@samface

Quote:

First of all, to call other people stupid is the definition of being stupid in my book.

You know the definition of: I'm with stupid?

If it was meant literally the simple fact of being with, not calling someone as you imply, wouldn't be reason alone for also being it? So you think that I would be calling myself stupid then...

Last edited by pixie on 20-Jul-2007 at 05:09 PM.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Thread

Please take any personal assumptions and issues by PM's.

Last edited by tomazkid on 21-Jul-2007 at 02:29 AM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @Spectre660 Quote: Spectre660 wrote: @Ketzer See PDF NO 52 page 29: Amiga Delaware's own documentation. Here KMOS seem to be buying the OS4.0 rights from the ITEC/Hyperion 2003 contract. Not the Rights from Amiga Washington for the 2001 contract. Gets confusing in it's meaning as IANAL. I dont see the point youre trying to make. Itec sold in that contract the entire OS4.0 IP, not just the contract. At that point Itec should have already received everything from Hyperion and any transfer clause shouldnt have mattered anymore. So Amiga sues for copyright infringement; the copyrights they already received from Itec. And Itec sues for nonperformance in one contract that was the basis for another contract.

So if I got you right, ITEC sold the entire OS4.0 IP to KMOS/AInc(D) - without having/owning it at all?
Is this legal in the US?

And now they (ITEC) sue Hyperion for not having delivered something they (ITEC) sold long ago?

I mean - how can I sell something I don't own and years later sue someone for not owning/having owned it?

Currently it is at least doubtful that ITEC owned the OS4 IP back then - and it is obvious that they even don't own it today (they claim to have sold it) - so I don't understand with what right they can sue at all?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @NutsAboutAmiga ... Amiga is th3 ev!l, even if the only thing they didnt do (and which should have been Haage&Partners job anyway) is supply some sourcecode.

I somehow fail to see why it should have been Haage&Partner's job to donate away their IP???

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @Ketzer How can you sue for non-performance of a contract you no longer own? Hyperion says Itec owns the contract, ...

What Hyperion say is pretty irrelevant.

ITEC themselves already admitted that they sold it to KMOS long ago...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote (page20, #297): @NutsAboutAmiga ... They signed an illegal contract and can be sued by both ITEC and Eyetech over the issue ...

You can sue someone on the breach of an illegal contract in the US???

Last edited by Dandy on 25-Jul-2007 at 12:43 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Dandy wrote: @Tigger Are you serious? "in good faith"??? They are actively involved in AInc(W)'s fraudulent game to get rid of debts and you dare to call it "in good faith"??? First of all this thread is about the lawsuit in New York between Itec and Hyperion, very little of what AI(w) did is involved. What we know Itec did. 1) Bought Amiga rights from Gateway for Amino (and made themselves first secured creditor) (totally legal) 2) Exercised there first secured creditor rights (totally legal, and AI(w) is a solvent company worth alot of money when they are done, so not sure why you think this is fraudulent). 3) Signed a contract with Hyperion for delivery of OS 4.0. 4) Paid Hyperion for the delivery (possibly not enough) 5) Sold the OS to KMOS for almost 8M shares of KMOS. 6) Paid Hyperion more money when they said in court that they had not been paid sufficient amounts and tried to get the OS from them to give to KMOS. 7) Sued Hyperion in NY court for delivery of the OS. Where is this fraudulent item that Itec has done, and if this isnt about Itec, then its not on topic. -Tig

Nahhh - I think you misread me.
I didn't say ITEC committed fraud - I said "They are actively involved in AInc(W)'s fraudulent game to get rid of debts ...

With that I meant they very well knew what was going on and for what purpose - so you can't say they acted "in good faith"...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Nahhh - I think you misread me. I didn't say ITEC committed fraud - I said "They are actively involved in AInc(W)'s fraudulent game to get rid of debts ... With that I meant they very well knew what was going on and for what purpose - so you can't say they acted "in good faith"...

I don't see where any fraud was commited between AI.W and ITEC. (OS4, IP, Contract etc.)

Where I do see possible fraud is AI.W to KMOS for the remainder of the IP etc. (everything else)

But, this has nothing to do with the NY case. Hyperion might get some traction from it in Washington against KMOS/AI.D, but this still doen't releave them of their resposibilities in the 2003 contract. Hyperion may make AI.D look the fool, but ITEC will likely thump Hyperion.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Dandy

Quote:

I somehow fail to see why it should have been Haage&Partner's job to donate away their IP???

Whether they were supposed to donate or sell I dont know. But H&P, being in possession of 3.5/3.9 source, were part of the subcontractors - for some reason they left soon after.

@wolfe

Quote:

But, this has nothing to do with the NY case. Hyperion might get some traction from it in Washington against KMOS/AI.D, but this still doen't releave them of their resposibilities in the 2003 contract. Hyperion may make AI.D look the fool, but ITEC will likely thump Hyperion.

The key question in both lawsuits is:

Is Itec buying in to the AMIGA OS4.0 Agreement valid without written consent from Amiga Washington and Eyetech LTD ?.

Hyperion will win on this issue alone if this interpretation is upheld.
They will have to pay back some money though .

Note Everton Carton's Declaration
PDF NO 26.Page 17 Lines 21-23 and page 18 lines 1-8.

Note what he says about Eyetech not giving consent.
I bet you that Hyperion have or can get a sworn deposition from
Redhouse on this.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Dandy

Quote:

You can sue someone on the breach of an illegal contract in the US???

The contract can only be illegal if the transfer to Itec didnt happen.
If the transfer didnt happen, Itec arent bound by its conditions - but Hyperion are. Hyperion promised delivery of IP, upon which Itec spend money, founded KMOS and so on. If Hyperion promised illegally to sell the IP, they dont necessarily have to transfer it, but can be sued for damages by Itec and Amiga D.

@Spectre660

Quote:

The key question in both lawsuits is: Is Itec buying in to the AMIGA OS4.0 Agreement valid without written consent from Amiga Washington and Eyetech LTD ?. Hyperion will win on this issue alone if this interpretation is upheld. They will have to pay back some money though . Note Everton Carton's Declaration PDF NO 26.Page 17 Lines 21-23 and page 18 lines 1-8. Note what he says about Eyetech not giving consent. I bet you that Hyperion have or can get a sworn deposition from Redhouse on this.

I'd rather believe that this "some money" is going to bankrupt Hyperion. KMOS founded explicitly based upon the results of this contract. Shares sold for millions to other company. Any money that Amiga aquired from other investors and spent. Even the Kent deal may be counted as damages. These are millions of $.

Edit: Somebody mentioned that Carton will be held responsible personally for damages (VOF), he might be better off rethinking what he accomplishes.

Edit2: Are you certain that Redhouse is really willing to help Carton? Remember that the OS wasnt ready when the hardware was and thus resulted in many lost sales.

Last edited by Ketzer on 21-Jul-2007 at 01:26 PM.
Last edited by Ketzer on 21-Jul-2007 at 01:24 PM.
Last edited by Ketzer on 21-Jul-2007 at 01:21 PM.

@Spectre660

Quote:

The key question in both lawsuits is: Is Itec buying in to the AMIGA OS4.0 Agreement valid without written consent from Amiga Washington and Eyetech LTD ?. Hyperion will win on this issue alone if this interpretation is upheld. They will have to pay back some money though . Note Everton Carton's Declaration PDF NO 26.Page 17 Lines 21-23 and page 18 lines 1-8. Note what he says about Eyetech not giving consent. I bet you that Hyperion have or can get a sworn deposition from Redhouse on this.

Consent from Amiga W is mute. If the transfer happened, thats consent. Eyetech on the other hand is different, if the court views the requirement valid. Hyperion/Eyetech are partners and ones consent (Hyperions) can be viewed as consent for the partnership. Considering the way the transfer happened, its doubtful the court will view it necessary for any consent. This is a very weak point to rest hopes on.

As far as the partnership goes, Eyetech is the hardware and Hyperion is the OS. So, if Eyetech is going to sue someone, they should sue Hyperion for selling the OS without their permission (2003 contract), if their permission is required in any way.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wolfe

Quote:

Consent from Amiga W is mute. If the transfer happened, thats consent. Eyetech on the other hand is different, if the court views the requirement valid. Hyperion/Eyetech are partners and ones consent (Hyperions) can be viewed as consent for the partnership. Considering the way the transfer happened, its doubtful the court will view it necessary for any consent. This is a very weak point to rest hopes on.

The original contract is a strange beast.
It has perpetual clauses and clauses that trigger other clauses.
Start with clause 6.01
Then 7.12
Then 7.03
Then 7.05
Then 4.06
Then 4.04

Should all parties have notified each other in writing about any Assignments/Transfers,Leins etc. ?

Another question is should the contract have been terminated and a new one signed if a transfer of rights was in effect ?.

If a clause is based on the solvency of Amiga Washington and they assign their rights to another company can that that clause still triggered even after Amiga Washington assign their rights. ?

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660
Quote:

Note what he says about Eyetech not giving consent. I bet you that Hyperion have or can get a sworn deposition from Redhouse on this.

Hopefully Amiga Inc. with the backing investors won't bribe Eyetech and backdate their consent...

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: If a clause is based on the solvency of Amiga Washington and they assign their rights to another company can that that clause still triggered even after Amiga Washington assign their rights. ?

With the transfer to Itec, everywhere it says Amiga Inc, you replace Itec. So if you question is does an insolvency of Amiga Washington matter to this contract after April 23, 2003 (ie after the transfer occured), the answer is no it does not.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

With the transfer to Itec, everywhere it says Amiga Inc, you replace Itec. So if you question is does an insolvency of Amiga Washington matter to this contract after April 23, 2003 (ie after the transfer occured), the answer is no it does not. -Tig

Amiga(W) still "owned" the Amiga 3.x IP on which the OS 4.0 Agreement is based.
Until when though is the question.
The transfer/sale "announcement" was in March 2004.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Thread


for those doing research on the matter (Lawyers etc) here is a link to keep.
re The backdated US$22,500 Hyperion receipt and the Email from Ben HErmans in 2004 about it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/16/amiga_flogs_off_classic_os/

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Amiga(W) still "owned" the Amiga 3.x IP on which the OS 4.0 Agreement is based. Until when though is the question. The transfer/sale "announcement" was in March 2004.

No, on April 23, 2003 all of the classic OS including the contract with Hyperion was transfered to Itec.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@jorkany

Quote:

But it's our right (and some feel our duty) in the US to waste the public's time and money to prove that common sense is wrong.

There has to be some special good in anyone that can raise a laugh in this kind of thread :)

Noel