Linus Gabriel Sebastian & Linus Media Group / Linus Tech Tips - Narcissistic corporate shill YouTuber driving his media empire into the ground. KILL COUNT: 2

[Soggy paper straw]

There is no explicit statement that Billet gave LTT the block with the condition it had to be used for builds. If there was, I'd agree with both of you. They *did* give them the block and 3090 and said it's yours now, as far as I understand, that's my entire point.

You are right. People are really mad at LTT, not as "look at this retard" way, just genuinely MATI.

I think this Billet controversy is why it's important to listen to both sides. If Billet had a very clear contract that laid out the terms and defined this indefinite term loan, they would not have accepted the money LTT offered. Unless someone wants to say "as a English/Canadian lawyer" and prove me wrong, this seems a case of wishful thinking for your fanfic of LTT failing because they committed a crime.
The reality, with the info we have, is that this whole mess originated from Billet expecting competency from Linus & crew, and LTT being the type of company that allows employees to message "sorry, we sold it "

Seriously. You all saw the most unprofessional email ever written and thought "sure, they signed a contract" ???

As surprisingly incompetent as it is, there is no contract* - which means that a lawsuit could have taken place, and I would not have bet on LTT losing. Or at least losing more than they have repaid BL.

The proof is standard protocol.

Standard for who? These are 20 years old who never worked in any job even remotely related to the tech industry, or journalism, or anything that would be relevant...

---

On HR: in the leaked speech, Linus and Yvonne refer to an EXTERNAL HR. Did that change?

I will also say again: HR suggesting to go talk to the person that is giving you trouble is a standard policy as the first thing to try. Usually then, those harassment policies continue by saying "... if you would not feel comfortable do this instead..." It sounds stupid to anyone beside HR because if someone is looking at the harassment policy they probably really don't want to talk to the person directly.

---

Since people here are all expert lawyers - could there be an angle for negligence against LTT as an advertiser? Since most of their content is ads, and influencers are effectively walking advertising machines... could one theoretically sue them for false advertising due to their false/wrong claims?

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

Noticed the amount of spam that was flooding reddit keywording linus has died down and some removed.

All part of PR response.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how much of this "break" was time spent cleaning their public record and getting their 'community run' outlets to get in rank and file. Both the subreddit and forum have reigned in discussion and the circlejerk against LTT has, once again, flipped the other way and the dickriders are back out in full force.

This obsession with "mental health" seems bizarre to me. Not that therapy can't be helpful in specific circumstances, but in America it seems like everyone has a therapist they go to regularly and people are still retarded and/or lunatics anyway; far more so than the people I'm around IRL who never heard of therapy.
What do they even talk about? Someone who works for Linus is probably in the 5% of most privileged and coddled people in the collective west.

"I was too much of a wuss to say what I thought was right and now I'm sad" - "Being sad is valid, use your medication to decompress and don't feel like you need to grow up! Always remember to act on impulse and externalize failures!!!" -- Something like this?

Caring about mental health is a corporate move in NA. You convince people that, it's not their situation that's terrible, it's their brains reaction to the situation that's making them miserable, then you can keep them in the shitty situation without addressing the problems at hand.

What advice would a therapist even have for having online discourse turn negative around you? DFE and STFU? The farms will give you that advice for free.

New GN just dropped.

https://mega.nz/file/po8kGSLJ#KP3hhiP1i_3Zf4ddb6dXuhWE3qe-j8PkVVObiN1JBc0

Here it is. Audio sync is fucked because AMD. Not waiting another hour to re-record

https://streamable.com/27x0ck better audio version, working on an archive.

 

[LiquidKid]

As surprisingly incompetent as it is, there is no contract* - which means that a lawsuit could have taken place, and I would not have bet on LTT losing. Or at least losing more than they have repaid BL.

That’s not how contracts work. It might be a tad different because Billet is in the UK and Linus is in Canada, but there does not need to be a formally signed document for a legally binding contract to be in effect. A simple handshake can be held up in court as a legally binding agreement

The rules for a legally binding contract are as follows

1. An offer is made and accepted
2.there’s an exchange of something of value between the parties
3. The terms are clear and complete
4. Both parties must have the mental capacity to agree to the terms without being coerced

That’s it. Those 4 things are all that is needed for a contract to have taken place. The only reason non-written contracts don’t always end up in your favor is because when it was a verbal contract, you need to rely on the judge and/or jury to decide who is telling the truth in the dispute.

But here’s the thing, Billet vs LMG is not a simple verbal contract. We have actual emails and follow ups where not only did LMG agree to return the item, they admitted in writing and in a video that they had agreed to return it and didn’t. by all means this is a breach of contract. And selling an item that is not legally your property is theft.

Also, I’m sorry, but no, I don’t buy the “these are 20 year olds with no experience, they have no protocol” bullshit.
LMG is a company with an evaluation of $100 million USD, had been in business for over a decade, and regularly does business with the largest manufacturers in their industry. You mean to tell me that Valve, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Dell, Asus, Corsair, EVGA, Samsung, Apple, and LG among other billion dollar corporations send LMG review units and let them mess around with prototypes, and LMG has no idea what standard protocol for these items is?

This year alone Linus himself made videos about Stadia and Wii dev units and commented that he wasn’t supposed to have them because like everyone, he knew that dev units are still the property of the company and are supposed to be returned instead of sold on the market.

This wasn’t some kid giving another kid their toy at school. This was a business lending a prototype to a media corporation for the purpose of press and publicity. They all knew the protocol and the legalities of prototypes.

You are right. People are really mad at LTT, not as "look at this retard" way, just genuinely MATI.

and to answer this, frankly, I have considered the Billet Labs thing to be the least interesting aspect of this whole controversy. The terrible testing standards , horrible data, and blatant corporate shilling are the real issues I feel people should be highlighting. I consider the billet labs bit too be a funny fuck up, but not the main story. I’m only continuing its discussion because people like you keep trying to make excuses for a multi-million dollar company by misunderstanding how shit works

 

[Soggy paper straw]

We have actual emails and follow ups where not only did LMG agree to return the item, they admitted in writing and in a video that they had agreed to return it and didn’t. by all means this is a breach of contract.

And Billet Labs said at some point that they could "keep it" - which can be interpreted as change of ownership.
My point is not that it definitely was, just that arguing that has some merit; in other words that it is not full black and white (from a legal point of view, clearly bad from a moral one)

LMG has no idea what standard protocol for these items is?

With all the incompetence on display, you cannot believe that a new-ish employee would not know what to do with a prototype?

Who in LMG are you referring to? Because their stupidity here is in the process, hence in the details that transpired. This is based on what Linus said (so could be fake tbh) and the email screenshots: the emails between Billets Labs and LMG went solely through Adam, who I would say is fairly new to the industry.
Adam left to go on holiday, and sent some sort of message or other communication to change the status of the item to "to send back". That communication was never received (or acted upon).

Hence, 1) although Linus, Luke, Nick, etc.. know that when dealing with prototypes it is important to be careful, the other employees did not get that lesson. 2) LMG lacks the processes to deal with prototypes as everything relied on one single employee, who either didn't know how important this was or didn't care (in which case it is also a problem about induction and guidance from managers to convey how important it is to not fuck up certain things).

"people like me" that "defend" Linus are saying IF BL said that they could "keep it", then LTT has some ground to consider itself the owner. What happens next is a whole debate of - is the new agreement a binding contract or not? There are several issues with just your basic points for a contract - e.g. can Adam make agreements on behalf of LMG? Adam seems to apologise, is that enough to consider that LMG had considered it binding?

You are making it seem like contract law is simple and clear-cut. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen more clear cases being brought to court and end up with surprising results. My whole point is that this is not as simple as it seems, hence not an obvious "theft"

regularly does business with the largest manufacturers in their industry

Which I doubt are managed by Adam by himself. I also don't think that Intel would not have their own contract that LMG had to agree too. That is for a multi-bibillion dollar company.
Linus did not feel BL prototype was worth 500$ to re-shoot its review. I can believe 1) LMG never sent a contract to BL (or never bothered to formally update it), and 2) BL trusted LMG to, as you say, know what the industry standards are and "trust Linus, bro".

people like you keep trying to make excuses for a multi-million dollar company by misunderstanding how shit works

No - I simply believe that LMG (the employees) can be more incompetent that people like you give it credit for.
People see LMG as a multi-million company... but most of the issues that LTT always had are due to Linus running it as if it was still "four guys in a garage, having fun". I believe that LMG, and more specifically Adam, could have realistically misunderstood how things are supposed to work.

---

This is seriously my last reply on this issue. I know you are not going to convince me with the information available. I don't think I will convince you either, so let's just leave it.

 

[xn--mck1c]

I think this Billet controversy is why it's important to listen to both sides. If Billet had a very clear contract that laid out the terms and defined this indefinite term loan, they would not have accepted the money LTT offered. Unless someone wants to say "as a English/Canadian lawyer" and prove me wrong, this seems a case of wishful thinking for your fanfic of LTT failing because they committed a crime.

I don't think the primary issue just them deciding to auction off the prototype, or what the conditions for keeping the prototype was.

It's them setting BL up with the expectation that they'd be getting the prototype back, then failing to fulfill the agreement due to their own negligence.
As Billet Labs put it:

You agreed to send it back and we planned our finances accordingly. This is not okay at all.

Therefore, the following doesn't really matter, since the agreement to return it was already made.

"people like me" that "defend" Linus are saying IF BL said that they could "keep it", then LTT has some ground to consider itself the owner.

---

What happens next is a whole debate of - is the new agreement a binding contract or not? There are several issues with just your basic points for a contract - e.g. can Adam make agreements on behalf of LMG? Adam seems to apologise, is that enough to consider that LMG had considered it binding?

As long as the agreements were done by an employee in the course and scope of their employment, then yes.
Legally,

Under common law, an employer can be vicariously liable for wrongful acts by an employee in the course and scope of their employment. If the employee acted exclusively for personal interests, the employer is not liable.

https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-505-6467

Logically, this has to be true as it's the same means that allowed an employee to agree to receive the item on LMG's behalf.
In practice, it's also needed to allow companies delegate out the power of entering agreements.

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

But here’s the thing, Billet vs LMG is not a simple verbal contract. We have actual emails and follow ups where not only did LMG agree to return the item, they admitted in writing and in a video that they had agreed to return it and didn’t. by all means this is a breach of contract. And selling an item that is not legally your property is theft.

As long as the agreements were done by an employee in the course and scope of their employment, then yes.

In the court of public opinion, you're totally correct. In the court of law, this doesn't hold up. Just saying over email you're going to give something to someone does not immediately put you into a contract agreement.

Imagine if any employee from a company could promise something to a customer and then the company is legally responsible for this promise. Do you not see how that would get exploited immediately? Just have your buddy who works in Apple inventory promise to send you a shipment of iPhones. Surely since the email was sent from an employee who deals with inventory, Apple is now liable for shipping those to you, or at least compensating you, right? No, because emails from employees making promises does not immediately bind the company into an agreement.

I do agree with the rest of your post @LiquidKid and I don't excuse them for their incompetency, it's incredibly shitty and showcases their terrible management perfectly.

 

[xn--mck1c]

In the court of law, this doesn't hold up. Just saying over email you're going to give something to someone does not immediately put you into a contract agreement.

Imagine if any employee from a company could promise something to a customer and then the company is legally responsible for this promise. Do you not see how that would get exploited immediately? Just have your buddy who works in Apple inventory promise to send you a shipment of iPhones. Surely since the email was sent from an employee who deals with inventory, Apple is now liable for shipping those to you, or at least compensating you, right? No, because emails from employees making promises does not immediately bind the company into an agreement.

Hence the "in the course and scope of their employment" clause.
From your example, was it in the course and scope of their employment to send me a shipment of iPhones? I doubt so.
As a counterexample; if it's their job to procure parts for say, repair, and they ordered the wrong parts or parts that are no longer needed, then Apple would still be on the hook and can't just back out. Or else, companies would be able to take on immense risks and simply dump it on the employee when it's convenient.

I'm not sure what you think is required for there to form an obligation, but if an employee can accept the item on behalf of LMG from BL via email, it can work the other way too, or else you could argue LMG never had the right to the item in the first place.

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

Hence the "in the course and scope of their employment" clause.
From your example, was it in the course and scope of their employment to send me a shipment of iPhones? I doubt so.

This is why I specified the fictional example worked in Apple inventory. The fictional guy is just as likely to have the power to send over iPhones as the LMG worker has to ship back products marked as LMG products in inventory by agreeing over email. Which is to say, not that legally binding power at all.

As a counterexample; if it's their job to procure parts for say, repair, and they ordered the wrong parts or parts that are no longer needed, then Apple would still be on the hook and can't just back out. Or else, companies would be able to take on immense risks and simply dump it on the employee when it's convenient.

I'm saying this in good faith, I don't understand this counter example at all. If it's the fictional apple employees job to procure parts for repair and they promised to do so for a customer, their email correspondences alone does not make Apple legally liable for this repair. If the customer had a formal agreement with Apple for this to be repaired, the story changes completely, as it would with LTT if there was a formal agreement to return it. But just an employee communicating a promise over email does not immediately hold their promises to a legal level unless they are formally speaking on behalf of the company (which this casual email chain filled with emoji's certainly was not).

I'm not sure what you think is required for there to form an obligation, but if an employee can accept the item on behalf of LMG from BL via email, it can work the other way too, or else you could argue LMG never had the right to the item in the first place.

While it's true that an employee might accept an item on behalf of a company, this doesn't necessarily imply that the same employee can make contractual commitments regarding that item. Acceptance of goods can be considered a routine operation, especially for a review company like LMG, but agreeing on terms for return or future obligations might require higher authority or more formal processes. I do appreciate this conversation btw, even if we disagree over the finer points. You're right in many of your ways of thinking.

 

[teriyakiburns]

In the court of public opinion, you're totally correct. In the court of law, this doesn't hold up. Just saying over email you're going to give something to someone does not immediately put you into a contract agreement.

Actually, yes it does. There are multiple instances, in multiple countries, of courts confirming that emails can form legally binding agreements. This is certainly the case under English law and under Canadian law, which are the jurisdictions that matter in this particular case, but it's also the case under US law. As long as the four elements of a contract are present (5 in the US; contract law varies by state, so legality within the jurisdiction is necessary), an email will become legally binding.

The elements in question are:

1. One party must make an offer that another party accepts – called “offer and acceptance.”
2. Something of value needs to pass in each direction e.g. a fee for a service – “consideration.”
3. Both parties must intend to enter into a contract – “the intention to be legally bound.”
4. Both parties must have the ability to understand that they’re entering into a contract – “contractual capacity.”

This is why so many contractual negotiation communications specify that no contract or agreement is implied in the document, or state "subject to contract" as part of the terms of negotiation.

 

[xn--mck1c]

The fictional guy is just as likely to have the power to send over iPhones as the LMG worker has to ship back products marked as LMG products in inventory by agreeing over email.

If by "the power to" you mean mere access to the systems that allow it, then the fictional guy does. I'm contending that it would not be part of their job scope to do so in contrast to the LMG worker doing the correspondence. For clarity, if a video editor or camera operator went out of their way to do so, and such a matter would be outside their job scope, and would make it a different issue.

I'm saying this in good faith, I don't understand this counter example at all.

I'll make a clear example: say there's no stock of a particular part, and a procurement employee sent a casual email to another provider requesting a certain amount, price, and date, but specified the wrong dimensions. Would the fictional Apple be liable? I'll argue if it was part of procurement's job duties to seek out other sources in times of operational need, then yes, even though the mistake was entirely on the employee's side. If it wasn't part of their job scope, then no, even if the parts were correct, since it was not part of the employee's scope of employment, the fact that he could access the email system to make such requests isn't the deciding factor.

---

But just an employee communicating a promise over email does not immediately hold their promises to a legal level

Agree;

unless they are formally speaking on behalf of the company (which this casual email chain filled with emoji's certainly was not).

Disagree; I would consider if it was part of the course and scope of their employment instead, and thus applying it to

While it's true that an employee might accept an item on behalf of a company, this doesn't necessarily imply that the same employee can make contractual commitments regarding that item.

Would mean that in this context, the employee in charge of liaising with review item providers would pass the liability to LMG since it's within the course of their duties.
Promising to give it to a fan would not, if it wasn't part of their duties.
A secretary/clerk/security guard in charge of receiving and signing for packages would not, since it isn't part of their duties.

I'm also not sure what sense of the word "formal" you mean here, but since you're contrasting it will "casual" and "filled with emojis", I'd take it to mean the tone of communication, and thus say the use of emojis and how casual the email reads wouldn't invalidate the obligation.

Case: South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land
Context: Kent (on behalf of South West Terminal) texted a picture of a contract, and received a from Chris (represented by Achter)
Relevant part:

This court readily acknowledges that a emoji is a non-traditional means to sign a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a signature to identify the signator (Chris using his unique cell phone number) and as I have found above to convey Achter's acceptance of the flax contract.

(...) have been met and the flax contract is therefore enforceable

Hence my conclusion that neither the casual tone of the email chain, nor the use of emojis would mean there was no obligation. While we do not know the original contents of the messages, the fact that LMG does not dispute the fact that they did intend to return the item leads me to infer that they did agree.

---

I do appreciate this conversation btw, even if we disagree over the finer points. You're right in many of your ways of thinking.

Same here, although I was really expecting the argument (of there being no obligation) to revolve around the lack of consideration (nothing back form BL), to which I'd argue that it's a good faith modification to an existing contract instead of a new one.

 

[Niggaurd]

"Nigs" is still in there

I coulda sworn when I rewatched it a few years ago nigs was removed. I remember being upset about it.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole 2]

https://streamable.com/27x0ck better audio version, working on an archive.

I recompressed and attached the video. The small text is blurry but readable when maximizing the video.

God damn attachments, let's see if it processes anyway.
edit:nope, trying again.
edit2: nope, it uploads but there is no embedding option.

The larger file on Mega would have been a better source but audio gets increasingly desynced, timestamps are probably fucked.

 

[Mr.Bucket]

GN should have left this video up. It's silently just bashing LTT again and it's great.

 

[Chibitzen]

I've just started listening to GN's latest deleted monstrosity and it seems like this the start of a different approach as far as the focus of his channel. Sounds very meticulously planned.

 

[Mind Goblins]

My favorite part is that even the way Steve removed his video seems like a dig at LTT. Like he's saying "Hey Linus, here's how someone who is synonymous with their brand should issue retractions and apologies."

 

[blargenheimer]

There's two sperg subjects here, the first is the unseen yet inferred agreement ("it wasn't so you could sell it") that led Billet to send LTT the prototype, and by selling it would have committed theft by conversion. The second agreement, that we've seen the actual emails for, either as a result of obligation under the first agreement (it was on loan), or voluntary (LTT legally owned it), was to send the prototype back and they didn't.

But just an employee communicating a promise over email does not immediately hold their promises to a legal level unless they are formally speaking on behalf of the company (which this casual email chain filled with emoji's certainly was not).

While not "immediately" legally binding, it absolutely could be. I get that lowly company employees spout shit all the time that they'll do something for you and then it doesn't happen, and in most cases they aren't held liable. However, in this situation provided that the second agreement could be argued in court to be reasonable (though Billet didn't respond and the first agreement still needs to be considered), if Billet reasonably expected their own product back from one of the employees responsible for procurement, and that it could be argued that from that expectation not building another prototype was also reasonable, and finally that it could be argued they suffered harm from those actions, LTT would be (not voluntarily) liable to pay Billet restitution under promissory estoppel doctrine.

We can agree they're fucked in the court of public opinion, and I strongly believe they very well could be fucked from either agreement in the court of law too given the opportunity, provided prosecution counsel and judge aren't retarded.

Case: South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land
Context: Kent (on behalf of South West Terminal) texted a picture of a contract, and received a from Chris (represented by Achter)

Said retarded judge, but overall principle: yes.

---

My favorite part is that even the way Steve removed his video seems like a dig at LTT. Like he's saying "Hey Linus, here's how someone who is synonymous with their brand should issue retractions and apologies."

That's really the humble quality that Linus lacks. Linus just doubles down or tries to sweep problems under the rug.

 

[ZipDisk]

This Billet derail is very gay.

Billet sent LMG the block hoping for publicity for their product.
They got monkey pawed like a motherfucker.
They wanted LMG to do a proper review of the product instead of stapling it to the wrong fucking video card.

They did NOT want their prototype ending up at the "Linus Totally Not A Garage Sale, This Is An Auction For Charity"

I don't care what the ethics here are, I don't care what the legal implications are.

I want people to stop sending LMG their rare hardware.

Unfortunately, it looks like Linus has successfully wind tunneled the controversy, and it's back to the piss mines for the LMG crew.

 

[Wodanaz]

Seriously. You all saw the most unprofessional email ever written and thought "sure, they signed a contract" ???

As surprisingly incompetent as it is, there is no contract* - which means that a lawsuit could have taken place

From the beginning of this retarded reply chain, nobody mentioned either a contract or a lawsuit:

They didn't steal the copper plate, Billet originally said they could keep it and then wanted it back once they said they were going to auction it
View attachment 5295970

You can argue that, after they were told they wanted it back, not giving it back is 'stealing' but I think it speaks more to the piss poor management of LTT than actual malicious intent. Just my 2c. Video sucked though, I'm sure this isn't the last LTT dramastorm of the year. If anything, it's only the beginning.

Billet arranged for LMG to receive a product (and a gpu?) because LMG is the largest tech related empire on the largest media distribution platform in the world, and so they wanted professional exposure. What they got was retarded gibberish because LMG tested their product on the wrong SKU of gpu, then LMG auctioned their product off for reasons best known to canadians. Every normal person agrees this is basically stealing, because the original intention of the agreement was obviously not honored.

You're not writing a legal defense for Linus Sebastian, you simply have autism.

 

[LiquidKid]

n the court of public opinion, you're totally correct. In the court of law, this doesn't hold up.

Actually in the court of law that does hold up. I think you should really brush up on the law

 

[quaawaa]

https://streamable.com/27x0ck better audio version, working on an archive.