Topic: New Official AMT Thread - page 102. (Read 149472 times)

1 is easy its tangible and can be quantified...
2 can be tossed out only on the premise that bitcoin is a speculative market. There is no way to properly or consistently quantify those revenues ahead of time so a court will not regard that...they MIGHT. but not likely.
3 actually is an interesting point that can go a couple of ways....and argument can be made that we are investors....since they refer to ROI, our investment is generating a ROI. We did invest in their company with an expectation to get an ROI. That qualifies as an investment. Investomers is pretty much the argument that could be made as it has been used. But we are in actuality investors in a very technical sense. the MPP kind of enables that in that we pay money and are to expect some kind of return based on future ROI or lack of.
4 Intangibles is sketchy. Example?

The real question is not if its winnable,  the question is how much damages. 

(1) Purchase Price
(2) 2 - X months of lost mining revenues
(3 MPP
(4) Intangibles

I don't know if you know about Philly, a jury won't side with a business there for sure. It's a city that's all about helping the little guy.(Very, very democratic). I can't imagine a worse place to have a trial for AMT.

The complaint appears to demand a jury trial...  if I were AMT I would avoid a trial at all costs.  It would be expensive and it clearly is not remotely winnable.

A company advertises A but never delivers.  I can't see how you can spin that ?

I look forward to telling the story about how the slickster snake oil salesmen at AMT caused financial loss to active duty military and US Veterans and everyone else here as well. Jurys and judges don't usually don't like to hear about someone stealing money from US service members. I love the fact the class action will be in Philly too, my home town.

It clearly is in AMT's best interest to make sure that a majority are satisfied with the terms.

I just can't see how this case is even winnable by AMT.   I mean, a sale is made that promises A to be delivered on B date with a warranty of C and further protection of D.  You then don't deliver A,B,C and D and you fail to communicate with your clients.   How can they win?

There isn't an argument. And most courts frown upon bankruptcy to avoid a consumer debt. Most courts wont even grant it until the consumers have been made whole. Its been tried before. There are plenty of cases like that. And yea you can go and sue....as for agreeing collectively that largely depends on the terms they propose. If they say you will get X and we are mostly all ok with it....then great we move on....if not.....we can state that to the lawfirm.....at the end of the day tho I think the plantiffs registered clenell and the other dude (forget his username) would kinda speak on everyone behalf in that regard. They might push for better terms. But if an agreement can't be made in settlement it goes to trial which honestly could go either way BUT considering things it could work heavily in our favor with all the evidence and written documentation there is. But anyone not in agreement with whatever settlement they got would be free to find their own lawyer and get that litigated. The problem is you can't come at them for the same thing or you start to run afoul of double jeopardy and the case gets tossed out.

The chips appear to be assembled properly. BUT one problem is the amount of thermal grease too much and too little and general build quality of the hardware. It seems like there is no uniformity in the build batches. one could have one voltage and another board another....so if you run cgminer on one voltage you will have a board or 4 burn out on you. So any uniform or standard setting (which in actuality was the default bitmine settings that were much higher and would cause the boards to fry almost as soon as they came online) could cause the boards to fry.

I ran into this with one miner that had 3 boards pretty much die on me in 5 minutes and then a 4th shortly and I was able to salvage a 5th onto my working miner that had one dead board....that 4th board died a couple of days later while leaving me now with 4 out of 10 working boards..at this point i am expecting them to die at some point. But knock on wood they are still working. So the design is a working design. But the build quality and general QA testing was pretty much non-existent hence the problems.

Yes,  I'm curious of how that works.   If someone say does not agree with the settlement,  I gather he has the right to have his own lawsuit?   Also, how do we all collectively agree on an acceptable remedy?

I gather that AMT must come out with a settlement.  I seriously doubt they have a winnable case.  I mean,  what is their argument for not providing a refund?   

There should be a heat sink on both sides.  The top side however should have a heat sink that should transfer 30% of the heat.  Unfortunately, AMT design has tiny heat sinks that aren't even close to twice the size of the back side heat sink.

BTW credit is due you posted something useful so thanks for that. I am not above giving credit where its due...whether you care or not I am putting it out there anyway.
FYI with the class action we don't need to talk to a lawyer...we already got one. The class affects everyone. That said separate complaints can be brought if the existing settlement is not adequate...which we don't really know as we don't have the actual details they were supposed to give us today.

Can someone who has received one of the 1.2 Th/s miners confirm that the heatsink on the A1 chip is only on the top (e.g., there is no heatsink on the backside of the PCB)?  I ask because it is clear looking at Innosilicon specs that a majority of the heat is designed to go to the PCB side (back) and heatsinks on both back and front are *required* by spec... that could explain the meltdowns.  Sorry if that was covered before.

@AMT...we were expecting an update today based on your word. At this point all of us are holding AMT accountable for this...considering that this is more of the same misrepresentation, you are legally liable while in the middle of a lawsuit for presenting this information to us. You cannot expect us to not be angry when you back out on your word yet again. I have to concur with sirminesalot on this position. We all have been waiting an incredible amount of time and being strung along with what should have been a simple transaction.

We still have no information on process for RMA, or what will replace the current product....will the MPP be honored? and if so why not? We have been asking what are valid questions here and considering the circumstances it is incumbent upon you to provide some answers for us. We have all tried to be very patient some more than others, but with this latest break in word, its getting old. While you have had marto validate that you will be using his designs, the concern is that he is not making them and instead we are again relying on you to provide us with hardware (because the first time did not go so well so can you blame us).....also it appears now you have the FBI investigating you based on Mrparks source. Considering his background which you publicly posted, I would not consider that a bluff.

I personally tried to help out for the sake of the customers but it does not appear you really want to try to make this right. Communication is key in all this and we are just seeing more words with little or no substance. If you say you will post an announcement then post it when you say you will. At this point the chips fall where they may. I had hoped keeping order in this thread would actually help get you to communicate more, but its only lead to alot more of the same misleading and stringing along statements.

I'm sure Joshua Zipkin will rear his ugly head again soon - and give another excuse as to the delay on this particular update/plan. It will be more "talked about solutions" with no substance or anything you can take to the bank. This has been the case with EVERY so-called "update" for the past 6 months.

Joshua will continue to do this as he has each time in the past, buying himself more time.

Anyone that hasn't talked with a lawyer yet, has made a large error based on false trust. Do not get duped into holding off any longer, you can always cancel on the suit if AMT miraculously does right by everyone (not looking like that will happen).

AMT founder Joshua Zipkin deserves to be in jail and/or heavily fined and charged with fraud. Anyone else involved with this RUSE that is AMT should also be held accountable.

I don't think it works that way.  I think it works by hiring a collections agency that convinces the debtor to fork over the money.

Now whether you have to win in small claims court or not is an open question.

Every day that goes by means less and less $$$ in their bank account. Eventually it will reach 0. So time is of the essence if you want to get your money back.

I am sure with a judgement which ever bank there banking at will have to give me the $

This is AMT we are talking about. They won't show up and you'll win a default judgement. The trouble will be collecting on the judgement.

Well, use this info:  http://www.montcopa.org/index.aspx?NID=300  to setup a date to file a small claims lawsuit.  Note: Should be under $12,000.

I think it probably is worth it to do so since it'll cost you only $200, however AMT needs to bring in their expensive lawyer to defend the case.

I think in terms of demands,  basically if you bought one unit,  the purchase price and shipping ($6,000), plus two months worth of mining based on difficulty at the time.  So that's probably around $2,500 in BTC.   

I recommend sending it back at least 3 times.  This will be ample evidence to invoke the "Federal Lemon Law" on them.

Which does remind me,  I need to also send then back broken equipment.