'll have to share some of their data at least. Also, I'm not sure exactly how it'll impact Apple/Mozilla. If it stands, Google is still allowed to pay for inclusion and placement. They just don't get exclusivity. For many/most users, that is still enough to keep them on Google. However, it might not be worth as much to Google. We'll have to see.

Water is wet under some definitions. That is what irks me about people that feel the need to point this out. Just because something does not fit your preferred definition, it does not invalidate all other definitions.