@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Perhaps Olaf is playing favorites as well...and perhaps he took money from Hyperion in the name of Amino, like Hyperion accepted money from Tachyon and others in the name of Amino... Which just goes to show their insolvency further and is also part of Hyperion's "damages". First of all Olaf didnt get any money from Hyperion until 2006 (ie they didnt pay him from 2001-2005) which I think blows a huge hole in your theory, but since I'm not sure I understand your theory that may be untrue. In addition, Hyperion didnt accept money from Tachyon and others in the name of Amino, they accepted money from Tachyon in the name of Itec and money from Itec in the name of Itec. And none of this has anything to do with insolvency, which your side is hoping wasnt true on Nov 3, 2001, but was true in March of 2003, though I dont think even that helps them here. They sold the OS, nothing in the contract says the insolvency clause prevents the buyback, so they sold it, Itec bought it, Hyperion needs to deliver it.

See prior post on accepting payments regarding Amino. Olaf allowed access to the CVS and that speaks of itself, I don't need to defend it.
As for ITEC, they perported themselves as successors and that contract should be invalidated.
As for KMOS, that admit to not being a party to the contract yet try to exercise rights to it.

Quote:

Quote: Why don't we just create an UNBIASED chart of contract violations and see who's violated the most and stop all this point-counter point banter? Ok, but thats really going to hurt your cause. You could argue that AI has not violated any of the clauses of the 2001 contract, you cant argue that with Hyperion. -Tig

1) Not directly providing source forcing Hyperion to pay for it themselves
2) Attempting to transfer rights of the contract without permission
3) Not notifying Hyperion of there insolvency in order to avoid triggering the clause