Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Infinium Labs Threatens HardOCP Again

Posted by timothy on from the crybabies dept.

XBox4Evr writes "In a follow up from two weeks ago, Infinium Labs is again threatening the tech website HardOCP with legal action. This in itself, is no big deal, but to actually read the letter from Infinium Labs lawyers will make you wonder if an educated person actually penned the documents. This seems to another huge blow to IL's credibility in the console market in general, now that ex-Xbox manager Kevin Bachus is on board with Infinium Labs."

37 of 463 comments (clear)

  1. Stage 4? by Valar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think we may have to add stage four to the cycle.
    1. Microsoft
    2. SCO
    3. RIAA
    4. ???^H^H^HInfinium!!

    --

    ====
    Crudely Drawn Games
  2. Aptly named "Phantom Console" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it really surprising that they are nothing more than a "sue the world" company?

    They are, after all, claiming development expenses to put a PC motherboard in a case with a custom boot loader - big forking deal.

    Please, Phantom Idiots, you might be able to fool some oil baron out of his money, but you can't pass a PC as a custom gaming console around here. Peddle your snake oil somewhere else.

    Besides which, Phantom Idiots are just opening Pandora's Box. As more and more of their bullshit becomes apparent, they are only inviting an FTC and SEC investigation.

    BTW - Nice try going after HardOCP instead of Wired Magazine - which gave the Phantom far worse press than the website.

    Screw off, and take your 50lb midtower "console" with you.

  3. Actually.. by njan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ..from what I can see, hardOCP did indeed write an article which was deliberately set out to make Infinium come off badly; whether or not Infinium are a 'bad investment', as their lawyers put it (I don't know, and I don't really care), this clearly wasn't a fair article; it seems obvious that the writer/journalist(s) concerned had other motivations for penning it beside the truth (similarly, Infinium may have other motivations for writing the letter, and may have had problems with HardOCP in the last, but that doesn't justify it either way).

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you
    1. Re:Actually.. by Naffer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While it is true that HardOCP didn't seem to begin the article with the best of intentions, they didn't (as far as I can see) engage in any slander. What they did do was point out some very interesting facts about Infinium as a company and interpet those facts to state that the whole mess was just vaporware. It isn't against the law to write a biased article, just to write a false article with the intention of slandering someone.

    2. Re:Actually.. by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why does HardOCP have to be impartial in their editorials? They said that they think Infinium is a bad investment that probably won't produce anything, and provided (true) facts to back up their case.

      HardOCP has an obligation to the truth, but they don't have an obligation to fairness. They present their opinion, clearly labeled as such, and aren't obligated to provide any forum for the pro-Infinium side to respond. After all, it's their server. As long as they don't commit libel, they can do what they want on their soapbox. That's the whole point of the First Amendment - neither the speech of HardOCP nor Infinium can be infringed.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
  4. YANAL, apparently by DumbRedGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wasn't even a 'link to some legal documents'. It was an article containing HardOCP's response to a poorly formed legal threat. You might be giving these Infinium letters the most weight and validity out of anyone involved.

    It was intended to be an entertaining read, and not out of line with anything else that ends up on this site.

  5. Where are the Photographs? by Goldfinger7400 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article mentioned that some of the pictures released were actual photographs. Which one might that be? The one with the most ray-tracing passes?

  6. Double standard? by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once again, I am struck by the double standard that, while our country's assurances of freedom of speech rightly protect claims made against our elected officials, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated, saying bad things about a company-- even a company that allegedly barely exists-- can result in threats of legal action. Is there a reason why some fly-by-night electronics outfit is entitled to protections not even the President enjoys?

    --

    I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    1. Re:Double standard? by the-banker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are two different things.

      First, the First Amendment only prevents the Government form impinging on free speech.

      Second, HardOCP has done nothing criminal, they are being threatened by a civil action under the tort of libel. For HarcOCP to be liable for anything Infinium needs to prove that the article by HardOCP was both false and malicious.

      In the case that the article IS both false and malicious, then I think HardOCP should be responsible for the damage done. Note that I am not saying that they ARE responsible, just that if the facts bear out that they are, then they should be held accountable to their words.

      Free speech does not mean speech without accountability.

  7. Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily by StarHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think WordPerfect got huge market share with lawyers back in the day, and then they all standardized on it. I see this today in lots of customers' offices that are law firms.

    --
    Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
  8. Infantile by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't that be Infantile Labs?

    I mean, the more someone gets upset at someone elses comment goes to show just how much the said comments actually bothered them.

    If Infantile Labs just blew off most of the HardOCP comments as nonsense and got on with business, this issue wouldn't have surfaced and no-one would have batted an eyelid.

    Now that they've blown the issue up (all by themselves), everybody sees them as being a big cry-baby just like SCO is - and HardOCP's comments as credible.

    Can you say... shoot self in foot?

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  9. I think you mean... by Roydd+McWilson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...infimum.

    --
    THE NERD IS THE COMPUTER.
  10. But you miss the point! by spoco2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is FUNNY! the letter sent to HardOCP is really, really amusing... it's written as if by a primary school child.

    It's basically... "You wrote that we have not shown any real machines yet... you imply that we don't really have any"
    "You wrote that you haven't seen an office yet... you imply we don't have an office"

    It's just paragraph after paragraph of them saying things like that... it reads so very, very badly.

    Plus it falls into periods of text which CANNOT have been written by anyone with ANY sort of legal training:
    "The article inaccurately claims that HardOCP 'Compiled and researched all of the publicay available information we could find.' Clearly this is not the case or you are not very good at finding publicly available information."

    Dear god that's terrible... it's so much like "you, you, you're a poopy pants... and, and, my dad says that what you said is wrong... you poopy pants"

    I can see why they have not taken this seriously.

    1. Re:But you miss the point! by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Plus it falls into periods of text which CANNOT have been written by anyone with ANY sort of legal training:
      "The article inaccurately claims that HardOCP 'Compiled and researched all of the publicay available information we could find.' Clearly this is not the case or you are not very good at finding publicly available information."

      Dear god that's terrible... it's so much like "you, you, you're a poopy pants... and, and, my dad says that what you said is wrong... you poopy pants"

      I can see why they have not taken this seriously.

      I'm sure this will not be the popular view here but I think this is both an incorrect and a dangerous way of looking at things. I mean, apparently lawyers can't win here at Slashdot. You use lots of legalese and it sounds like you're hiding behind it. You use plain English and you sound unprofessional.

      What are lawyers supposed to sound like? How are they supposed to request changes be made to an article and retractions written?

      It seems to me that this letter provides clear and in a lot of cases reasonable requests for factual changes to be made to an article. For example, the point about Tim Roberts being a Corporate Director of Medhire, not an employee - this is important because HardOCP implied he was lying on his resume. If what these guys are saying is true, he did not lie on his resume, and HardOCP is guilty of slander if they do not change this article (they will knowingly be leaving intact an article that is defamatory). They were also irresponsible for not researching the point properly to begin with.

      If Infinium does decide to file a lawsuit (which they'd be dumb to do from a PR standpoint, but PR is obviously not their strong suit), they now have this document to point to specifically detailing HardOCP's transgressions, in plain English (so there can be no claim by Kyle that he did not understand any of their points), and requesting changes be made to address them. This is a required step in the process, if Infinium really is going to go the legal route.

      I'm not saying the whole lawsuit threat is a smart way of doing business. It's certainly not helping the company's image any, and it's not the way I'd be going about things if I was running the show there - it seems very counterproductive. But it sure seems to me that when it comes down to it, Infinium may actually be right on a lot of points, and this was not the best-researched piece of writing that ever appeared on HardOCP. I do not fault the lawyers for speaking to Kyle like regular human beings rather than legal drones. I fault them for really, really bad public relations, but legally it seems to me that HardOCP is on the short end here.

      It's not a freedom of speech or press issue when you lie about people with intent to harm their business. There are several points in those letters (including the one I noted above) that are factual issues that Kyle has chosen to ignore in his response. Don't turn this into something bigger than what it is - this is about defamation and slander, not freedom of the press. Some people are losing sight of the real issue, missing details and blowing things out of proportion, belittling lawyers and Infinium themselves without paying any real attention to what's really going on. With freedom of the press comes responsibility, and I'm not convinced this was really a responsible article on the part of HardOCP.

      No, I do not work for either company involved, and have no interest in these proceedings either way, whether emotional or tangible.

    2. Re:But you miss the point! by HybridJeff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if you were born in the country, then your not an immigrant. Although, your ancestors might have been.

    3. Re:But you miss the point! by meatspray · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't go so far as to say that HardOCP is lying about Infinium nor would I say that I can detect them blowing things out of proportion.

      For the life of me I can't figure out why HardOCP cares, but they do and they've done a little investigative foot work. The mainstay of the OCP article mentions that this guy has run a few companies into the ground, that infinium labs has no legit place of business and is generally seedy about their operations.

      The information covered in the article is mostly factual, publicly available knowledge. Although the article isn't written in a professional tone I really don't see any information in the article that sounds fishy. I've lived through the .com days, I've seen this business model before.

      Perhaps you can explain to us the part of the OCP article that blows things out of proportion. You seem to have some inside track as to what's going on here please enlighten me.

      The problem with the document sent to Mr. Bennett isn't that it suffers from being written in plain English. The document was simply written in an equally non-professional tone. What kind of lawyer would send a unprofessionally scripted document filled with angry insinuations to someone they wish to take to litigation?

    4. Re:But you miss the point! by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How are they supposed to request changes be made to an article and retractions written?

      For starters, try only accepting clients with a firm grip on reality.

      I've followed this situation from the beginning (well, from long before Slashdot got involved, anyway), and basically, HardOCP prepared their article directly from "facts" (true or not), including in-context quotes, derived from IL's press releases and Tim Roberts' own resume.


      It's not a freedom of speech or press issue when you lie about people with intent to harm their business.

      While the concepts presented may disagree with reality, they do so entirely because TR and IL presented them that way. Their office doesn't exist? Why, of course it makes perfect sense that they would want potential contracts, whether via US mail or a sales rep, forwarded to the USPS's /dev/null (or left on an empty floor). The executive secretary of a company (owned by TR's mommy, how cute) doesn't know if TR works there, and has no contact info? And had a different story next time they called? Why, perfectly rational, HardOCP should have simply have take such a setback as a minor annoyance, certainly not indicative of anything fishy. HardOCP claimes X (which occurred no less than five times in the threatening legal letter), based only on concrete evidence of X? Shockingly libelous (not slander, BTW)! How dare HardOCP infer the glaringly obvious from the available facts! "Your name starts with a 'Bo', and forms a palindrome? Why, I would feel remiss if I simply assumed it as 'Bob', rather than considering such possibilities as 'Boxob' and 'Bo'a'man'a'plan'a'canal'panama'ob', please forgive my presumptiveness". Hmm, how about "boob"?

      The criticisms of this legal scare-o-gram have nothing to do with its choice of jargon. It quite simply reads like a joke, all but stating outright "You trusted TR's resume, you sucker... W3 0wn2 j00!". So TR lied on his resume. Does that make TR, or HardOCP, liable for that info?


      If what these guys are saying is true, he did not lie on his resume, and HardOCP is guilty of slander

      If TR didn't lie on his resume, then HardOCP has truthfully reported the facts. If he did lie on his resume, then HardOCP has truthfully outed him as a fraud. Neither counts as LIBEL (not!!! slander).


      It seems to me that this letter provides clear and in a lot of cases reasonable requests for factual changes to be made to an article.

      I do so hate to resort to ad hominem, but if you consider that nastygram as even remotely "reasonable", you need to check into a first-semester "logic and rhetoric" class ASAP. Really sad, that HardOCP needs to take something that pathetic as a dire threat to their freedom and financial security).


      I'm not saying the whole lawsuit threat is a smart way of doing business

      You've got that much dead-on... IL's console model wouldn't appeal to the typical gamer; it appeals to geeks who enjoy retrogaming with a few hot new hits thrown into the mix. By making it to the Slashdot FP, IL has effectively destroyed its potential user base - Of course, that assumes the "phantom" exists in any more tangibe form than its name suggests, which appears doubtful at this point in time.

    5. Re:But you miss the point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What are lawyers supposed to sound like? How are they supposed to request changes be made to an article and retractions written?

      They're supposed to just shut up and go away.

    6. Re:But you miss the point! by Kombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you don't look like a Native American, then you yourself are an immigrant.

      Hogwash! If you were born here, then you're "native." "Immigrants," by definition, were not born here. Thus, it logically follows that to be considered an "immigrant," you must be born somewhere other than the country in question (I presume you're in the US?).

      Everyone who was born here is "native." It just so happens that some people have family trees containing members that migrated here substantially earlier than other people. The fact that my great-great-great-great grandfather migrated here, whereas your great-great-great-great grandfather was born here does not make you any more special than I am.

      I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon Canadian, born and raised in Nova Scotia. My parents were both born here, as were their parents. I consider myself a "native Canadian."

      Note, however, the important lack of capitalization of "native." I will grant you a distinction between "native" (i.e., I was born here) and "Native" (meaning my family is Metis/Inuit/MiqMaq/etc.), which for historical reasons, are still singled out.

      I think it is absolutely idiotic that some people think that just because my great-great-great-great grandfather took some land from their great-great-great-great grandfather, that that somehow entitles them to some kind of special privileges now, in the present. I'm sorry, but we were both born here on North American soil, you're no more special than I am, we should all just live together and end this practice of dividing.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    7. Re:But you miss the point! by Jack+Sparrow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You said "Perhaps, like jobs in the tech industry, these threatening letter writing jobs are being farmed out to lawyers in India."

      You imply that Indian lawyers are not good at drafting legal documents and since lawyers, in general, are supposed to be better at drafting documents than an average citizen, you are implying that Indians in general suck at written English.
      You are obviously not good at knowing your stuff. Your statement was an attack on competence of Indians in general and you are given 10 nanoseconds to provide an apology.
      ---

      Seriously, that statement was in bad taste. If you have problems in outsourcing, you should attack (verbally) people who outsource, making such remarks on the competence of Indians is totally uncalled for.
      Thanks to slashdot for considering it very funny and bringing out to the notice of everyone.

  11. Re:Bomb 'Em by mog007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WTF?! At least SCO is using a *real* offense in intellectual property theft, even if they're nothing but pompous windbags. These people are trying to bully a website into censoring their content because it makes their development department look like morons. Looks like their PR department just got screwed too.

    --
    Learn something new.
  12. Re:Very truly yours by stangbat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have also always thought it is inappropriate to sign a nasty or threating letter with "Very Truly Yours".

    We can only hope that that letter was penned by an intern fresh out of high school. If that letter truly represents his written communication skills, I'd hate to see how he performs in a court room. He must be a blubbering idiot.

    Maybe I'd better think of a way to re-phrase what I just wrote. I'd hate to get sued.

  13. Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... by ThresholdRPG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Are lawyers nerds? I'm seeing more and more
    > "Here's a link to some legal documents, enjoy!" on
    > the front page of slashdot.

    Here's the situation.

    1) Most people think they know the law. They know the law is important, they think THEY are important, therefore they understand the law.

    This erroneous conclusion is one of the reasons so many people get themselves in severe legal trouble.

    2) Computer Nerds are usually smart. High tech stuff is currently one of the hottest fields. Therefore, since they are smart in one of the hottest fields, they decide they are ESPECIALLY smart.

    Since lawyers are "old tech", anything they do must be inferior to anything high tech. Thus, computer nerds conclude they understand the law better than lawyers.

    The result of this is that nerds LOVE to discuss and debate the law. They run a few google searches and turn into Atticus Finch on roids.

    Sadly, their conclusions are usually WAY off base because the law is written to be deliberately difficult to understand without a legal education.

    3) The internet has turned many areas of law on its head. There is an intense struggle created by the deficiencies in traditional laws that worked fine before the internet and before computer popularity. Thus, law and technology are often the two main elements to a major news story. This means people interested in either one will often become interested in the other simply because of how it might impact them.

    --

    -Michael
    Threshold RPG
  14. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People like you piss me off.

    It is always funny when people like you come in, view an ongoing problem without reading up on previous developments, and then make some grand statement about how everyone here is wrong.

    You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You haven't been following this story whatsoever, and don't know anything about this "company", or the assmonkey who runs it. Information on this company and its shenanigans is everywhere. If you were even halfway interested in making an informed opinion you could have easily done so. But you haven't, which shows how much we should care about what you think.

    In summary, I suggest that you don't form such an idiotic opinion without reading up on the situation first.

  15. Re:Man by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Darl McBride: The Ouiji Board? OK, but we're keeping the Tarot Cards until Friday."

    Mr. McBride is of the Mormon faith. He wouldn't be using an Ouiji Board or Tarot Cards. Or drink Coke for that matter...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  16. Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sadly, their conclusions are usually WAY off base because the law is written to be deliberately difficult to understand without a legal education.

    This isn't true.. as a matter of fact most law is fairly easy to understand. The language, while often very verbose, is also generally very pointed and is actually quite straightforward. Most first year law students will tell you how struck they are that laws are that easy to understand.

    What lawyers REALLY do is understand laws in the context of OTHER laws. So while understanding a singular law (like the DMCA, interpretation notwithstanding) may be relatively easy, understanding how it overlaps and interacts with all of the other laws on the books does require a degree in research science (otherwise known as 'law school':) ). Law is incredibly complex when you consider the volumes and volumes of laws and interpretations of laws that often apply to one single case point, and a good lawyer is one who has a handle on that.

    --
    Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
  17. Re:Lawyers are not to blame, necessarily by general_re · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think WordPerfect got huge market share with lawyers back in the day, and then they all standardized on it.

    Sort of. There's a couple of reasons, really. First, as you say, WP gained a large portion of the market back in the day - for a long time, word processing on a PC was WP and precious little else. Because of this early adoption, what's happened since is that many, many law firms have a sizeable investment in WP templates, and I do mean sizeable - as in many thousands or tens of thousands, in some cases. Lawyers live and die by the written word, and if you walk into any medium or large law firm, odds are that no matter what your problem is, they already have a form letter tailored to that problem. Because of this investment, there is a significant barrier to switching, as it means either converting or recreating those thousands of templates. And in such a case, the general rule is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    And one other reason is the ever-amusing Rule 32 ;)

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  18. Re:News for lawyers, stuff that bores... by ThresholdRPG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > This isn't true.. as a matter of fact most law is
    > fairly easy to understand.

    Aha.

    So a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent is fairly easy to understand for a non-lawyer?

    How about the parol evidence rule? Are non-lawyers familiar with this *vital* aspect of all contract law?

    Hell, most non-lawyers don't even know the difference between slander and libel, much less the difference between an easement and a covenant.

    Much of the law is deliberately written to be confusing so only lawyers can decipher it. Other aspects of law make use of important terms of art that a normal human being just isn't going to know.

    There are good and bad reasons for this, but it is indeed true.

    I am speaking as a former lawyer (UGA, class of 1998) who hated the job and started an internet gaming company. I am quite familiar with the topic.

    --

    -Michael
    Threshold RPG
  19. Re:News for lawyers? Nope! Nerdish expectations by SgtSnorkel · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Nope! I don't think any of your assumptions are true. All us nerdfolk are accustomed to following rules and thinking logically. We love to solve problems!

    Hey, lawyers are smart, they study for years to practice law. They must follow rules and logic too! Trials are just an expression of a problem, right? When we parse legal problems, the solution seems obvious. We can't understand why the other people don't see what seems obvious to us.

    Our expectations are that the law, and the legal profession, should follow rules and be logical. The problem is that legal rules are convoluted and dense: they include not just what makes sense to us, but also case law and previous judicial decisions that we've never been exposed to.

    There's a fair amount of marketing and spin that goes into making legal arguments. Often, the win goes to the side with the clever argument, rather than the side with the logic. Questionable decisions get turned into hard rules and affect future decisions. (Not to mention all the greedy bastards who try to "play" the system.)

    That's why we pick apart this stuff, have disdain for the system, and dislike lawyers -- they're not logical from our perspective.

  20. Re:What needs to be proven by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am a Phantom Beta Tester
    Oh, so you've played the Phantom? Well, in that case maybe you could clear some things up. The beta unit they sent you - which promo photo does it look like the most? Oh, and what games have you played on it? How do the games look?

    What's that? You don't have a beta unit? You've never seen a woking Phantom? So what do you mean by beta tester? To me, "beta tester" says someone who has actually tested something. Perhaps you should rephrase. Might I suggest "I have pre-registered to apply to be a beta tester", or "they told me I'm a beta tester, but I still haven't gotten anything that could be mistaken for a game console from them"? Just a few suggestions.

    --
    A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
  21. Re:One Question: (NDA safe) by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thank you.

    That was, unfortunately, the response I was expecting.

    You had best change your sig to reflect reality. Until you have a unit, are testing it and providing feedback to Infinum Labs you are not a beta tester.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  22. Who are you trying to impress? by XaProf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about the parol evidence rule? Are non-lawyers familiar with this *vital* aspect of all contract law?

    That people don't know it is one good reason why in some jurisdictions it's becoming more often "deprecated" (to use a geek turn of phrase). UCC 2-202's formulation includes course of dealing, course of performance, and trade usage in order to explain the terms of the contract; that covers a lot of ground the old rule kept out. Lots of places allow "tacking" of non-contradictory additional terms, either in other writings or referred to in other writings.

    Hell, most non-lawyers don't even know the difference between slander and libel,

    Whoo...I'm shaking. It's not like they have to pay 150 grand and three years to learn. They can pick this shit up from Black's. I'll teach 'em now:
    Slander = spoken defamation
    Libel = written defamation
    Damn, that was hard. What's "defamation," you say? That's another story...

    Law, as a subject, isn't that hard. Chief Justice John Marshall only studied it for six weeks, and he was a fabulous judge. "Being a lawyer" is about a way of thinking and approaching problems, not waving your dick around screaming terms from your real property text.

    Oh yeah, who am I? Future lawyer, University of Michigan, class of 2005.

  23. Re:Very truly yours by glassware · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Churchill, when declaring war on Japan in 1941 after Pearl Harbor, sent a letter to Hirohito in which he informed the Japanese emperor that a state of war existed between Britain and Japan.

    He signed it, "Your humble servant", and commented, "After all, when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be nice." See his WW2 memoirs.

    I've found a partial copy of the letter, but it seems to have all the formalities edited out.

  24. Re:HardOCP must be doing something bad by poulbailey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm no fan of PA, but how can you read that as anything but tongue-in-cheek?

  25. Re:Robrady Design DOES have a prototype by aderusha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    true - they show a molded plastic case with some parts in it.

    what this means:

    a) infinium doesn't have any sort of in house design staff to create the shell design
    b) infinium has no manufacturing capabilities at all, and has to shop out even one-off small scale model shop type plastic molds

    what this doesn't mean:

    a) that the plstic model has any basis in reality
    b) that the electonic bits inside actually _do_ anything.

  26. 2 points about this by cabodine · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First: Do a google search for Phantom console. You will find that [H]ard|OCP isn't the only web site that has similar view on the subject.

    Second: 'You breached the journalistic code of ethics or conduct by setting out to create a biased article and by falling to conduct the proper due dilligence which would have brought the inaccuracies to light.' Ummmm the only thing that came to my mind was FOX NEWS. Accuracy in reporting stuff? Bias news article? I thought all news was bias by default as it was a human that put a story in it. Man even major news paper have proplems keeping accurate articles. Case in point Jayson Blair, nuff said.

    Last but not least: http://www.infiniumlabs.com/dlflash2.html Flash needed for the dialup version of the web site are they brain dead or just stupid?

    --
    Life is marked by pain.
  27. Re:HardOCP must be doing something bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The fact of the matter is, they do have agents everywhere. How do you think they get into all kinds of Betas? Because people in game companies know from PA, and make sure they get on the list.
    How did PA raise some rediculous ammount (300k?400k?) worth of toys and funds for Seattle childrens hospital? They have all kinds of fans that kick out for the cause, be it with funds, link buttons, or, in this case, informing gabe of Tims newspost. Do I think that gabe trolls the Infinium labs message board? Probably not.
    Lastly, why does posting a link to PA instantly score people 3-4 mod points? Because PA has lots of fans. Agents. Compatriots. What have you.