Intel brings its fakes in front of the court

In my reply to Intel claims I have:

• countered the false claims of all the warnings.
• provided evidence that the test bench was working, that has been used during the complete test campaign, that a colleague who used the bench said he had no problem.
• I asked them to provide video evidence of me slapping the door in front of manager TM. The security camera in front of the door must have recorded it.
• provided evidence I was working on correcting the pseudo-technical issues found by manager TM, after I was back from vacation.
• provided evidence that the 3 weeks time-frame to build up the bench was a short time.

Intel answers:

• It is not important that they wrote in their first claim that I’ve not built an identical test setup, while the request was to build a test setup with comparable performances (email proved it).
  It is difficult to believe they wrote this. They can claim something, and when they are busted they modify their claim.
  Is a Darwinian evolution of the species, the fake claim evolve in the hope to survive.
• They say the performances of the test setup were definitely bad. They are just ignoring the fact that I provided the email exchange were I show that the performances were comparable or better than the original setup. They hope in the technical ignorance of the court.
• They write that colleague SP didn’t have any problem in using the bench because this was completely reworked during my vacation by the colleagues EC and AM.
• They write the security camera didn’t record what happened in the corridor on the 21.09.2018. The camera was off and the only witness is manager TM himself.
  Not a surprise! There cannot be a recording of what didn’t happen.
• They write that I refused to correct the problem that manager TM found on my bench. Of course, a false immediately busted, as I was working on correcting the (not) issues when I finished with the verification campaign. Email evidence is there.
• They answer to my stance that the CAP was an abuse and given without any real foundation again mentioning the trip to Linz as a technical qualification. Plus the other fakes, read them on A trip to Linz.
• They reply to my stance on the warnings. Nothing convincing, nothing new, nothing true.

If you have read carefully, you have probably noticed something fishy, if not go to the next page Intel Epic Fail.

As soon as the lawsuit is over I will publish the integral Intel claims.