While we wait on news on the E5 batch production. Purism is now shipping Q1 2020 orders and will soon announce investor-funded laptop and tablet products.
The reports of Purism’s insolvency are greatly exaggerated.
4 Likes
My case is similar: I’ve ordered Librem 5 over 4 years ago and finally I got it on February. After couple of checks, I decided to return it as for me it’s on too early stage of development. I got information from Purism that they need max 3-4 weeks after receiving phone to check it and return my money. What was quite surprising for me they return only 90% of the price. Now I’m waiting over 8 weeks and I have no information from Purism despite it is in finance department and they don’t know when it will be processed. I see that there are people who are waiting over 1 year… that’s unbelievable 
1 Like
This shouldn’t be a surprise. The return policy is 90% for used products.
If they do have the money for refunds at hand, why do they violate their refund policies and FTC rules? Are they just immoral and rather keep the money for themselves for as long as they can (e.g. to invest it)? To me that’s even worse, because if they were on the edge of (or well within) insolvency I could at least somehow understand their situation and why they’d risk large fines by the FTC – after all the company is at stake.
1 Like
Federal rules prevailing consumer protection rules. You can’t pay out old obligations with new obligations. Obviously Purism can’t do that.
I think it is important to understand that Purism intent to meet all their obligations when legally and financially possible. Purism never denied any refunds or shipments. In my opinion their current actions are the most fair and least risky approach to meet those intentions.
The easy way out would be FIFO refunds until bankruptcy back during the early COVID days. Purism decided to stay in the long game and ship all phones and honor all refunds. Such commitment is rare.
1 Like
Of course not. If you can’t meet your obligations you’re insolvent. Which you said is an exaggeration.
That’s irrelevant. If I sold you a trip to the moon within the next year for 1 million bucks (with an option for a refund if I can’t provide it in time) and later found out that I can’t do that because I’m shitty at math and doing business, it’s completely irrelevant that I actually intended to get you to the moon when “legally and financially possible”. You’re either entitled to get your money back or to get a trip to the moon.
Refunds must be provided within a reasonable amount of time. The FTC says “seven working days”. By your logic I could delay your refund for your trip to the moon for as long as I wanted, and that be fine, because I “never denied” it.
Purism decided to stay in the long game and ship all phones and honor all refunds. Such commitment is rare.
Such commitment is rare because it’s illegal in most places. My moon trip business is also going to play the long game and you’ll eventually get your trip or money back, if only I can find some inventors or sell more trips to the moon.
2 Likes
We are done here. See you in a few months time as Purism intent to meet all obligations actually happens.
If you don’t want to argue fine, then say so. But don’t pretend that using a hyperbole is what made my argument invalid.
1 Like
That’s the least significant part of my post… I just wrote it as in my country, if you return the product in unused condition within specified period of time (which was the case here), you get all money back. That was the reason why it’s surprising for me but I understand USA has different law.
The key point is that it seems that Purism didn’t tell the truth when they were saying that they will return my money within max 3-4 weeks (I got message with such info from them). At the same time they didn’t return money to other people for much longer.
1 Like
To play the really long game your biz can wait until the customers are dead, then you only have to launch the weight of their ashes.
2 Likes
While we wait on news on the E5 batch production. Purism is now shipping Q2 2020 orders and lead time on new Librem 5 orders is reduced to 20 weeks.
2 Likes
Grateful if you could update us when you get your refund. Others messaged me that they have been waiting for some years! I find it incredible. They take the phone back but then do not return the money…
1 Like
Thank you CBL for rebuffing Vertrebra’s constant case to defend the indefensible.
I do not condone holding back refunds. What matters to me is the intent to refund and a rational estimate on refund.
1 Like
(nice pick up on the Librem 5 lead time change - I didn’t see an announcement of that)
Not to mention the partially announced Librem 11 tablet and the Librem 16 laptop.
It seems increasingly likely that this topic title is defamatory rubbish.
3 Likes
Yes. Seems like it should be moved to Round Table. It’s really not about phones anyway.
Are you guys some Purism bots? Grateful if you could rather spend your energy and getting us the refunds paid out?
It is abusive to refer to genuine concerns about refunds “as defamatory” or “rubbish”.
1 Like
Please be clear on what I wrote … this topic title is defamatory rubbish.
(emphasis added this time)
It’s your topic. You can fix the title. Or not.
The title is a question. I’ve not known any question to be defamatory nor, demonstrably true nor false… also many businesses have released new products days before bankruptcy, releasing new products is not a sign of profitability nor solvency.
A question is almost never defamatory. I think that I already gave you a link to US Court rulings on this [see below]. However, you seem immune to information that you wish to ignore.
IMO, given Purism’s history as documented on these forums ( Estimate your Librem 5 refund 💸 ) of not providing timely refunds, violating the FTC Mail Order Rule, and/or honoring their refund policy, it is a good question.
[Edit: I think it was you, but I can’t find where we discussed this. The link I gave was here https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f00eb73f-40a8-4bd1-b522-5e112d23264c which contained the following example which is even worse since what the judge dealt with was an defamatory assertion with a question mark tacked on.
“Were it not for the question mark at the end of the text, this would be an easy case,” the court said. “Woods phrased his tweet in an uncommon syntactical structure for a question in English by making what would otherwise be a declarative statement and placing a question mark at the end. Delete the question mark, and the reader is left with an unambiguous statement of fact: “So-called #Trump ‘Nazi’ is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative.”
But the question mark cannot be ignored, Judge Smith found. “The vast majority of courts to consider questions as potential defamatory statements have found them not to be assertions of fact,” he wrote. “Rather, a question indicates a defendant’s ‘lack of definitive knowledge about the issue’ and ‘invites the reader to consider’ various possibilities.”
]