@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Now wait a minute. Itec paid $2750 less didn't they? $2500 was supposedly paid by Bill McEwen? And Itec claiming rights to OS4 partly based on that money Bill McEwen paid? But Bill is not an Itec employee? Again, showing clear connection between Itec and the Washington case, making Itec's motion to dismiss/transfer even more laughable...

Since Itec is the first secured creditor of Amino, and Amino owned Itec 100s of 1000s of dollars, implying that Bill McEwen paying money to Itec is showing a connections involving the 2001 contract is a pretty big jump in my opinion.
-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: @COBRA Quote: COBRA wrote: Now wait a minute. Itec paid $2750 less didn't they? $2500 was supposedly paid by Bill McEwen? And Itec claiming rights to OS4 partly based on that money Bill McEwen paid? But Bill is not an Itec employee? Again, showing clear connection between Itec and the Washington case, making Itec's motion to dismiss/transfer even more laughable... Since Itec is the first secured creditor of Amino, and Amino owned Itec 100s of 1000s of dollars, implying that Bill McEwen paying money to Itec is showing a connections involving the 2001 contract is a pretty big jump in my opinion. -Tig

It's pooop.

ITEC in their own declaration states that AInc. (W) in OS4 wasn't interested and didn't object to ITEC buying it. There was no mention of ITEC aquiring Aminga Inc.(W)'s assets to pay of debts owed to ITEC. It was "oh you don't want it so we'll take it".

ITEC then presented themselves as the successor and got Hyperion to sign a loosely worded contract under false pretenses.

You can try to spin the 2003 contract as Hyperion approving the transfer, but as far as Hyperion was concerned ITEC was the new Amiga Inc.(W) so there didn't appear to be any transfer that happened as Hyperion viewed it was one company buying another. Since AInc.(W) was to no longer exist, the 2003 contract was just a stupid formality to replace the words Amiga with ITEC in the 2001 contract. But again, this was all done under false pretenses.

I'll bet that it wasn't until KMOS came to be that Hyperion finally did a double-take and asked for the real Amiga successor to please step forward.

What followed is over 2 years of delays and attempted negotiations. But this is just my own conjecture here.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: ITEC in their own declaration states that AInc. (W) in OS4 wasn't interested and didn't object to ITEC buying it. There was no mention of ITEC aquiring Aminga Inc.(W)'s assets to pay of debts owed to ITEC. It was "oh you don't want it so we'll take it".

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Itec was owed lots of money by Amino (we've seen that in the KMOS-Amino contract). All I am saying is that Bill McEwen paying $2500 on behalf of someone his company owes over $250,000 doesnt imply a conspiracy, it could have just been a monthly payment for all we know.

Quote:

ITEC then presented themselves as the successor and got Hyperion to sign a loosely worded contract under false pretenses.

Hyperion has never actually said that they signed the 2003 contract because they though Itec was the successor. They argue that Itec can't be the successor because Eyetech and AI(W) didnt agree to it, but they never say Itec told us they were the successor and thats why we did the 2003 contract. Because in reality if Itec was the successor there is no need for the 2003 contract.

Quote:

You can try to spin the 2003 contract as Hyperion approving the transfer, but as far as Hyperion was concerned ITEC was the new Amiga Inc.(W) so there didn't appear to be any transfer that happened as Hyperion viewed it was one company buying another.

Actually Hyperion admits that wasnt true. They claim they thought Itec was going to be the classic OS company and AI the DE company. So they didnt think Itec was replacing AI, they knew the two companies both existed.

Quote:

Since AInc.(W) was to no longer exist, the 2003 contract was just a stupid formality to replace the words Amiga with ITEC in the 2001 contract. But again, this was all done under false pretenses.

But it doesnt do that at all. It sells OS 4.0 (and OS 4.0 only) to Itec. If they were replacing Itec with AI, it should have talked about royalties, trademarks, etc all those things that AI(W) still owned and continued to own until KMOS bought it all out.

Quote:

I'll bet that it wasn't until KMOS came to be that Hyperion finally did a double-take and asked for the real Amiga successor to please step forward.

Which was KMOS, and in fact Ben claimed he knew all about the KMOS deal when it was announced in 2004 and praised by Ben and Evert both, now that KMOS wants what they paid for, its suddenly bad, we didnt agree to that though we did sign and keep the money.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Actually they agree that AI(KMOS) owns the OS 4, they also talk about that in the court documents, the issue is that Hyperion is claiming the dont have to deliver the OS to KMOS (who bought it from Itec), so Itec is asking the court in NY to give it to them so they can deliver it personally to KMOS.

The problem is Tig, that if Itec agree that KMOS legally owns the OS, then there's no reason for the NY case at all, since the judge in Washington can simply rule that KMOS gets the OS from Hyperion directly. Now I don't remember Itec claiming what you say in Washington, if they did, can you quote it? I'm too tired to read through it again.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: You should take part in a lesson on international contractual rights once more if you think it can be done this way. I dont need to take a lesson in international contractual rights, this an contract executed in the US, with US law (in fact Washington State law) being it venue. Under those laws this is a two party contract between 3 entities. Quote: Tigger wrote: ... If you are implying that Hyperion and Eyetech should have more formalized there relationship in another document, prior to signing this, I'd agree, ... And so Hyperion and Eyetech do not form a party or legal entity or whatsoever... And so the contract in qusetion is an 3 party contract. Dont have to for this to be a 2 party contract in the US Dandy, not sure how much simpler I can explain this to you. -Tig

It's very clear you don't need any help. 3 people sign a contract. Then one of the people goes out and sells the stuff in that contract to a 4th party and 2 of the orginal 3 peoples signatures are no were to be found. Yes, yes you see in the U.S. this is perfectly legal you see.

Maybe we can all chip in and get Tig the complete 1st season of "The Peoples Court". Wapner at 5. Wapner. Wapner at 5.

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 13-Nov-2007 at 11:16 PM.
Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 13-Nov-2007 at 11:15 PM.

_________________
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

@Tigger

Quote:

Since Itec is the first secured creditor of Amino, and Amino owned Itec 100s of 1000s of dollars, implying that Bill McEwen paying money to Itec is showing a connections involving the 2001 contract is a pretty big jump in my opinion.

I didn't say this is showing a connection involving the 2001 contract, I said it shows the connection between the Itec and Washington case. I very much doubt the judge is as stupid/blind as Itec hopes he is, but like I said we'll find out soon enough.

Oh and by the way, Bill McEwen didn't pay that money to Itec. He paid it to Hyperion. There's a big difference.

Last edited by COBRA on 13-Nov-2007 at 11:15 PM.

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: I said it shows the connection between the Itec and Washington case.

But it really doesnt. The Washington case is about trademarks and the illegal use of them. Itec has never owned any of the trademarks.

Quote:

Oh and by the way, Bill McEwen didn't pay that money to Itec. He paid it to Hyperion. There's a big difference.

He paid money to Hyperion on Itecs behalf, so there isnt that much difference.
-Tig

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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: 3 people sign a contract.

True

Quote:

Then one of the people goes out and sells the stuff in that contract to a 4th party and 2 of the orginal 3 peoples signatures are no were to be found.

First of all the thing they sold was only between two of the three parties that clause says Hyperion sells and AI buys, Eyetech has nothing to do with that clause. Secondly AI(W) is the one who suggested Hyperion sell the Itec, they have no issues with Hyperion selling it to Itec and Hyperion didnt object to selling it to Itec, they in fact signed a contract saying they were selling it to Itec. If you had Eyetech saying we didnt agree to it, or AI(W) saying we didnt agree to it, you might have a case, but only against Hyperion, because if the sale were illegal, Hyperion is the only company that could have broken the law.

Quote:

Yes, yes you see in the U.S. this is perfectly legal you see.

Glad you understand that now, so we can discuss the actual complex parts of the case.
-Tig

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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: The problem is Tig, that if Itec agree that KMOS legally owns the OS, then there's no reason for the NY case at all, since the judge in Washington can simply rule that KMOS gets the OS from Hyperion directly. Now I don't remember Itec claiming what you say in Washington, if they did, can you quote it? I'm too tired to read through it again.

Document #73, End of Page 9, top of page 10, #33 and #34.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

But it really doesnt. The Washington case is about trademarks and the illegal use of them. Itec has never owned any of the trademarks.

It's quite clear that in both cases the plaintiff demands the same thing: ownership of OS4 from Hyperion. Both companies claim those rights based on the 2003 contract. Thus it'd make sense for one judge to decide on ownership of OS4, not two judges.

Quote:

He paid money to Hyperion on Itecs behalf, so there isnt that much difference.

I've not seen any indication of that in the court documents. I've seen a mail from Pentti Kouri to John Grzymala saying that Bill McEwen will have 10% of the OS, and Itec will have 90% of the OS. That doesn's sound like Bill McEwen paid on behalf of Itec.

Quote:

Document #73, End of Page 9, top of page 10, #33 and #34.

Thanks for that. Now I'm VERY interested in what the judge will think of that, since that comment implies that Itec and AInc are working together to get the ownership of OS4, and while AInc are trying to make a Washington judge decide on it, Itec are trying to make a NY judge decide on the same thing (e.g. ownership of OS4). Somehow I'd be VERY surprised if the judge would let that happen.

Last edited by COBRA on 14-Nov-2007 at 07:06 AM.

@Tigger

Quote:

I dont need to take a lesson in international contractual rights, this an contract executed in the US, with US law (in fact Washington State law) being it venue. Under those laws this is a two party contract between 3 entities.

Following your idea...

Amiga Inc. is a partner too as they obviously signed the same contract. (If Hyperion and Eyetec are partners because they signed the contract, then surely Amiga Inc. is too.)
So if you think it's a two party contract, then I would say it's a single party contract; signed by three entities which are all AmigaOne Partners.
(To my knowledge, there is no other signed contract between Hyperion and Eyetec which join them as a single entity to define "AmigaOne Partners".)

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 14-Nov-2007 at 12:34 PM.

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: Following your idea... Amiga Inc. is a partner too as they obviously signed the same contract. (If Hyperion and Eyetec are partners because they signed the contract, then surely Amiga Inc. is too.)

No, they (Hyperion & Eyetech) make up one party of the contract because of the way they are listed on the contract, I'm not sure I can make it any simpler then that. I have lots of contracts here in my office, every one of them is a two party contract and the majority of them are signed by more then 2 companies. It seems increasingly in this thread that the simple fact that # companies signing a contract is not always equal to number of parties of the contract. What we call the Simple AND test shows there are two parties in the contract, the only response I seem to be getting that it isnt a two party contract is that three companies signed it, thats not proof at all.

Quote:

(To my knowledge, there is no other signed contract between Hyperion and Eyetec which join them as a single entity to define "AmigaOne Partners".)

No but the AmigaOne partners are defined as Hyperion and Eyetech in the 2001 contract. So implying that you think the AmigaOne partners is all 3 companies now isnt going to be taken seriously by the court.
-Tig

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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Quote: Document #73, End of Page 9, top of page 10, #33 and #34. Thanks for that. Now I'm VERY interested in what the judge will think of that, since that comment implies that Itec and AInc are working together to get the ownership of OS4, and while AInc are trying to make a Washington judge decide on it, Itec are trying to make a NY judge decide on the same thing (e.g. ownership of OS4). Somehow I'd be VERY surprised if the judge would let that happen.

You guys keep thinking of Itec and KMOS as the same company and they are not. Right now Itec is liable for millions of dollars to KMOS because they have not delivered the OS 4 code and Hyperion is saying they wont deliver it. So Itec has to sue Hyperion over the OS. If I owned Itec and had nothing to do with KMOS except I sold them OS back in Oct 2003, I would be suing Hyperion right now as well. Its the companies fiduciary responsibility to do it, to prevent a much larger lawsuit from KMOS. Also the case in Washington isnt about the delivery of the OS, its about trademarks, they also think they should have gotten the OS, but its mainly about Hyperion illegally using the trademarks after the cancellation of the contract, something Hyperion hasnt really argued against yet and which eventually is going to bite them.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You guys keep thinking of Itec and KMOS as the same company and they are not. Right now Itec is liable for millions of dollars to KMOS because they have not delivered the OS 4 code and Hyperion is saying they wont deliver it. So Itec has to sue Hyperion over the OS. If I owned Itec and had nothing to do with KMOS except I sold them OS back in Oct 2003, I would be suing Hyperion right now as well.

Surely, from the way you have written this, Itec should be suing KMOS not Hyperion, for non-supply of the OS, and KMOS then should be suing Hyperion directly.
As an analogy, If I buy a motherboard from company A, which is manufactured by company B, and it is broken, who would I go back to, to get the problem sorted out, company A, or B.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@Tigger

Quote:

You guys keep thinking of Itec and KMOS as the same company and they are not.

I never said they're the same company. I said they're two different companies, suing the same company (Hyperion) for the same property (OS4) based on the same contract. Basically we have 2 seperate companies asking 2 seperate judges in 2 seperate venues to decide on the same thing: ownership of OS4. And for example if judge A decides that the OS is owned by Hyperion, and judge B decides that it is owned by Itec, you have opposing decisions on the same issue by 2 different judges.

@Swoop

I think it's just the other way around : KMOS would sue ITEC for not delivering the OS ?

A+
Woon

@Tigger

Quote:

No, they (Hyperion & Eyetech) make up one party of the contract because of the way they are listed on the contract, I'm not sure I can make it any simpler then that. I have lots of contracts here in my office, every one of them is a two party contract and the majority of them are signed by more then 2 companies. It seems increasingly in this thread that the simple fact that # companies signing a contract is not always equal to number of parties of the contract. What we call the Simple AND test shows there are two parties in the contract, the only response I seem to be getting that it isnt a two party contract is that three companies signed it, thats not proof at all.

Ok. I don't know for sure how the Justice rules in the USA. So taking what you are saying is accurate, I stand corrected.

YET, I think that in this case, there are three parties involved in the 2001 agreement, if only because Hyperion and Eyetech are namely mentioned and are attributed specific missions with individual responsibilities.
In short: Eyetech had to produce hardware able to host Amiga OS4, and Hyperion has to develop OS4 so that it runs on AmigaOne.
None of them has to endorse the responsibility of the failure of the other one to fulfill his part of the contract. Hyperion is not at fault because Eyetech has dropped the production of AOne. (Otherwise AInc. would have sued Hyperion for that too. (And maybe Hyperion would have sued Eyetech ?))

My take is that the "AmigaOne Partners" is just a name to identify third parties which are granted an agreement with Amiga Inc. to take part in the building of an Amiga system (called AmigaOne).
IMHO, if the AmigaOne Partners (Hyperion and Eyetech) were a single juridically recognized entity, then that entity would have ceased to exist as soon as Eyetech left. And if it was just the "AmigaOne Partners" that is tied by the contract, Hyperion ALONE would no more have something to owe to Amiga Inc.

Quote:

So implying that you think the AmigaOne partners is all 3 companies now isnt going to be taken seriously by the court.

It wasn't intended to be taken seriously; there are indeed several documents produced to the court that show that Hyperion and Eyetech are the only AmigaOne Partners.
It was an attempt to demonstrate that your interpretation of the 2001 agreement may have weakness and is not proof at all.

(Note that the agreement start by naming the parties involved. And IIRC, it reads "Amiga Inc. and Hyperion VOF and Eyetech Ltd."; not "Amiga Inc. and AmigaOne Partners".)

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 14-Nov-2007 at 08:38 PM.
Last edited by AmigaPhil on 14-Nov-2007 at 08:18 PM.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: 3 people sign a contract. True Quote: Then one of the people goes out and sells the stuff in that contract to a 4th party and 2 of the orginal 3 peoples signatures are no were to be found. First of all the thing they sold was only between two of the three parties that clause says Hyperion sells and AI buys, Eyetech has nothing to do with that clause. Secondly AI(W) is the one who suggested Hyperion sell the Itec, they have no issues with Hyperion selling it to Itec and Hyperion didnt object to selling it to Itec, they in fact signed a contract saying they were selling it to Itec. Quote: Yes, yes you see in the U.S. this is perfectly legal you see. Glad you understand that now, so we can discuss the actual complex parts of the case. -Tig

You keep saying Amiga Inc. agreed to it Where's their signature? Let's assume you're right and it is a two party contract. ok? If Amiga Inc. agreed where is their signature on the contract or a second similar 2003 contract that Amiga Inc. signed? Otherwise it looks like only one party agreed.

You wrote:
If you had ... AI(W) saying we didnt agree to it, you might have a case, but only against Hyperion, because if the sale were illegal, Hyperion is the only company that could have broken the law.

Well, Tig, Amiga Inc, in Washington is suing Hyperion for AOS4 ASKING to get the source code??

So if they agreed to give it over to ITEC in 2003 like you say, why would they be wasting money on lawyers to try and get it now? Unless they DIDN'T agree to the 2003 contract and we only have ONE party's signature like I keep saying.

Or, the other option is Amiga Inc is sueing on "behalf" of ITEC to get AOS4. If this is the case then, I guess the New York and Washingtong cases probably can be joined.

_________________
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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: I never said they're the same company. I said they're two different companies, suing the same company (Hyperion) for the same property (OS4) based on the same contract.

But there not.

AI(KMOS) is suing Hyperion for violation of there trademarks, Hyperion has no right to use the Trademarks since AI cancelled the 2001 contract.

Itec is suing Hyperion because they refuse to deliver to either the party they contracted with (ie Itec) or the company who bought the product from them (ie AI(KMOS)) the OS that Hyperion sold to them in March of 2003.

Both Itec and KMOS agree that the legal owner of the OS is KMOS, Itec is just trying to secure the asset to transfer to KMOS because otherwise they are legally liable for millions in damages.
-Tig

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

@Swoop

Quote:

Swoop wrote: Surely, from the way you have written this, Itec should be suing KMOS not Hyperion, for non-supply of the OS, and KMOS then should be suing Hyperion directly. As an analogy, If I buy a motherboard from company A, which is manufactured by company B, and it is broken, who would I go back to, to get the problem sorted out, company A, or B.

Hyperion sold the OS to Itec, Itec sold the OS before they received it to KMOS. Hyperion refuses to deliver the OS to KMOS, so Itec asked for it to be delivered to them, they refused to do that as well, so Itec is suing Hyperion to get the OS to transfer to there customer (ie KMOS).
-Tig

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