OCZ Ultra 2 recall

[Silversink]

Originally posted by LutaWicasa
I do


You've made your point/opinion be known..........let's not.........

I have to agree with Lutawicasa, so rather than repeat what he said, I'll just bump this most excellent post

[JBELL]

Originally posted by Silversink
I have to agree with Lutawicasa, so rather than repeat what he said, I'll just bump this most excellent post

dude... William S Preston esquire ... like totally!

[QuadDamage]

Edited : yeah it was unnecessary.

[Tony]

Quad I altered my post to reflect on yours...thank you


We are seeking advice with regard to a supplier who it seems may have altered a product we were selling...this type of §§§§ happens all the time world wide..this time it caught us!!

Also im seeing people bringing up the remarking of samsung IC's for the 3700Gold.What people forget is they were rebinned by Samsung for OCZ at 3700 speeds, we then modified them further to the point many were hitting 4200 speeds.Samsung allowed us to remark although they didn't allow us to remove their mark.Its very easy for us to remove their mark if we wanted..try on an old module to remove whats printed on it..its not hard to do.

Finally we have had many requests to swap out compound..if needed i will make sure a running returns total is posted just so some of you folks can see and keep track of what we are up to.

[kromosto]

Main problem in here is i think this thread must be in announcement format everybody in here is doing the correct thing yes this must be a thread that only gives info about recall but if some people praise up then other have the right to say bad comments both are nothing to do with the topic only a post saying like "i have that compund and what am i going to do now" will match with the topic

and so this thread is going wrong from the start and again so i think Quad must reedit that post and give the link again because i read that and it has nothing more than you can find with a simple search about ocz in the google (old forums come)

as finally i have the third post of this thread which is praising the OCZ and i am still with the same oppinion i think ocz is producing very good products which i want to see in my country all the other forums articles saying bad things about ocz hasnt changed my oppinion a little everybody can make faults in the past and everybody can change thats what i believe

only comment that i can make against ocz about this situation is a comapany which made a fault in the past which was heard by everybody must be more and more carefull after it corrects it reputation after a long time and i think ocz must start a regular testing program about the products that has the ocz label but produced by foreign manufacturers

for your fast action in the situation

[uclajd]

Originally posted by ryanpgroovy
For those who are saying that we did this as some sort of form of legal protection for ourselves should know that as OCZ were defrauded we would actaully be one of the victims in any lawsuit against the manufacturer of the goods, along with the customers who purchased the goods.

You guys did the right thing to fix this, no question. But you should check your product liability, negligence, warranty, and misrepresentation law (in every state) before you say this. A retailer doesn't necessarily get blanket immunity for selling a product - which he never bothers to test in-house - which turns out to be defective. Everyone (manufacturer, distributor, retailer) along the stream of commerce can be liable (strictly liable, in some cases, if there is personal injury) in products liability cases. Most specifically, I think you should check misrepresentation and warranty law under the UCC. Innocent (i.e., negligent) misrepresentations are still actionable.

You did the right thing ethically and PR-wise. But there is also a legal component to this. If you were sued, you can't just point to the manufacturer as a defense. The law doesn't work that way. Yes, there is (according to you, which we have no reason not to believe) no fraud on your part, but there are other causes of action in selling defective products, even without actual knowledge that they were defective.

BTW, IAAL. You might want to hire one, based on your (apparent) misunderstanding of the law, for future reference.

I'm not trying to flame here. But I teach business law, and when I see a gross misstatement of the law, I just have to respond.

Notice: The above message does not constitute legal advice, not practical, theoretical, or hypothetical. The author is not recommending a course of action or inaction. The author is not your lawyer. If he were your lawyer, you would have signed a "retainer agreement," which you did not, and you would have paid the author a large retainer fee, which you did not. The above message was merely a layman's discussion of general legal concepts of a personal, private nature for the sole purpose of conversation and commentary on current events, real or fictional.

[ryanpgroovy]

Uclajd,

I am glad you know these things , as I do not.
I was just trying to let the good folks know that our response ( recall ) was not meant as legal protection of ourselves, but instead as a statement to the world that we stand behind our products and services.

[Silversink]

Here's the link to OCZ's new Silver paste

I'm going to get a tube and taste it....uhhm, I mean test it




A little more digging brings you to this THREAD at Anandtech where Nevin, the owner and mad scientist over at Arctic Silver inc. wrote this:

Originally posted by: Nevin

WobbleWobble,

It will be our latest compound, Arctic Silver 5.

Nevin House
Arctic Silver, Inc.

[STEvil]

Originally posted by uclajd
You guys did the right thing to fix this, no question. But you should check your product liability, negligence, warranty, and misrepresentation law (in every state) before you say this. A retailer doesn't necessarily get blanket immunity for selling a product - which he never bothers to test in-house - which turns out to be defective. Everyone (manufacturer, distributor, retailer) along the stream of commerce can be liable (strictly liable, in some cases, if there is personal injury) in products liability cases. Most specifically, I think you should check misrepresentation and warranty law under the UCC. Innocent (i.e., negligent) misrepresentations are still actionable.

You did the right thing ethically and PR-wise. But there is also a legal component to this. If you were sued, you can't just point to the manufacturer as a defense. The law doesn't work that way. Yes, there is (according to you, which we have no reason not to believe) no fraud on your part, but there are other causes of action in selling defective products, even without actual knowledge that they were defective.

BTW, IAAL. You might want to hire one, based on your (apparent) misunderstanding of the law, for future reference.

I'm not trying to flame here. But I teach business law, and when I see a gross misstatement of the law, I just have to respond.

Notice: The above message does not constitute legal advice, not practical, theoretical, or hypothetical. The author is not recommending a course of action or inaction. The author is not your lawyer. If he were your lawyer, you would have signed a "retainer agreement," which you did not, and you would have paid the author a large retainer fee, which you did not. The above message was merely a layman's discussion of general legal concepts of a personal, private nature for the sole purpose of conversation and commentary on current events, real or fictional.

So.. if I were to outsource manufacture of my invention/whatever to a company and they made a sub-par product without my knowledge I could be held responsible for their stupidity?

Gee, what a wonderfull world we live in.. :smileysex

[JBELL]

Originally posted by STEvil
So.. if I were to outsource manufacture of my invention/whatever to a company and they made a sub-par product without my knowledge I could be held responsible for their stupidity?

Gee, what a wonderfull world we live in.. :smileysex

your invention - you have an obligation to uphold quality and to audit yourself and any related parties ... it is a wonderfull world when peopel have to be responsible for their relations

[rmonster]

It's been a few days since the recall has been issued, and things have settled down a bit.

Now that everyone has had a chance to calm down, I was wondering if OCZ would be releasing the lab results from independent testing at any point in the near future. Showing the silver content of the paste according to third party testing before and after the article was written would end all speculation concerning the issue, and put an end to OCZ-bashing once and for all.

Can anyone credible offer any input?

[ryanpgroovy]

Were waiting on approval from our lawyers before we release any more info , about our supplier , test results ect.

I was thinking of leaking the info , but would like to avoid any trouble.

The New thermal paste is just AS 5 in our package

[rmonster]

Thank you for the quick response, Ryan. I can certainly understand heeding the advice of legal professionals in this matter.

I'd still be interested in seeing the results published when the "all clear" sign is given

[n00by]

How long have these bad batches been circulating in the market?

[ryanpgroovy]

Its hard to tell , if your in doubt please email recall@ocztechnology.com