Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on May 09, 2014, 01:35:21 AM

Quote from: opieum2 on May 09, 2014, 01:20:10 AM

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 09, 2014, 01:09:05 AM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on May 08, 2014, 09:33:32 PM

Quote from: opieum2 on May 08, 2014, 08:43:54 PM

Quote from: grumpybearsgirl on May 08, 2014, 07:01:49 PM

so glad we got our refund. what a mess.

Awesome that you got a refund.....that is the equivalent of stepping to the side as the shit hits the fan...bravo Cheesy

also your experience in getting a refund sets a precedent that they should be issuing refunds and were discriminatory in who they issued them to. A huge legal mess they are in now with that.

Here's the thing though, he got his refund because someone else paid for his unit.

Which means that AMT will refund you, IF they have the money. I don't think they have the money.

This type of business model is name after an Italian gentlemen.

Sure sounds like AMT is very shortly going to find out that there is no legal definition for an investomer. A person is either a customer or an investor and it likely won't be long until AMT finds out the legal rights and the legal recourse for each class of person are VERY different.

Because we gave them money and expected a return on that investment....which is what ROI literally is....and is covered under the MPP...it can easily be argued that we are investors in the company and as such AMT would have a fiduciary duty to provide us with the increase or break even of said investment. Interesting point.....and might be cause for yet another case seeing as the class action covers other aspects of product misrepresentation. As far as it being a Ponzi scheme.....technically its not....I say that because they actually do provide a product flawed and misrepresented as it is, it is indeed a physical product. BUT the investomer concept AND the fact that they refer to giving us an ROI via the MPP they pretty much opened up to the fact that we are in fact investors. It could be argued that way at least in a courtroom with relative ease. But I don't think the current complaint covers that.

I would have to disagree here, mining hardware is equipment, it isn't an investment asset. You don't buy mining hardware in the hope you can sell it at a higher price. In fact, mining hardware depreciates extremely rapidly.

The severest crime I can think of here is federal wire fraud. Goods where sold without any intention of delivery.

In fact, if you can prove that AMT never had a 1.2 THs that could be delivered, then you can make the case that there was never any intent to deliver. The key evidence here is the complete absence of a 6 board backplane. That is the smoking gun in my opinion.

That is real simple to prove the technical stats on the hardware itself. Not what they provide but actual performance. Of course they could cherry pick it and set up special defaults for performance reasons. Its in those situation a technical expert is required. Basically the defaults they were shipping with were 16000:800000:8000 (bitmines) least that was my experience and what led to a miner dying within 5 min. I was lucky to salvage a single card. Now the other side of it is if they did that for some miners and not others it can be easily proven that they sabotaged peoples miners. As apparently the hardware seems to run (when its working) at 16000:750000:2000 (which is AMT's defaults and a VERY low hashrates as well)

They already acknowledged their problems. Which means they were aware of this when sending them out. Our consent to recieving hardware was limited to an assumption we would get working hardware.