Quote from: Flying Hellfish on June 16, 2014, 01:41:26 AM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on June 16, 2014, 01:22:07 AM

Quote from: opieum2 on June 16, 2014, 12:47:28 AM

Quote from: rik_khaos on June 15, 2014, 09:40:03 PM

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

Explain to me why two of the AMT press releases that mention IMET were both censored (i.e. not published)?

Why did AMT hide the fact that IMET was their manufacturer?

There are 50+ miners that are missing in the wild unaccounted for. If IMET were to be believed, AMT is running a farce that they are shipping known broken miners to customers to give the impression that

(1) they have nothing but broken miners.
(2) they are mining with customer hardware.

That is the only conclusion that does make sense.

We'll find out more when we get more details in the lawsuit.

Well, explain to me how IMET should be a defendant in the lawsuit? How can AMT claim damages when they didn't pay in full for their parts?

IMET could not be named a co-defendant in the civil class action suit because no one within the class of plaintiffs ever had a contract, sales agreement or even any contact with IMET. IMET and AMT had a contract IF that contract was broken and IF that breech caused damage then legal recourse is available to the party involved in the contract that was damaged. This is just how the real world works, suggesting that IMET could be named in the civil class action is a joke at best and shows a lack of understanding the real world.

This is pretty basic stuff and honestly CUSTOMERS do not take the risk of supplier competency , that is a something the company negotiates and takes the risk on. There is two contracts here one between AMT and their victims and one between AMT and IMET. They will be dealt with separately because they are separate contracts.

Half the people in this forum have seriously misguided thoughts on how business works and how the legal system works, it's utterly amusing and discouraging all at the same time.

IMET has EXACTLY ZERO legal obligations to ANY AMT investomer for ANY reason what so ever.

Fair point on the co-defendent... That would need to be AMT needs to be going after them. Makes sense. That being said AMT does not have to disclose that IMET was their manufacturer. This is actually more common than you think. Most large electronics companies source their stuff out like this. Foxconn is one of the more well known of these types of companies...(who are well known for making Apple products). They are known only because people are looking but not because they are disclosed.