[H}ardocp MSI GeForce RTX 2070 GAMING Z review

[pas008]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

You might say it's nonsense but my opinion is it is not for the reasons I have listed before. I'm not saying he can't do what he did but he's still an arse for doing it. He in some way leveraged his position to gain an advantage, by obtaining something that he should not have and no other consumer could get, he is a consumer when not part of the NDA and part of Nvidia reviewer briefings.

 

 

So even putting the review ethics aside he still used his position to get a product no other consumer could get, as I said before I don't necessarily object to doing that but what you do after that is what counts. I also wouldn't condone all the people in the world who are also able to use their positions when they can to get products early before others, people that work in the industry or are part of the supply chain network. That sort of thing is actually illegal in my country anyway, employees in retail stores have been fined here for that before.

 

If he doesn't want to sign the NDA then he can buy the product like everyone else or have a bit of business ethics. If someone acts like a dick I'll call em a dick.

 

I'll shame any publication that wants to go back to race to publish and puts that above quality of information, hence I have not and will not read that review.

Don't worry you didn't miss much

Starts with nda shit and ends with it

Using a review to shove in his personal cries like the last decade of his shit

26 minutes ago, adadk said:

 

C'mon sazrocks....a bunch of us are waiting for your reply....

Reply to what?

And why the need to quote other shit that has nothing to do with anything here stretching much to feed your ego?

[mr moose]

20 hours ago, Fixall said:

 

Are you just as pissed off at Linus Tech Tips for the bullcrap they pulled to produce the Intel Larrabee video?

 

A forum member from Hardforum won auction on ebay fair and square only to have Linus Media Group contact the buyer and talk him into selling to LMG instead.  Seems like a case of LTT screwing over a fellow GPU enthusiast for views to me.  I don't see you throwing a fit about that.  Shill.

Hang on, are you trying to insinuate that this person who bought a product on ebay,  was somehow unfairly forced against his will to sell it again?

 

Did this person have a mental disability that meant they couldn't make decisions for themselves and was cruelly conned in an unethical fashion to sell it again?

 

Perhaps you are just pissed that someone was willing to sell their recently obtained hardware to LTT because the price was right, or maybe they just like Linus. Maybe the only reason they bought it was to flip it for more cash.    And even then what does this even have to do with the topic or the person you quoted? how does it change what they said? 

 

How does buying and making a video about hardware that everyone has the same opportunity to buy even relate to the fact Kyle released the video early for clicks and that many construe this as unethical.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

Oh, you guys. I bet this wouldn't fly if it was an AMD NDA being broken.

 

I would feel exactly the same about it.  The issue is with HardOCP not Nvidia,  therefore if the only thing that changed in this whole affair was that it was AMD's NDA and products, I would still be making the same arguments.

[Derangel]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Hang on, are you trying to insinuate that this person who bought a product on ebay,  was somehow unfairly forced against his will to sell it again?

 

Did this person have a mental disability that meant they couldn't make decisions for themselves and was cruelly conned in an unethical fashion to sell it again?

 

Perhaps you are just pissed that someone was willing to sell their recently obtained hardware to LTT because the price was right, or maybe they just like Linus. Maybe the only reason they bought it was to flip it for more cash.    And even then what does this even have to do with the topic or the person you quoted? how does it change what they said? 

 

How does buying and making a video about hardware that everyone has the same opportunity to buy even relate to the fact Kyle released the video early for clicks and that many construe this as unethical.

Definitely agree with you here. I'm not seeing the correlation. Is it a bit shitty for LTT to leverage their influence on a private buyer just so they can use it in a vid and say they own the card? Yeah, a bit. But the person could have told them to go pound sand or offer to just loan it to them for the duration of the video. They made the choice to let LTT buy and use the card. Unless the person claimed LTT badgered them into it I'm not seeing the correlation the poster is trying to make.

[Fixall]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Hang on, are you trying to insinuate that this person who bought a product on ebay,  was somehow unfairly forced against his will to sell it again?

 

Did this person have a mental disability that meant they couldn't make decisions for themselves and was cruelly conned in an unethical fashion to sell it again?

 

Perhaps you are just pissed that someone was willing to sell their recently obtained hardware to LTT because the price was right, or maybe they just like Linus. Maybe the only reason they bought it was to flip it for more cash.    And even then what does this even have to do with the topic or the person you quoted? how does it change what they said? 

 

How does buying and making a video about hardware that everyone has the same opportunity to buy even relate to the fact Kyle released the video early for clicks and that many construe this as unethical.

 

 

I think maybe you don't understand the situation I am talking about...  Or I am having trouble following what you are trying to say.

 

Sazroc claimed that Hardocp obtained the 2070 unethically and then released the review early for clicks, thus screwing over the reviewers who signed the Nvidia NDA and were required to wait for the embargo to lift.

 

I asked him if he held LMG/LTT to an equal ethical standard that he seems to hold Hardocp to.  Here's a summary of that situation in case you are unfamiliar:

 

A member of Hardocp WON an ebay auction for an Intel Larrabee prototype and paid the seller $310 +$20 shipping.  By winning the auction the buyer and seller entered a contractual agreement and the seller was obligated to ship the card to the hardocp member.  Instead the seller received a message moments after the auction ended from someone at LMG offering nearly $400 for the GPU (as quoted in the LTT Larrabee video) and he decided to sell to LMG and refunded the hardforum member's money.  Thus, LTT obtained the card unethically, screwing over a fellow GPU enthusiast and then produced the Larrabee video for clicks.

 

Since LTT has not responded the issue (and the comment with hundreds of upvotes about it on Youtube from the original buyer has mysteriously been deleted), I can only assume that LMG lost the auction and then made the backdoor offer on the GPU.

 

There's a five page thread about it over at Hardforum spelling out the situation with all the evidence if you're interested.

 

*Edited with a link from the thread at Hardforum.

 

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel-larrabee-a-prototype.1948986/

 

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, Fixall said:

 

 

I think maybe you don't understand the situation I am talking about...  Or I am having trouble following what you are trying to say.

 

Sazroc claimed that Hardocp obtained the 2070 unethically and then released the review early for clicks, thus screwing over the reviewers who signed the Nvidia NDA and were required to wait for the embargo to lift.

It was sold unethically, not obtained unethically, however there is room for dispute in that as the buyer Kyle was aware the seller should not be selling. Regardless how the transaction occurred,  Kyle knew that someone had to break contract before he could obtain that card.

 

Quote

I asked him if he held LMG/LTT to an equal ethical standard that he seems to hold Hardocp to.  Here's a summary of that situation in case you are unfamiliar:

 

A member of Hardocp WON an ebay auction for an Intel Larrabee prototype and paid the seller $310 +$20 shipping.  By winning the auction the buyer and seller entered a contractual agreement and the seller was obligated to ship the card to the hardocp member.  Instead the seller received a message moments after the auction ended from someone at LMG offering nearly $400 for the GPU (as quoted in the LTT Larrabee video) and he decided to sell to LMG and refunded the hardforum member's money.  Thus, LTT obtained the card unethically, screwing over a fellow GPU enthusiast and then produced the Larrabee video for clicks.

If you want to compare the situations then you would have to know for sure that this person from LMG who bought the card actually knew the sale was unethical.  Many Ebay sales are renegotiated after sale becasue the seller has the goods listed elsewhere at the same time.

Quote

Since LTT has not responded the issue (and the comment with hundreds of upvotes about it on Youtube from the original buyer has mysteriously been deleted), I can only assume that LMG lost the auction and then made the backdoor offer on the GPU.

You can assume that all you want, but that no more makes it true than assuming the card was also listed elsewhere and becasue the seller got a higher offer they took that.  What we know for sure is that the seller was not being fair by not honoring the ebay sale, what we don;t know is if anyone from LTT had been a part of the ebay auction or even if they knew it had occurred.  That is mere speculation on your part.

 

Quote

There's a five page thread about it over at Hardforum spelling out the situation with all the evidence if you're interested.

 

 

Does this evidence prove that someone from LTT made bids and that the card was only for sale on Ebay?

 

EDIT: and just so you know, the CS on this forum states you provide links, you are not allowed to tell people to go searching.

[Fixall]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It was sold unethically, not obtained unethically, however there is room for dispute in that as the buyer Kyle was aware the seller should not be selling. Regardless how the transaction occurred,  Kyle knew that someone had to break contract before he could obtain that card.

You have as much proof that Kyle obtained the 2070 unethically as I do that LMG obtained Larrabee prototype unethically.  Kyle didn't sign the NDA and is out of the loop.  Go ahead and prove that he knew that he was obtaining the 2070 unethically.  Considering you're not him...  That might be hard to do.

 

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

If you want to compare the situations then you would have to know for sure that this person from LMG who bought the card actually knew the sale was unethical. 

It is against Intel's company policies for the Larrabee protype to have ever left the Intel facility, let alone be posted for sale on ebay.  Linus at the very least knows this and hints at it in the Larrabee video.  If Intel decided to trace this GPU back to an Intel employee, the individual would be fired and likely prosecuted.  Sounds pretty unethically obtained to me. 

 

The message from LMG was also sent to the Larrabee seller THROUGH ebay and happened moments after the ebay auction ended.  That may not be enough proof for you, but it is for me.  

 

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Many Ebay sales are renegotiated after sale becasue the seller has the goods listed elsewhere at the same time.

Just because something happens, doesn't mean it isn't against ebay's terms of service that both buyers and sellers have to agree to.

 

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can assume that all you want, but that no more makes it true than assuming the card was also listed elsewhere and becasue the seller got a higher offer they took that.  What we know for sure is that the seller was not being fair by not honoring the ebay sale, what we don;t know is if anyone from LTT had been a part of the ebay auction or even if they knew it had occurred.  That is mere speculation on your part.

 

Does this evidence prove that someone from LTT made bids and that the card was only for sale on Ebay?

 

EDIT: and just so you know, the CS on this forum states you provide links, you are not allowed to tell people to go searching.

 

This is all covered in my previous replies, so I'll leave it at that...  Other than the fact that I posted a link to the Hardforum thread.  I avoided posting it at first, so I could go read the LTT ToS.  Many sites don't like you linking to other forums.

 

 

Also...  It's nice of you to fight his battles for him, but I was addressing Sazrocks, and I certainly don't remember bringing your name into the conversation.

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Fixall said:

You have as much proof that Kyle obtained the 2070 unethically as I do that LMG obtained Larrabee prototype unethically.  Kyle didn't sign the NDA and is out of the loop.  Go ahead and prove that he knew that he was obtaining the 2070 unethically.  Considering you're not him...  That might be hard to do.

Are you trying to say Kyle didn't know that those cards are not allowed to be sold until the release date?   Please if he is that ignorant about his industry it's no wonder there's all this shit about him.

Quote

It is against Intel's company policies for the Larrabee protype to have ever left the Intel facility, let alone be posted for sale on ebay.  Linus at the very least knows this and hints at it in the Larrabee video.  If Intel decided to trace this GPU back to an Intel employee, the individual would be fired and likely prosecuted.  Sounds pretty unethically obtained to me. 

So you try claim Linus should know better but not Kyle, please explain to me what kind of bias makes you post such things?

Quote

The message from LMG was also sent to the Larrabee seller THROUGH ebay and happened moments after the ebay auction ended.  That may not be enough proof for you, but it is for me.  

 

You saw the message did you? you have seen evidence it actually went down like that and isn't just the machinations of some pissed off customer?

Quote

Just because something happens, doesn't mean it isn't against ebay's terms of service that both buyers and sellers have to agree to.

 

Never said it was. In fact I have already said: " What we know for sure is that the seller was not being fair by not honoring the ebay sale "

Quote

This is all covered in my previous replies, so I'll leave it at that...  Other than the fact that I posted a link to the Hardforum thread.  I avoided posting it at first, so I could go read the LTT ToS.  Many sites don't like you linking to other forums.

 

Which I have responded to.  The only evidence in all 5 pages is that it looks like exactly the same card.  Maybe it is exactly the same, but that still doesn't exclude the possibility that Linus just sent him a message saying "I'll pay XX amount pull the auction".   It also doesn't mean Linus knew it was already sold when he sent the message, however we know for sure that Kyle knew the card he bought was not meant to be sold yet.

Quote

Also...  It's nice of you to fight his battles for him, but I was addressing Sazrocks, and I certainly don't remember bringing your name into the conversation.

 

When you post on a public forum and make statements presented as facts, they are open for everyone to address, I do not need an invitation to comment on something I think is wrong or requires clarification.  

 

So, as I first asked, please tell me how this changes anything?  How does this issue change the nature of what Kyle did?  Are you just going to hold Linus to one set of standards based on some of the flimsiest evidence (even the winning bidder said he was happy Linus got the card) whilst holding Kylie to different standards?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Fixall said:

Go ahead and prove that he knew that he was obtaining the 2070 unethically.  Considering you're not him...  That might be hard to do.

That actually could be easy, did he obtain the card before official authorized sale, if yes then that answers that. We all know that it was a yes so yea... unless someone wants to make the claim Kyle didn't know the official release date in which case I'll let anyone dig that hole for themselves heh.

 

The only reprieve on the above I can think of is actually from a section of the GN RTX 2070 video where he mentioned Nvidia adjusted their review strategy and told AIBs to sample the cheapest MSRP card they have to reviewers thus one of them (MSI) may have sent an RTX 2070 to Hard OCP by mistake/misinterpreting the instructions from Nvidia by sending them to any reviewer not just approved ones.

 

Could have been a mistake by one of the AIBs, however that is unlikely because the card they got was an MSI RTX 2070 Gaming Z not the MSI RTX 2070 Armor which is the cheap one that is in other reviews and were instructed to send.

[Fixall]

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Are you trying to say Kyle didn't know that those cards are not allowed to be sold until the release date?   Please if he is that ignorant about his industry it's no wonder there's all this shit about him.

Nope.  I'm saying you don't have any more proof that Kyle knew the 2070 wasn't allowed to be purchased until the embargo date as I do that the purchaser from LMG knew that the Larrabee protype was unethically sourced from Intel and was then unethically purchased from ebay after it had already been sold.  Assumptions and incomplete evidence...  That's it.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

So you try claim Linus should know better but not Kyle, please explain to me what kind of bias makes you post such things?

Nope.  I asked Sazrocks if he holds LTT to the same standards that he holds Hardocp to.  That's it.  Then you butted in.

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You saw the message did you? you have seen evidence it actually went down like that and isn't just the machinations of some pissed off customer?

Nope.  Instead I sent a message to gtech on ebay and he was the one who said he was contacted on ebay by a member of LMG.  Pretty easy to figure out the card was purchased by LMG from ebay though...  Because LTT says so IN THE VIDEO.

 

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Never said it was. In fact I have already said: " What we know for sure is that the seller was not being fair by not honoring the ebay sale "

You said for me to compare the situations, I would have to know that LMG knew they were purchasing the card unethically.  And then proceeded to offer up the fact that many people post things for sale on ebay and other sites at the same time, breaking ebay's TOS...  Was this supposed to be a form of supporting evidence?

 

LMG purchased the card from ebay (as stated in the video).  LMG made the offer on ebay for the Larrabee GPU after the auction had ended and someone else had won.  LMG offered an amount higher than the winning bid for the Larrabee GPU.  This is enough evidence for me that the LMG employee knew they were making an unethical purchase.

 

To take things further...  Intel policy says the Larrabee GPU should not have left their property and was illegally sold.  I find it laughable that LMG didn't know this.  I find it equally laughable that Kyle didn't know he couldn't post the review early (but equally hard to prove).

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but that still doesn't exclude the possibility that Linus just sent him a message and saying I'll pay XX amount pull the auction.   It also doesn't mean Linus knew it was already sold when he sent the message, we know for sure Kyle knew the card he bought was not meant to be sold yet.

The message was sent and the deal was made AFTER the auction had ended and the buyer had already paid the money for the GPU.  It's pretty freaking obvious on ebay when a item has sold considering they pull the page.  Are you trying to claim that LMG could have sent the buyer a message before the auction ended, offering them ~$400 and asking them to pull it...  And then the seller proceeding to let the auction continue until it ended.  Accepted the money from the buyer...  And then refunded the money to the buyer and proceeded to sell to Linus instead?  That could be a possibility, but then how did LMG not see that the auction had ended with a winning bidder when they messaged the seller to set up payment arrangements?  We know for sure Linus knew the PROTOTYPE card he bought was not meant to be sold (that sounds familiar).

 

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When you post on a public forum and makes posts and statements presented as facts, they are open for everyone to address, I do not need an invitation to comment on something I think is wrong or requires clarification.  

No arguments here. 

 

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So, as I first asked, please tell me how this changes anything?  How does this issue change the nature of what Kyle did?  Are you just going to hold Linus to one set of standards based on some of the flimsiest evidence (even the winning bidder said he was happy Linus got the card) whilst holding Kylie to different standards?

 I didn't claim it changes anything and I'm not sure where you got that.  I am not holding Linus to one set of standards and Kyle to a different set of standards.  Read my first post.  I asked Sazrocks if HE/SHE was going to hold LTT to the same standards that he seems to hold Hardocp.  That's it.  You're the one who got all riled up and assumed I was ok with Hardocp releasing the 2070 review early.  As far as I'm concerned, I think what Hardocp AND LinusTechTips did was scummy.

 

For what it's worth, the winning bidder said he was happy Linus got the card solely because it would result in at least SOME information about it coming to light instead of it sitting in a collectors safe.   

[Fixall]

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That actually could be easy, did he obtain the card before official authorized sale, if yes then that answers that. We all know that it was a yes so yea... unless someone wants to make the claim Kyle didn't know the official release date in which case I'll let anyone dig that hole for themselves heh.

 

The only reprieve on the above I can think of is actually from a section of the GN RTX 2070 video where he mentioned Nvidia adjusted their review strategy and told AIBs to sample the cheapest MSRP card they have to reviewers thus one of them (MSI) may have sent an RTX 2070 to Hard OCP by mistake/misinterpreting the instructions from Nvidia by sending them to any reviewer not just approved ones.

 

Could have been a mistake by one of the AIBs, however that is unlikely because the card they got was an MSI RTX 2070 Gaming Z not the MSI RTX 2070 Armor which is the cheap one that is in other reviews and were instructed to send.

Proving that Kyle knew the release date on the 2070 when he didn't have insider information from the embargo is exactly what someone would have to do though.  I agree that's it's nearly impossible that Kyle didn't know when the 2070 was supposed to be released.  But I also think it's nearly impossible that Linus didn't know that the Larrabee prototype wasn't supposed to be sold on ebay.  I'm just curious as to why members hold Hardocp to higher standards than LMG.  Hardocp (very likely) purchased a GPU unethically and released a review on it to gain views that other reviewers could not.  LTT (very likely) purchased a prototype GPU unethically and released a review on it to gain views that other reviewers could not.

[leadeater]

Just now, Fixall said:

Proving that Kyle knew the release date on the 2070 when he didn't have insider information from the embargo

The release date was public information provided by Nvidia.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/09/25/nvidia-confirms-geforce-rtx-2070-release-date

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3063415/nvidia-rtx-2070-release-date

https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/new-product/pc-upgrades/nvidia-rtx-2070-release-date-announced-3684657/

[Derangel]

4 minutes ago, Fixall said:

Proving that Kyle knew the release date on the 2070 when he didn't have insider information from the embargo is exactly what someone would have to do though.  I agree that's it's nearly impossible that Kyle didn't know when the 2070 was supposed to be released.  But I also think it's nearly impossible that Linus didn't know that the Larrabee prototype wasn't supposed to be sold on ebay.  I'm just curious as to why members hold Hardocp to higher standards than LMG.  Hardocp (very likely) purchased a GPU unethically and released a review on it to gain views that other reviewers could not.  LTT (very likely) purchased a prototype GPU unethically and released a review on it to gain views that other reviewers could not.

Ummm....Hard's article clearly states the embargo lift date. Not sure what more proof you want on that one.

[Fixall]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The release date was public information provided by Nvidia.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/09/25/nvidia-confirms-geforce-rtx-2070-release-date

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3063415/nvidia-rtx-2070-release-date

https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/new-product/pc-upgrades/nvidia-rtx-2070-release-date-announced-3684657/

Correct.  That's why I say it's almost impossible that Kyle didn't know.  But something being public information doesn't equate to an individual knowing said information...  Which is what someone would have to prove.

 

Just like I could say Intel having engineers arrested and prosecuted over selling prototypes on ebay is public knowledge, but it would be hard to prove that Linus knew that...  Even if the articles about it were posted on HIS WEBSITE/FORUM back in 2014.

 

https://www.techspot.com/news/46902-engineers-arrested-for-selling-sample-cpus-on-ebay.html

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1260875https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/281796-engineering-samples/

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/281796-engineering-samples/

 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Fixall said:

Correct.  That's why I say it's almost impossible that Kyle didn't know.  But something being public information doesn't equate to an individual knowing said information...  Which is what someone would have to prove.

 

7 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Ummm....Hard's article clearly states the embargo lift date. Not sure what more proof you want on that one.

 

 

(Not actually trying to be a dick btw, just kinda found that funny since I did say I'd let anyone dig that hole themselves earlier).

 

P.S. I wouldn't try and make the argument someone who's job it is to review products is not aware of official release dates of one of the most important product launches of the year. If that were true then that's a person/business not worth listening to at all, that would be rather shocking unawareness.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

 

Nope.  I'm saying you don't have any more proof that Kyle knew the 2070 wasn't allowed to be purchased until the embargo date as I do that the purchaser from LMG knew that the Larrabee protype was unethically sourced from Intel and was then unethically purchased from ebay after it had already been sold.  Assumptions and incomplete evidence...  That's it.

That is the saddest ignorance if seen oin these forums in a while, trying to claim Kyle didn;t know about the sale of the cards whilst making up all that shit about the NDA and not signing it.  Please. 

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

 

Nope.  I asked Sazrocks if he holds LTT to the same standards that he holds Hardocp to.  That's it.  Then you butted in.

You also made other statements about the two incidences being on the same level, they are not, you have bugger all proof for one and the other is as plain as day.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

Nope.  Instead I sent a message to gtech on ebay and he was the one who said he was contacted on ebay by a member of LMG.  Pretty easy to figure out the card was purchased by LMG from ebay though...  Because LTT says so IN THE VIDEO.

 

you personally sent a message to the ebay user? post the screen shots here please.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

You said for me to compare the situations, I would have to know that LMG knew they were purchasing the card unethically.  And then proceeded to offer up the fact that many people post things for sale on ebay and other sites at the same time, breaking ebay's TOS...  Was this supposed to be a form of supporting evidence?

You are supposed to be providing evidence that Linus did something unethical,  not the ebay seller, not anyone else, you make the claim so it is upon you to prove Linus (or whoever acted on his behalf) knew they were undercutting a legitimate buyer. 

 

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

LMG purchased the card from ebay (as stated in the video).  LMG made the offer on ebay for the Larrabee GPU after the auction had ended and someone else had won. 

Proof that happened after the auction was finished.  Proof that what I said earlier still couldn't be true.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

LMG offered an amount higher than the winning bid for the Larrabee GPU.  This is enough evidence for me that the LMG employee knew they were making an unethical purchase.

All they said was they got it off ebay. 

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

 

To take things further...  Intel policy says the Larrabee GPU should not have left their property and was illegally sold.  I find it laughable that LMG didn't know this.  I find it equally laughable that Kyle didn't know he couldn't post the review early (but equally hard to prove).

No, there is a difference between company policy being intentionally broken and that sale being illegal.  Big difference in fact.  If someone had accidentally left the sample there and the box was thrown out, then the contents are not legal owned by anyone (except maybe the waste company), it's finding and sale are no more illegal than you finding an old watch in a street bin and selling it on ebay.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

The message was sent and the deal was made AFTER the auction had ended and the buyer had already paid the money for the GPU.

Again where is the proof?  please post screen shots with the times these messages were sent and who sent them. 

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

  It's pretty freaking obvious on ebay when a item has sold considering they pull the page. 

The page is still there: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Larrabee-a-prototype-of-the-cancelled-Intel-GPU-/232564439281?hash=item3625ebb8f1%3Ag%3AV8sAAOSwJtdaDc~c&nma=true&si=7hhyMzzXEcFK4vFMwnIhVnF3J6w%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

Are you trying to claim that LMG could have sent the buyer a message before the auction ended, offering them ~$400 and asking them to pull it... 

Yes, happens to me all the time.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

And then the seller proceeding to let the auction continue until it ended.

a possability. or it is also possible he got the message after the auction finished and decided to take the higher offer.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

Accepted the money from the buyer...

Did the seller cash a cheque knowing he was only going to refund the payment? or was the payment an automated one (paypay/bank transfer) that the seller has no choice but to accept until he can refund it.  Because you are insinuating a an evidence from an involuntary condition. If I send you a paypal payment you are credited without being asked, can I then claim you accepted the payment intentionally.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

  And then refunded the money to the buyer and proceeded to sell to Linus instead?  That could be a possibility, but then how did LMG not see that the auction had ended with a winning bidder when they messaged the seller to set up payment arrangements? 

WEhy would they even look,  I don't go looking to see if an item is still for sale when a seller tells me it's mine. And plenty of times the item has been sold before the auction ends.  Again we have no evidence it happened the way you are convinced it did.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

We know for sure Linus knew the PROTOTYPE card he bought was not meant to be sold (that sounds familiar).

As I have pointed out, selling the prototype is not illegal,  If the RTX card Kyle bought was found in a bin then it would be the same, but it isb't that way and you know it.

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

No arguments here. 

 

 I didn't claim it changes anything and I'm not sure where you got that.  I am not holding Linus to one set of standards and Kyle to a different set of standards.  Read my first post.  I asked Sazrocks if HE/SHE was going to hold LTT to the same standards that he seems to hold Hardocp.  That's it.  You're the one who got all riled up and assumed I was ok with Hardocp releasing the 2070 review early.  As far as I'm concerned, I think what Hardocp AND LinusTechTips did was scummy.

Why is holding LTT to the same standard important? what doe that have to do with the Kyle?  You are the one so hell bent on arguing that Kyle didn't know the Release date and that a card found in a bin is illegal that you seem to have lost track of what you are actually trying to say.  As per my original questions to you.  Why?  why is it relevant? how does it change the ethical nature of kyles behavior?

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

For what it's worth, the winning bidder said he was happy Linus got the card solely because it would result in at least SOME information about it coming to light instead of it sitting in a collectors safe.   

Yeah, I already said that.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

P.S. I wouldn't try and make the argument someone who's job it is to review products is not aware of official release dates of one of the most important product launches of the year. If that were true then that's a person/business not worth listening to at all, that would be rather shocking unawareness.

Whisch is why I said:

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Are you trying to say Kyle didn't know that those cards are not allowed to be sold until the release date?   Please if he is that ignorant about his industry it's no wonder there's all this shit about him.

 

 

[Fixall]

9 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Ummm....Hard's article clearly states the embargo lift date. Not sure what more proof you want on that one.

Correct.  And to know the release date, you would have to have insider information from the embargo which Kyle wasn't privy to.  In the review, Kyle claimed he knew when the embargo would be lifted, not that he knew when the GPU would be released.  The date the embargo lifts, is not necessarily the date a GPU would be released.  I agree it would be silly to have a release date before the embargo was lifted and I agree that it's a huge stretch to think Kyle didn't know the release date of the 2070.  I'm solely speaking from a legal standpoint and the burden of proof.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

 

 

(Not actually trying to be a dick btw, just kinda found that funny since I did say I'd let anyone dig that hole themselves earlier).

 

P.S. I wouldn't try and make the argument someone who's job it is to review products is not aware of official release dates of one of the most important product launches of the year. If that were true then that's a person/business not worth listening to at all, that would be rather shocking unawareness.

That's not at all the argument I'm trying to make.  I would 100% place my bet that Kyle knew exactly when the release date on the 2070 was.  Just like I would 100% place my bet that Linus knew that it was illegal for someone to sell a prototype Larrabe GPU on ebay.  I would also place my bet that the person from LMG knew they were making an offer on a GPU on ebay that had already been purchased.  It's not what you know/think though...  It's what you can prove is what I was getting at.

 

You're completely ignoring the point and the reason for my post in the first place (great deflection though).  Members here are making a stink about Hardocp releasing the 2070 review early(which I agree was a dick move).  I just wanted to know if members here were going to hold LTT to the same standards they hold Hardocp to.  The answer seems to be a resounding no.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Fixall said:

You're completely ignoring the point and the reason for my post in the first place (great deflection though).  Members here are making a stink about Hardocp releasing the 2070 review early(which I agree was a dick move).  I just wanted to know if members here were going to hold LTT to the same standards they hold Hardocp to.  The answer seems to be a resounding no.

As mentioned there are facts that I cannot know or easily find out about the Larrabe purchase where as all the information required to make a judgement in this case is readily available. Both cases the sale wasn't necessarily illegal either though, definitely a breach of company policy for Larrabe (probably employment contract too) and for the RTX 2070 a breach of contract which is a civil law meaning the sale itself was not illegal but rather a breach of contract (yea splitting hairs I know).

 

Here in my country I can say the RTX 2070 sale would have been illegal, under our consumer protection laws but I can't assume there is anything similar to that anywhere else nor would it apply here anyway, didn't happen in my country.

 

Ultimately I have no issue with Kyle getting the card earlier than what should have been possible, nor do I have an issue with an Intel employee getting that GPU on to the open market nor an LMG employee purchasing it. I know Hard OCP publishing their article when they did was bad form, I don't know the specifics on the Larrabe sale because the only person that is worth hearing from is the person who sold it, not who tried to buy it, not who ended up getting it but the person who can actually explain what actually happened on that end.

 

Edit:

Really though this whole Larrabe thing most certainly is a deflection/side issue, it has no bearing here at all. I get that you were interested in knowing but it changes nothing about this situation. And at least for me what ever the case for that particular issue I don't watch any LTT videos for informational reasons. They are just entertainment for me because being in the IT profession myself nothing they offer is something I don't already know or know better than they do, especially about servers. My god they do some dodgy/hack crap on that front but very entertaining to watch, the slow impending doom kind of entertaining.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

As mentioned there are facts that I cannot know or easily find out about the Larrabe purchase where as all the information required to make a judgement in this case is readily available. Both cases the sale wasn't necessarily illegal either though, definitely a breach of company policy for Larrabe (probably employment contract too) and for the RTX 2070 a breach of contract which is a civil law meaning the sale itself was not illegal but rather a breach of contract (yea splitting hairs I know).

 

 

 

With regard to the Larabee incident, if what Linus says is true, then its sale hasn't breached any civil law either,  because it was thrown out and that is an accident not an act of breaching contract (maybe somewhere further up they can argue the contract states a certain company will take responsibility). However that doesn't make the obtaining and later sale illegal or unethical.  Linus made the purchase knowing there are very few ways to obtain the product without it being part of a breach of contract, but the story he presented is one of those ways.

 

The only way for Kyle to be able to claim his purchase of the card was not knowingly linked to a breach of civil contract would be if it was accidentally thrown out and someone found it in the bin and sold it on ebay.

[Fixall]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

As mentioned there are facts that I cannot know or easily find out about the Larrabe purchase where as all the information required to make a judgement in this case is readily available. Both cases the sale wasn't necessarily illegal either though, definitely a breach of company policy for Larrabe (probably employment contract too) and for the RTX 2070 a breach of contract which is a civil law meaning the sale itself was not illegal but rather a breach of contract (yea splitting hairs I know).

 

Here in my country I can say the RTX 2070 sale would have been illegal, under our consumer protection laws but I can't assume there is anything similar to that anywhere else nor would it apply here anyway, didn't happen in my country.

 

Ultimately I have no issue with Kyle getting the card earlier than what should have been possible, nor do I have an issue with an Intel employee getting that GPU on to the open market nor an LMG employee purchasing it. I know Hard OCP publishing their article when they did was bad form, I don't know the specifics on the Larrabe sale because the only person that is worth hearing from is the person who sold it, not who tried to buy it, not who ended up getting it but the person would can actually explain what actually happened on that end.

I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying.  But wouldn't the same logic apply the Hardocp case?  Wouldn't the only person worth hearing from be the person/entity that sold the GPU to Kyle, considering we don't know the specifics of the sale nor the laws?  I guess in my mind, I view parts of the two situations as the same.  LTT obtained a GPU that many others would love to review but cannot and then released a video for views.  Hardocp obtained a GPU that many others would love to review but cannot and then released an article for views.

 

I think both situations are crappy.

 

I will say I prefer Hardocp's being an honest jerk over LTT's silence.  The comment from the winning bidder on the Larrabee Youtube video had over 2,500 upvotes before it was mysteriously deleted.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Fixall said:

But wouldn't the same logic apply the Hardocp case?  Wouldn't the only person worth hearing from be the person/entity that sold the GPU to Kyle, considering we don't know the specifics of the sale nor the laws?

Yes that would indeed be interesting to know, wouldn't change the knowingly publishing early which he was under no obligation not to do but that's what make it bad form by doing it. Hard OCP's choice on that matter, didn't gain any favor from me by doing it nor got me to read it.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Fixall said:

LTT obtained a GPU that many others would love to review but cannot and then released a video for views.  Hardocp obtained a GPU that many others would love to review but cannot and then released an article for views.

Difference there is would love to review vs everyone was going to review, and their is a current industry normal practice for the second. You're not collectively screwing over your peers by doing the Larrabe video, you are by publishing early for the RTX 2070 video.

[Fixall]

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes that would indeed be interesting to know, wouldn't change the knowingly publishing early which he was under no obligation not to do but that's what make it bad form by doing it. Hard OCP's choice on that matter, didn't gain any favor from me by doing it nor got me to read it.

Concurred.  And I don't blame you.  I was very disappointed in how LTT neglected to address the Larrabee "situation" and I am very disappointed in how HardOCP handled the 2070 release review.  I know Kyle obviously isn't getting along with Nvidia and isn't a big fan of the Youtube tech reviewers/entertainers and holds no allegiance to them...  But that's not a good enough reason to screw over the whole industry.  I feel the worst for sites like GamerNexus who rely on the deep delving, nitty gritty reviews as opposed to entertainment to get views.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Difference there is would love to review vs everyone was going to review, and their is a current industry normal practice for the second. You're not collectively screwing over your peers by doing the Larrabe video, you are by publishing early for the RTX 2070 video.

Very valid point.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Fixall said:

Gotta work in 6 hours!

Don't let me keep you up, I know I've been dragged in to convos on here far far past when I should have gone to sleep lol.

 

Spoiler