| [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 166 of 214 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 01-Mar-2004 17:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 162 (samface):
>> 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.
> Grammaticly correct, but extremely vague as an argument.
I could spend an hour googling for statements from unhappy coupon buyers.
If you want to claim that no such statements exist, maybe I'll do that. It
doesn't matter anyway. Even if no one buys into a scam, it's still a scam.
The best thing which can happen with a scam is that it gets detected and
that people are warned about it enough not to be fooled.
>>> 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 it is true is not somehow going to put Genesi in a "good
> light", on the contrary.
Exactly! So if you want to put Genesi in a bad light, which you obviously
do, you have to prove that your accusations are true.
Personally I want to put Genesi in the light Genesi deserves to be put.
This means, among other things, that I think people should be wary about
working for BBRV under unclear terms, and that I do not currently recommend
anyone to take a position with Genesi unless they are paid in advance.
I also think that the abuse towards Nowee that BBRV posted on the Moo Bunny
are disgraceful.
This is of course not a very favourable judgement. But it is pretty far
from the accusations you keep making.
>> 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.)
> Sure, all we got is alot of former Thendic employees that are not getting
> what they are owed, including yourself.
I've never been a Thendic employee. What "lot" of employees are you
referring to really?
>> 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.)
> "Thendic-France is STILL part of Pretory. This does not effect Genesi.
> Pretory and Genesi have absolutely nothing to do with each other
> corporately with the exception of common shareholders: Raquel and I."
>
> But that was surely not what they told the judge in the Thendic-Amiga case, as can be seen here:
In what way does these quotes show that there would be anything fishy about
Genesi trying to aquire IP from Thendic?
Now let me make a little organizational sketch here to explain things:
Pretory <--> Thendic <--> Genesi
As BBRV claimed, Thendic was part of Pretory, in the capacity of being
owned by Pretory. As the court document claim, Thendic is/was part of
Genesi, in the capacity of being one part in a merger to form Genesi. The
link between Pretory and Genesi only goes through Thendic (or through BBRV,
for that matter). That's exactly what BBRV says.
No matter whether you understand this or not, you're still just trying to
shift focus. Why would there be anything wrong about Genesi aquiring IP
from Thendic, as long as they follow the proper procedures for doing so?
> > 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.
> BS! I mean, you don't think it would atleast be known to someone or anyone
> in the community before classiying it as "common knowledge"?
How would BBRV be able to read the minds of "the community"? Maybe they
were overstating it a bit - but I fail to see your problem with this. If
the CEO is handing out cards at a fair, it's hardly a secret, is it?
How would you like BBRV to refer to a person whom they've talked with on a
fair and who has presented himself as CEO of Amiga? "We have spoken with
the until now unknown CEO of AmigaInc..", uh, don't you think people would
be a bit pissed at BBRV for saying something like that, implying that AInc
would try to hide their management somehow?
> You don't think there would have to be an official announcement from
> Amiga Inc. before classifying it as "common knowledge"?
No. Contrary to what McEwen says, I think some things are true even though
they are not published at amiga.com.
> Furthermore, remember how Bill Buck was not satisfied making with just
> claiming that there would be a new CEO, but also extended this lie
If someone presents himself as CEO and appears to have full insight into
AmigaInc, I'd expect that to be true. Still to this day, AmigaInc have not
denied that Garry Hare was CEO at the time, and they have not given any
explanation for his actions.
A lie means telling something you think is untrue. I find it extremely
likely that BBRV really believed that Garry Hare was CEO of AmigaInc, and I
also don't find it unlikely that they were right about this.
> with the claim that the entire Amiga Inc. managment would have been
> replaced and that Genesi was negotiating with the new managment?
If that's what Garry Hare told them, that's a reasonable statement IMO.
You're really shooting the messenger. You should be asking AInc what
involvement Garry Hare had with them.
>> 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.
> BEEEEP! Flawed logic. Fleecy explained who Garry was and in what way he
> was associated with Amiga Inc. There was nothing in that explanation that
> confirmed anything of BBRV's claims about a new CEO and managment.
I'm not talking about anything Fleecy may have said. He says a lot of stuff
and most of it is meaningless or undecipherable. I'm talking about the
document AInc have filed in the Thendic vs Amiga court case. They are
naming a small group of people who have insight into AmigaInc and Garry
Hare is mentioned as someone with complete insight.
>>> 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.
> I disagree.
Well that's in the legal definition of slander. In fact, you can also make
untrue statements without slandering someone, if they are made in good
faith. For example, I can claim that I think O J Simpson murdered his wife
even though he was not convicted for doing so, and even if I cannot prove
100% that this is true. If O J Simpson can prove without reasonable doubt
that it's untrue and I keep stating that he murdered his wife, he can sue
me for slander.
>>> 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.
> Proof? How about alot of witnesses:
Nothing in that thread proves that BBRV, Genesi or Thendic would have put
those adverts in.
Now, we can always speculate. And yes - I believe that they did. But these
ads were also promptly removed. I consider the whole affair a harmless
prank. I really fail to see what the big deal is.
> Advertising an alternative is one thing, making use of your competitors
> trademark as well as names of individuals representing your competitor is
> another.
I disagree. For example, I'm among those who think Commodore's ad "To be
this good will take SEGA ages" rocked. I also like companies who make
factual comparisons with their competitors in their advertising.
If you search on Google you get search results, and you may also get ads
which may or may not be related. The ads are not search results. If you
think they are, you should learn to use Google. Those ads are placed in
connection with certain search results because the advertiser think someone
searching for that may be interested in their product. In my opinion this
is better than normal ads which are not targeted at all, you have to see
ads for pop music when reading articles about geography, even if you're not
interested in pop music at all.
>> 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?
> I didn't claim that it would have been occuring at the same time, just that
> it has happened. Now ask Bolton Peck yourself about wether he recieved
> legal aid from Genesi/Thendic or not. If you don't, you're obviously not
> interested in learning the truth to begin with.
Why should I ask Bolton about that? I'm not interested. I don't see what
your point is really.
Let's assume for a moment that they did help Bolton (I'm not saying they
did, but let's consider the possibility). Very good, what's the problem? I
think people should be paid. I have no problem with people suing in order
to get paid, if that's necessary. I have no problem with people helping
other people to get paid.
How does this relate to Thendic/Genesi's payment problems? I still think
people should be paid and I hope that everyone employed by or contracted by
Thendic and Genesi will get paid. I still have no problem with people suing
in order to get paid.
>>> 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.
> Am I the only one who can read? From
> http://www.mindrelease.net/amiga-thendic/show_case_doc_47,16781,,,,1.pdf
> "In light of defendant's failure to participate in this litigation through counsel..."
Nice quoting technique. The sentence continues: ", defendant has neither
opposed plantiff's motion for summary judgment nor presented evidence of
intent that would preclude a finding in plaintiff's favor."
Does this mean the verdict was based on nothing but AInc's inability to
defend themselves? Certainly not!
Instead, it is based on the judges independent consideration of the
contract, and Thendic's arguments to support their interpretation. The
verdict reads:
"[...] When the court first considered plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary
judgment, it noted that there was an ambiguity regarding whether the
parties intended to authorize the incorporation of Amiga's operating system
into certain Thendic products that were not listed in Appendix A. In
response to the Court's request, plantiffs submitted a memorandum
addressing the issues raised by the Court. In particular, plaintiffs
presented evidence regarding the intent of parties at the time the OEM
Software License Agreement ("License Agreement") was signed."
Then follows some previous law cases and the bit you quoted about AInc not
opposing Thendic's claims.
Then, based on all this, the verdict reads: »The Court therefore finds
that, as a matter of Law, the license granted by defendant was not limited
to Thendic products that operate on Windows CE and that the list of
products included in Appendix A "is not, and was not, intended to be
exhaustive of 'Thendic' products entitled to integration." [...]«
In other words, you're plain wrong.
>> 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.
> The only assumption I made was that I thought you were already aware of these facts.
Such an assumption includes the assumption that those "facts" exist, and
you have not proven that they would be facts at all. Until you have, you
should be a bit careful with naming them facts - you can say that XYZ is
your opinion, perhaps. |
|
| 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.
|
