Well, Purism has lied to people about their products being in stock and shipping within 90 days, so it wouldn’t shock me.
1 Like
Delaying is not lying. There were good reasons in my opinion: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Frequently-Asked-Questions#87-why-has-the-time-to-release-the-librem-5-increased-from-17-to-39-months.
That is completely irrelevant to a product that Purism (still) lists on their site as being “in stock” and “Now Shipping!” (i.e. the L5 USA). @Greendrake placed his order for a L5 USA on July 5, 2021. 90 days from that would have been October 5, 2021. Purism is actively lying about the availability of that phone, as they have made no change to their advertised shipping of the phone and @Greendrake still doesn’t have have his.
1 Like
@Greendrake’s phone was significantly delayed. But it does not mean that new orders will be delayed in the same way. Purism apparently expects that they will be delivered in 90 days.
1 Like
If @Greendrake was told his phone would be delivered within approximately 90 days, and it’s been over 150, how is that not lying?
Intent.
If the intent is to deceive then lying.
If they’re just wrong that is different.
When someone answers a question and is wrong because they don’t know and had to estimate or guess that is much more frequently going to fall under the category of just being factually incorrect than lying/deception.
So without proof of purisms intent to deceive there is a lack of proof they are lying.
The frequency and quantity of times they are inaccurate would, however, be a very reasonable metric to question their competence when it comes to estimating timelines.
3 Likes
" They recently funded $9,8 million.
https://wp.puri.sm/ir/convertible-note/ "
Well, in that case they should be willing to issue refunds then, right?
3 Likes
They must have preordered the Librems 14 and Librems 5 for the delivery, according to this: https://puri.sm/posts/taking-stock-of-librem-14/.
If you believe that Purism can do no wrong, that would make sense. Only problem is that there are people who have had regular orders (I.e not preorders) and have cancelled their orders and requested a refund and have not received the refund for a long time. I haven’t waited that long for mine, but this is what Purism support told me when I asked them about how long it would take to get my cancelled order refunded:
“We can start the process immediately upon request, previously it would usually take 1-3 weeks, but for past few months we’re experiencing delays with refunds, so the process takes more time to complete (I’m afraid can’t discuss the reasons).”
That’s not sketch at all…
Indeed, it seems Purism has been in a bad financial situation recently, especially after the industry-wide problems with supply chain, and they might not have enough money to fulfill all refunds.
Let’s hope that short delivery time will help them to have more orders and enough funds for the refunds.
1 Like
Why is it apparent? The state of a mind is never apparent to an outside observer — it has to be inferred.
Intent is virtually always proved by inference from pieces of circumstantial evidence. Confessions are rarely made, and accurate mind-reading devices aren’t on the market yet.
1 Like
Weird that Purism is in a bad financial position…according to this webpage from Purism, they have received $9,811,000 in investments…
It’s not proven, it’s derived, and not always accurately.
1 Like
Nah. Law is not an exact science. In a courtroom, things are not derived; they are proved, and this never means proving with mathematical certainty.
In a civil case, “proving” means showing that one side’s version of events is at least slightly more possible than the other’s. This is called “preponderance of evidence” (or “balance of probabilities”, depending on where). So, if it can be shown that it is just more likely that Purism is lying than it is not, a civil case against Purism would be won.
In a criminal case the standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Though this is much higher than the civil standard, it is still not the same as mathematical certainty.
1 Like
I just wrote above why:
OK, are we talking about the law’s usage of “lie,” or the dictionary’s? To put it another way, how do you define the intent as “in stock?”
Well, because, you know…Purism says the L5 USA is “in stock.”
1 Like
How do you know they are? Keep in mind this is just speculation from random people on the internet who don’t even know the facts, since Purism has not stated anything at all to corroborate that.
Of course, if people say it often enough and loud enough, it could eventually become self-fulfilling.
1 Like