@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: KMOS can no longer even attempt to claim they are the major user of the trademarks that they never owned. The naming rights was a facade to claim trademark use and ownership. Now the judge has more fuel to allow Hyperion full use of the trademarks. This is what will happen. You've been warned.

I'm guessing you havent read the latest court documents and see who owns the trademarks, I'll give you one guess, its Amiga Inc a Delaware company. Would you like to retract your statement at this time?
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 31-Jul-2007 at 04:03 PM.

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @all Might not be a bad idea to keep an eye here the next day or two, since recent events in Kent may signal a change in approach: http://news.justia.com/cases/amigahyperion/370498 #6

59, 60 and 61 are very interesting though Ben is probably pulling his hair out now.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: KMOS can no longer even attempt to claim they are the major user of the trademarks that they never owned. The naming rights was a facade to claim trademark use and ownership. Now the judge has more fuel to allow Hyperion full use of the trademarks. This is what will happen. You've been warned. I'm guessing you havent read the latest court documents and see who owns the trademarks, I'll give you one guess, its Amiga Inc a Delaware company. Would you like to retract your statement at this time? -Tig

Registrant and assignee are 2 different things. Also it goes on to say that AI(W) is not defunct which opens up another can of worms for your camp - insovency and debts still owed to Bolten Peck and Hyperion who have declared themselves a creditor of AI(W). So if Hyperion register to own the trademarks as well, then who looks like they have been actively using them and who hasn't? It seems to me that it's KMOS that blurs copyrights and trademarks, not Hyperion...

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Also it goes on to say that AI(W) is not defunct which opens up another can of worms for your camp - insovency and debts still owed to Bolten Peck and Hyperion who have declared themselves a creditor of AI(W).

A company isnt defunct until 5 years after its closed down according to Washington state law, several of us have remarked about that before. Insolvency doesnt matter because the contract was transferred and Hyperion has yet to show they are still owed a debt by AI(W), even if they are, how does that effect the Itec case which is the subject of this topic. Bolten should go after McEwen as I have told him several times.

Quote:

So if Hyperion register to own the trademarks as well, then who looks like they have been actively using them and who hasn't?

They have no right to do so, you are the blurring the lines there.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

They have arrived:

http://news.justia.com/cases/amigahyperion/370498

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Registrant and assignee are 2 different things.

Not in the way you seem to be implying.

Quote:

It seems to me that it's KMOS that blurs copyrights and trademarks, not Hyperion...

No the paperwork is pretty clear from here its about the trademarks. What are you talking about?
-Tig

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

Amiga (W) Lives!

pdf 59:page 3 lines 10-23

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

@all

What is the *actual* status of the *New York* lawsuit? I've only seen it refered to in an exhibit in the Washington case. Why is there no Justia page for the NY case? Has it been filed and intiated??

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

Quite a hard hitting document. These, I think, are the salient points in docket 59. No doubt I'll be corrected on all of them.

1. Hyperion is not the registrant of the Amiga trademarks.

I can accept that, as said, a licence is not an assignment. Amiga say that the PTO process was mischaracterised by Hyperion, but it's strange that the approval seems to have happened after Hyperion had submitted their document. I don't think anyone can mischaracterise something that hasn't happened yet. It could be argued that Hyperion were over zealous in getting this information to the court, but I think Amiga are overstating that.

2. Amiga Washington still exists.

The question remains, were they insolvent before the Itec transfer? It's still unclear. It also remains to be seen whether the process of dissolution overrides the 2001 contract clauses, allowing AiW to move responsibility of payments to relieve themselves of potential debt, ie the infamous $25K, without consultation with the AmigaOne partners.

3. Trademarks (again).

Amiga asserts that regardless of the insolvency clause, Hyperion only have a licence to do what they want, they do not and will not own the Amiga IP. The copyright & trademarks remain with Amiga, dependant on the proper transfer from AiW to AiD. This leads back to the point of the original case. Hyperion argued that AiD were not the proper successor to AiW, Amiga have provided (at last) documentation that they are indeed the successor through dockets 60 & 61. Having read those, I don't envy the Judge having to make sense of them, there are far too many for a simple IP transaction.

Other bits.

The rest of this docket, after sifting through the great many citations, asserts that any rights or licence granted are granted to the AmigaOne Partners and not Hyperion directly implying that the partners are a legal entity, which they are not. Granting the rights to the partners is something Hyperion have never denied to my knowledge. Indeed, Hyperion have no objection to Eyetech being involved in their counterclaim, therefore I don't see the relevance in bringing it up.

Usual disclaimers apply, my opinion yada yada.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: A company isnt defunct until 5 years after its closed down according to Washington state law, several of us have remarked about that before. Insolvency doesnt matter because the contract was transferred and Hyperion has yet to show they are still owed a debt by AI(W), even if they are, how does that effect the Itec case which is the subject of this topic. Bolten should go after McEwen as I have told him several times. -Tig

Now the truth comes out... And just who approved that transfer anyway?

Can someone explain the "(DATE NOT AVAILABLE)" bits in pdf 60 please? And the lack of Itec being mentioned in pdf 61?

Ta muchly :)


Jason

@pertinaxone

Quote:

pertinaxone wrote: Can someone explain the "(DATE NOT AVAILABLE)" bits in pdf 60 please? And the lack of Itec being mentioned in pdf 61? Ta muchly :) Jason

Itec never owned any of the trademarks, thats why they are not mentioned in the trademark documents.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Now the truth comes out... And just who approved that transfer anyway?

Basically everyone that needed to. Hyperion approved it by signing the 2003 contract (though its very possible that didnt need to occur because Itec is the first secured creditor), AI(w) approved it by making Itec the first secured creditor and doing the transfer in the first place.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Now the truth comes out... And just who approved that transfer anyway? Basically everyone that needed to. Hyperion approved it by signing the 2003 contract (though its very possible that didnt need to occur because Itec is the first secured creditor), AI(w) approved it by making Itec the first secured creditor and doing the transfer in the first place. -Tig

Per: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003813881_kentarena31m.html
Quote:

The company shut down its Washington corporation in 2004 and re-formed as a Delaware company with headquarters in New York — with new investors not obligated to pay those old debts, McEwen said in a May interview.

As I recall someone saying in 2000 that ITEC went bankrupt and so did Amiga Inc.'s money.

So who/what is the current ITEC that is supposedly the first secured creditor that according to Bill "Scam them all" McEwan claims is new investors with no debts?

Is this ITEC the same ITEC? Hmmm... I'm thinking this new ITEC committed fraud in pretending to be the old ITEC but when it comes to debts, it's the new ITEC...just like Amiga Inc.(W) & Amiga Inc.(D).

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: As I recall someone saying in 2000 that ITEC went bankrupt and so did Amiga Inc.'s money.

I dont think anyone has said that ITEC went bankrupt in 2000.

Quote:

So who/what is the current ITEC that is supposedly the first secured creditor that according to Bill "Scam them all" McEwan claims is new investors with no debts?

You are now confusing Itec with KMOS (who is the new Amiga). Again this thread is about Itec and the 2003 contract and the lawsuit resulting from it, which has very little to do with the 2001 contract and the transfer (or non-transfer) of that contract to Itec.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

59, 60 and 61 are very interesting though Ben is probably pulling his hair out now. -Tig

Is someone losing the plot ?.

Pdf 59 :page 6 lines 12-22

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Is someone losing the plot ?. Pdf 59 :page 6 lines 12-22

I dont think so, why do you think someone is losing the plot?
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

As I recall someone saying in 2000 that ITEC went bankrupt and so did Amiga Inc.'s money.

If someone did, they are mistaken. It was 2001 when the Kouri Capital Group was declared bankrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Kouri

If Itec existed at that time, or was affected is unkown as of yet. And no, they dont have to exist at that time to be first secured creditor, Itec could have simply picked up the necessary rights and contracts from the remains.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Pdf 59 :page 6 lines 12-22

It is argued that the code is ..

.. a derivative work of copyrighted material
.. named OS 4.0, if it has a name at all
.. is marketed under the Amiga trademark

and that a license to use a trademark does not result in ownership of that trademark. All of which is quite obvious imo.

@Esquilax

Quote:

1. Hyperion is not the registrant of the Amiga trademarks. I can accept that, as said, a licence is not an assignment. Amiga say that the PTO process was mischaracterised by Hyperion, but it's strange that the approval seems to have happened after Hyperion had submitted their document. I don't think anyone can mischaracterise something that hasn't happened yet. It could be argued that Hyperion were over zealous in getting this information to the court, but I think Amiga are overstating that.

The mischaracterisation was that Hyperion claims that certain trademark requests have been "final"ly denied.

Quote:

2. Amiga Washington still exists. The question remains, were they insolvent before the Itec transfer? It's still unclear. It also remains to be seen whether the process of dissolution overrides the 2001 contract clauses, allowing AiW to move responsibility of payments to relieve themselves of potential debt, ie the infamous $25K, without consultation with the AmigaOne partners.

I wouldnt rely on that. Hyperion dont have evidence for an insolvency - and as the judge remarks the term insolvency is not legally defined. But even if the judge for some reason consideres Amiga W to have been insolvent, several people are quite adamant that the insolvency clause will be found illegal.

Quote:

3. Trademarks (again). Amiga asserts that regardless of the insolvency clause, Hyperion only have a licence to do what they want, they do not and will not own the Amiga IP.

The only way in which Hyperion could have theoretically aquired ownership of anything would be if they were indeed a creditor of Amiga W (they didnt provide evidence) and have been awarded rights as a payment for the debt through the bankruptcy process (Amiga W wasnt declared bankrupt; there were other, actual, creditors of Amiga W).


Quote:

The rest of this docket, after sifting through the great many citations, asserts that any rights or licence granted are granted to the AmigaOne Partners and not Hyperion directly implying that the partners are a legal entity, which they are not. Granting the rights to the partners is something Hyperion have never denied to my knowledge. Indeed, Hyperion have no objection to Eyetech being involved in their counterclaim, therefore I don't see the relevance in bringing it up.

The legal entity is created by assigning it the license, claims Amiga. If the judge agrees, Hyperion will have to join Eyetech or the counterclaim will be dismissed. Joining Eyetech will imo fail for two reasons. Eyetech left the Amiga market and has no reason to risk money for lawyers. Eyetech lost money when Hyperion didnt finish OS4.0 in time.