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.htmlSo 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.
There is no changing the story. Let me clarify. AMT has most of the boards that were built. I hope that clears it up.
Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole. I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT. Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware. Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs. That was IMET's scope of work.
It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs. I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues. Also, usually some boards do come out bad, isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?
I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control?
I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen. I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality. Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').
I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.
I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning. Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT. Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly. I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT. Again, we built to print. We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this). The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection). Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs). I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked. We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here.
One last thing that I forgot to address was rework. Yields were good, but every once in a while something would shift or a resistor or capacitor would tombstone. There are quite a few bad footprints on the hash boards by the way. If there were any assembly issues that did not pass IPC (Acceptability of Electronics Assemblies), we did the rework here in house before delivery to AMT. Once we were done, everything passed IPC class 2.