I saw a couple of times on ebay that people were selling the blackberry bold, is that even allowed, considering that the phone is not yet released. Shouldent the sellers be in alot of trouble, possible by RIM. What do you guys think.

Wirelessly posted (magically pimptastik!!!!)

Yes they should be

Depends on how they got it and under what terms. If they signed an NDA or received it as part of a developer's program then they risk prosecution and termination of developer status. And lawyers ain't cheap! Just defending yourself in a slap suit will cost thousands of $$.

Now if I bought one in eBay, I can sell it again to whomever I want, for any price I want. I've got no connection to RIM other than that I love their devices. No repercussions for a civilian like me.

Kevin from Crackberry.com bought a Bold off eBay and RIM ended up disabling the PIN, according to this comparison video.

(edit: oops bad word) crappy, i didnt know they disabled it... i wonder if they will turn it back on once the carriers release the BOLD

Seems unlikely They probably turned it off to teach buyers of pre-release Bolds a lesson, I doubt they would turn it back on. But that would be pretty awesome if they did.

If they signed an NDA and received the BlackBerry Bold directly from RIM, then they would be liable. However, if they were under NDA with RIM and obtained the BlackBerry Bold from a third-party source (eBay, for example), then they would be clear of any sort of legal obligations to the NDA.

As for Kevin, he invested a lot of money into the BlackBerry Bold that he has, and I'm really bent over the actual legal rights RIM has to disable the device. The proper action would have been against the person who sold the device and not to the person who obtained it. Kevin is a very proud and loyal customer of Research In Motion - one who has dedicated an entire website to them and actively participates in the community that helps build better and more loyal customers for RIM. If they want to treat a model customer and fan of the company that way, then it does nothing but reflect poorly on RIM.

...but Kevin has been himself and not said much at all on the matter on the forums. If he wanted to make a big stink about it, it would end up being a public relations headache for RIM. However, Kevin was more concerned with possibly offending some RIM employees by bringing it to Orlando than he was upset at the fact RIM disabled the device. I think the differences are obvious.

I never even considered RIM disabling the PIN. That's way dirty. Words like "scvmbags" come to mind.

How is it dirty? Kevin bough a product from the 'gray market' that hasn't been released yet. If they wanted to be mean (and within their legal right) they could have taken legal action against Kevin. I think Kevin got off easy. Not to mention that behind closed doors RIM probably liked the publicity.

d_fisher, kevin bought it legitimatly off ebay, (yes granded he knew it wasnt released and such) but still RIM should turn it back on... and Kevin shouldnt be persued legally as he has no idea where the device is from...

Before I go any further I just want to say that I am not trying to argue. For the sake of conversation I am trying to look at it from the other point of view. With that said, here goes...

Since when is it legal to buy stolen goods? If you look at any preproduction device it has a nice little sticker on it that says property of RIM. We know RIM gave it to someone that is under NDA. Part of the NDA states that you will not sell the device, software, or release any information about it. RIM still owns that device and just because Kevin is not under NDA doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a stolen device.

I am also pretty sure that RIM knows exactly which devices were given out and to whom. And since all BlackBerry data plans flow through them I doubt it was too hard to figure out exactly which device Kevin had just by his usage of it.

Would I expect RIM to sue Kevin? No, as it would be a public relations nightmare. But I also bet that if RIM pressured Kevin he would give it back to them. He is not stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds him.

f_fisher

i was not trying to argue either i was just curious as to why RIM would go after him or do whatever, and now reading what you wrote, makes complete sense...

i just hope that RIM will be kind enough to enable that PIN again once the official releases hit the market...

First of all, RIM has every right to disable the PIN. They have every right to protect their intellectual property. Now, no disrespect to the dude, but if you buy a product that is yet unreleased by a company, and they find out about it, they are within their right to disable said product, no matter where he purchased it at. They do not want a device that they did not officially release floating around, and I can understand that.

Sorry, but RIM has an obligation to their company, and their shareholders (and shareholder value) to protect their intellectual property.

That is a business fact. The same would apply if you got your hands on an iPhone 2 before they were officially launched because an employee of Apple Computer Corp, or someone in their developer or testing program decided to sell the product on e-Bay and make some extra money. Apple is within their right to disable the device, and probably would the minute you connected it to iTunes.

It's simply business. Let's get over it, and not start talking negatively about Research in Motion.

In the interest of conversation we do not know if Kevin's device was stolen or not. It could have been provided under many different circumstances. The fact that RIM turned off his PIN as was mentioned to most likely teach him a lesson etc.

BUT, don't forget in this case Kevin provided so much advance press for RIM, and the kind of unbiased press they can't even buy. Current and potential BB users are clamoring for this device and RIM should be happy. Will they turn his back on, probably not as it was an engineering sample they most likely don't want it running. What would be really nice is if they offered to swap it out for a production unit this way Kevin's money was not lost.

John Mayer has a BB Bold a gift from RIM, but I must ask how can RIM be giving out devices that are NOT FCC approved for use in the US, unless they are and the FCC has not announced it yet.

Regarding the current BB Bold's on eBay it's pretty clear these are fakes an the lack of current pictures by the seller has me saying caveat emptor.

A side note to accompany the fact that John Mayer has a Bold, I was at WES last week and I saw more than a few pepole with Bolds. All were RIM employees/partners, but I probably saw 15 Bolds or so in the wild at the confrence.

If you buy stolen property from ebay. It's still stolen and the owners still have the right to pursue a case by whatever means they deem necessary. Kevin's pics had "Property of Research in Motion" stickers inside the battery cover. That would indicate a stolen phone in my opinion. RIM will do the same thing to a consumer Blackberry that is reported stolen. Disable the PIN so it can't be used.

I mean no disrespect and me and my conspiracy theory are likely wrong but I find it oh so convenient that a popular BB site just stumbled upon this unavailable anywhere else BB... basically an exclusive preview.

It was in RIM's best interest that Crackberry.com "find" a Bold if you ask me.

I guess if it is so risky to buy a Bold off of eBay now how come Crackberry.com seemed to have gotten such a free pass comparitively.

...not sayin' I didn't enjoy and appreciate the coverage.. cause I did.

The Bold that Kevin bought legally is in no way "stolen" or anything like that! RIM gave that unit to someone. That person may have improperly sold it or otherwise disposed of it, but it's not stolen. Not by any definition of the word. And it's not "nearly" stolen or "almost" stolen. Go after eBay for allowing the auction, or the original owner of the Bold, but the not the guy who did nothing wrong by buying it in a nationwide online auction.

I disagree with you 100% stolen is stolen. The fact they turned it off proved it was stolen. I dont think they should refund his money, or trade it for another unit. Kevin got what he deserved for the way he has treated people and his staff on his site over the years. Karma is pretty rough. Besides being a loyal RIM consumer and having a site dedicated to a particular device isnt grounds for a slap on the wrist.

Agreed!!!