Developments on Billet Labs issue?

[TylerD321]

42 minutes ago, Saeumii said:

>why would the wronged party

that's a good question, but they also said "asked for" instead of "received", which still makes me think that they had yet to settle at the time of the post. ofc, now that it's been some weeks and they haven't said anything more, ig it's as good an indicator as any that they have in fact gotten compensated

While it is not overly specific, saying "asked for" doesn't mean that they didn't receive it already before making that update. I think the idea of the post is that Billet Labs ASKED for the money rather than LTT offering it, which I have no issue with. From the beginning it sorta seemed like they wanted the physical property back, which is what LTT offered to do initially.

 

In summary, Billet labs asked for money - LTT gave billet labs money. It is done and over with, let it go.

[Saeumii]

10 minutes ago, TylerD321 said:

While it is not overly specific, saying "asked for" doesn't mean that they didn't receive it already before making that update. I think the idea of the post is that Billet Labs ASKED for the money rather than LTT offering it, which I have no issue with. From the beginning it sorta seemed like they wanted the physical property back, which is what LTT offered to do initially.

 

In summary, Billet labs asked for money - LTT gave billet labs money. It is done and over with, let it go.

>ltt gave billet labs money

that can be inferred at this point, yes, but the post does not nearly make that conclusion indisputable

[tikker]

28 minutes ago, Saeumii said:

>ltt gave billet labs money

that can be inferred at this point, yes, but the post does not nearly make that conclusion indisputable

Nothing except seeing the bank's statements of the transfer will do that. LTT offered them money, later offered them to retrieve the item and BL said "no thanks, money is fine". This isn't asked in the sense of "could you please give us money?". This is asked in the sense of declining the alternative.

[Saeumii]

3 minutes ago, tikker said:

Nothing except seeing the bank's statements of the transfer will do that. LTT offered them money, later offered them to retrieve the item and BL said "no thanks, money is fine". This isn't asked in the sense of "could you please give us money?". This is asked in the sense of declining the alternative.

>Nothing except

or either party definitively saying "yes, this issue has been resolved"

 

>in the sense of declining the alternative

again, my point is just that the phrasing of the post only implies that billet labs agreed to financial compensation rather than the alternative. it does not conclusively express that they had received the compensation at that point. at this point, we can infer to be the case that they have in fact received compensation, but that conclusion does not come explicitly from the post

[Arika]

One would think you have a personal stake in billet with how concerned about this you are and how unwilling you are to accept the answer.

[SansVarnic]

@Saeumii as mentioned the issue has been resolved. As for your inquiry to the specifics, those details will likely not be released beyond what was publicly announced as provided here by other members posted up to this point. Neither LTT or Billet has an obligation to make those details available to the public. I you wish to pursue these details I suggest you reach out to LMG or Billet directly and see if they are willing, but I highly doubt they will.

[Saeumii]

10 hours ago, Arika said:

One would think you have a personal stake in billet with how concerned about this you are and how unwilling you are to accept the answer.

>unwilling

i thought i said that the implication that the issue was settled behind the scenes was satisfactory. i'm simply saying that none of the publicly available announcements are as cut and dry as the people here seem to be making them out to be. at this point, all i'm doing is restating the latter point.

 

anyways, it seems that each new post on this thread bumps it up and gets it new attention, which is no longer necessary at this point. 4chan has a "sage" feature that prevents new posts from getting bumped, but i'm not sure if this forum has anything like that, so it seems that all i can do is stop replying

[Numus]

On 10/29/2023 at 12:26 PM, TylerD321 said:

. From the beginning it sorta seemed like they wanted the physical property back, which is what LTT offered to do initially.

 

This is actually the only important part about any of Billet's responses. From what they said their biggest fear out of all of this was that their IP was in the hands of a rival, which could cost everything to them. 

 

That said I am still a little surprised they didn't want it back anyway, because there is no guarantee that private individual wont sell it to a rival company who can learn from it and make their own version. 

 

I have a little bit of experience in manufacturing, and the vast majority of the cost is the engineering the solution, the actual fabrication isn't nearly as much but more than likely they wrapped all costs of R&D into the cost they quoted Linus. If that is the case, it would be foolish for them not to take the money vs the product back. Not saying they were being greedy or anything, but in some context it makes sense why they would opt for the money vs the product back

 

Here are two questions that are kind of easy to answer: what value does the prototype have if it is the final build? The value is in the manufacturing process at that point... What value does the prototype have if it isn't the final build? They probably learned everything they needed to in order to already make another one. Maybe they would save a couple bucks vs fabing or procuring some of the parts, but they already have them sourced or have the ability to fab more. 

 

Literally the only value the prototype probably has is in the IP (especially if they havent filed any patents yet). 

 

End of the day: Techincally LTT did the wrong thing.. They sold something they didnt have the right apperently to sell. There was a process breakdown SOMEWHERE (not placing blame on any specific person) but atleast somehow they came around to the right conclusion to make Billet Labs whole again. What that agreement is doesnt even matter, all that matters is it apperently has been done. 

 

What they really need to do is have a policy in place, because NO PROTOTYPE SHOULD EVER BE SOLD AT AUCTION ... unless specifically allowed by the owner. 

[Skiiwee29]

<-- Thread Locked -->

 

We likely have heard the last of what LMG or Billet will say publicly. Speculating on one small piece of a statement and spinning in circles is doing no one any good.