Cagiest retraction I've ever seen...(I think)...;)

[opposable]

Several points I think that are important to remember.

First, innuendos, to the best of my knowledge, have not been successfully used as a case for libel. And truth is always an absolute defense in libel cases. Many of IL's points of contention invlove supposed innuendos, but again, innuendos are difficult to use. For example, a typical defense would go like this:

"Is it true, Timothy Roberts, that your posted resume stated you worked for MCI Worldcom from X date to X date?"

"Yes"

"Is it true, Timothy Roberts, that MCI Worldcom filed for bankruptcy on X date?"

"Yes"

"Does it say anywhere outside of the 'Thoughts and Opinions' section that you caused the bankruptcy of MCI Worldcom?"

"No"

Now, you can argue innuendos until you are blue in the face, but regarding his work history, the statements made were entirely true. Kyle never says that Roberts caused the bankruptcies outside the 'Thoughts and Opinions' section.

Again, to reiterate this first point: Kyle never states in the body of the article that, for instance, Roberts caused the bankruptcy of Worldcom, he simply provides you the dates of Roberts' employment, and the date of Worldcom's bankruptcy. He leaves it up to you, the reader, to take from it what you will. And remember, it is not the law that you have to write an unbiased article so long as the statements in it are true.

Second, IL claims they offered Kyle a trip to see their office. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. However, I am a bit skeptical of anything that comes out of IL's mouth. This is a company that claimed to have no business ties with texas, even though they had an office in Richardson as of January, and still lease the space. This is a company that claimed to have 12 developers at one point, only to find out it was actually 1. This is a company that has claimed no fewer than 6 separate dates for release or beta, only to have each of them pass with nothing happening. I could continue, but I will stop there. I am not saying that the claim of offering Kyle an all-expenses paid trip is false, I am simply cautioning agains believing everything that comes from IL as the gospel truth.

Third, most libel cases require 3 things to be proven. First, you have to prove that what was said is actually false (and no, as I have shown above, to this point, innuendos do not count). Second, you have to prove malice or gross negligence. Malice being defined as knowing what you are stating is false, and gross negligence being defined as not caring enough to find out. Third, you must prove that damages were actually done. It is not enough to say that you think they were, you have to prove it. One other thing about libel as specifically applied to this case: anything under the 'Thoughts and Opinions' section cannot be libel, as opinions cannot be used in libel cases. Libel cases are quite difficult to win, and even if you do win, 75% of those cases are overturned on appeal to a higher court.

Fourth, you are correct that many startup companies take a while to get going. However, most startup companies do not miss self-created deadlines without giving some sort of explanation. IL has been in business for over 18 months now, and all they have been able to show is a working computer that I could build in a few hours. There has been no information on the network or the games. It would seem to me that it should not take 18 months to get a computer to work.

Fifth, going back to IL's credibility. IL has been involved in 3 lawsuits already involving lack of payment to employees or contractors. It should also be noted that, according to Bunnie Huang himself (www.whereisphantom.com), he has not been paid in full for his work he did over a year ago. And, according to Kevin Bachus, IL makes it sound like Huang is still working for them, which he is not. He did one white paper on security, did not get paid in full for it, and has long since moved on to other things. It should also be noted that, according to Huang's knowledge, they did not implement any of his suggestions.

Sixth, Kyle is not getting lawyers pro bono. He is already gone through a significant amount of money to fight this. I have seen [H] print corrections and retractions before, so consuming your savings over a case that he could not win would be downright stupid, and I do not think Kyle is stupid.

Seventh, your statement that Tim Roberts was not in the public eye is silly. Tim Roberts and IL were marketing this product in several trade shows before the article was printed. Tim Roberts and IL were fully in the realm of the public eye before the article in question was printed. On that note, libel is much much harder to prove for 'public' citizens and comapnies, than it is for private ones, and I doubt you will see the argument being made that Roberts and IL were 'private.' After all, there are negative things said about Bill Gates all of the time.

Eighth, SEC filings are public documents, and you are correct that their basic purpose is to inform investors. However, while not doing anything 'wrong,' there certainly are warning signs invloved. A reverse merger to become publically traded, two stock splits before you even release a product, a net worth of -1.7 million. It is up for the investor to decide if it is worth the risk. Remember, to be a venture capitalist, you do not have to be smart, you just have to have money and be willing to risk losing it. To be a successful VC, you have to be smart, but VC involves a lot of hit and miss anyway.

I think your take on the 'retraction' is a logical interpretation, but I disagree with you. I think that Kyle believed there were only 5 things that needed addressing, while the rest were simply an attempt to get him to remove information that was potentially damaging to IL, however true it was.

Let's recap. IL has little to no credibility at the moment. From being involved in numerous lawsuits over not paying employees or contractors, to claiming they had no ties to the state of Texas, to claiming they would release a product on this date, or start the beta on that date, etc. It has taken them quite a while to get a computer running, and essentially, at this point in time, that is all they have: a working computer. Regardless, remember that we are talking about a company that still has no product and has spent more money on litigation than on R&D, according to their SEC filing. Trying to find the truth in their talk is like walking through a room filled with mousetraps.

I agree with some of your points. [H] making a call for help is a bit puzzling, and there are still issues of contention with the article itself, however, things are not as cut and dried as your post seems to imply.

 

[Torgospizza]

I was under the impression that they are still arguing the jurisdiction issue and that IL has submitted a brief as to why personal jurisdiction does not apply in Texas and [H] Lawyers have submitted a brief of why it should remain in Texas including in evidence exhibits showing that Tim Robbins either misled or lied ot the court in a deposition in the IL brief.

The court has not yet ruled on the jurisdiction issue.

I have recommend that Walt C read those documents and he has either not done so or has ignored their content as they do not support his argument.

Tim Robbins = Actor (see Shawshank Redemption)
Tim Roberts = Questionable businessman (see numerous court cases)

That aside, there's more to the jurisdictional issue. There is one other ongoing court case against Infinium (DiStream vs. Infinium Labs) in Florida, and three other suits filed against Infinium that have settled out of court. There is also questionable marketing tactics, like using Bunnie Huang to attract developers when he isn't employed by Infinium. Tim Roberts past with BIG that has a huge sense of Deja Vu when compared with today. They have a CFO who pled guilty to tax fraud in the 90s. Little bits and things beyond the HardOCP court case that should make the average gamer shake with fury and demand some answers.

Infinium Labs is fighting like hell not to let discovery happen. If it does, then quickly everything comes out into the open and the public will see the man behind the curtain. The next few months are going to get interesting. Digitalwanderer will be very happy and entertained.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Infinium Labs is fighting like hell not to let discovery happen. If it does, then quickly everything comes out into the open and the public will see the man behind the curtain. The next few months are going to get interesting.

Dumb question, but which case is IL fighting against discovery in? It's been too long since I read Perry Mason, but I thought discovery was kind of incombent upon the suing party...how can they fight it without dropping suit? (And if they drop suit won't they leave themselves wide open for a countersuit by Kyle?)

If I'm way off base please correct me, and I'll thank you in advance for it.

Digitalwanderer will be very happy and entertained.

Already am, but I can't wait to be more so! (And my wife actually brought home a sausage & peperoni pizza by a weird coincidence! )

 

[Sxotty]

Walt your tragic flaw is you can't be concise.

Wait and see what happens and all will be understood. By the time that happens it will appear mundane and boring and youguys will probably have forgotten about it anyway.

 

[WaltC]

Several points I think that are important to remember.

First, innuendos, to the best of my knowledge, have not been successfully used as a case for libel. And truth is always an absolute defense in libel cases. Many of IL's points of contention invlove supposed innuendos, but again, innuendos are difficult to use.

Heh... Sorry about using "Robbins" as opposed to "Roberts".... You guys are certainly right--this is more of an amusing distraction for me than it is something I'm really expending effort over. Thanks to all for the correction.

With respect to your point here about "innuendo," I see innuendo as only a small component of the larger picture. Go back and read points 1,2,4, &10 in the IL grievance letter [H] published. Then read the first paragraph of the September [H] article which those points address.

There's very little innuendo in that first paragraph of the Sept. [H] article that I can see. What there seems to be, however, is a calculated, deliberate effort to be incomplete. I refer to the fact that while Kyle is careful to state "We haven't seen..." this or that relative to IL, or the Phantom, he does not bother to state that he declined invitations extended to him by IL principals so that he could, in fact, "see" all of these things (if indeed the IL statements in this regard are true.)

Consider the problem: if Kyle had, in the body of the article, said: "We haven't seen the Phantom or their production facilities because we have decided not to tour the IL facilities in Sarasota even though I was invited to do so personally by Roberts....", what would that revelation have done except to totally undercut everything else he wrote in the September article?

His readers would have asked, and rightfully so, why he'd written the article at all since he couldn't be bothered with visiting IL in the first place to provide himself with a factual basis, an eye-witness basis, from which to write his article.

For one thing, his readers would be baffled by the fact that he declined to visit IL in Sarasota but opted instead to take and publish pictures of empty office buildings in Longboat Key... Note that IL alleges in point #10 of the February 27th letter to [H] that Kyle knew of the Sarasota location prior to publishing the September article, which if true, would seem to me to constitute direct evidence that his misreporting was premeditated and deliberate--which is half the battle in a libel suit--or so I would imagine.

Kyle can't very well say he had no better information as to the location of IL in Florida than that obtained from newspaper clippings or other public-access records, and basically say "We reported this in error because our sources had it wrong," (error being an effective, oft-used defense in libel suits, as error does not constitute libel), because, according to IL, they personally informed him as to the correct information prior to the publication of the September article [H] published, containing its pictures of IL-less offices in Longboat Key.

IMO, if IL can prove that Kyle knew of the correct location of their offices before he published in September, I cannot imagine what plausible excuse he might provide for (a) excluding this information from the Sept. article, (b) publishing pictures of empty office buildings in Longboat Key which he represented as the "offices of IL", while he declined to publish pictures of the occupied offices of IL in Sarasota (or even to visit them), which he had been directly informed of prior to publication. The proper thing would be to have published empty building pictures captioned as: "This is what the public records I saw said," and also to run pictures of the Sarasota office captioned as "This is where we actually found IL to be, on information supplied to us by Roberts." He could have summed up by saying, "Roberts' explanation for the records indicating offices in Longboat Key was...(whatever Roberts said.)" That would be the way a real invesitigative journalist would have handled it, imo.

The question at the heart of the libel case will be, I think, what [H] knew about IL in terms of its location prior to the publication of the September article. Did he know or not that IL was located in Sarasota? That is the question, for me, and will speak to the veracity of everything else implied by [H] in the September article. If Kyle knew, but deliberately chose not to reveal that knowledge in the September article, I'd like to know why.

Last here, talking about Robert's resume--to me, that is just a very minor peripheral point. Since Roberts published it himself on his own web site, which indeed is where Kyle professes to have obtained it, then it is clear that Roberts was never trying to hide anything--since he publicly published the information about himself. Ditto, SEC filings and the rest of it.

What would have been revelatory and interesting coming from [H] would have been factual, verified, information not found in public documents or SEC filings or Internet resumes that would have contradicted the information contained therein. Now, that would have indeed been a story, it seems to me...

Also, on the resumes--heh... I'm sure glad that I don't have to restrict myself to what I did in my 20's for a resume--oh, boy, what that would look like!... It makes me cringe just thinking about it...

 

[opposable]

With respect to your point here about "innuendo," I see innuendo as only a small component of the larger picture. Go back and read points 1,2,4, &10 in the IL grievance letter [H] published. Then read the first paragraph of the September [H] article which those points address.

You completely contradict yourself here. You say innuendos are a small part of the picture, yet 3 of the 4 points you point me too are just that: innuendos. And, regardless of what you think, you are inferring from those statements what you want.

I interpret them as essentially that IL has not publically shown the facility where beta consoles were being built, or where the offices were. On the contrary, most companies are quite public with their facilities, and not nearly as secretive about everything as IL is. My interpretation of the first paragraph is that Kyle is giving justification for writing the article. You interpret them as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent IL, and that is fine, but you can hardly say that "there is very little innuendo in the first paragraph" as that is simply false.

It seems that your entire argument is based on the credibility of IL, and Timothy Roberts. I would recommend you doing some research on their credibility; I think you will be surprised at what you find.

Maybe they have tapes of Kyle stating that he knew of the facilities before he published the article. If that is the case, then that is actual hard evidence, and would be quite damning (at least for that one point of the 18 point grievance IL filed with [H]). However, if you are going to march Timothy Roberts and Kevin Bachus up to the stand to testify about Kyle's statements, and that is all IL has, then I have news for you: neither one of those people are credible. I encourage you to look at the interviews conducted last year with Timothy Roberts. He claims at one point or another, among many other things, that they have 5000 games lined up for launch, that they have 12 developers, that the product will be released in November 2003, that they had 25 million in financing before they did, etc, all of which later turned out to be false. Kevin Bachus claimed this year that they had Bunnie Huang working on security (when he did nothing more than submit a white paper almost a year ago), that they had no business dealing is Texas (contractors or not, they are still business dealings), etc. IL posted a games list in January, only to remove it shortly thereafter; they showed a screenshot of Metroid Prime, claiming it was a screenshot of the Phantom; they left a March 31st order date up on their own website for almost two weeks after it had passed; they have been involved in no fewer than 3 lawsuits for not paying contractors or employees (and Bunnie Huang is still waiting for his full payment), etc.

If you are asking me to trust anything that comes out of the mouths of anyone at IL with no proof whatsoever, I am afraid I am going to disappoint you. Now, maybe they do have evidence, but until I actually hear of this evidence, I am going to be FAR more likely to believe Kyle than I ever would be to believe IL.

Note that IL alleges in point #10 of the February 27th letter to [H] that Kyle knew of the Sarasota location prior to publishing the September article, which if true, would seem to me to constitute direct evidence that his misreporting was premeditated and deliberate--which is half the battle in a libel suit--or so I would imagine.

Without evidence, and especially coming from IL, this is meaningless until they can show something that backs up their claim. Also remember, that this is only ONE point of 18 that IL has contention with. And, showing that is much of the battle, but they also have to PROVE that damage was done to the company and Timothy Roberts (the operative word being 'PROVE').

Last here, talking about Robert's resume--to me, that is just a very minor peripheral point. Since Roberts published it himself on his own web site, which indeed is where Kyle professes to have obtained it, then it is clear that Roberts was never trying to hide anything--since he publicly published the information about himself. Ditto, SEC filings and the rest of it.

Kyle states in the article: "...so we decided to compile and research all of the publicly available information we could find and see what we could learn about Infinium Labs and their new console." I do not know where you are getting the idea that most people think this is all some giant hidden conspiracy. Kyle STATES that the first part is simply research of publically available information. He encorages people at the end to do their own research. I don't know what your claim of "Roberts was never trying to hide anything" has to do with anything. Kyle just put two and two together, as the saying goes.

We are arguing one point of an 18 point letter of contention. We are also arguing that point based on the assumption that IL and Timothy Roberts are credible. They may very well be telling the truth, but judging by the countless misleading statements, and downright lies they have already told, I simply have had all my trust for them thoroughly trampled. I simply will not believe anything that IL or Timothy Roberts says unless they have some supporting evidence for their statements. If, however, they can PROVE what you suppose, then I will re-evaluate my position.

In the end, it is never good PR to sue a popular website over an article that walks the line of defamation at best. IL is already losing big time on this lawsuit, and it would have been better for them to simply issue a rebuttal on their own website addressing the points in the article that they could point people to. Reagrdless of the truth, the perception of being a bully is quite damaging.

 

[WaltC]

....

Just want to comment on a few of these, while I have a moment....

Fifth, going back to IL's credibility. IL has been involved in 3 lawsuits already involving lack of payment to employees or contractors. It should also be noted that, according to Bunnie Huang himself (www.whereisphantom.com), he has not been paid in full for his work he did over a year ago. And, according to Kevin Bachus, IL makes it sound like Huang is still working for them, which he is not. He did one white paper on security, did not get paid in full for it, and has long since moved on to other things. It should also be noted that, according to Huang's knowledge, they did not implement any of his suggestions.

A question I asked early on was, "Where are the lawsuits, or affidavits, even, from current or former Roberts-IL investors who feel that Roberts has defrauded them?"

I have no knowledge as to whether any such people exist, because if they do, [H] has never mentioned them once, nor have they surfaced or been identified. It seems to me that in order to demonstrate that investors are being defrauded it is critical to be able to produce investors who will (a) prove they have invested in a Roberts venture; and (b) indicate they feel they have been defrauded in some fashion in those investments.

My practical advice to Bunnie Huang is to take his grievance to court and attempt to collect what he believes he is owed and has been illegally denied. Apart from that, please illustrate how Bunnie Huang is directly involved in the matter at hand between IL and [H]. I don't see a connection, and here's why:

You state above, "IL has been involved in 3 lawsuits already involving lack of payment to employees or contractors."

OK, fine, but [H] is right now at the moment involved in 2 lawsuits involving libel. Correct? So, if you are going to imply that "something's rotten at IL" because of lawsuits not involving investors, and lawsuits not involving [H], then it logically follows that something's rotten at [H] because of the two libel lawsuits [H] is "involved" in. For me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...

I'd advise only that you not allow yourself to be sidetracked by irrelevant, peripheral issues. Being "involved" in lawsuits is not tantamount to wrong doing or cupability by either [H] or IL, since both companies are presently "involved" in lawsuits, none of which have been filed by investors claiming they've been defrauded by IL, incidentally (unless such suits exist and you and I and [H] are unaware of them.)

Sixth, Kyle is not getting lawyers pro bono. He is already gone through a significant amount of money to fight this. I have seen [H] print corrections and retractions before, so consuming your savings over a case that he could not win would be downright stupid, and I do not think Kyle is stupid.

Who is getting pro bono help? Are you insinuating that IL has no legal fees to pay? As well, you should recall that unlike Kyle's elective, "pre-emptive" suit, IL offered what I have always felt to be was an entirely reasonable settlement offer, in private--that would have involved no lawyers, no fees, and little if any expense to either company. Always remember that Kyle is where he is from his elective choices in this matter, as he did not have to choose to go to court, not to mention the choices he made prior to writing the September article as he did. (Some of you guys seem to be approaching this as if there's only one side to the story here--I can assure that is never the case in lawsuits. There are always two sides to the story in any lawsuit.)

Truth is, Kyle did not consult you or me or anyone staffing the whereisphantom.com web site, or anyone else publicly, prior to becoming embroiled in this situation, did he? So, don't feel sorry for him--and don't feel sorry for IL--they've both made their choices and they will have to live with them--and pay for them, too. Next thing you know we'll be seeing the "Kyle Legal Defense Fund" taking shape---heh... And, believe me, if Kyle can pull that off he's far from stupid. But the people who might contribute, well, they are another matter, in that case...

Seventh, your statement that Tim Roberts was not in the public eye is silly. Tim Roberts and IL were marketing this product in several trade shows before the article was printed. Tim Roberts and IL were fully in the realm of the public eye before the article in question was printed. On that note, libel is much much harder to prove for 'public' citizens and comapnies, than it is for private ones, and I doubt you will see the argument being made that Roberts and IL were 'private.' After all, there are negative things said about Bill Gates all of the time.

I don't kow what you mean. When I say "private," I was referring to the point that IL's letters to [H] were private letters. The fact that they became public is entirely because [H] commented on them and published them verbatim. Had [H] crafted a settlement with IL, the matter need never have entered the public spectrum at all. [H] has gone out of its way not to settle privately, but to make all of this a public spectacle. IL did not post its letter on the Internet, [H] did, remember.

Eighth, SEC filings are public documents, and you are correct that their basic purpose is to inform investors. However, while not doing anything 'wrong,' there certainly are warning signs invloved. A reverse merger to become publically traded, two stock splits before you even release a product, a net worth of -1.7 million. It is up for the investor to decide if it is worth the risk. Remember, to be a venture capitalist, you do not have to be smart, you just have to have money and be willing to risk losing it. To be a successful VC, you have to be smart, but VC involves a lot of hit and miss anyway.

Which has to do with what?... Yes, SEC filings may contain "warnings"--warnings to investors. They are public. That's what they're for--the benefit of prospective investors. Speculating on the theoretical sense or lack of it in "venture capitalists" as a group takes us exactly nowhere... We'll get somewhere, though, when we can see lawsuits filed by VCs against IL because they feel defrauded. Haven't seen any yet--which is a problem for me in accepting [H]'s point of view.

A great case in point would be nVidia's SEC filing warnings back circa '99-'00, as to the fact that nVidia did not know if it would win the multitexturing lawsuit it was engaged in with 3dfx, and that if it lost the case, it could not estimate how much the damages would be for the company going forward. I read that particular SEC-filed warning myself... Trying to cast dispersion on IL because of warnings it includes in its SEC filings is completely a red herring. Rather, companies which are honest about their SEC filings are to be commended, and their executives can stay out of jail because of it...

A "warning" in the sense that it is being misapplied to IL in this case would be the revelation of negative facts which are found to be ABSENT from the SEC filings. As it is, it simply means IL is being honest about itself in its SEC filings, which is exactly what is supposed to happen in SEC filings--so that investors can invest with their eyes wide open, or choose not to invest--either way, the purpose is so that they will know what they are investing into. The information in the IL SEC filings actually proves the opposite of what IL's critics to date in this matter are implying.

I think your take on the 'retraction' is a logical interpretation, but I disagree with you. I think that Kyle believed there were only 5 things that needed addressing, while the rest were simply an attempt to get him to remove information that was potentially damaging to IL, however true it was.

Since IL points 1,2,4 & 10 all speak to the first paragraph of the Sept. [H], IL article, why did Kyle not feel those points "needed addressing?" I mean, what was the purpose in printing IL's letter if you do not intend to rebut it? Did he mean it as a retraction? Clearly, the March 2 article does not rebut the IL letter [H] published--doesn't even attempt it. At best, it makes minor changes to 5 of the 18 points reprinted. Which of them, specifically, does [H] deny on March 2 in the article?

Let's recap. IL has little to no credibility at the moment.

No doubt in part because of [H]'s Sept. article... Which is, of course, what this is all about.

From being involved in numerous lawsuits over not paying employees or contractors, to claiming they had no ties to the state of Texas, to claiming they would release a product on this date, or start the beta on that date, etc.

(1) [H] is at present also "involved in numerous lawsuits," does this automatically mean [H]'s credibility is also marginalized?...

(2) So far, there's no record of any investors filing suit against Roberts to recoup their investments--no allegations of fraud from IL investors--which doesn't do much to bolster [H]'s credibility in implying that that investors are being defrauded, does it?

(3) Employee and contractor disputes are separate issues wholly divorced from those involved in the IL-[H] dispute.

(4) Personally, I think it's absurd to speculate that a startup company "should" go from scratch to an xBox-PS2 competitor platform in 12-18 months. Microsoft spent more time just *planning* xBox than that, not to mention xBox2. The idea is preposterous, if you think about it. I'm not surprised they haven't shipped yet--not at all. If IL is a legitimate company, after all, I hope they won't let [H]'s negative publicity pressure them into prematurely releasing their product--as that would kill it dead, quick.

Regardless, remember that we are talking about a company that still has no product and has spent more money on litigation than on R&D, according to their SEC filing. Trying to find the truth in their talk is like walking through a room filled with mousetraps.

But see, here's the problem: isn't that something between IL's investors and IL to work out? Many tech startups go years before producing marketable products, years spent living on investment income, before a product is produced. IL is neither novel or unique in that regard.

I agree with some of your points. [H] making a call for help is a bit puzzling, and there are still issues of contention with the article itself, however, things are not as cut and dried as your post seems to imply.

Well, my posts only indicate my opinions, after all...

 

[WaltC]

You completely contradict yourself here. You say innuendos are a small part of the picture, yet 3 of the 4 points you point me too are just that: innuendos. And, regardless of what you think, you are inferring from those statements what you want.

Heh.. If I say to you, "Your point is poor," what would you "infer" that I meant by that? Would you infer that I was referring to the financial status of your point, or that I was referring to the intellectual caliber of your point? Which of the two inferences is the most reasonable?

If I say, "The sky is blue," would you "infer" that I meant the sky was "depressed," or the color blue?...

What I inferred is certainly the most reasonable inference I can put on the facts: If he knew prior to the September publication that IL actually resided in Sarasota, and not in Longboat Key, then his representation of IL's "empty" offices in Longboat Key, to the complete exclusion of the ones in Sarasota, must be an intentional misrepresentation. I see no other conclusion reasonably possible--unless you might want to argue that [H] is in some fashion "intellectually challenged" and simply was incapable of sorting the facts rationally at an adult level. I don't believe this is your perspective--nor is it mine.

I interpret them as essentially that IL has not publically shown the facility where beta consoles were being built, or where the offices were.

You may "interpret" however you like, of course. But what I am doing is sticking strictly to the words he said. Throughout this thread I have been besieged by well-meaning persons explaining to me what Kyle "meant" to say... I'm trying to avoid interpretations like that and stick to what he said.

Your interpretation, you must remember, is inconsistent with IL's assertion that they personally informed Kyle of their Sarasota office prior to his publishing the Sept. article. Since you cannot disprove IL's assertion, you must reject your interpretation. My interpretation, however, is congruent with both the Sept. article and IL's assertion.

On the contrary, most companies are quite public with their facilities, and not nearly as secretive about everything as IL is.

Ah, but I beg to differ... In fact, in most cases where a new technology is being developed to compete with entrenched technologies--the lid is clamped down very tightly indeed, until such time as the product is ready for production and release. Most such companies are secretive, indeed. By way of example, trying to get info out of ATi and nVidia on R420 and nV40, respectively, prior to the date at which both companies were ready to formally announce, was futile...

My interpretation of the first paragraph is that Kyle is giving justification for writing the article. You interpret them as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent IL, and that is fine, but you can hardly say that "there is very little innuendo in the first paragraph" as that is simply false.

So you are saying that the first paragraph of Kyle's September article was full of "innuendo" and contained no fact? OK, but I don't see that as supporting your interpretation--at least as it was earlier...

When I say "no innuendo," here's what I mean: Kyle says he did not "see" the phantom, or the "headquarters for the Phantom," etc. That is literally true--it is not innuendo of any sort. IL admits he did not "see" these things. But unlike Kyle who does not explain why he did not "see" them, IL explains it by revealing that he was invited to come and "see" in Sarasota, but that he "voluntarily declined" to come and see. So, while there is a gap in the two accounts, they are both consistent in maintaining that Kyle did not "see." The difference is that while Kyle makes no mention of having contacted the company at any time in order to "see," or to taking any steps that might have enabled him to "see," IL explains that he was "invited to see" but that he voluntarily declined to "see."

In neither the Sept. article or the March 2 rebuttal-retraction, does Kyle say something like:

"I spared no expense and pulled out all the stops, calling and speaking with everyone in IL I could reach asking for an opportunity to come and see them, and see their product--but I couldn't get to first base." Nope, strangely, Kyle is silent as a tomb as to any effort expended on his part to "see" what he says he "didn't see." That is exactly what makes me believe the IL claim has merit.

It seems that your entire argument is based on the credibility of IL, and Timothy Roberts. I would recommend you doing some research on their credibility; I think you will be surprised at what you find.

Again, I must disagree. I'm assuming credibility on the part of neither party, and am instead analyzing their public comments and actions to date from a logical standpoint. Credibility has nothing to do with it--on either side--from my perspective.

(Darn, I've wasted enough time on this today...maybe I'll come back tomorrow...)

 

[opposable]

WaltC, your posts are well-reasoned, and I respect your opinion. However, I disagree with you, and, at least on my part, I am just going to leave it at that.

This is a drawn-out discussion based on assumptions on both sides. It will be a far better investment of my time to simply wait and see, rather than have pages of discussion that get us back to exactly where we started.

I encourage you to do more research on IL, because as of now, it is quite apparent that you have done very little outside that which suits your needs.

This is not meant to be an insulting post; quite the contrary. I have enjoyed having this intelligent conversation with you. However, because neither of us have all the facts, and won't for some time, continuing to devote portions of my free time for writing the lengthy responses your lengthy posts require seems to be a poor use of my time when I have many other things I could be doing.

It is quite simple. We are both writing posts without knowledge of most of the facts of this case. Thus, having a lengthy discussion based on statements that are speculative, and assumptive, is an effort in futility.

 

[Tim Murray]

Damnit! At least keep the Libel Information flowing. I'm currently in need of information on libel suits...

 

[opposable]

There are many good sources for information on libel law. One such source is here: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

One thing I forgot to add in my above post. Everyone should do their own research into this case, into IL, and into [H], and should make an informed opinion based on that information, not just on what someone has told you.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Damnit! At least keep the Libel Information flowing. I'm currently in need of information on libel suits...

I already told you, ya can't sue me for calling you a "big, fat, stupid-head!" since I was extremely angry when I said it.

 

[Torgospizza]

Dumb question, but which case is IL fighting against discovery in? It's been too long since I read Perry Mason, but I thought discovery was kind of incombent upon the suing party...how can they fight it without dropping suit? (And if they drop suit won't they leave themselves wide open for a countersuit by Kyle?)

This would be Kyle's suit in Texas. Remember that Kyle sued Infinium first. Infinium would not want discovery because that would allow Kyle's lawyers interview individuals who don't have many kind words to say. The dirty laundry is out in the open. Infinium would rather have the case dismissed and have their lawsuit in Florida move forward, where they have a greater advantage. I don't see this happening though. Tim Roberts was to be deposed on June 29th, but filed a protective order not to for various reasons.

Already am, but I can't wait to be more so! (And my wife actually brought home a sausage & peperoni pizza by a weird coincidence! )

I sure hope you didn't have Torgo as the delivery person. Just don't ask for the breadsticks!

/MST3K

 

[digitalwanderer]

I sure hope you didn't have Torgo as the delivery person. Just don't ask for the breadsticks!

"In the not to distant future, next Sunday AD..."

Thanks for clarifying the cases, so Kyle's case in Texas was the first and the Florida case was after....did Kyle know IL was going to file against them in Florida so his Texas case was a pre-emptive strike? (Also this puts that whole "Tim Roberts lied to the court about his business not being in Texas" probably a whole lot bigger than I imagined.

 

[Tanis143]

I did a double-take when I saw this, and thought: "You mean, out of the 18 items mentioned you wish to take issue only with these five?" I had to turn this over a few times before reaching the conclusion that, yes, what [H] was actually saying was that it had no argument with any of the points in the IL letter with the exception of five of those points, which [H] duly addressed individually and specifically.

If you reached that conclusion, then, I hate to say it this way but there is no other way, you are trying to read too deeply into it or your a moron. The fact they only addressed 5 of the items simply means those 5 are the only issues they found to actually need addressing. How hard is that to understand? By trying to flip it around like you have, it sounds more like your waxing political on a clear cut issue.

1) If he disagreed with all 18 points, why state that "After hours of consideration, out of the 18 items noted we have found 5 that were in need of addressing as outlined below. They are numbered to correspond with the request in the above published document"....?

If you in fact disagreed with all 18 of them, why "address" only five of the 18 items you disagreed with? Since Kyle only considered that five of the eighteen points of contention raised "needed addressing," then it must be concluded that he doesn't think the other thirteen points do--which must mean he does not dispute them.

This was a silly assumption you made. Since he only addressed 5 of the issues, the SIMPLE conclusion is those 5 were the only ones that needed addressing. Again, you are trying to read too much into this. Its almost like you're trying to spin it a light that makes Kyle out to be the bad guy here and poor IL is just defending its honor.

Last issue to address is why. Why would [H] not simply do a straightforward retraction, instead of this convoluted and ineffectual retraction they tried to execute on March 2nd? My opinion is this: [H] wanted to save face with its "community" after once again putting its foot firmly in its mouth. [H] knew it had to retract, since it never had any factual basis for the September '03 article, but simply couldn't bear to admit it had made a mistake to its readership, and the result was this rebuttal-retraction compromise of March 2, which pleased or satisfied neither IL nor the courts, obviously.

Ok, now your starting to really sound like a phanboy * A term used affectionatly towards those that support the Phantom blindly and use any means to try and prove the Phantom is legit*. Why did they not do a retraction? Simple. They were not in the wrong. They did an article about a company that is shady at best. IL got thier panties in a twist over an article that exposed some of thier inconsistancies and threated to sue if [H] did not retract the article. If they bowed down and retracted the article, it would be a blow for our freedom of speech and journalism. And what do you mean they did not have "factual basis"? All the info they used was factual and still available today.

Now, I'll make an assumption of my own, since it seems your post is nothing but your own assumptions, you're either an inteligent phanboy or an affiliate of IL and wish to shed some of this bad light over to Kyle and his website. Either way you did nothing, at least IMO, but show the lengths some people will go to glorify/sanctify IL and thier vaporware "Phantom".

 

[digitalwanderer]

Now, I'll make an assumption of my own, since it seems your post is nothing but your own assumptions, you're either an inteligent phanboy or an affiliate of IL and wish to shed some of this bad light over to Kyle and his website. Either way you did nothing, at least IMO, but show the lengths some people will go to glorify/sanctify IL and thier vaporware "Phantom".

Felix Ungar once said something about "assume" that I think is very applicable in this case!

Welcome to B3D, a very interesting first post.

 

[Tanis143]

Yes, I was tempted to use that quote myself, however I felt at this point since he wasn't making an assumption of myself *at least not yet* then the phrase "When you assume, you make an ass of u and me" wouldnt quite fit right

And thanks, I've recently got involved with the whole IL contraversy after the whole [H] article/lawsuit business. My own opinion's aside, if I was to see how this company was acting I would'nt support them or buy thier products, its bad enough I buy Microsoft products

 

[digitalwanderer]

I don't think there is a single member of B3D who does support/like IL, that's why I found your post amusing.

Walt is NOT an IL supporter, he's just playing devil's advocate and helping to explore the issue more....as well as providing me with valuable amusement by keeping the whole Kyle/IL discussion alive.

I just thought you accusing him of supporting IL was rather funny.

 

[Tanis143]

Well, not knowing him much, I had to call it as I saw it. And with the arguements he posted it does seem like its on the IL side of the fence. If not, Im curious as to why he has taken the stance he did and some of the comments he made. But, as I said before, all of this is IMO

 

[FrgMstr]

Walt is NOT an IL supporter, he's just playing devil's advocate and helping to explore the issue more....as well as providing me with valuable amusement by keeping the whole Kyle/IL discussion alive.

Funny that WC never advocates any devils except the ones that disagree with me.

As for the original point of this whole thread, he could not be more wrong. But if he channeled all the energy that he uses writing about me in internet forums, he could be the next Danielle Steel.