Infinium Labs Threatens HardOCP Again 463
XBox4Evr writes "In a follow up from two weeks ago, Infinium Labs is again threatening the tech website HardOCP with legal action. This in itself, is no big deal, but to actually read the letter from Infinium Labs lawyers will make you wonder if an educated person actually penned the documents. This seems to another huge blow to IL's credibility in the console market in general, now that ex-Xbox manager Kevin Bachus is on board with Infinium Labs."
News for lawyers, stuff that bores... (Score:5, Funny)
But you miss the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basically... "You wrote that we have not shown any real machines yet... you imply that we don't really have any"
"You wrote that you haven't seen an office yet... you imply we don't have an office"
It's just paragraph after paragraph of them saying things like that... it reads so very, very badly.
Plus it falls into periods of text which CANNOT have been written by anyone with ANY sort of legal training:
"The article inaccurately claims that HardOCP 'Compiled and researched all of the publicay available information we could find.' Clearly this is not the case or you are not very good at finding publicly available information."
Dear god that's terrible... it's so much like "you, you, you're a poopy pants... and, and, my dad says that what you said is wrong... you poopy pants"
I can see why they have not taken this seriously.
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The article inaccurately claims that HardOCP 'Compiled and researched all of the publicay available information we could find.' Clearly this is not the case or you are not very good at finding publicly available information."
Dear god that's terrible... it's so much like "you, you, you're a poopy pants... and, and, my dad says that what you said is wrong... you poopy pants"
I can see why they have not taken this seriously.
I'm sure this will not be the popular view here but I think this is both an incorrect and a dangerous way of looking at things. I mean, apparently lawyers can't win here at Slashdot. You use lots of legalese and it sounds like you're hiding behind it. You use plain English and you sound unprofessional.
What are lawyers supposed to sound like? How are they supposed to request changes be made to an article and retractions written?
It seems to me that this letter provides clear and in a lot of cases reasonable requests for factual changes to be made to an article. For example, the point about Tim Roberts being a Corporate Director of Medhire, not an employee - this is important because HardOCP implied he was lying on his resume. If what these guys are saying is true, he did not lie on his resume, and HardOCP is guilty of slander if they do not change this article (they will knowingly be leaving intact an article that is defamatory). They were also irresponsible for not researching the point properly to begin with.
If Infinium does decide to file a lawsuit (which they'd be dumb to do from a PR standpoint, but PR is obviously not their strong suit), they now have this document to point to specifically detailing HardOCP's transgressions, in plain English (so there can be no claim by Kyle that he did not understand any of their points), and requesting changes be made to address them. This is a required step in the process, if Infinium really is going to go the legal route.
I'm not saying the whole lawsuit threat is a smart way of doing business. It's certainly not helping the company's image any, and it's not the way I'd be going about things if I was running the show there - it seems very counterproductive. But it sure seems to me that when it comes down to it, Infinium may actually be right on a lot of points, and this was not the best-researched piece of writing that ever appeared on HardOCP. I do not fault the lawyers for speaking to Kyle like regular human beings rather than legal drones. I fault them for really, really bad public relations, but legally it seems to me that HardOCP is on the short end here.
It's not a freedom of speech or press issue when you lie about people with intent to harm their business. There are several points in those letters (including the one I noted above) that are factual issues that Kyle has chosen to ignore in his response. Don't turn this into something bigger than what it is - this is about defamation and slander, not freedom of the press. Some people are losing sight of the real issue, missing details and blowing things out of proportion, belittling lawyers and Infinium themselves without paying any real attention to what's really going on. With freedom of the press comes responsibility, and I'm not convinced this was really a responsible article on the part of HardOCP.
No, I do not work for either company involved, and have no interest in these proceedings either way, whether emotional or tangible.
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:5, Interesting)
Something more like "It is our belief that there is ample information freely available to the public to back up our stance in this matter." It states the same thing but does so without sounding like a school child. "You're crap you are" is not a sound legal defence surely?
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:3, Informative)
What are lawyers supposed to sound like?
Click over to Groklaw and take a look at some of IBM's pleadings. Clear, elegant prose (mostly) readable by non-lawyers, couched in impeccably-used technical terminology when needed.
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the life of me I can't figure out why HardOCP cares, but they do and they've done a little investigative foot work. The mainstay of the OCP article mentions that this guy has run a few companies into the ground, that infinium labs has no legit place of business and is generally seedy about their operations.
The information covered in the article is mostly factual, publicly available knowledge. Although the article isn't written in a professional tone I really don't see any information in the article that sounds fishy. I've lived through the
Perhaps you can explain to us the part of the OCP article that blows things out of proportion. You seem to have some inside track as to what's going on here please enlighten me.
The problem with the document sent to Mr. Bennett isn't that it suffers from being written in plain English. The document was simply written in an equally non-professional tone. What kind of lawyer would send a unprofessionally scripted document filled with angry insinuations to someone they wish to take to litigation?
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
For starters, try only accepting clients with a firm grip on reality.
I've followed this situation from the beginning (well, from long before Slashdot got involved, anyway), and basically, HardOCP prepared their article directly from "facts" (true or not), including in-context quotes, derived from IL's press releases and Tim Roberts' own resume.
It's not a freedom of speech or press issue when you lie about people with intent to harm their business.
While the concepts presented may disagree with reality, they do so entirely because TR and IL presented them that way. Their office doesn't exist? Why, of course it makes perfect sense that they would want potential contracts, whether via US mail or a sales rep, forwarded to the USPS's
The criticisms of this legal scare-o-gram have nothing to do with its choice of jargon. It quite simply reads like a joke, all but stating outright "You trusted TR's resume, you sucker... W3 0wn2 j00!". So TR lied on his resume. Does that make TR, or HardOCP, liable for that info?
If what these guys are saying is true, he did not lie on his resume, and HardOCP is guilty of slander
If TR didn't lie on his resume, then HardOCP has truthfully reported the facts. If he did lie on his resume, then HardOCP has truthfully outed him as a fraud. Neither counts as LIBEL (not!!! slander).
It seems to me that this letter provides clear and in a lot of cases reasonable requests for factual changes to be made to an article.
I do so hate to resort to ad hominem, but if you consider that nastygram as even remotely "reasonable", you need to check into a first-semester "logic and rhetoric" class ASAP. Really sad, that HardOCP needs to take something that pathetic as a dire threat to their freedom and financial security).
I'm not saying the whole lawsuit threat is a smart way of doing business
You've got that much dead-on... IL's console model wouldn't appeal to the typical gamer; it appeals to geeks who enjoy retrogaming with a few hot new hits thrown into the mix. By making it to the Slashdot FP, IL has effectively destroyed its potential user base - Of course, that assumes the "phantom" exists in any more tangibe form than its name suggests, which appears doubtful at this point in time.
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, although I initially agreed with you, on re-reading the relevant section of HardOCP's article (HardOCP only changed the name of the company, as per point 5 on the nastygram [hardocp.com], despite having originally quoted TR's resume accurately to get the "wrong" name), that simply does not hold true. HardOCP did not say TR did or did not work for, or direct, MedHire. The nastygram makes the claim that they did, but I would recommend you re-read the relevant section of the original article [hardocp.com] as well.
Not a single "allegation" of anything, HardOCP does nothing more than relate an anecdote, of sorts. The wording does have a certain sarcastic sense of disbelief to it, but they don't ever say TR did or did not work there, just that two different people who did work there, both named Lo/au/ra Roberts (ie, his own mother), had no contact info for him (and one had never heard of him).
Offhand, I'd say that point 8 counted as the only truly libellous one - And on that one, HardOCP agreed to change the wording to something less speculative (though more damning, I have no doubt intentionally). Additionally, I can see how an overly zealous lawyer could stretch point 12 into a copyright violation (though any even remotely fair court would dismiss it with prejudice a fair use)... But on that one, again, HardOCP agreed to back down slightly, and remove IL's logos from their site.
I'll add one more point of interest to this... HardOCP does claim that "Mr. Roberts is the registered contact on the MEDHIRE, LLC. website", and they provide a screenshot of their whois query [hardocp.com] to prove it (as an aside, notice that the screenshot amusingly shows the domain name as "emedhire.com", the same name that appeared in TR's resume, and that point 5 in the nastygram demanded they change). So, this company, including TR's mother, has no way to contact TR, the registered administrative contact for their domain name?
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the growing trend taught in law school is never to use legalese for exactly the reasons /.'s decry: no one can understand it except lawyers. This book [amazon.com] is a required text for my Legal Practice Skills course.
psxndc
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen far worse. I witnessed a letter from an attorney sent to the very large agency in California that administers the health department (and others). The letter was a "fishing exercise" whereby the attorney was trying to goad the agency into proving his own case against them, which is a clear abuse of the legal concept of discovery. He was representing a couple of (probably illegal) immigrants who
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:3, Funny)
If anything I'd say you have a racists attitude against me telling me I immigrated when I was born here the same as you. Or does that put me into a different class of people because of who i'm decended from?
You've got the wrong end of the stick. The post I was replying to (was it you?) was exhibiting some level of distaste for immigrants. I was pointing out that, at some point or other, their ancestor was an immigrant. I always find it ironic when Americans get so wound up about immigration, forgetting
Re:But you miss the point! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hogwash! If you were born here, then you're "native." "Immigrants," by definition, were not born here. Thus, it logically follows that to be considered an "immigrant," you must be born somewhere other than the country in question (I presume you're in the US?).
Everyone who was born here is "native." It just so happens that some people have family trees containing members that migrated here substantially earlier than other pe
Quoted Without Comment (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been following with some interest your attempts to thwart the investigative reporting activity of Hard OCP on behalf of your client, Tim Roberts, and his Infinium Corp. The article is available for anyone to read, as are your two threatening letters to Hard OCP. From what I can see as someone who is conversant with the English language is a series of corrections of minutiae and complaints about various "innuendos" that stem from you
Here's the e-mail I sent them (Score:5, Interesting)
In case anyone is interested
I'll let you know if they write back. *smirk*
Re:Here's the e-mail I sent them (Score:5, Funny)
Apparition, Ghost, Poltergeist.
All things that are barely seen, and when further investigated, widely believed to not really exist, although some believe whole heartedly that they do exist and will go to the ends of the earth to prove it. However most of the rest of us, know better and dismiss these people as crack pots.
Disclaimer: I believe in Ghosts, Apparitions, Poltergeists, and Phantoms. BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT INFINIUM LABS WILL EVER PRODUCE A CONSOLE WITHIN MY LIFETIME...
PLEASE, OH PLEASE, Send me a C&D letter Infinium, I've got more laywers in my immediate family than you could ever possibly have on retainer, and some are even retired judges. I'm Begging you PLEASE!
I am looking to be the first to file class action lawsuit for sheer stupidity, you might just qualify, lets talk. I'll have my people contact your people.
Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... (Score:5, Insightful)
> "Here's a link to some legal documents, enjoy!" on
> the front page of slashdot.
Here's the situation.
1) Most people think they know the law. They know the law is important, they think THEY are important, therefore they understand the law.
This erroneous conclusion is one of the reasons so many people get themselves in severe legal trouble.
2) Computer Nerds are usually smart. High tech stuff is currently one of the hottest fields. Therefore, since they are smart in one of the hottest fields, they decide they are ESPECIALLY smart.
Since lawyers are "old tech", anything they do must be inferior to anything high tech. Thus, computer nerds conclude they understand the law better than lawyers.
The result of this is that nerds LOVE to discuss and debate the law. They run a few google searches and turn into Atticus Finch on roids.
Sadly, their conclusions are usually WAY off base because the law is written to be deliberately difficult to understand without a legal education.
3) The internet has turned many areas of law on its head. There is an intense struggle created by the deficiencies in traditional laws that worked fine before the internet and before computer popularity. Thus, law and technology are often the two main elements to a major news story. This means people interested in either one will often become interested in the other simply because of how it might impact them.
Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't true.. as a matter of fact most law is fairly easy to understand. The language, while often very verbose, is also generally very pointed and is actually quite straightforward. Most first year law students will tell you how struck they are that laws are that easy to understand.
What lawyers REALLY do is understand laws in the context of OTHER laws. So
Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... (Score:5, Insightful)
> fairly easy to understand.
Aha.
So a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent is fairly easy to understand for a non-lawyer?
How about the parol evidence rule? Are non-lawyers familiar with this *vital* aspect of all contract law?
Hell, most non-lawyers don't even know the difference between slander and libel, much less the difference between an easement and a covenant.
Much of the law is deliberately written to be confusing so only lawyers can decipher it. Other aspects of law make use of important terms of art that a normal human being just isn't going to know.
There are good and bad reasons for this, but it is indeed true.
I am speaking as a former lawyer (UGA, class of 1998) who hated the job and started an internet gaming company. I am quite familiar with the topic.
Legalese? At least programming is easy to read. (Score:3)
I'm sure that better examples exist. Anyway, programmers often write confusing stuff too.
"Much of the law is deliberately written to be confusing so only lawyers can decipher it".
Likewise, a lot of code is written so that only the original programmers can debug it.
Actually, legislation and programming look very similar when you look at their consulting sub-industries.
Re:News for lawyers? Nope! Nerdish expectations (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope! I don't think any of your assumptions are true. All us nerdfolk are accustomed to following rules and thinking logically. We love to solve problems!
Hey, lawyers are smart, they study for years to practice law. They must follow rules and logic too! Trials are just an expression of a problem, right? When we parse legal problems, the solution seems obvious. We can't understand why the other people don't see what seems obvious to us.
Our expectations are that the law, and the legal profession, should follow rules and be logical. The problem is that legal rules are convoluted and dense: they include not just what makes sense to us, but also case law and previous judicial decisions that we've never been exposed to.
There's a fair amount of marketing and spin that goes into making legal arguments. Often, the win goes to the side with the clever argument, rather than the side with the logic. Questionable decisions get turned into hard rules and affect future decisions. (Not to mention all the greedy bastards who try to "play" the system.)
That's why we pick apart this stuff, have disdain for the system, and dislike lawyers -- they're not logical from our perspective.
Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... (Score:3, Interesting)
Much as I hate spoiling a good conspiracy theory, I really don't think so.
IANAL, but from what I can tell, "legalese" is so verbose because it tries to be watertight and cover all the possible cases. "Normal human beings" say things more concisely, but that relies on the goodwill of the other party to not deliberately find holes in it. When it comes to legal stuff, all that is turned on its head.
Have you ever been
Man (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Man (Score:5, Funny)
Timothy Roberts: hey Darl, I need the Ouiji Board tonight, we're going to threaten HardOCP and we need some insight.
Darl McBride: The Ouiji Board? OK, but we're keeping the Tarot Cards until Friday.
Re:Man (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. McBride is of the Mormon faith. He wouldn't be using an Ouiji Board or Tarot Cards. Or drink Coke for that matter...
Re:Man (Score:5, Funny)
Bomb 'Em (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bomb 'Em (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Infinium labs gets litigious with HardOCP
2. Hollywood turns litigious tail while music industry lawyers are set to go worldwide
3. SCO: Litigious Bastards
Re:Bomb 'Em (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, don't you get it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh, don't you get it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uh, don't you get it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uh, don't you get it? (Score:5, Funny)
Penned? (Score:5, Funny)
I should have been a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
I love this bit:
These lawyers must get paid by the word. For their next threatening letter I'd recommend something that will get them a few more bucks. How about:
I really should have gone to Lahw Skool, the past 20ish years of geeking seem wasted by comparison..
Re:I should have been a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
personally (Score:2)
Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily (Score:5, Interesting)
The writers at Hard are pretty fucking funny though: they've done an excellent job of reforming their statements to accord with the demands, even while making them more acidic.
Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of. There's a couple of reasons, really. First, as you say, WP gained a large portion of the market back in the day - for a long time, word processing on a PC was WP and precious little else. Because of this early adoption, what's happened since is that many, many law firms have a sizeable investment in WP templates, and I do mean sizeable - as in many thousands or tens of thousands, in some cases. Lawyers live and die by the written word, and if you walk into any medium or large law firm, odds are that no matter what your problem is, they already have a form letter tailored to that problem. Because of this investment, there is a significant barrier to switching, as it means either converting or recreating those thousands of templates. And in such a case, the general rule is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
And one other reason is the ever-amusing Rule 32 [findlaw.com] ;)
Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily (Score:5, Informative)
I do side work updating a few lawyers computer networks around town. Way back in the DOS days, word perfect was the standard. Lawyers tend to have money, so they were the first to adopt computers for their secretaries. And to do word processing on a 386/486 with DOS, you bought word perfect. Well technology has gone forward, but their secretaries still want to use wordperfect because all the other law firms are using it.
Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily (Score:4, Informative)
Eventually, Word gained the same features but now many legal offices are used to and have no need to change from WordPerfect.
It's a damn good word processor, too!
HardOCP must be doing something bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:HardOCP must be doing something bad (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2004
At the bottom, you'll see Gabe saying:
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
1. SCOs litigation is pretty much about as inane and frivolous as it gets
2. see #1
Stage 4? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Microsoft
2. SCO
3. RIAA
4. ???^H^H^HInfinium!!
obligatory MP reference (Score:2, Funny)
I think the comany should change its name (Score:3, Funny)
I think they're going after the wrong people. (Score:5, Funny)
I would LOVE to see what Gabe and Tyco would do. Probably ream them a new A$$.
Re:I think they're going after the wrong people. (Score:4, Funny)
Legal question (Score:5, Interesting)
I know there's nothing but wannabe pretend-experts on slashdot, but I'm going to ask this anyway, on the offchance maybe there happen to be some wannabe pretend-experts who mostly post on Groklaw who wandered in by accident. I've been wondering for awhile:
From a legal standpoint, exactly how far and how often can you move toward *threatening* a lawsuit before it becomes illegal to not actually declare one?
Re:Legal question (Score:5, Informative)
As others have posted, simply threatening a lawsuit is not, per se, illegal. The actual content of one's public communications regarding legal action is open to scrutiny, however. If the language is incendiary enough, the threatened company could make a case for basic libel/slander/defamation. Whether this would hold up in court is debatable--and the offending language would have to be pretty extreme to warrant a successful tort prosecution, IMHO. However, the folks lobbying these "poison pen" letters probably aren't going to be scared too much by a little counter-suit for defamation... (grin)
One aspect I would be interested in hearing a Real Lawyer's perspective on would be if "tortious interference" could be applied to a company like Infinium in this case. I am aware no proceeding has actually been filed--but do the principles guiding this apply in the absence of an action? Just curious.
Penny Arcade woes (Score:5, Interesting)
so i guess Infinium Lab's plan is... (Score:5, Funny)
2. ???
3. Profit
Where are the Photographs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where are the Photographs? (Score:3, Informative)
Double standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the First Amendment only prevents the Government form impinging on free speech.
Second, HardOCP has done nothing criminal, they are being threatened by a civil action under the tort of libel. For HarcOCP to be liable for anything Infinium needs to prove that the article by HardOCP was both false and malicious.
In the case that the article IS both false and malicious, then I think HardOCP should be responsible for the damage done. Note that I am not saying that they ARE responsible, just that if the facts bear out that they are, then they should be held accountable to their words.
Free speech does not mean speech without accountability.
I allege that: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I allege that: (Score:5, Funny)
Would you like me to help you:
A. File a frivolous lawsuit
B. Issue a flamebait press release
C. DOS attack your own site
What needs to be proven (Score:5, Informative)
The first is that not only did HardOCP publish incorrect information, but they did so willingly. In other words, they had to know at the time the article was factually incorrect. If Infinium provided correct information at the time, then this might not really be in dispute. That said, many of the items in the letter appear to be judgements and opinions.
Second, Infinium would have to prove that HardOCP published incorrect information with malice. This is not easy by a long shot, since you are trying to prove motivation.
Finally, Infinium has to prove that they were damaged by the article in clear monetary terms. This is always one of the hardest things to measure in a libel action.
All that being said, I think it is clear that HardOCP has some valid points in the article but at the same time, has been given corrected information (such as location of offices, etc). If HardOCP truly takes journalism seriously, then a few corrections should be forthcoming. The fact that an expense paid invitation to view the facility was turned down suggests a strong anti-Infinium bias.
This is one of those things where both parties stop the shenanigans and own up to the truth. Each is falling far short of being forthright about the matter.
Re:What needs to be proven (Score:3, Informative)
If HardOCP truly takes journalism seriously, then a few corrections should be forthcoming. The fact that an expense paid invitation to view the facility was turned down suggests a strong anti-Infinium bias.
Did you happen to read the link at HardOCP. They made 5 corrections.One Question: (NDA safe) (Score:3, Interesting)
Your NDA does not preclude you from stating that you have a unit, just doscussing any technical or operatinoal details in a public forum.
Re:One Question: (NDA safe) (Score:3, Insightful)
That was, unfortunately, the response I was expecting.
You had best change your sig to reflect reality. Until you have a unit, are testing it and providing feedback to Infinum Labs you are not a beta tester.
Re:What needs to be proven (Score:4, Insightful)
What's that? You don't have a beta unit? You've never seen a woking Phantom? So what do you mean by beta tester? To me, "beta tester" says someone who has actually tested something. Perhaps you should rephrase. Might I suggest "I have pre-registered to apply to be a beta tester", or "they told me I'm a beta tester, but I still haven't gotten anything that could be mistaken for a game console from them"? Just a few suggestions.
Its full of comedy gold! (Score:3, Interesting)
"You allege that Mr. Roberts was employed for Worldcom for a period of time. The innuendo is that Mr. Roberts was employed for a significant period of time. You need to correct your article to state that Mr. Roberts worked out of his home for WorldCom for 90 days as a non-officer"
90 days is a freakin' period of time! 20 seconds is a period of time! the sentence is a true statement! Under what US law is publishing a true statement a crime? (well, other than copyright, patent, and trademark laws; depending on the context, but those aren't being argued here).
anyways, its-a funny readin'
Re:Its full of comedy gold! (Score:3, Funny)
Now take it back!
Inept site design (Score:3, Interesting)
Recap of the day (Score:5, Funny)
- SCO plainly states they are going to sue a linux user today. When today comes, they do not do anything, but simply produce more elaborate threats and a new deadline of "tomorrow".
- Infinium Labs plainly states they are going to sue HardOCP soon. When today comes, they do not do anything, but simply produce more elaborate threats and a new deadline of "soon".
- NASA implies they are going to reveal an important Mars discovery today. NASA does in fact then reveal the discovery that Mars did in fact have significant and widespread liquid oceans in the distant past and that sediment analysis confirms this.
In short: Between SCO, Infinium, and Life on Mars, Life on Mars is at least for today far and away winning the credibility race.-- Super Ugly Ultraman
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Very truly yours (Score:5, Informative)
However after googling a bit I did find some info, I think.
James Aker [icardmerrill.com] seems to be a real lawyer at least.
He seems to do Litigation, Employment law, construction, and personal injury. Not really specilized it seems.
Re:Very truly yours (Score:3, Insightful)
He signed it, "Your humble servant", and commented, "After all, when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be nice." See his WW2 memoirs.
I've found a partial copy of the letter [ibiblio.org], but it seems to have all the formalities edited out.
Re:Very truly yours (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, sure, business protocol sometimes sounds a bit silly because meanings have diverged from their original meaning (How many *nice* business letter writers really mean "Very Truly Yours"?)
It's a polite nothingness, part of the protocol surrounding the actual content. One could have a word processor simply inject the same closing (I do in my emails) in each communication.
If you want a technology analogy, consider the use of HTTP's "Referer". Yes, it's a misspelling, and so an error in actual content. However, it serves no actual purpose other than as a convenient placeholder, a tag. It is not used for its English meaning any more.
Nobody tries to derive meaning from business letter closings either.
This all seems like... (Score:4, Funny)
Nintendo, M$, and Sony are your populars who will always be despite the mistakes they make. Everyone knows about them but in the long run no one seems to care because let's face it: their popular.
HardOCP and Penny Arcade are in the middle when it comes to the social mix. They are not producers of their hardware but have enough room to have their own opinions of such matters. They talk to everyone because they can. HardOCP is that trustworthy quiet guy from shop class and Penny Arcade is the class clown. When they say stuff people listen.
Along comes the transfer student, Infinium Labs, who is trying to make a name for himself by being cynical of those who are clearly above them. His best friend is N-Gage. Together they follow every move and try to emulate their superiors formula to better their status.
IL , despite his efforts, fail at presenting themselves in a way their peers deem acceptable. Well Nintendo, M$, and Sony laugh hilariously at them because to put it briefly, they know what their markets. HardOCP and Penny Arcade don't buy it because they represent the market. If either peer fails to buy what you are selling you are out of luck.
So IL attacks his peers as being hypocritical liars although he secretly wishes to be one of them. Four years later they all graduate. Nintendo, M$, and Sony go on to college and are succesful. HardOCP and PA too. IL fades into obscurity... and N-Gage is killed in a fatal car crash.
Years later whenever anyone remembers IL they have a good chuckle. N-Gage unfortunately was killed in a car crash soon after graduation.
Screw them. Call out ED-209. (Score:5, Funny)
Call up the fellas in the 95th floor and have them round up ED-209.
"Drop your lawsuits. You have 20 seconds to comply."
Beta (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Beta (Score:4, Funny)
More fluff on Cnn... (Score:4, Informative)
Infinium Labs: Stock Price and SEC Filings (Score:3, Informative)
Publicity? (Score:3, Interesting)
I read Hardocp, I'm sure I must have seen the article and forgot about it. Now thanks to this threat of legal action I will avoid Infinium products. While before all this I would have been blissfully unaware.
James E. Aker (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know how many civil trial lawyers named James E. Aker there are working out of Sarasota, FL, the same city Infiumium Labs is based, but my guess is that it's the same guy.
Ambulance Chaser? (Score:3, Funny)
This is hilarious (Score:3, Funny)
Heck, Penny Arcade made a joke about this lawsuit. Guess what? Timothy responded saying they asked him first and that it's a rite-of-passage. PA NEVER CONTACTED HIM. THAT WAS A LIE.
The fact is, all we've seen so far of the console is a case, some numbers and some names.
But the article was a good read. Best line:
"By the way, you later told Kevin Bachus of Infinium that you declined any follow ups because - you believed that you were being invited to visit Florida only so Mr. Roberts could physically attack you."
Favourite quotes (Score:3, Funny)
"By the way, you later told Kevin Bachus of Infinium that you declined any follow ups because - you believed that you were being invited to Florida only so Mr. Roberts could physically attack you."
"In short your "volunteer" appears to have locked authority."
And yes, that really does read "locked authority".
All your base are belong to us. (Score:5, Funny)
I know I hate it when someone damages me in my millions of dollars.
As a game developer for 14 years... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know no developer working on an Infinum title: unless their box emulates something else, or plays PC games or something (which cannot possibly be the case if the thing has a TV for a head), or they are porting or creating titles themselves, then they Have. No. Developers.
No one I know anywhere in the industry even has any awareness of Infinium.
Question (Score:3, Funny)
Innuendo? (Score:3, Interesting)
Gaaah!
Letterhead (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm... contradictory statements... (Score:4, Interesting)
While point 16 reads in part "You allege that Mr. Roberts helmed several businesses that have failed or have gone bankrupt in the last six years...In fact, there has been only one that failed during the time that Mr. Roberts was there."
So which is it, no bankruptcy/failures, or one bankruptcy/failure in the last six years?
It continues "Mr. Roberts personally started three businesses prior to forming Infinium Labs. He did so between 1995 and 2000, and to be succesful in one out of three ventures does not imply a series of failures."
So which is it, one bankruptcy/failure, or two?
If you found this entertaining you might want to check out point 18 too...
2 points about this (Score:3, Insightful)
Second: 'You breached the journalistic code of ethics or conduct by setting out to create a biased article and by falling to conduct the proper due dilligence which would have brought the inaccuracies to light.' Ummmm the only thing that came to my mind was FOX NEWS. Accuracy in reporting stuff? Bias news article? I thought all news was bias by default as it was a human that put a story in it. Man even major news paper have proplems keeping accurate articles. Case in point Jayson Blair, nuff said.
Last but not least: http://www.infiniumlabs.com/dlflash2.html Flash needed for the dialup version of the web site are they brain dead or just stupid?
PR items of interest (Score:3, Interesting)
March 3rd. That would be... um... today! Anybody have a ticket to that? ;)
Infinium Labs Posting on My Site (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually.. (Score:4, Insightful)
HardOCP has an obligation to the truth, but they don't have an obligation to fairness. They present their opinion, clearly labeled as such, and aren't obligated to provide any forum for the pro-Infinium side to respond. After all, it's their server. As long as they don't commit libel, they can do what they want on their soapbox. That's the whole point of the First Amendment - neither the speech of HardOCP nor Infinium can be infringed.
Re:I want to sue some one... (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:Want More Subscriptions? (Score:4, Funny)
The amusing part is that I pasted that statement with "aywers" directly from the article and STILL managed to misspell it... WTF?
I'm not THAT drunk.... am I?
Re:Robrady Design DOES have a prototype (Score:3, Insightful)
what this means:
a) infinium doesn't have any sort of in house design staff to create the shell design
b) infinium has no manufacturing capabilities at all, and has to shop out even one-off small scale model shop type plastic molds
what this doesn't mean:
a) that the plstic model has any basis in reality
b) that the electonic bits inside actually _do_ anything.