What do we do now?

[William Payne]

Just now, public-file-6521 said:

I understand your prior point about the mix of ages present and varying levels of experience in the corporate world amongst the userbase. I made an account to respond to you because while I respect your perspective, I also have experience in this particular field and think you may be slightly off the mark. 

 

Yes, you can be sued for just about anything. Yes, it would be incredibly irresponsible to send a prototype with meaningful confidential components to a third party without layers upon layers of contractual provisions ensuring that those components would remain confidential. 

 

With that said, there has been no indication that such provisions were present, and in this circumstance it is actually sort of obvious why. Trade secret protections do not apply unless the company holding that secret performs due diligence to maintain the confidentiality of the secret. Billet Labs sent LMG their prototype for the express purpose of being analyzed in front of millions of people. Should they have drafted language preventing LMG from transfering the prototype to a third party? Absolutely. Should they have drafted language differentiating, say, the internal components as requiring a greater degree of confidentiality than the overall structure as viewed from the outside of the block? Sure. Does it seem like they did any of those things? I don't think so. If they had, they'd have said as much to Colton when they replied to the email about the auction.

 

I think you're reading best practices into a course of behavior which does not otherwise reflect the application of those practices, and for that reason I believe your assertions regarding LMG's liability on this issue to be flawed. Yes, you can sue or be sued for just about anything. That doesn't mean liability exists, it only means that someone wants to argue that it exists. 

I am going by the quoted agreement being repeated in this thread where they are saying that the agreement was “they can keep it IF they were going to use it in future videos”. 
 

I haven’t seen the email but supposedly many on here have.

[public-file-6521]

4 minutes ago, SuperGnu said:

And that is why they wanted it back, as it would not be used. LTT have used items from earlier videos in new ones. So the asumption is not too far fetched, a bit naive but not impossible.

You can not send a prototype to another reviewer to get a second opinion if the first one that hates it sells it.

It is not irrelevant. Unless ofc you are a sucker for being sued. They did not give it away, it was conditioned.

No i am not objectively wrong. They send out cards and CPU's and want them back all the time. "Here you have X amount of days/weeks to review it then we want it back" is very common.
The E-mail say they can keep it IF they are going to use it. But hey, if you want to get sued that's up to you, you seem to have that as a kink of yours.

Your example is not relevant in this situation.

Please provide an example of explicit language showing the original agreement was for LMG to retain the prototype in exchange for continued exposure. My reading of the relevant statement only conveys that (1) Billet Labs gave LMG the prototype and (2) Billet Labs had an expectation that the prototype would continue to be used. I do not see any evidence that Billet Labs conveyed, at the time of the original agreement, that the prototype was only to stay with LMG so long as LMG kept using it.  

[Loopers]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Dornon said:

That is not how this works at all and it's very clear you don't understand. They were not given the prototype. They were loaned the prototype. They were always supposed to give it back. BL themselves said they had planned on letting LTT keep it for longer to use in future promotions, but when Linus trashed the product, they asked for it back and LMG agreed. I'm not sure why you purposefully left out the part where LMG agreed to send it back then sold it afterwards, maybe because that doesn't help prove your point. Either way, LMG did not have the right to sell it.

 

Your example is not what happened here. A more comparable example would be you loaning the car to a friend with the intention of them giving it back and they sold it instead. The waterblock was not for LMG to sell. If LMG were to keep it, it was for their use only. This is a pretty common thing with pre-release or prototype hardware/software.

"Keep because we originally thought" They made the mistake of giving it away by assuming how it would be used. Unless there was a contact disputing that email, the verbiage is clear.

[aisle9]

Sorry @LinusTech, I turned it off when you started defending the "two business day" delay. Everyone around you did a fucking spectacular job of explaining what went down, how they're fixing it and how they're going to prove it. Then you came on, admitted to owning it, and immediately went into Angry Linus Defense Mode^(TM) and complained about things being blown out of proportion. I don't know if your point is valid, and I'm not interested in watching any more of it. Sometimes when you go in front of your core community and say that you're going to "own it", it's best to stfu, skip the defensiveness and, you know, own it. If Angry Linus Defense Mode is your contribution to the video, then maybe you shouldn't have been in it.

 

To everyone in the video not named Linus, thank you. Actions speak louder than words, but those words are better than most actions.

[William Payne]

1 minute ago, Loopers said:

"Keep because we originally thought" They made the mistake of giving it away by assuming how it would be used. Unless there was a contact disputing that email, the verbiage is clear.

You aren’t reading the “agreed to give it back” part. There is your evidence. There was obviously an agreement to return the item. 

[public-file-6521]

1 minute ago, William Payne said:

I am going by the quoted agreement being repeated in this thread where they are saying that the agreement was “they can keep it IF they were going to use it in future videos”. 
 

I haven’t seen the email but supposedly many on here have.

The exact quote in the email from Billet Labs stated "We originally said you could keep it because we thought it would be good for you to have it for future builds." There is no indication there that the future use was part of an agreement, only that Billet Labs hoped and/or expected LMG to continue using it. 

 

I'm not sure how this response addresses any of the confidentiality concerns you raised earlier.

[William Payne]

Just now, public-file-6521 said:

The exact quote in the email from Billet Labs stated "We originally said you could keep it because we thought it would be good for you to have it for future builds." There is no indication there that the future use was part of an agreement, only that Billet Labs hoped and/or expected LMG to continue using it. 

 

I'm not sure how this response addresses any of the confidentiality concerns you raised earlier.

Keep reading the email. They clearly state there was an agreement to return the item. 

[flameout]

This whole thing is so scuffed... the ridiculous lie about needing to know which items were won for their taxes (didn't expect that email to leak? ), even though it went hand in hand with Billet revealing Linus had just told them he "may" be able to get it back. Real "world class" team you've got over there

[Hambojambo]

The 'jokes' about lttstore, dbrand and the screwdriver are very misplaced and cringeworthy. Lowers credibility imo.

 

[Dr. Dornon]

3 minutes ago, Loopers said:

"Keep because we originally thought" They made the mistake of giving it away by assuming how it would be used. Unless there was a contact disputing that email, the verbiage is clear.

"You agreed to send it back". I'm not sure how they could be more clear. LMG agreed to send it back, but instead, auctioned it off. You keep dodging that part of the email because that doesn't fit with the rest of the narrative you are trying to spin.

[public-file-6521]

Just now, William Payne said:

Keep reading the email. They clearly state there was an agreement to return the item. 

Well, yes, a subsequent agreement following the release of the video which does not appear to have contemplated the exchange of consideration in return for sending the prototype back. If you're falling back on the enforceability of one of LMG's staff saying "we'll give it back since you asked" as the basis for a lawsuit you're on fairly shaky ground. 

[kronos2611]

To any staff at LMG in the unlikely event you read this - star thinking about your long term career and what you want to achieve, start preparing for the possibility of having to work elsewhere if LMG's goals and yours no longer match.  Watch out for how senior management operate in the coming weeks - are they asking for your input in how to improve things or are they just screaming at you or worse are you being completely ignored.  If you're not being invited to be part of solving the challenges LMG currently face then that can be a sign you're not seen as part of the future so maybe accelerate job hunting in that scenario.  If all the senior management are either huddled in an office or worse at an offsite location and aren't including any "normal" staffers then this too is a sign to jump ship before you're pushed.  Companies go through rough patches and this can present opportunities you may not have previously thought about.

 

To senior management - you have a big, big problem. You have criticisms and allegations of frankly borderline if not actually illegal behaviour in the workplace.  If you don't think there's a problem - you are the problem.  If you don't think it's a big deal then you are also part of the problem.  If you have been afraid to speak out when you've seen something wrong then now is the time to raise those issues - drag everything out no matter how small and put it on the table for discussion.  If brining concerns out into the open generates an apathetic or aggressive response then you too want to be getting onto those contacts in other companies and finding a better job.  It's critical during a time like this that senior management actually engage with staff and don't go into hiding.  It's also vitally important to not just scream at staff - something I have seen many, many times.  You as leaders have the opportunity to make change - you are also responsible for the safe guarding of your staff all of whom will currently be in need of support.  It's going to be a hard few months but that's why you're paid the big bucks.

 

To Yvonne and Luke - you are probably the only people that can control Linus during this time and maybe are the ones who can most effectively drive change.  Linus is clearly seeing every single criticism and allegation as a personal attack.  This is not the case - these are issues for the company to deal with and yes he has been in the past ultimately responsible for behaviours but taking it all as a personal attack rather than something for the business as a whole to deal with is not helpful.  It's pretty clear that some cultural changes are needed.  I myself work in the tech industry and being a heavily male dominated industry you often see teams, departments and even entire companies develop a "tech bro" culture which is actually incredibly toxic and ultimately results in mistakes being made and corporate discipline failing.  Work should be a place people can go and feel safe, feel proud of doing a good days job or at the very least finish the day happy with having earned some money.  Work shouldn't be 24x7.  Work shouldn't be 100% pressure 14 hours a day.  If people are running at 100% then they're not being creative and given that the bulk of the companies purpose is content creation if people don't have a minimum of 20% creative time to do whatever they want - explore new ideas, write code, learn about something new then in the long run the content will dry up.

[TazX14]

1 minute ago, William Payne said:

You aren’t reading the “agreed to give it back” part. There is your evidence. There was obviously an agreement to return the item. 

TBH, at this point, there are a few individuals who seem to be trolling folks by cherry picking parts of evidence that they themselves continue to post and claim into gaslighting folks to agree with them. The best thing to do is to ignore them and continue to post factual evidence of what happened. There are clearly folks here who want to either troll this event, or are such big fans that they are willingly ignorant of the facts they choose to dismiss...

[Ex14]

7 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Sorry @LinusTech, I turned it off when you started defending the "two business day" delay. Everyone around you did a fucking spectacular job of explaining what went down, how they're fixing it and how they're going to prove it. Then you came on, admitted to owning it, and immediately went into Angry Linus Defense Mode^(TM) and complained about things being blown out of proportion. I don't know if your point is valid, and I'm not interested in watching any more of it. Sometimes when you go in front of your core community and say that you're going to "own it", it's best to stfu, skip the defensiveness and, you know, own it. If Angry Linus Defense Mode is your contribution to the video, then maybe you shouldn't have been in it.

 

To everyone in the video not named Linus, thank you. Actions speak louder than words, but those words are better than most actions.

Sorry. Are you expecting near instant response times? Most standard BUSINESS reply times can be 3-5 business days at times for various big businesses. EVEN if you were in corporate orders a turnaround time of a day or two is considered reasonably quick...I mean didn't we want LESS work load for the staff?

 

Edit: Sorry if this came off as aggressive unnecessarily, I worked in customer service before so it triggered me a little to see honestly unreasonable time lines given esp in regards to email response times

[William Payne]

1 minute ago, public-file-6521 said:

Well, yes, a subsequent agreement following the release of the video which does not appear to have contemplated the exchange of consideration in return for sending the prototype back. If you're falling back on the enforceability of one of LMG's staff saying "we'll give it back since you asked" as the basis for a lawsuit you're on fairly shaky ground. 

I never said they would win. My thought process on the whole thing is irrelevant of who is at fault or not publicity from something like this, how it looks to other companies is bad. 
 

A company like Linus Media Group completely relies on companies sending them stuff. 
 

 

 

[Loopers]

4 minutes ago, William Payne said:

You aren’t reading the “agreed to give it back” part. There is your evidence. There was obviously an agreement to return the item. 

This is part of an email chain and you're seeing the tail end of it. Look at the date. They originally gave it to them when shipping it to them (when they sent it to them per Billet), the secondary part of the email (agreed to give it back) was in late June as per Steve after it was poorly received. Billet contacted LMG in late June asking for it back after originally giving it to them and that's what they are referencing in the Aug 10th email 

[aisle9]

Just now, Ex14 said:

Sorry. Are you expecting near instant response times? Most standard BUSINESS reply times can be 3-5 business days at times for various big businesses. EVEN if you were in corporate orders a turnaround time of a day or two is considered reasonably quick...I mean didn't we want LESS work load for the staff?

 

 

            .          <--the point

 

     @Ex14    <--you

[thievesarmy]

6 hours ago, Woddell said:

 

So they were happy to let LTT keep it, but they needed it? Which one is it?

 

It reads to me like they were going to let them keep it because they thought it might get used in future builds, which would bring them much needed publicity, so in that case it would be worth the cost of letting them keep it.

 

After Linus pooped on it, I think they realized that wasn't likely to happen and requested it back. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Things change, situations change, they don't have to be locked to a decision they made when circumstances were different, so what was ok for them at one point, doesn't mean it was ok for them later. If LTT really wanted it or wanted to hold them to what they originally committed to, they could have put up some resistance when they requested it back, but they didn't, and Billet weren't in the wrong for asking.

[William Payne]

Just now, Loopers said:

This is part of an email chain and you're seeing the tail end of it. Look at the date. They originally gave it to them when shipping it to them (when they sent it to them per Billet), the secondary part of the email (agreed to give it back) was in late June as per Steve after it was poorly received. Billet contacted LMG in late June asking for it back after originally giving it to them and that's what they are referencing in the Aug 10th email 

So what? By them saying this isn’t a situation where LTT said get stuffed we aren’t returning it. Someone obviously said “sure thing we will return it” after being asked to. 

[Loopers]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Dornon said:

"You agreed to send it back". I'm not sure how they could be more clear. LMG agreed to send it back, but instead, auctioned it off. You keep dodging that part of the email because that doesn't fit with the rest of the narrative you are trying to spin.

As I said to someone else that you are overlooking and you are very obviously lacking context. I'm not spinning a narrative even a little bit, but most seem to forget what Steve said Billet told them and the timelines. Timelines matter.

 

This is part of an email chain and you're seeing the tail end of it. Look at the date. They originally gave it to them when shipping it to them (when they sent it to them per Billet), the secondary part of the email (agreed to give it back) was in late June as per Steve after it was poorly received. Billet contacted LMG in late June asking for it back after originally giving it to them and that's what they are referencing in the Aug 10th email 

 

[asdf2345]

Not sure if this is the best place to give feedback, but there is an idea that could help you (LTT) improve transparency.

 

Some sort of stream or long form video that shows the configuration of a test machine for GPU/CPU benchmarking. Going through all the processes carried out from installing Windows to getting results.

[Ex14]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

            .          <--the point

 

     @Ex14    <--you

Well if that tickles your fancy more power to you. 

 

I hope that it at least shows even under a better situation. You yourself weren't able to make your statement with no errors. Anyway have a good day.

[TanktheDank]

It will be empty to not have the daily LTT shenanigans in the background of my life this week, But overall I know its a pain that was coming and I know this will give the community nothing but better content for the future. We can all be a little silly and let things go that shouldn't be let go, YET we all go through this point in life. Like as kids, we can party a little too hard, and eat too much ice cream, but its never long until Life steps in, and smacks us back down, hopefully before the damage has gone too far. Its not how you get smacked, its how you get back up. I look forward to the future of LTT!

[TazX14]

2 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

Sorry. Are you expecting near instant response times? Most standard BUSINESS reply times can be 3-5 business days at times for various big businesses. EVEN if you were in corporate orders a turnaround time of a day or two is considered reasonably quick...I mean didn't we want LESS work load for the staff?

 

 

I'm sorry... but this is akin to someone stealing your credit card and then you calling their fraudulent services center. Once you report it as stolen, any additional purchases made and expenses incurred from that point are solely the responsibility of the credit card company regardless of the business days it takes to resolve. Yes, we want their employees to not be as overworked as they are, but as a company the size of LMG they should have enough employees to cover 7 days a week and not simply act like government offices of yesteryear. Covering 7 days a week, does not mean the expectation is that every employee works 7 days a week. Rather it means they need to schedule more accordingly to handle such situations should they arise.

[Loopers]

Just now, William Payne said:

So what? By them saying this isn’t a situation where LTT said get stuffed we aren’t returning it. Someone obviously said “sure thing we will return it” after being asked to. 

Someone said we will return it after it was originally given to them after they were unhappy with what linus said. They agreed to send it back late June according to Steve.

 

The original video was on June 23rd. This means they originally sent it to LTT much earlier (obviously) and gave it away hoping for its use in future builds. That was poor decision-making on Billets part if there was no contract. Steve mentioned they requested it back in late June ( don't recall if Steve gave an exact date) and that's when they agreed to return it and they should have it after that.