Keysight Scary Letter

[analogRF]

I know it has been confirmed by now that the request is legit and comes from Keysight. But still I would have expected the letter refer to a specific instrument by S/N or something. It seems to me they are not referring to a specific instrument by S/N. In case of Jwalling, the letter only refers to some order number and they don't even know the exact date of purchase.

It seems to me that Outback acquired a batch of equipment in an auction (probably a government auction) which they were not supposed to for whatever reason, perhaps that batch of equipment should not have been liquidated in the way they were because of contractual agreements or national security requirements. And now that agency which owned those equipment (and made the mistake of auctioning them) is pushing Keysight to recover them without revealing their identity. So they are going after all the buyers of that batch of equipment whether it was an oscilloscope or a torque wrench

[eKretz]

You don't seem to understand the way the law works very well with respect to sensitive items and contracts, might want to take off that tinfoil hat a minute...

If this is indeed a national security or other similar issue, there will have been a SIGNED LEGAL CONTRACT specifying the way the equipment MUST be disposed of. Signatories to such a contract are BOUND BY LAW to do as the contract says as long as there are no illegal terms... This is nowhere near akin to buying and selling a car or other benign piece of property.

Not necessarily the case. Formal government issued requisition order would be required otherwise it is just standard property. The issue is likely between the contract parties unless the goods are stolen which they are not but this is likely a hole in the party's contracts. I did a bit of work in this space in the past when dealing with the politics of moving defence kit from US to UK. We had to get the UK home office and DoD senior staff involved in it to give you an idea how high it had to be escalated before anyone gave a fuck.

You're not saying anything contrary to what I wrote. The consequences of the contract being broken (if that is even what happened, we don't have all the information here) fall on the signatory. The people who unkowingly bought the equipment are not likely to face any consequences that I can think of. At worst, they will be compelled to give it back if the government gets involved - though that probably won't be enforceable to anything shipped outside the U.S. as noted by another fellow.

I tend to agree with Fraser's approach... I would at least communicate with Keysight and see what they're offering before getting in a huge huff.

[chriswebb]

I too was caught up in this kerfuffle. Would very much like to hear what the root cause is, and I am definitely unwilling to just get a refund of my purchase price because the equipment is worth far more to me than the money.

[philpem]

Seems like the best bet would be to give them a ring and offer equivalent exchange.. but I'm    a bit as several people have said this now...!

Definitely hope Keysight / Outback make a like-for-like offer privately with those involved...

[Kleinstein]

You don't seem to understand the way the law works very well with respect to sensitive items and contracts, might want to take off that tinfoil hat a minute...

If this is indeed a national security or other similar issue, there will have been a SIGNED LEGAL CONTRACT specifying the way the equipment MUST be disposed of. Signatories to such a contract are BOUND BY LAW to do as the contract says as long as there are no illegal terms... This is nowhere near akin to buying and selling a car or other benign piece of property.

Good luck getting it back, if the buyer lives in a country that isn't in bed with the US of A. Such as China, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria etc.
Here in Switzerland, I would tell them to fuck off. USA has nothing to say over here.

The ones that responded here where still in the US. Not sure if they would even send this letter to outside the US and maybe Canada. Due to the high weight of old RF instruments it is not that likely they would be send out so fast.

Reselling computers with software can be more complicated. Especially with more special software there may be separate software licenses that do no permit resale. However this restriction may not be valid in all cases - especially if there is no real paper contract on this.
However I would be surprised if such a restriction would apply to a relatively normal scope. Restrictions on resale due to special pricing (e.g. for government / military) could be another issue - though this might more effect the original sellers pocket and less the one who in good faith bought the unit.

[tautech]

Just what could the sensitive IP be that these units in question contain ?

Military Coms decoders ?

Can anyone outline a list ?

[openloop]

Just what could the sensitive IP be that these units in question contain ?

Nothing. In my case it's just a humble 34401A

Only thing valuable for them here are serial numbers on the back.

[tggzzz]

I too was caught up in this kerfuffle. Would very much like to hear what the root cause is, and I am definitely unwilling to just get a refund of my purchase price because the equipment is worth far more to me than the money.

Was that what was offered?

I suspect my attitude would be to attempt, in good faith, to re-sell the item to a prospective purchaser at a price that is acceptable to me and the prospective purchaser.

[IDEngineer]

Just what could the sensitive IP be that these units in question contain ?

Nothing. In my case it's just a humble 34401A. Only thing valuable for them here are serial numbers on the back.

And the serial numbers may be enough to make it matter.

Here's how the law really shakes out on this. If the original seller and original buyer contractually agreed to dispose of some object in some specific way, and that didn't happen, the problem rests with that original buyer. THEY are the ones who subsequently sold/discarded/etc. the item in question differently that contractually required. The only way this would be different in normal commerce is if the original buyer somehow made the next possessor a party to the original contract terms. An example of this might be a subcontractor on a project; say McDonnell Douglas has the top-level contract but they sub out the avionics to Garmin. Garmin might have a legitimate need for the "special" test equipment, so McDD would include provisions in their subcontract with Garmin making it very clear to Garmin that the equipment either had to be returned or provably disposed in some traceable manner, so McDD could then prove to their customer that the terms of the original contract had been followed.

If the above didn't occur, then the responsibility for compliance rests with the original party to the original contract. The problem for THEM is that, if the equipment in question was sold outside the terms of the original contract, they still possess the obligation to perform. And if that performance is linked to specific serial numbers, then they literally have to get the original devices back or be able to conclusively prove that the equipment was lost or destroyed beyond their ability to recover it (accidents do happen). They can't just shrug their shoulders, and they can't get someone like Outback6 or the eBay purchaser to perjure themselves and say "it's lost". They're stuck with the liability and have to fix it.

On the eBay buyer's side: If the equipment was stolen and then sold on eBay, the eBay buyer may be out of luck legally. You have no right to stolen property since the property rights were not properly assigned by the original buyer. The eBay buyer might be able to recover their money from the eBay seller, but that is entirely separate from the question of possession and legal ownership of the item itself.

If the original buyer mistakenly transferred the item to the eBay seller, then the eBay buyer could be in a weird place. You could argue that there is a paper trail proving transfer of ownership, but remember that you cannot assign rights that you do not possess. If the original buyer did not have the legal right to transfer ownership of the item, the fact that they wrote and signed a document saying otherwise doesn't mean it's legitimate. They are still on the hook for compliance with the original agreement unless the other party to the original agreement releases them from that requirement. Doesn't sound like that's the case here!

[radiolistener]

May be the problem is HP logo on the device

One people who worked in the company which was acquired by HP told me that they used special stickers in order to hide non HP logo on the working notebooks, because all these notebooks should have been destroyed and not allowed to resell (just because it was not HP brand). But they didn't had replacement in time and were forced to use non HP equipment with stickers to hide non HP logos   

[Carl_Smith]

My belief is that Keysight is attempting to force old equipment out of the market so they can sell new equipment.

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous, and makes no sense at all, for several reasons.

1. They offered to "make whole" the people who have the equipment they are seeking return on.  So it's going to cost them money for every unit returned, not create replacement sales.

2. The number of units they are seeking are nothing compared to the amount of used equipment still in use.  So again, this will not generate significant replacement sales, even if the people in possession of this equipment did have to buy a replacement.

3. And last but not least, this is generating a lot of negative PR for them, which is far more damaging to the company than any gain they might get by selling some new replacement test equipment.

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

My belief is that Keysight is attempting to force old equipment out of the market so they can sell new equipment.

Definitely not the case. It's totally fine to resell equipment on the market, and we'd never try to stop that. The concern is around these specific instruments.

[tautech]

The concern is around these specific instruments.

Really, which ones ?

Even these:

Just what could the sensitive IP be that these units in question contain ?

Nothing. In my case it's just a humble 34401A

Only thing valuable for them here are serial numbers on the back.

[0culus]

The only explanation that makes sense given what we have seen is the scenario that's been beaten to death where someone was either contractually obligated to destroy some instruments for whatever legal reason (and they failed to do so) or they were used for classified work and were not to be resold period. There is no sensical reason why an HP spectrum analyzer that's from the early-mid 90s still has sensitive IP in it.

I personally think that the former is more likely...if these instruments really were part of a classified lab these buyers probably would have been visited by federal agents for retrieval.

[langwadt]

The only explanation that makes sense given what we have seen is the scenario that's been beaten to death where someone was either contractually obligated to destroy some instruments for whatever legal reason (and they failed to do so) or they were used for classified work and were not to be resold period. There is no sensical reason why an HP spectrum analyzer that's from the early-mid 90s still has sensitive IP in it.

I personally think that the former is more likely...if these instruments really were part of a classified lab these buyers probably would have been visited by federal agents for retrieval.

reminded me of this old story of buying a used jet engine, https://maps.roadtrippers.com/stories/art-arfons

[Bud]

Could it be that the equipment was contaminated or had a risk of  being contaminated in some form ..? 

[gnavigator1007]

Could it be that the equipment was contaminated or had a risk of  being contaminated in some form ..? 

Contaminated by IP 

[0culus]

You'd hope that if that was the case they would let the people who bought the stuff know...

[openloop]

Could it be that the equipment was contaminated or had a risk of  being contaminated in some form ..?

I've dusted off my Geiger as soon as I finished reading my copy of The Letter.
All clear - nothing but background...   

[Brumby]

Could it be that the equipment was contaminated or had a risk of  being contaminated in some form ..? 

Hardly.  If that were to be the case, I would expect a much more active campaign.


Look - I and others have described a much more plausible scenario ... that the equipment being chased down was under some contractual requirement that expressly forbade any of it from getting out in the wild.

Simple.  No conspiracy.  No special versions of equipment.  Nothing that would compromise national security.  Just a clause in a contract - and if that clause required a perfectly good, stock standard 34401A to be ground into dust, then it has to be ground into dust.  Scream and wail all you like at the savagery and waste (I'll be one of those) - but it's what has to be done.

In truth, there is probably no real risk of anything greater than a signatory of the contract getting a huge kick up the bum for failing to adhere to the terms - and that having one of these bits of kit on your bench will cause no other issues - other than it needs to be acquired, so that the terms of the contract can be fulfilled.


This is such a simple concept, I find it hard to comprehend how some people have trouble understanding it.

As for those wanting "to stick it to the man", then I feel sorry for you.  Aside from being a rather anarchical  attitude, it's just going to make the whole process that much more laborious.  Personally, I'd be interested in what was being offered in compensation before deciding a response.

[sokoloff]

I too have dealt with um, "misplaced" .GOV items,  in every case that I know of FED agents from the DOD came looking for it. Usually they won't even tell you what they're looking for, they just look around and if they don't find what they're looking for then they just say "thank you for your time" and leave and that's the end of it.

The search warrant will detail the place(s) they are authorized to search and the item(s) they are looking for. They're not snooping around without one.

[sokoloff]

Is there anyone here who wouldn't accept new or factory refurb equipment with a current cal certificate in exchange for whatever random level of functionality is characterized by a typical auction purchase? 

Hey Keysight, I've got 3 3458As, 2 3456s, and a couple of 34401As that just might be part of this Area 51 operation. You're more than invited to replace them with new if you like. 

[nctnico]

If the original buyer mistakenly transferred the item to the eBay seller, then the eBay buyer could be in a weird place. You could argue that there is a paper trail proving transfer of ownership, but remember that you cannot assign rights that you do not possess.

That depends entirely on the local law. In the Netherlands for example: if you buy a stolen item for a reasonable price and had no indication that it was stolen it is yours. The original owner can not claim it. Everyone is supposed to have insurance against theft and it limits the number of victims of a crime.

[Psi]

The only explanation that makes sense given what we have seen is the scenario that's been beaten to death where someone was either contractually obligated to destroy some instruments for whatever legal reason (and they failed to do so) or they were used for classified work and were not to be resold period. There is no sensical reason why an HP spectrum analyzer that's from the early-mid 90s still has sensitive IP in it.

It may have customized firmware on it, with features intended for military/medical/aerospace testing.
Or it could just be firmware that was collaborated on by HP and a 3rd party.
The extra features may not be anything we would consider special in today's market and other off-the-shelf equipment may have the same features.
The issue likely comes from the firmware containing IP that was restricted at the time it was written and/or still under contracts that forbid its distribution.

It could also be that a shipment of test gear was supplied under contract and some of it was customized.
The contract may not have differentiated between which equipment in the shipment was custom and which was standard. Hence the contract restricting sale applies to the whole shipment.

[IDEngineer]

In the Netherlands for example: if you buy a stolen item for a reasonable price and had no indication that it was stolen it is yours. The original owner can not claim it.

Seriously? That's amazing. Can't say I agree with that theory since it basically rewards (or at least tolerates) criminal behavior. I'm sure the thief would still be charged if caught, but I can't believe the government would knowingly allow a downstream buyer to benefit from the fruit of a poisoned tree. It's a wedding ring, a family heirloom, been in the family for generations... the police caught the thief and know where the ring is... but too bad for the totally innocent victim? The victim did absolutely nothing wrong, and everyone knows where this irreplacable family heirloom is, yet the innocent victim has no recourse?!?

Even better: The object was stolen from the government itself. They can't force its retrieval if you bought it "in good faith"?