@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: But for the sake of discussion you seem to be deciding against Hyperion based on Ben's public forum posts rather than your intepretation of the actual contract. I don't know how to interperate the contract other than how the original author publicly stated. The contract may not be legally interperated that way in the long run but according to all the public discussions at the time it seems Ben thought along the lines of a buy back being a possibility. I can not see how you can dismiss what Ben said about the contract at the time as that gives us a real insight into how the parties viewed the contract before the posturing for takeover. I don't take much stock in either sides legal arguments as they both have problems with the truth lately. Just when was OS4 finished and the developers paid again? My point is it seems Ben at one time interperated it one way and now Hyperion's arguments seem to go another way. I actually do want to "decide this on morality", which is why I am hesitant to support the ip grab. I can not see how Bolton Peck or coupon scam has anything to do with the contract with Hyperion, unless it is alright to steal a car from the neighbor because he cheats on his income taxes.

So you have decided Ben was telling the truth then to us, but lying now to the court? Perhaps he was lying to us back then to give us the appearance of something that he knew was not quite the case. You are deciding for some reason when he is lying and when he is truthful without making your own determination on the contract itself. It all comes down only to the contract. Not to what public spin Ben was going for years ago. Are you right that he believed that then in your assumption? Maybe. Or was he lying to us then? Maybe. Thats why it all falls to contract interpretation. Your theory is based on him having no ulterior motives at the time, so take him at his word then to us, people not even party to the contract. If you feel he can be a snake in the grass now, what is to say he was not being then, and that he knew he was twisting the facts to us in his public statements at the time? Thats why it all comes down the the interpretation of the words in the contract itself. Between the words in the actual contract and it making no sense for a company to take a complete loss and agree to do so on paper to me it looks like Ben was twisting the truth to us back then, rather than to the court now.

And actually Bolton does have to do with this. This contract of which you speak was between Amiga Washington and Hyperion. Amiga Washington owes Bolton money. If Amiga Delaware achieves it additional ip grab beyond the one they seemingly took away from Amiga Washington's creditors (Bolton Peck, the other employee owed wages, Amiga's landlord) is that fair? To me this ip should either be given to Hyperion based on the merits of the contract itself or Amiga Washington, but not to Amiga Delaware, who seem to have pulled some asset cleansing. So that if it goes to Amiga Washington the people owed money have a chance to make their money back. If any Amiga gains from it should be Amiga Washington so that it can pay the open debts it owes.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 03:26 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 03:26 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 03:24 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

They backdated a receipt for the wrong amount, you guys might think lie is too strong a word, but its accurate.

Like I said, it was a simple accounting mistake, nobody in court is accusing Hyperion of deliberately lying about the amount they received. It's only something you want to believe, because entertaining such ideas helps to feed your hatred towards Hyperion.

Quote:

First of all it doesnt matter at all that different companies paid the money, never has in the US, never will.

It wouldn't matter if one company was the legal successor of the other company AND there was a legal transfer of the OS4 contract, however KMOS is certainly not a legal successor of Itec, and there was never a legal transfer of the OS4 contract to any of them.

Quote:

as I said above if Hyperion doesnt believe that KMOS is the successor, then they needed to return the money or deliver the software

Hyperion didn't take any money from KMOS for the buyin, so what are you talking about?

Quote:

We have a letter from AI's lawyer about the 8850 which strongly disputes that its for other costs

There's nothing in the court papers that would prove that those were for the buy-in. AInc claim that it was, Hyperion say it was not. One of them is clearly lying. I think it's AInc lying, you think it's Hyperion lying (not surprisingly

Quote:

Hyperion picked there hardware partner

This doesn't answer my question. I asked you "where in the contract does it say that Hyperion have any responsibilities with regards to hardware development". The answer is: nowhere. The contract specifically states, in plain and simple english, that Hyperion is responsible for OS development, Eyetech is responsible for hardware development. And stop this nonesense about Hyperion picking Eyetech, several people have already pointed out to you that Amiga Inc. picked Eyetech, in fact they announced them as the provider of hardware even before they agreed to do it.

@stew

Quote:

@Spectre660 So Hyperion was done as soon as Eyetech quit? I was asking about new hardware. What good is distribution rights with no reason to distribute? Hyperion and Eyetech did noy do each other any favors.

That may be the main reason for the dispute.
Hyperion would not have been able to recover their costs with no new A1's and Amiga were not helpful so they tried to hold each other over a barrel.

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

@Tigger
Quote:

So do you think its ok that Hyperion gets your $50 rebate instead of you?

Er, no. Why do you think that, or think that I think that? AInc owes me 50$. It is absolutely nothing to do with Hyperion or Eyetech. I actually rang Alan Redhouse when the 50$ coupon was announced and he told me it was nothing to do with him and he didn't agree with it. This was purely an AInc scam.

@umisef

Quote:

Yes, you can point that out all you want. However, you pointing things out will not change the fact that *if* the party packs would be considered a breach (let's assume for now they would), then (a) Hyperion *knew* about that breach when they signed the 2001 contract, (b) Hyperion knew about that breach when they confirmed the buy-back amount in 2003 to who they supposedly considered the legitimate successor-in-rights to the 2001 contract, (c) at both times, they chose not to bring it up, and (d) there is no possible way in which Amiga could cure the breach.

(a) I'm quite sure Hyperion have been objecting to the party packs/coupons since the beginning. Just because Ben did not start whining about it in the forums doesn't mean they were not asking AInc to stop doing it and get it resolved.

(b) AInc could have easily cured the breach by either (1) handing over the collected money and list of people who paid it so they can use the money for speeding up OS development, and be in a position to give the discounts, or (2) making some other deal with Hyperion with which both sides are satisfied.

Quote:

So why haven't they returned the money?

For the money coming from Itec, from my understanding they haven't returned it, because they were waiting for Itec to transfer the remaining amounts. Remember that they owed Hyperion over $6000 for some AmigaDE work. The money they got from KMOS was not for the buyin, thus there was no reason to return it. The $25k Itec sent this year for the buyin was returned immediately.

Quote:

money was *confirmed* not to be for other outstanding debts, by Hyperion's accountants

$22500 of it was confirmed for the buyin. That's obviously not enough.

@fairlanefastback

I just feel he has more motivation to lie now then back then. Back then he thought AInc would not exersize the buy back option, Eyetech would make a good board that would sell well, and everybody would be making money. Things went bad so the story has to be changed to cover butts. I see the change in the date of the finish of OS4 as part of this also. I do see your veiw and it has validity. I have no way (other than what the parties said) to know what they really thought of the contract at the time. We all know that contracts don't always spell out exactly what the parties involved had in mind. My personal feelings is that what they had in mind is more important to be honored than the exact wording, especially in light of the poor quality of the revealed contract. I just think alot of people have their view tainted by their like/dislike for one or other of the parties.

Regaurdless of who wins we will never know what was said behind closed doors and begging the question: Will the ownership will always be tainted no matter the verdict?

@Tigger

Quote:

RedMelons wrote: @Tigger Quote: So do you think its ok that Hyperion gets your $50 rebate instead of you? Er, no. Why do you think that, or think that I think that? AInc owes me 50$. It is absolutely nothing to do with Hyperion or Eyetech. I actually rang Alan Redhouse when the 50$ coupon was announced and he told me it was nothing to do with him and he didn't agree with it. This was purely an AInc scam.

Plus if Hyperion gets it at least they have product people would maybe want to use their redemptions for. What would you do with the money being with Amiga? Buy $50 worth of ancient Amiga games ported for use on Windows XP using the $50 credit?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Actually they are saying it cost them money, so its not a technical arguement and they are asking for the money for all 1800 vouchers,

They say "Dealing with demands from consumers" cost them money.
an indirect cost ?

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: So you have decided Ben was telling the truth then to us, but lying now to the court?

Ben hasnt said anything in court, so not sure why you would say this. Evert has said is a buyin, the Hyperion lawyer has said it was a buyin. Ben hasnt said anything. Evert says now after the lawsuit that its a buyin. The language of the contract and the author of the contract both say its a buyout. Ben has never said it wasnt a buyout.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

AND as I pointed out earlier, the total lack of a description of the relationship between Hyperion and Eyetech under the contract is a big clue that they are a single party to the contract.

Ah, there's a real gem in the "Amiga vs. Hyperion" forum wars.

Arm chair lawyers having at it. Hmmm... a total "lack" or description of the relationship ---> means they ARE a single party?? That's some real logic there.

Round and round... with 1) 2), 3) seperate entities listed.

That's a lot of bias to ADMIT in the same sentence that their is a "lack" of description on what the relationship is (as some are pointing out) and then say that is proof that there IS a relationship they are a joint venture. WTF?

I love this stuff!!

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@RedMelons

Both Eyetech and Hyperion came out with a statement right after the scam disavowing any responceability or participation. If memory serves (which is not often) they also came out with a joint statement once. They said that the coupons would be taken care of by Ainc. only. Ofcourse this means they knew about it right away and took no action back then (for whatever that means).

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @stew Quote: @Spectre660 So Hyperion was done as soon as Eyetech quit? I was asking about new hardware. What good is distribution rights with no reason to distribute? Hyperion and Eyetech did noy do each other any favors. That may be the main reason for the dispute. Hyperion would not have been able to recover their costs with no new A1's and Amiga were not helpful so they tried to hold each other over a barrel.

On this we are in total agreement. I think the "holding over a barrel" may have started before the end of Eyetech.

OK....

Without reading through these twelve pages....

What is going on this time ? Did Hyperion sue Amiga this time, amd about what ?

Can someone please give me the short story on this ?

Thanks !

Martin

_________________
Theres a time to live and a time to die
When its time to meet the maker
Theres a time to live but isnt it strange
That as soon as you're born you're dying

@Metalheart

It was discovered that the former Amiga Washington (who was dissolved years ago) are still active under a different name, called Amino. Because as it seems neither Amiga Delaware, nor Itec are a legal successor of the OS4 contract (unless they can provide some documents which I haven't seen yet), Amino (who are the same company as Amiga Washington which the 2001 was signed with) are apparently the ones who have those rights, and the fact that they're still active means Hyperion is now in a position to sue them and ask for a declaratory judgement on the owernship issues of OS4.

@COBRA

Jeeeeeeesssss.... Where's the popcorn ?

So basicly The only ones who can legaly have any dealing with OS4 is This 'Amino' (and Hyperion) and NOT those Amiga companys sueing Hyperion right now ?

Thanks !

Martin

_________________
Theres a time to live and a time to die
When its time to meet the maker
Theres a time to live but isnt it strange
That as soon as you're born you're dying

@Metalheart

Quote:

So basicly The only ones who can legaly have any dealing with OS4 is This 'Amino' (and Hyperion) and NOT those Amiga companys sueing Hyperion right now ?

As far as I can tell, yes. But then some others (like Tigger) disagree, they argue that there's no need for a legal (signed by all parties) paper of transfer of the OS4 contract from one company to the other. So yes, make sure you get a lot of popcorn ;)

@COBRA

So it's up to the court... agaim...

I also think that if you sell a company as a whole, all assets and contracts are included, but with the original company still existing it might be another story...

Thanks, you are a great help

Martin

_________________
Theres a time to live and a time to die
When its time to meet the maker
Theres a time to live but isnt it strange
That as soon as you're born you're dying

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: fairlanefastback wrote: So you have decided Ben was telling the truth then to us, but lying now to the court? Ben hasnt said anything in court, so not sure why you would say this. Evert has said is a buyin, the Hyperion lawyer has said it was a buyin. Ben hasnt said anything. Evert says now after the lawsuit that its a buyin. The language of the contract and the author of the contract both say its a buyout. Ben has never said it wasnt a buyout. -Tig

Hyperion is Evert and Ben. Hyperion is represented in court by a lawyer who is stating their position, he is their advocate and voice. Their position in regard to the contract is that its a "buy-in". That includes Ben. If it dosen't he better sell off his interest in Hyperion. What I was saying was figurative based on that. I'm sorry you did not grasp that. Oh well. The language of the contract is up for debate, hence, again, the case. You can keep playing the judge, just remember he might get "confused" again (thats your description the last time he didn't follow your declaration of what would happen). Because if we are going to keep tabs on what ever person involved has called it, the judge called it a "buy-in". LOL. Give us your usual counter though of why that dosen't matter, since you love repeating yourself over and over, you know, for relaxation as you say.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 05:22 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 05:21 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback
Quote:

So you have decided Ben was telling the truth then to us, but lying now to the court?

Personally I wouldn't trust a word Ben says under any circumstances, even if it supported my case.

Quote:

Hyperion is Evert and Ben.

I thought Ben left and was no long officially associated with Hyperion? Could be wrong about that though. Definitely, he is keeping himself still in the picture.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

@jorkany

Quote:

jorkany wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: So you have decided Ben was telling the truth then to us, but lying now to the court? Personally I wouldn't trust a word Ben says under any circumstances, even if it supported my case. Quote: Hyperion is Evert and Ben. I thought Ben left and was no long officially associated with Hyperion? Could be wrong about that though. Definitely, he is keeping himself still in the picture.

Maybe he isn't? If I was mistaken on that I was mistaken. Regardless this case is about what the contract says in a legal sense and how that is interpreted by judge and jury. Its not about what our impressions of what Ben posted on ANN for reasons unknown at the time. We should remember that neither "buy-in" or "buy-out" are even in the contract. The reality is the contract does not seem well written, which means the judge and/or jury will be the ones connecting the dots. Not us.

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