View Single Post
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#2677
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
Like other things mentioned with regards to Jolla, just repeating it ad nauseum does not make it true.

"Scam" implies an intention. There is no evidence of the intention of not delivering the tablets. In this regard the Jolla's campaign is very different from the Ubuntu Edge one.

There is evidence that Jolla witheld information from the backers about their financial troubles that prevented them to ship the tablets but this is:
a) common (which is not to say that it is right);
b) prudent (exposing financial troubles too early would scare off customers)
c) depending on local legislature, may even be the only legal way of doing things. For example, in the UK it is illegal for a company to announce "we are going to announce redundancies". The only legally permitted way is to say, "we are announcing redundancies".
This is not true. They proved several times. They've broke several time frames every time stating that tablets are almost ready to be shipped. (I extracted their blog posts where they publicly claimed that everything is OK). At the end they've confessed that it is not true. They also spent all the money for the software development, trying to convince us that all those money were invested for OS tablet adjusts, but the real true is they've needed to adjust OS for Intex devices so they can strike a deal with them. Using money for different thing that is originally intended, and for their own purpose is legally called embezzlement and fraud, so stop defending Jolla. They have created this havoc by themselves. IGG contributors were not to be blamed. Also for all of those bozos that are claiming that IGG contributors should not ask for money refund, think again (This would be probably true if they've haven't broke the agreement by conducted personal agendas. They've created tablet, they got award for tablet of the year, they've knew the cost. They are not startup company as they were claiming. Those are Nokia engineers, managers and staff. Not a freaking students). Before Jolla has created this campaign they had to read and accept the agreement of IGG Terms of use.

Under "Disputes between Campaign Owners and Contributors" there are two paragraphs:

Campaign Owners are legally bound to perform on any promise and/or commitment to Contributors (including delivering any Perks).

and more important:

If a Campaign Owner is unable to perform on any promise and/or commitment to Contributors, the Campaign Owner will work with the Contributors to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution, which may include the issuance of a refund of Contributions by the Campaign Owner.

Since they've stated publicly that they are not able to deliver tablet, we have right for ask for a full refund.

If you do not believe check the terms by yourself.

HTML Code:
https://www.indiegogo.com/about/terms
On the link
HTML Code:
http://www.tivi.fi/Kaikki_uutiset/jolla-horjuu-haudan-partaalla-sai-oikeudelta-rauhoitusaikaa-6236014
they also clearly asked the district court in Helsinki to be protected from legal action. Also stating that they obviously have the money, and they are looking for another creditors so they can "continue their business" or should I say their development of adjustment OS for Intex devices.

There is also a catch, this is only temporary decision, and it is only a district court. There is also a supreme court that can revoke that decision, so they are not fully protected as they've thought.

Last edited by prometheus; 2015-12-10 at 18:59.