Quote from: Fjordbit on April 01, 2013, 02:29:18 PM

Quote from: mobodick on April 01, 2013, 02:20:46 PM

I don't agree as the word 'device' used in the bet means to me a device like the one BFL has on the pictures on their sales page. All i see in the pictures is the same prototype device.

Another thing that bugs me is that Luke was put into service by BFL a while back so he could work on their product. During this time he stayed in a hotel. If the money was payed out of BFLs pocket i see this as a compensation for his involvement with the product and that would make him a BFL employee by my definition.

I would not confuse paying hotelling expenses for a client or business partner (which Luke-Jr is both) with being an employee. Every company I've ever worked at has expensed out visiting clients, and I myself have been expensed by other companies for various reason, for example Sun Microsystems for a Java product technology demonstration in 1996. If there was any kind of employee relationship in any of those cases, I would have been in violation of federal law, but I wasn't because paying expenses for a visit constitutes no such relationship.

As far as device goes, the bet is poorly worded and in general poorly formed. It too loosely defines device, and since this is the final device that Luke-Jr is getting to fulfill this order with BFL, it appears to be fulfilled.

It was payed in exchange of an expectation of Luke doing work on their unfinished product.
This is an arrangement of payment for work, which is employment.
If BFL at any point said to Luke: "Come on over to work on the software and we'll pay for the hotel" then that is a verbal contract.

I think the major hinge is that BFL needs (someone like) Luke to finish the product. In that respect you can only see Lukes visit as a form of employment, even if they payed him in smiles.