Elon Musk stopped paying millions in server hardware bills after Twitter acquisition, new lawsuit claims

Kirby1 said:

Batteries are not a left wing idea. Technology is not a left wing idea.

Logic and reason are left wing ideas. Hope you figure that out someday and quit the troll life.

Such typical right wing trolling. Make a flaming comments intended to piss people off in a politically sensitive way, and then claim not to be into politics. It's such a dumb routine.

Click to expand...

I'm a Libertarian, I think the "left versus right" US-style 2 party setup is broken, so I'm not trolling for "either side", I'm not on a side.

yRaz is right though; 15, 20 years ago, he didn't keep going on about politics; he went on about developing electric vehicles, new forms of public transport (to be honest hyperloop was pretty clearly pie in the sky from the start...), and about space travel. It was all a tad Utopian, and if you must claim "left" versus "right", yes it's "left" to support electric vehicles and public transport. Believe it or not he was popular with people "on the left" back then.

Man did this thread go off topic.

I'll just say, it's ridiculous for someone with over $200 billion to decide they should stiff companies on money owed. He of course did this with data centers too -- didn't decide to quit using them and remove the hardware like any normal human being or business; just left their junk in there, quit paying the bills, and kept using the hardware until the colocation companies shut it off. So it's no surprise at all they did the same to the manufacturers making their bespoke hardware.

hwertz said:

I'll just say, it's ridiculous for someone with over $200 billion to decide they should stiff companies on money owed.

Click to expand...

Instead of a kneejerk emotion response, why not demonstrate some critical thinking skills? The US has a robust civil court system. If there was indeed a binding contract to this effect, then this supplier will be able to recover the funds from Twitter, plus damages, interest, and court costs. The fact that Musk has chosen to risk this substantially more costly outcome clearly indicates that he believes there's grounds to deny payment: perhaps the systems failed to meet performance specs, the invoices were price-padded, etc. We don' t know, because we're only hearing one side of the story.

Here's a hint: whenever you see an article like this that fails to report both sides ... there's likely more to the story than you're being told.

Endymio said:

Instead of a kneejerk emotion response, why not demonstrate some critical thinking skills? The US has a robust civil court system. If there was indeed a binding contract to this effect, then this supplier will be able to recover the funds from Twitter, plus damages, interest, and court costs. The fact that Musk has chosen to risk this substantially more costly outcome clearly indicates that he believes there's grounds to deny payment: perhaps the systems failed to meet performance specs, the invoices were price-padded, etc. We don' t know, because we're only hearing one side of the story.

Here's a hint: whenever you see an article like this that fails to report both sides ... there's likely more to the story than you're being told.

Click to expand...

I used critical thinking skills. Twitter ordered hardware under their Master Purchase Agreement; Musk bought Twitter, and decided they'd just not pay for the hardware they'd already ordered. They stopped paying rent on various properties, quit paying colocation and datacenter fees (not cancelling service with them; just quit paying), and in this case decided to not pay for hardware they'd already ordered.

You're right, there is a robust civic court system, and this company is using it to sue for what they are owed.

And no, it doesn't indicate he believes there's grounds to deny payment -- the data centers, the colocation, it was just a matter of they decided they weren't going to use them any more, so instead of ending their service with them, they just quit paying. Obviously I can't say for 100% certainty that there wasn't some other reason.. but there's nothing to indicate that there is either.

In raw dollars and cents -- the company reportedly cancelled purchses of $40 million worth of the hardware, and managed to sell $19 million of it to other vendors. So Twitter is "only" on the hook for $61 million out of the $120 million in hardware (plus interest, legal fees, etc.) So if that's your only concern you can say Musk made the right decision, they've saved $59 million.

I still say it's a ridiculous way to conduct business. I realize some people (this is not at all uncommon in real estate) think it's perfectly fine to, rather than saying "We don't need this product or service any longer", to just not pay and let things settle out in court. But I can and do say it's a ridiculous way to conduct business.

hwertz said:

Twitter ordered hardware under their Master Purchase Agreement

Click to expand...

According to the plaintiff. If Plaintiffs were always telling the truth, we wouldn't need judges and juries, would we?

hwertz said:

In raw dollars and cents -- the company reportedly cancelled purchses of $40 million worth of the hardware, and managed to sell $19 million of it to other vendors. So Twitter is "only" on the hook for $61 million out of the $120 million in hardware

Click to expand...

This more than anything else raises red flags. If there was indeed a firm binding contract for $120M, you'd sue for the entire amount. The fact this vendor chose otherwise indicates there's more to the story than being told.

Endymio said:

According to the plaintiff. If Plaintiffs were always telling the truth, we wouldn't need judges and juries, would we?


This more than anything else raises red flags. If there was indeed a firm binding contract for $120M, you'd sue for the entire amount. The fact this vendor chose otherwise indicates there's more to the story than being told.

Click to expand...

I think they are simply playing it straight and suing for actual damages. They don't have $120 million in damages, they were able to cancel $40 million in hardware orders and sell on $19 million of the hardware, so their actual damages are $61 million. They simply aren't owed the full $120 million since they were able to recover some of it, so they aren't seeking it.

Sure, there COULD be more going on. But there's a pattern of behavior here -- with the data centers and colos, and indeed the rapid laying off of staff, it was simply a matter of "Let's rapidly cut costs".

Kirby1 said:

Talking about Musk and free speech is a joke. There is literally proof that Twitter is boosting hate speech accounts that constantly violate their rules while blocking people who say things Musk doesn't like.

I'm all for free speech. You are free to say dumb things, I am free to point it out.

Click to expand...

There is NO "hate speech" provision in the 1st Amendment. Anyone can say anything they like whether it offends someone else or not. (Obviously inside the workplace is different and within whatever moving target the social media companies require). You can be logical and rational and feel free to turn the channel, go to a different web site, don't listen to/read it if you don't like it, but regardless, the 1st Amendments Free Speech provision isn't to be gutted because some thin skinned persons got their feelings hurt by words. Adolescence to young adult is the time frame that you are supposed to get control of your emotions, not go through life in a state of perpetual adolescence. As adults, there are choices.

BigEZE said:

There is NO "hate speech" provision in the 1st Amendment. Anyone can say anything they like whether it offends someone else or not. (Obviously inside the workplace is different and within whatever moving target the social media companies require). You can be logical and rational and feel free to turn the channel, go to a different web site, don't listen to/read it if you don't like it, but regardless, the 1st Amendments Free Speech provision isn't to be gutted because some thin skinned persons got their feelings hurt by words. Adolescence to young adult is the time frame that you are supposed to get control of your emotions, not go through life in a state of perpetual adolescence. As adults, there are choices.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And I've seen those who argue X shouldn't be allowed to have this content on there. Well, yes they should, it's easy to support the 1st ammendment when you're applying it to views that you already agree with or are neutral toward. I think this content is ugly and would ideally not exist, but I defend people's rights to say their mind. Personally I do just that -- I don't like the way X has gone and I don't use it.

But I think the point is the last bit where Musk talks up X being a platform for free speech while blocking the accounts of those who say things Musk doesn't like. He's certainly allowed to do so, it just is a bit hypocritical. And it does make it a platform for this type of content, rather than a platform for free speech that just includes this type of content.

(Replying to the post you replied to, I'm really not sure that the hate speech on there DOES violate rules -- it violated Twitter's rules, but X is not Twitter. If it does violate X's rules, X should change their rules to match what they are actually doing.)