Interesting rip off by a forum user - mercadolibre

[tez]

What would bother me, as the seller, is that having two ads on ML for the same product lowers credibility for them both. As a buyer I would hesitate to buy either. And additionally, that fake ad was crap! He could have at least put a little work into it!

I have met a couple of people who have made it their job to sell things on Mercado Libre for people, and they take 10-20%. I guess this guy does that, only without consulting the owner first.

And also, for whoever said the OP was "making too big a deal out of it," I don't think he was doing anything of the sort, just sharing an interesting rip off by a forum user.

 

[madmaxer]

What would bother me, as the seller, is that having two ads on ML for the same product lowers credibility for them both.

That makes good feed backs, and lots of good reviews very important. also makes the market much harder for the new sellers.

 

[davonz]

Have you ever used Microsoft windows? Well DOS, its forerunner was sold to IBM by Bill Gates before he even owned it. DOS was developed and owned by another company and opportunistic Bill seized the chance, acted as a middle man, pretended that Microsoft owned DOS, sold it to IBM and then bought DOS from the company who actually made it. He made billions from the deal and is considered by many to be an enterprising hero (except for those who use Apple products).

Good point...

It is pretty common on Financial markets to do this. It is called a short sale. It's always under discussion weather it should or shouldn't be banned.

Even better point...


But i still think its a scummy thing to do, and i think maybe the guy thinks its dishonest as he removed his ad.

 

[ElQueso]

Have you ever used Microsoft windows? Well DOS, its forerunner was sold to IBM by Bill Gates before he even owned it. DOS was developed and owned by another company and opportunistic Bill seized the chance, acted as a middle man, pretended that Microsoft owned DOS, sold it to IBM and then bought DOS from the company who actually made it. He made billions from the deal and is considered by many to be an enterprising hero (except for those who use Apple products).

Indeed let's not get carried away.

http://inventors.about.com/od/computersoftware/a/Putting-Microsoft-On-The-Map.htm

http://www.skrause.org/computers/dos_history.shtml

Although not technically wrong in what you said about Gates not having something to sell to IBM when IBM first approached Gates, it wasn't anything like what the OP was posting about someone posting a notice to sell something they didn't own. Also, it wasn't quite like you presented it either.

Gates, who at the time was a software developer who had already written software at the chip level for other companies, was approached by IBM to see what could be done about writing an operating system for something IBM didn't even have at the time - a PC. It was still in the works.

Gates contracted with IBM to do provide an operating system, but he had a good idea - why write something from scratch when you can buy something already written and either use it as is, or modify it from where it started?

Gates paid Tim Paterson's company $50,000 to license the use of the software. They actually met with the owner and made a deal to license it. I don't see any reason why Gates would be obligated to tell the owner in this case what he was planning on doing with the software. If the guy who sold the software was concerned about what Gates would do with the software, he sure could have had Gates sign a non-compete agreement or something, but he didn't. That sure doesn't make Gates a bad guy - just a good business man on top of being a good techie and understanding the business.

BTW - Microsoft did indeed make changes to the software to improve it before they sold it to IBM. Even then (as is always the case with MS unfortunately) IBM found so many bugs that they couldn't license that particular version of DOS and IBM and MS together completed it and the marketed version of the software, PC-DOS, was owned by both IBM and MS. MS-DOS was sold later as a better product, from the original license paid by MS and all computers that were sold as IBM "clones" could run that software.

I have little doubt that if MS had had to write something from scratch they would have in order to fulfill their contract. But this is basic business, man. Tim Paterson himself could have made this deal with IBM if he was astute enough, but he didn't.

I write software and I lease third part products all the time so I don't have to write everything from scratch. I even pay extra to license access to the source code of these products so that I can make changes if necessary to these third party products to make sure that I can provide what I have contracted with my clients. I don't already have software written before I make the sale to my client. I don't tell the third-party company that my company is going to make $100K off of the $600 I spent licensing their product (plus my own work, of course) - why would I? But the third-party company has a product available for licensing that I take advantage of, to leverage that in order to make money more efficiently than I could if I wrote everything myself.

I can't see how what Gates did is even slightly comparable to someone advertising, WITHOUT the owner's permission, a bike to sell to someone else, without even knowing they can complete the sale. They haven't even discussed the possibility of a deal with the owner, someone else could have already bought it, and offering it for sale at the same time the owner was offering it for sale without these discussions just isn't right.

Completely different story if they bought the bike first and then offered it. Or even if they had discussed with the owner first, had planned on buying the bike, made a deal with the owner and had put up their ad early.

 

[davonz]

Good point...

TrevorCito - I take back my GOOD POINT after reading what ElQueso wrote above..

 

[citymike]

I think it's funny the cajones some people have.

I don't really know if it's immoral or not, I haven't thought it through. But what a great idea. I'd probably feel frustrated that someone was making money from me without my permission but I might be quite pleased that I got the price I wanted.

But then, surely if someone searches for your kind of bike it will return both bikes for sale and yours will be identical but cheaper.

 

[ElQueso]

I think it's only a little immoral, and only from the stand point of the second seller offering something that he can't guarantee delivery on. If the second guy makes the sale, but he can't get the bike because it's already been sold or the OP found out and felt offended and simply didn't want to sell it like that (whatever the reason) - as long as the guy returns the money to the unsuccessful buyer, he can make up some excuse as to why and no one's really hurt.

I personally don't believe in offering something that I can't deliver on. There's not much payoff (at least in this case, apparently) in getting involved in whatever drama may come out of something like that if someone gets pissed off because the deal didn't happen, and returning the money becomes another task to be taken care of.

 

[sam3g]

Well whomever it was, I'm sure he/she's getting a kick out of following this thread!

 

[sam3g]

On a different note, Mercadolibre has suspended my account. Presumably because I provided a false DNI number.

 

[demokritos]

I met a guy on here who turned out to be a seasoned con artist, so.... really I'm not sure this crowd is as pure as some might like to think...!!

Tez, what gave me away?