Question of the day: Who's going to head the lawsuit against BFL?
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
ignore rjk, he just trolls for BFL.
Topic: BFL and the law. - page 2. (Read 5467 times)
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
ignore rjk, he just trolls for BFL.
This bullshit FUD is in the wrong section anyways. Move it to Legal.
I don't know if I would classify it as FUD. BFL is clearly walking a thin line in regard to consumer protection/trade law.
This bullshit FUD is in the wrong section anyways. Move it to Legal.
My my, aren't your panties in a bunch. Don't you have some pictures of wires you miraculously managed to bend into 90' angles you should be posting?
Friendly jabs aside, you're right and I've PM'd DiabloD3 to try and get this relocated. Thanks for bringing the legal sub-forum to my attention.
This bullshit FUD is in the wrong section anyways. Move it to Legal.
My my, aren't your panties in a bunch. Don't you have some pictures of wires you miraculously managed to bend into 90' angles you should be posting?
Friendly jabs aside, you're right and I've PM'd DiabloD3 to try and get this relocated. Thanks for bringing the legal sub-forum to my attention.
I think there are much more serious violations in the area of securities law.
Taking 100% deposits on products you know you won't deliver on your promised schedule doesn't seem to be proscribed under US consumer laws. At least not in an obvious way that I can find.
But selling things before you invent them likely runs into the domain of securities regulations rather than simple consumer law.
I'm not crazy enough to let a dime of my money flow into their hands so I can't be bothered to dig through the relevant materials. If I was one of their competitors, I would spend some time on the phone with a few lawyers in their state capital. $2000 placed with the right man would probably put them completely out of business.
Taking 100% deposits on products you know you won't deliver on your promised schedule doesn't seem to be proscribed under US consumer laws. At least not in an obvious way that I can find.
But selling things before you invent them likely runs into the domain of securities regulations rather than simple consumer law.
I'm not crazy enough to let a dime of my money flow into their hands so I can't be bothered to dig through the relevant materials. If I was one of their competitors, I would spend some time on the phone with a few lawyers in their state capital. $2000 placed with the right man would probably put them completely out of business.
You raise a good point. Much of what I've read/posted are merely misdemeanor offences, although it seems as there is a line in the sand between that and class D felony dependant on the amount of money in question.
I hear what you're saying, I think there's a lot of grey area when approaching it from a securities stand-point, especially in the determination as to whether the product design exists, or whether it's vapourware. In fact, I think there's a section of law that deals with 'inventor-for-hire' type cases.
Fair enough. Conversely, I actually have a couple of their singles, but I'm sure-as-shit not going to buy any more at this point. Realistically, the arrogance and total disrespect for their clients is what drove me to wasting my time on this. I have no intention of starting a literal law suit, but maybe having an open discussion about the actual legalities of their business practice might ensure that those who have entrusted their money with BFL aren't dicked around any more.
Class action law suit coming on because yeah Americans love to sue because where's there's blame there's a claim
Wouldn't that be something? As far as my understanding goes though, this wouldn't classify for a class-action.
Ztex has shipped a fair amount of boards by now..... and there are other competitors in the field (Modminer; Icarus; X6500; enter point; bitforce; etc)
But why a lawsuit against them?
If u don't have any of their products nor waiting on them ....?
But why a lawsuit against them?
If u don't have any of their products nor waiting on them ....?
It's intended to be a topic of discussion more than action, however in an ideal world having this all spelled out may motivate BFL to get their shit together. I would have sat idly by, but after the trolling of Enterpoint, and the confirmation (note: hearsay), that the ASIC announcement was nothing more than a malicious attempt at stealing business from their competitors perturbed me a bit.
This bullshit FUD is in the wrong section anyways. Move it to Legal.
I think there are much more serious violations in the area of securities law.
Taking 100% deposits on products you know you won't deliver on your promised schedule doesn't seem to be proscribed under US consumer laws. At least not in an obvious way that I can find.
But selling things before you invent them likely runs into the domain of securities regulations rather than simple consumer law.
I'm not crazy enough to let a dime of my money flow into their hands so I can't be bothered to dig through the relevant materials. If I was one of their competitors, I would spend some time on the phone with a few lawyers in their state capital. $2000 placed with the right man would probably put them completely out of business
Taking 100% deposits on products you know you won't deliver on your promised schedule doesn't seem to be proscribed under US consumer laws. At least not in an obvious way that I can find.
But selling things before you invent them likely runs into the domain of securities regulations rather than simple consumer law.
I'm not crazy enough to let a dime of my money flow into their hands so I can't be bothered to dig through the relevant materials. If I was one of their competitors, I would spend some time on the phone with a few lawyers in their state capital. $2000 placed with the right man would probably put them completely out of business
Enterpoint : doooooooooo it !
I think there are much more serious violations in the area of securities law.
Taking 100% deposits on products you know you won't deliver on your promised schedule doesn't seem to be proscribed under US consumer laws. At least not in an obvious way that I can find.
But selling things before you invent them likely runs into the domain of securities regulations rather than simple consumer law.
I'm not crazy enough to let a dime of my money flow into their hands so I can't be bothered to dig through the relevant materials. If I was one of their competitors, I would spend some time on the phone with a few lawyers in their state capital. $2000 placed with the right man would probably put them completely out of business.
Taking 100% deposits on products you know you won't deliver on your promised schedule doesn't seem to be proscribed under US consumer laws. At least not in an obvious way that I can find.
But selling things before you invent them likely runs into the domain of securities regulations rather than simple consumer law.
I'm not crazy enough to let a dime of my money flow into their hands so I can't be bothered to dig through the relevant materials. If I was one of their competitors, I would spend some time on the phone with a few lawyers in their state capital. $2000 placed with the right man would probably put them completely out of business.
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegation?s=t
allegation
noun
- 1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
- 2. an assertion made with little or no proof
- 3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove
- 4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
"balls to come up with some proof." What kind of retarded statement is that anyways? I personally don't believe they're utilizing second hand chips. However, that's just my assumption, be it correct or not. That's why it's an allegation genius. Furthermore, it's not beyond the realm of reality.
Example: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/15/business/packard-bell-settles-class-action-suit.html
You realize that every lawsuit starts on the basis of allegations, right? You then (hopefully) procure the evidence to support or deny the allegations proving or disproving them as fact. It's a colloquial statement, but to entertain you: Something like what BFL is doing could potentially ruin an otherwise successful business. Does it even matter? Stereotypically Americans (which I'm not) love to sue. I'd think this doesn't need any explanation.
Class action law suit coming on because yeah Americans love to sue because where's there's blame there's a claim
Ztex has shipped a fair amount of boards by now..... and there are other competitors in the field (Modminer; Icarus; X6500; enter point; bitforce; etc)
But why a lawsuit against them?
If u don't have any of their products nor waiting on them ....?
But why a lawsuit against them?
If u don't have any of their products nor waiting on them ....?
God damn there are a lot of ignorant trolls on this forum. BFL is a far better company than what you morons give them credit for. I don't see any other companies out there that have shipped the amount of FPGA boards they have, designed their own BTC mining software to use w/ them or come out with anything remotely close to the mini rigs or singles at anywhere near the price that they are letting them go for. Keep talking shyt and once again BFL will pull your foot out of your mouths for you.
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegation?s=t
allegation
noun
- 1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
- 2. an assertion made with little or no proof
- 3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove
- 4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
"balls to come up with some proof." What kind of retarded statement is that anyways? I personally don't believe they're utilizing second hand chips. However, that's just my assumption, be it correct or not. That's why it's an allegation genius. Furthermore, it's not beyond the realm of reality.
Example: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/15/business/packard-bell-settles-class-action-suit.html
You realize that every lawsuit starts on the basis of allegations, right? You then (hopefully) procure the evidence to support or deny the allegations proving or disproving them as fact. It's a colloquial statement, but to entertain you: Something like what BFL is doing could potentially ruin an otherwise successful business. Does it even matter? Stereotypically Americans (which I'm not) love to sue. I'd think this doesn't need any explanation.
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegation?s=t
allegation
noun
- 1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
- 2. an assertion made with little or no proof
- 3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove
- 4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
"balls to come up with some proof." What kind of retarded statement is that anyways? I personally don't believe they're utilizing second hand chips. However, that's just my assumption, be it correct or not. That's why it's an allegation genius. Furthermore, it's not beyond the realm of reality.
Example: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/15/business/packard-bell-settles-class-action-suit.html
Do you know that they are not located in the State of Kansas :-). You obviously did lot of research, didn't you.
See the disclaimer. I recalled the questionable business license being issued in Kansas. I'll verify and revise. Thanks for the heads-up.
Do you know that they are not located in the State of Kansas :-). You obviously did lot of research, didn't you.
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegation?s=t
allegation
noun
- 1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
- 2. an assertion made with little or no proof
- 3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove
- 4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
"balls to come up with some proof." What kind of retarded statement is that anyways? I personally don't believe they're utilizing second hand chips. However, that's just my assumption, be it correct or not. That's why it's an allegation genius. Furthermore, it's not beyond the realm of reality.
Example: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/15/business/packard-bell-settles-class-action-suit.html
Question of the day: Who's going to head the lawsuit against BFL?
Obviously not you, since you don't have the balls to come up with some proof. Secondhand, my ass.
Question of the day: Who's going to head the lawsuit against BFL?
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; what is presented below was done quickly and hastily. Any and all following statues of law may or may not be applicable.]
Motivation:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-thread-in-which-bfl-trolls-enterpoint-88363
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bfl-asic-announcement-truth-or-troll-the-long-con-just-got-longer-88365
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bfl-labs-asic-release-date-no-earlier-than-february-2013-88304
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wait-list-bfl-mini-rig-order-dateship-date-76916
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wait-list-bfl-singles-order-date-ship-date-77796
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html
Considerations:
Pursuant to: Federal Trade Commission Act: 15 U.S.C. § 45 Section: (A)(1) – Unfair Methods of Competition
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
In response to allegations of using second-hand hardware.
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/deceptive-trade-practices/missouri/
Missouri has not adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This act discretely: Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or second-hand.
See: Uniform Deceptive Trade Act (Source: Unavailable)
In response to allegations of upcoming ASICs
Pursuant to the State of Missouri's Satute Chp: 570:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C570.HTM
Pursuant to the State of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act §407.020, §407.145 15 - CSR 60-7.040
http://ago.mo.gov/publications/advertisingrules.pdf
Pursuant to Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act §407.020, §407.145, §570.160 – 15 CSR 60-7.020
In response to allegations of grossly inaccurate shipping times:
Pursuant to Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act §407.020, §407.145, §570.160 – 15 CSR 60-7.020
http://ago.mo.gov/publications/advertisingrules.pdf
In Response to the required (full) payment up front and grossly inaccurate shipping/lead times:
Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commissions Merchandise Rule - §435.2
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule#rule
**The relevant portions are long, for sake of brevity I have summarized them in my own words**
EDIT: I may have recalled their operating state incorrectly, I am revising this post.
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; what is presented below was done quickly and hastily. Any and all following statues of law may or may not be applicable.]
Motivation:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-thread-in-which-bfl-trolls-enterpoint-88363
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bfl-asic-announcement-truth-or-troll-the-long-con-just-got-longer-88365
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bfl-labs-asic-release-date-no-earlier-than-february-2013-88304
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wait-list-bfl-mini-rig-order-dateship-date-76916
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wait-list-bfl-singles-order-date-ship-date-77796
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html
Considerations:
Pursuant to: Federal Trade Commission Act: 15 U.S.C. § 45 Section: (A)(1) – Unfair Methods of Competition
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
In response to allegations of using second-hand hardware.
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/deceptive-trade-practices/missouri/
Missouri has not adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This act discretely: Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or second-hand.
See: Uniform Deceptive Trade Act (Source: Unavailable)
In response to allegations of upcoming ASICs
Pursuant to the State of Missouri's Satute Chp: 570:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C570.HTM
- 570.160. 1. A person commits the crime of false advertising if, in connection with the promotion of the sale of, or to increase the consumption of, property or services, he recklessly makes or causes to be made a false or misleading statement in any advertisement addressed to the public or to a substantial number of persons.
- 570.170.1 - A person commits the crime of bait advertising if he advertises in any manner the sale of property or services with the purpose not to sell or provide the property or services: (3) At all.
Pursuant to the State of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act §407.020, §407.145 15 - CSR 60-7.040
http://ago.mo.gov/publications/advertisingrules.pdf
- (1) A seller shall not make a claim with respect to a product’s performance in an advertisement unless the seller has in its possession information sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the claim, in fact, is true. A seller may rely on reasonable performance claims supplied by the manufacturer or supplier of the product.
Pursuant to Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act §407.020, §407.145, §570.160 – 15 CSR 60-7.020
- (1) A seller shall not: make a representation or statement of fact in an advertisement that is false or has the capacity to mislead prospective purchasers.
In response to allegations of grossly inaccurate shipping times:
Pursuant to Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act §407.020, §407.145, §570.160 – 15 CSR 60-7.020
http://ago.mo.gov/publications/advertisingrules.pdf
- (1)(B) – A seller shall not advertise any product unless the seller has that product in stock or available for sale in sufficient quantities to meet reasonably anticipated customer demand during the effective period of the advertisement.
- (2)(C) – A seller shall not: refuse to … deliver it [product] within a reasonable time frame.
In Response to the required (full) payment up front and grossly inaccurate shipping/lead times:
Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commissions Merchandise Rule - §435.2
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule#rule
**The relevant portions are long, for sake of brevity I have summarized them in my own words**
- (a)(1)(i) - Covers the reasonable basis of the seller accepting payment with intent to ship in a prescribed time.
- (a)(2) - Covers the requirement of a seller to notify the buyer of any (known) delay in shipping.
- (a)(3)(i)(ii) - Covers the seller being unable to make any representation regarding length of delay.
- (b)(1)(i) - Covers the sellers inability to ship while failing to inform the buyer clearly and conspicuously without prior demand
EDIT: I may have recalled their operating state incorrectly, I am revising this post.
Jump to: