Keysight Scary Letter

[Mr. Scram]

I would do one of two things:

Keep it, tell them the instrument has been scrapped and no longer exists or was sold to an unknown private party, etc. You bought it, you own it, not your problem. Lawyers are good at writing scary sounding letters, doesn't mean they can do anything if you tell them to kindly f&*% off.

Demand full market value compensation, or a comparable unit in exchange. In the meantime dump/clone any memory devices in the unit so you can look around later and figure out what was so special about that particular unit. Personally I would do the latter part whether I kept the instrument or not, nothing like this sort of reaction to make me curious enough to start digging around.

It certainly piques the interest, yes.

[nctnico]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The OP is from the US so what if they start to operate by some national security 'law' and just make life hard on the OP? After all we don't know the reason behind Keysight wanting the device back and personally I wouldn't want to find out how far they are willing to go legally to get it back.

It makes sense the OP receives compensation but I don't think it is fair to demand a brand new device. This is a typical 'don't push your luck' situation.

It's not fair to expect someone to go out and spend the time and effort to find another good deal, while not being able to use the device either. Compensating just the price of purchase isn't fair or realistic. There's a perfectly functional unit on the desk right now and any new situation would have to be fairly equivalent.

Besides, Keysight is the one causing trouble here regardless of the how and why. It makes sense for them not to be skimpy. If they offer OP a deal which makes him feel he won, both parties can walk away happy. Playing hardball isn't really smart when you want something from someone who can do anything he wants with his equipment, including things like dumping the firmware and posting it online and literally throwing the unit in a pond never to be seen by anyone again.

I'd be very wary to do the latter without knowing why the piece of equipment is so special. And yes, it piques my interest too but I'm afraid we'll never ever know. Maybe Daniel from Keysight can make some enquiries...

[Mr. Scram]

I'd be very wary to do the latter without knowing why the piece of equipment is so special. And yes, it piques my interest too but I'm afraid we'll never ever know. Maybe Daniel from Keysight can make some enquiries...

Exactly, we don't know why Keysight thinks it has a claim. So instead of making threats, Keysight would better explain itself or play real nice. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar and that vinegar might just splash back in your eyes.

[EEVblog]

This is good news for you, they have a legal need to get this back in their hands and destroy it. As for being made whole, keep in mind the aspects I mentioned before. Namely, being made whole means:

• The cost for you to get an identical instrument (not necessarily the price you paid). Keep in mind features of the instrument you have (LO/IF ports, frequency ranges, etc.).

Yep, tell me you are happy to give it back if they send you a shiny new model.[/list]

[EEVblog]

It makes sense the OP receives compensation but I don't think it is fair to demand a brand new device. This is a typical 'don't push your luck' situation.

I think it more than fair to demand a new device. Remember, a new device is cost price to Keysight.
If they want this particular unit back so bad then they have to pony up and make the legal owner happy.
They even say as much in the letter.

[EEVblog]

I see 5 listed on on ebay, and another 6 already sold in the last few months. If there is something special about this model are they going after them too?

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.H0.XHP+8562A.TRS0&_nkw=HP+8562A&_sacat=0

[nctnico]

It makes sense the OP receives compensation but I don't think it is fair to demand a brand new device. This is a typical 'don't push your luck' situation.

I think it more than fair to demand a new device. Remember, a new device is cost price to Keysight.
If they want this particular unit back so bad then they have to pony up and make the legal owner happy.

Well that depends on how you define legal owner. Mind you the OP is the US where having something which has been stolen is a crime even if you bought it in good faith. You never know who is driving Keysight to retrieve the item. Maybe Keysight is much more forgiving to deal with -up to some point- compared to who is driving the retrieval operation. IOW: the OP may not be the legal owner at all for some legal reason (theft is just an example here; there may be other reasons).

[EEVblog]

It makes sense the OP receives compensation but I don't think it is fair to demand a brand new device. This is a typical 'don't push your luck' situation.

I think it more than fair to demand a new device. Remember, a new device is cost price to Keysight.
If they want this particular unit back so bad then they have to pony up and make the legal owner happy.

Well that depends on how you define legal owner. Mind you the OP is the US where having something which has been stolen is a crime even if you bought it in good faith. You never know who is driving Keysight to retrieve the item. Maybe Keysight is much more forgiving to deal with -up to some point- compared to who is driving the retrieval operation. IOW: the OP may not be the legal owner at all for some legal reason (theft is just an example here; there may be other reasons).

In the letter it says they will make the costs "whole". To me that includes the functionality of the unit currently being utilised by the owner. They should pony up a new one or bugger off.

[EEVblog]

You never know who is driving Keysight to retrieve the item.

I suspect this is the key here. It can't just be an ordinary unit, that just doesn't make sense. So it likely came from some government or contractor that had some sort of obligation to destroy/erase the unit before decomissioning. There are even regulations regarding this, and a lot of new gear same secure erasure built in to facilitate this. Although if that's the case it is kinda strange that Keysight is doing to asking here.

[Mr. Scram]

Well that depends on how you define legal owner. Mind you the OP is the US where having something which has been stolen is a crime even if you bought it in good faith. You never know who is driving Keysight to retrieve the item. Maybe Keysight is much more forgiving to deal with -up to some point- compared to who is driving the retrieval operation. IOW: the OP may not be the legal owner at all for some legal reason (theft is just an example here; there may be other reasons).

I don't think making things up is helping the conversation. Possession is illegal if you knew the goods were stolen. Ownership may be tricky if they were even if bought in good faith, but that's not the same as committing a crime by possessing goods. That being said, they'd most likely go an entirely different route if that were the case. They wouldn't send you a letter, but more likely call the police to have the device recovered. They wouldn't argue IP protection. They may not even attempt to recover such an ancient device in the case of theft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods

[nctnico]

I don't think making things up is helping the conversation. Possession is illegal if you knew the goods were stolen. Ownership may be tricky if they were even if bought in good faith, but that's not the same as committing a crime by possessing goods. That being said, they'd most likely go an entirely different route if that were the case. They wouldn't send you a letter, but more likely call the police to have the device recovered. They wouldn't argue IP protection. They may not even attempt to recover such an ancient device in the case of theft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods

It says right there in your link: If the person did not know the property was stolen at the time she received it but found out after receiving possession, the crime is possession of stolen property. And as I wrote before: theft is just an example for how an item you bought in good faith might not be yours in the US. Don't take the theft part too literal because you'll get stuck in details which don't matter. It just goes to show that the OP might have less rights then everyone is assuming.

We don't know the reasoning. Maybe it is less hassle to politely ask the owner to send the device back. Maybe Keysight doesn't want to create a lot of fuzz trying to prevent they have to clarify who and why the equipment should be returned.

[Mr. Scram]

It says right there in your link: If the person did not know the property was stolen at the time she received it but found out after receiving possession, the crime is possession of stolen property. And as I wrote before: theft is just an example for how an item you bought in good faith might not be yours in the US. Don't take the theft part too literal because you'll get stuck in details which don't matter. It just goes to show that the OP might have less rights then everyone is assuming.

We don't know the reasoning. Maybe it is less hassle to politely ask the owner to send the device back. Maybe Keysight doesn't want to create a lot of fuzz trying to prevent they have to clarify who and why the equipment should be returned.

Let's keep the discussion civil and without emoticons and bolding, please. The sentence after the one you quoted is "The state must prove that the defendant received or possessed the property for a dishonest purpose." There is no dishonest purpose here, so there is no crime. That's reasonable too, because it'd be silly and entirely impractical for people to be considered committing a crime at the moment they're told they've bought stolen goods.

Note that the crime of possessing stolen goods and the matter of ownership are two separate things legally and practically. It's entirely possible for stolen goods to remain the property of the original owner, while owning them after buying them in good faith isn't a crime. It'd just mean the goods aren't yours to keep. But again, Keysight isn't playing the stolen goods angle in any way. I'm not sure why we're discussing it. They claim an IP issue, but so far haven't produced any evidence which supports their claim to the device.

[james_s]

If they plan to destroy it then I I would tell them to piss off and just keep it as a matter of principal. I have zero tolerance for destroying something solely to keep it out of the hands of someone else. You bought it, you own it, whatever you do, look through it very carefully for any interesting data.

[jjoonathan]

I see 5 listed on on ebay, and another 6 already sold in the last few months. If there is something special about this model are they going after them too?

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.H0.XHP+8562A.TRS0&_nkw=HP+8562A&_sacat=0

It's not the model that they are going after. I always knew my unit was "special" but I assumed a supremely boring explanation, of which there could have been many.

I purchased the unit in "for parts" condition and have since repaired it -- there was a YTO unlock problem and a HV supply dropout problem -- so I politely counter-proposed the "functional replacement" angle. I didn't want to get too greedy (Gordon Gecko forgive me) so I let them know that I would be happy either with (list of functional specs) or with any functioning SA that has 26.5GHz of bandwidth and a USB port. If they wind up going that route, hopefully that gives us enough latitude to work within the tax implications. As much as I'd love the 50GHz N9030B beast that their website recommends as a replacement for my unit, I wouldn't love to mortgage my house to pay taxes on it.

I didn't push my luck by asking for anything extra on account of the emotional trauma I will suffer from someone shoveling my poor project unit into a furnace, but I did ask them to not tell me if that's what they were planning to do. As far as I want to know, this thing is headed to a farm upstate, where it can live out the rest of its days happily measuring signals as they hop and play through the spectrum.

[Mr. Scram]

It's not the model that they are going after. I always knew my unit was "special" but I assumed a supremely boring explanation, of which there could have been many.

I purchased the unit in "for parts" condition and have since repaired it -- there was a YTO unlock problem and a HV supply dropout problem -- so I politely counter-proposed the "functional replacement" angle. I didn't want to get too greedy (Gordon Gecko forgive me) so I let them know that I would be happy either with (list of functional specs) or with any functioning SA that has 26.5GHz of bandwidth and a USB port. If they wind up going that route, hopefully that gives us enough latitude to work within the tax implications. As much as I'd love the 50GHz N9030B beast that their website recommends as a replacement for my unit, I wouldn't love to mortgage my house to pay taxes on it.

I didn't push my luck by asking for anything extra on account of the emotional trauma I will suffer from someone shoveling my poor project unit into a furnace, but I did ask them to not tell me if that's what they were planning to do. As far as I want to know, this thing is headed to a farm upstate, where it can live out the rest of its days happily measuring signals as they hop and play through the spectrum.

What taxes would have to be paid? It's not a prize. Besides, any costs arising from the transaction would be for Keysight. You have a functioning device on your desk. It's up to them to suggest an equivalent or better situation.

[Brumby]

The OP has taken a fair and reasonable approach IMHO.  Maintaining a courteous line of communication is the sensible thing to do at this point.  If you make it easy for Keysight to achieve their goal quickly and without fuss, then as well as the speed of resolution of their problem which will no doubt be well received by whoever is driving this chase, there is an economic incentive for them to be more generous in providing a replacement product.

All these attitudes of "stuff you" are simply silly.  Digging in your heels "on principle" for a situation like this just sounds like somebody being a stubborn old goat for no good reason.  It's not as if the equipment was part of grandpa's lab and had irreplaceable sentimental value.

If what is offered to the OP to "make whole" is something they would be happy with, then why be an asshole?  Besides, if you do make an enemy of a big corporation that has the resources to pursue with greater intensity, you could find yourself in a world of hurt, especially if there are some national security implications.


Let's see what Keysight's response will be.

[Brumby]

If they wind up going that route, hopefully that gives us enough latitude to work within the tax implications. As much as I'd love the 50GHz N9030B beast that their website recommends as a replacement for my unit, I wouldn't love to mortgage my house to pay taxes on it.

I don't know what take the IRS would have on this - if any - but a thought crossed my mind:

One might ask what the value of your SA actually is - considering it is so special...?  (Not that I'd expect an answer.)  If it was considerably more than a replacement SA, would you be able to claim a net loss on your taxes from such an exchange?

[Mechatrommer]

I'm a US citizen several generations deep. The nearest foreign cousins are in the Netherlands and, as far as I know, there are no terrorists sharing my last name.

be careful there regardless of last name or not... https://www.ocala.com/news/20180912/jonathan-beese-target-of-ocala-terror-probe-gets-15-years-in-prison-life-probation anyway, now you can state your ransom price. old SA = $ + IP = $$$... i think if Keysight keep quiet about this, the IP will simply buried in oblivion, along with its last owner. now they know, but even this got into the eye of a terrorist, he will not give a sheet on any spectrum analyzer, semiconductor, any programmed ROM nor whatever, they only care about more black powder, and more.

[EEVblog]

What taxes would have to be paid? It's not a prize. Besides, any costs arising from the transaction would be for Keysight. You have a functioning device on your desk. It's up to them to suggest an equivalent or better situation.

Agreed, I don't see the problem, it's a like-for-like replacement of a faulty unit purchased legally on which no taxes weer owing.
If you are really concerned in some way, get them to offer a used unit. Keysight have tons of used gear.
Only a fool would tell the tax department anyway.

[EEVblog]

It's not the model that they are going after. I always knew my unit was "special" but I assumed a supremely boring explanation, of which there could have been many.

What made you feel it was "special"?

I purchased the unit in "for parts" condition and have since repaired it -- there was a YTO unlock problem and a HV supply dropout problem -- so I politely counter-proposed the "functional replacement" angle.

Good move.
There are plenty on their ebay store.
http://www.ebaystores.com/Keysight/?_fsub=7036579011&

But again, I'm not sure why this is Keysights concern?
Why would Keysight be offering to "make good" on this financially?

[maginnovision]

It's not the model that they are going after. I always knew my unit was "special" but I assumed a supremely boring explanation, of which there could have been many.

What made you feel it was "special"?

I purchased the unit in "for parts" condition and have since repaired it -- there was a YTO unlock problem and a HV supply dropout problem -- so I politely counter-proposed the "functional replacement" angle.

Good move.
There are plenty on their ebay store.
http://www.ebaystores.com/Keysight/?_fsub=7036579011&

But again, I'm not sure why this is Keysights concern?
Why would Keysight be offering to "make good" on this financially?

Maybe they were the ones to guarantee how the instruments life would end?

[Richard Crowley]

Is it possible that the gear covers "forbidden frequency bands"?  i.e. in the US, cell phone bands are forbidden to "receive" except by authorized (carrier or government/military) users.

Or else this is just some kind of government contract thing where a contract prohibited selling as surplus/redundant into the public?

[EEVblog]

Is it possible that the gear covers "forbidden frequency bands"?  i.e. in the US, cell phone bands are forbidden to "receive" except by authorized (carrier or government/military) users.
Or else this is just some kind of government contract thing where a contract prohibited selling as surplus/redundant into the public?

Either of those is possible. But again, why would this be Keysight's problem and not the original owners?
There are certainly laws about on-selling gear like this (for example, no one in Australia is allowed to legally sell me or anyone else non-approved an xray machine), but it's never the problem on the manufacturer after they have sold it, it becomes the responsibility of the owner to dispose of it correctly.

[0culus]

Is it possible that the gear covers "forbidden frequency bands"?  i.e. in the US, cell phone bands are forbidden to "receive" except by authorized (carrier or government/military) users.

Or else this is just some kind of government contract thing where a contract prohibited selling as surplus/redundant into the public?

I'd guess the latter. Pretty much any spectrum analyzer that has more than a GHz bandwidth can receive a lot of cellular bands. Any microwave analyzer such as the OPs will be able to receive all of them with the right antenna setup.

[Mechatrommer]

does it have an earphone included? why is it so hard hacking something thats already for listening to tune to forbidden band?