[Web] How many unpaid Genesi employees? | ANN.lu |
Posted on 27-Feb-2004 08:29 GMT by Christian Kemp | 214 comments View flat View list |
In a thread titled "How many unpaid Genesi employees?" on Moo Bunny, Johan Rönnblom posted his story.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
How many unpaid Genesi employees? : Comment 160 of 214 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 01-Mar-2004 13:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 157 (samface): Ok Samface, if that's what you want, I'll answer ALL your questions
thoroughly.
>> Well you're wrong, several coupon buyers are complaining in public.
> What? Where? Who?
You're answering this yourself satisfactorily in your next sentence.
> AFAIK, the attempt for a classact against Amiga was dropped because no
> more than 2 individuals showed their interest. How many Club Amiga members
> was there again?
Even if everyone except those two were happy, they are still several coupon
buyers and they are complaining in public, so thanks for verifying my
claim.
>> Of course, I think that's bullshit. If you have something that puts
>> Genesi/Thendic in bad light, that is highly interesting. But only if
>> you can prove it somehow.
> So, the fact that they owe you 3k in euros is not putting them in a bad
> light?
Yes. Because I can prove it. Actually it is not disputed.
> The fact that they are using the argument that they have nothing to
> do with Thendic when it comes to salaries, but don't mind beeing an
> associate of Thendic when it comes to their IP is not putting them in a bad
> light?
Fact? You have not proven either that
a) They want nothing to do with Thendic when it comes to (unpaid) salaries. (This is in fact false.)
b) There would be anything fishy about their association with Thendic when it comes to IP.
(In fact, if Thendic's liquidator want to make Thendic able to pay their
debts, Thendic definitely NEEDS associates who are interested in Thendic's
IP.)
> The fact that they have claimed that it would be "common knowledge" that
> Amiga Inc. would have a new CEO when all they had was a visiting card from
> someone claiming to be the new CEO is not putting them in a bad light?
If you can prove that it was not. They claim that the CEO handed out this
card to everyone he met on a well-visited trade show. Several independent
people have confirmed this. Handing out the information on a large trade
show pretty much equates making it "common knowledge", I'd say.
The claim is also very much supported by AmigaInc themselves, as they list
Garry Hare as a person with full insight in AmigaInc, according to
court documents they have filed.
> The fact that they openly and in public slander their competitors chipset
> provider is not putting them in a bad light?
For it to be slander it has to be untrue. No one has proven that BBRV's
critique of the ArticiaS would be untrue, even though this would be very
easy if it was the case (just release a working driver).
In fact, the issue is not even disputed by MAI themselves, as they do not
claim that the ArticiaS would have working DMA.
> The fact that they have used the names of individuals representing their
> competitors for marketing their own products on google is not putting them
> in a bad light?
Only if you can prove that they did that, which you have not.
> The fact that they have made use of the AmigaOne trademark to advertise
> the Pegasos on google is not putting them in a bad light?
Again, prove it. If true, I personally find this natural and even
recommendable. Usually advertising is about misinformation rather than
information. But to help people who are clearly interested in a PowerPC
motherboard inform themselves about alternatives is a good thing, I think.
I would definitely not object to Eyetech or anyone else doing the reverse,
quite on the contrary. I think choice is a good thing.
> The fact that they have been sponsoring atleast two lawsuits against
> Amiga Inc. for unpaid salaries while having problems to pay the salaries of
> their own employees is not putting them in a bad light?
You have not proven either
a) That they have sponsored any lawsuit against AInc for unpaid salaries.
b) That they have been doing this while themselves having payment problems.
c) That "they" would be one and the same in these two issues.
In fact, as far as I know there have not even *been* any lawsuits against
AInc during the time when Thendic/Genesi have had payment problems, so how
could they have sponsored something that did not happen?
> The fact that they are claiming the rights for Hyperions IP based on
> nothing but a summary judgement due to the defendants inability to defend
> themselves is not putting them in a bad light?
This is not just unproven but blatantly false. Read the verdict, it is
based on the case at hand and the judge has considered the contract
carefully.
> BTW, you don't happen to know how Bolten Peck is doing these days? I wonder if he is getting paid...
I think you're talking about Bolton Peck, and no, I do not know him.
>> Just assuming that they have stolen people's IP and owe lots of people
>> lots of money because this "could" be true doesn't work.
> There is no "could" about this, it's "common knowledge" like someone we
> both know would have said.
Look - that's just what I said. You're simply assuming that Genesi are the
devil incarnated, you're not concerned in the least with proving it,
because you've already decided it must be true. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|