@Tigger

Quote:

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

Another attempt at slight of hand by you it would seem. Amiga Delaware (KMOS) has indeed sought the source code for OS 4 in their suit. Its what they mostly talk about wanting:

http://www.merlancia.us/amiga-hyperion/37transcriptmotioninjunctionshow_case_doc.pdf

The case methodology may be different, but what they are tangibly seeking in a great respect is the code.

Quote:

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.

For Amiga Delware ( KMOS) to sue Itec how would they decide who can't use Reed Smith for lawyers anymore then? LOL!

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 14-Nov-2007 at 11:39 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 14-Nov-2007 at 11:39 PM.

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

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: (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".)

Actually thats not what it says, and thats the crux of the AND test.

It reads:

Amiga Inc

AND

Hyperion VOF
Eyetech Ltd

NOTE, One AND, and thus two party contract.
-Tig

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

@all

This is just getting absolutly rediculous.

The platform I love is getting shredded to pieces by two companies who are too pig headed to come to some sort of agreement.

I love my classic amiga and would love it if I could use OS4 on some "modern" hardware as I love the feel that AOS gives me compared to Windows (XP isnt that bad for me).

I am a realistic guy and I know that Amiga can never bee big aain becuase it has been too long but we had a chance to carve out a little market for ourselves that could be sustaing (but probably ot massivly growing).

I was going to write a long thread about what I would love to achieve with Amiga if I had the moeny to buy it off the current owners (who ever they are) and how I would try to make change (It would make nice reading from my point of view) I could still do it but my heart is not in it.

I love my classic system but I have pushed it nearly as far as it can go and my eeryday needs just cant be satisfied by it.

I will always have fond memories of my Amiga but if just so disilusioned by the current state that I dont see the point n trying to support it anymore.

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: 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?

This is where you keep glossing over the facts.
1) Hyperion agreed to the sale, unless anyone else part of the 2001 contract OBJECTS, it happens period, thats case law 101,
2) If anyone objects Hyperion as the only signee of the 2001 contract who also signed the 2003 contract is the only one that could get sued about it by AI.

Quote:

Otherwise it looks like only one party agreed.

Even if thats true, it doesnt matter in a court of law unless the party who didnt sign objects to the deal, they arent objecting to the deal, Hyperion can't object for them which is what they are trying to do (all while not actually returning the money they took for the deal).


Quote:

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.

Because AI(D) who is suing Hyperion in the state of washingon is the company formally known as KMOS, and in Oct of 2003, they bought the OS from Itec, just like Itec bought it from Hyperion. In actuality if you read the case in washington its about Hyperion illegally using AI(D) (ie KMOS) trademarks and IP, in fact type of case says trademark.

Quote:

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.

No,
March 2003 - Itec buys the OS from Hyperion

October 2003 - KMOS buys the OS from Itec

Itec is suing Hyperion in New York to get delivery of a product they have sold to AI(ie KMOS).
-Tig

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

@Tigger

1+1+1=3
1+2=3

damn, my calculator must be broken somehow...

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

@Tigger

Quote:

1) Hyperion agreed to the sale, unless anyone else part of the 2001 contract OBJECTS, it happens period, thats case law 101,

Wrong, as we will see when the judge rules that there is no paper trail showing that the AOS4 or contract has ever changed hands per "case law" hence the only "legal" contract there ever was is the 2001 contract. We all know AI(W) is still in existence (as of October now known as Amino) and has never paid $25,000.00 to Hyperion nor most of their other bills. The rest of the shell games the judge will mostly ignore and most likely give a tongue lashing to them for.



Quote:

No, March 2003 - Itec buys the OS from Hyperion October 2003 - KMOS buys the OS from Itec Itec is suing Hyperion in New York to get delivery of a product they have sold to AI(ie KMOS). -Tig

Again. Even if ANY of these companies had ever had a valid contract you're still contracdicting yourself and pointing out exactly WHY the lawsuits sould be joined. Look what you posteded? It's obvious that the ITEC and KMOS lawsuits are about the exact same thing. It's ludicrous to have 2 lawsuits for the SAME thing in 2 different states (especially by the same guy, Penti). That's a real burden for a company on another continent, poor poor Hyperion the judge will say.

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 15-Nov-2007 at 12:38 AM.

_________________
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:

This is where you keep glossing over the facts. 1) Hyperion agreed to the sale, unless anyone else part of the 2001 contract OBJECTS, it happens period, thats case law 101, 2) If anyone objects Hyperion as the only signee of the 2001 contract who also signed the 2003 contract is the only one that could get sued about it by AI.

Yes, Hyperion singed the 2003 contract but they would only be liable if they actually handed OS4 to Itec and one of the other companies involved objected to that. And the signature of other companies involved in 2001 contract is still needed for the 2003 contract to be valid. So just one signature is not enough for that. Maybe Itec can sue Hyperion for the amount of money Hyperion received and haven't returned to Itec, but it sure looks as if the whole 2003 contract is pretty much invalid.
But what do I know.


And one more thing, to those that think that Hyperion wanted to take IP from the start. What would be the point of singing the 2003 contract? Wouldn't it be better just to oppose to the idea and wait for AInc(WA) to go bankrupt and be done with it? If that was the reason.

To me, it seems as if Hyperion was assured that Itec IS the true successor and is to be a branch of AInc(WA) for the OS business.

_________________
You can crack anything with your head, even the head itself.
--------------------------------
...proud AOS user since 1993
--------------------------------

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Tigger 1+1+1=3 1+2=3 damn, my calculator must be broken somehow...

I realize English isnt your primary language Pixie. But a two party contract DOES NOT MEAN that two and only two companies may sign the contract, until you understand and accept that, its silly to have this conversation. As I have pointed out, I've personally been involved with contracts involving 7 companies that were in fact two party contracts.
-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: @Tigger Quote: 1) Hyperion agreed to the sale, unless anyone else part of the 2001 contract OBJECTS, it happens period, thats case law 101, Wrong, as we will see when the judge rules that there is no paper trail showing that the AOS4 or contract has ever changed hands per "case law" hence the only "legal" contract there ever was is the 2001 contract.

There doesnt have to be a paper trail unless there is an objection. I dont know how much simpler I can make it. If Amino (AI(W)) has an issue with the 2003 contract, Amino and only Amino could object to the courts about it, at which time Hyperion and only Hyperion would be liable for the damages accrued by Amino and Itec. Its that simple. The judge cannot legally throw out the 2003 contract unless Amino files a complaint about it, and at this stage of the game its likely he couldnt do it now, because of Laches.

Quote:

It's obvious that the ITEC and KMOS lawsuits are about the exact same thing. .

Its not about the same thing. Read document #1 of the lawsuit, what are the primary complaints? Trademarks, IP, etc. The source code is one of many complaints. The case itself says type of case trademark infringement. The case in Washington is about the 2001 contract and AI's belief that Hyperion has infringed on its rights. The case in NY is about the 2003 contract and Hyperions inabilty to deliver the code they have been paid for. Two different companies, two different contracts.
-Tig

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

@Teddy

Quote:

Teddy wrote: Yes, Hyperion singed the 2003 contract but they would only be liable if they actually handed OS4 to Itec and one of the other companies involved objected to that. And the signature of other companies involved in 2001 contract is still needed for the 2003 contract to be valid. So just one signature is not enough for that. Maybe Itec can sue Hyperion for the amount of money Hyperion received and haven't returned to Itec, but it sure looks as if the whole 2003 contract is pretty much invalid.

I keep hearing that unless AI(W) signed something the 2003 contract isnt valid. What on earth makes you guys believe that? I could make myself a billionaire in about a day if thats how contracts worked in real life. Siging the 2003 contract may have been in violation of the 2001 contract, but that doesnt make the 2003 contract invalid, thats a pretty simple, though very important point. Hyperion may have been in violation of the 2001 contract in doing that, but that doesnt mean the 2003 isnt totally legal. Now if back in 2003 AI(Amino) had objected to the 2003 contract, it may have been declared illegal, but they didnt and they won't be doing that now, and Hyperion can't object to a contract that they themselves signed.

Quote:

And one more thing, to those that think that Hyperion wanted to take IP from the start. What would be the point of singing the 2003 contract? Wouldn't it be better just to oppose to the idea and wait for AInc(WA) to go bankrupt and be done with it?

The problem was Hyperion needed money which is why they went to AI and then were sent to Itec to get 25K to save themselves from Bankruptcy.

Quote:

To me, it seems as if Hyperion was assured that Itec IS the true successor and is to be a branch of AInc(WA) for the OS business.

You and others keep throwing that out, but thats not what Hyperion themselves have claimed, its not what the 2003 sale document says and its not supported by the documents we have seen.
-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 ... (we've seen that in the KMOS-Amino contract). ...

KMOS had a contract with Amino?
When was that?
Must have completely missed that - I was always under the impression that it was long since Amino renamed themselves to AmigaInc when KMOS entered the picture.

_________________
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: @AmigaPhil ... No, they (Hyperion & Eyetech) make up one party of the contract because of the way they are listed on the contract, ...

Are you saying that in the US a partnership/Joint Venture between two or more companies can be legally formed just by the way they are listed on the contract - not by defining e.g. who has the right to sign which contracts?

What kind of legal system is that meant to be?

This opens the floodgates to criminal minds, as we can all see in this case.

If U.S. law is really the way you try to tell us, its only purpose is to protect criminal business behaviour, IMO.

Reason enough for me to never ever start any kind of business with an U.S. based company.

Let them see if they can get my goods elsewhere - but not from me.

Way too much risk of legal hassle...

_________________
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)

EDIT:

Sorry - I confused ITEC and KMOS - so posting makes no longer sense - just forget it...

Last edited by Dandy on 15-Nov-2007 at 08:51 AM.

_________________
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:

I realize English isnt your primary language Pixie.

Oh man, you're so damn arrogant, I wonder if you praise yourself in the mirror each morning.
Pixies english is better than yours and if he had not added to his profile that he is from portugal you woudln't even have noticed. I guess without google earth you wouldn't even know that Portugal is not in the USA.

So please stop your "I realize English isn't your primary language"-Statements, as they always turn up when you are losing ground in an argument. And as the most people writing on this forum are not native speakers, I find it very offensive.

PS: And I won't reply to you on this, even if you come up with your "Whohooh, people see, he has joined exactly on the date the case began, whohohooo, conspiracy, whohooohoo!" again.

@Tigger

Quote:

I keep hearing that unless AI(W) signed something the 2003 contract isnt valid. What on earth makes you guys believe that?

Yeah and you keep saying, Well, Hyperion can just sell AOS4 without any signatures as AmigaInc/KMOS doesn't dispute it... Yet Amiga Inc. IS SUEING Hyperion to get the source could from them, so they obviously think they have their own rights to AOS4.

Tigger do you get it? It's really simple. If the 2003 contract is valid and Hyperion AND Amiga Inc. SOLD (maybe gave in AI's case) the AOS4 rights to source code to ITEC then Amiga Inc. CAN'T sue Hyperion now as they NO longer have a contract with Hyperion. It's GONE. If Amiga Inc. wants the source code now they have to sue ITEC. Again, that's IF the 2003, 2 party, contract is valid as then that replaces the 2001 contract and Hyperion and AI would not longer have a contract with each other.

You can't have it both ways. You say Amiga Inc. gave they rights away (without signature by the way) AND then you also say they should win the source code (as you have posted 100+ times in the Amiga Inc(D) court threads) because of the 2001 contract.


Quote:

I could make myself a billionaire in about a day if thats how contracts worked in real life.

Are you kidding? I could become a billionare if the law worked the way you THINK it does.

Put our names on some contracts together Tig. Some legal papers like on a land deal. Then I'll go contact ITEC and sell the land without you knowing. About the time I've spent all the money maybe YOU'LL figure out I sold the land.

I'll just throw my hands up and say, "Hey he didn't object." So I guess that's legal right? ITEC will have a contract with just my signature on it showing I sold them the land but that should be not problem.

No signture is fine huh, unless it's you? What happens when AI changes there mind and says, "What? We didn't agree to this 2003 contract. Look we never signed it. Hyperion and Itec are trying to screw us. Give us our source code back" Then what?

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 15-Nov-2007 at 07:04 AM.

_________________
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:

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

But how can AI(KMOS) cancel a contract they never have been a party to?

Didn't the AInc lawyers claim in the latest court document that everything is about the 2003 contract and that the 2001 contract has nothing to do with their case?

So how can they legally cancel an contract between two other companies?

B.T.W.:

What's going on at justia.com - all that the page currently says is:
"There are currently no documents on file for this case".

Where are all the documents?

Last edited by Dandy on 15-Nov-2007 at 09:26 AM.

_________________
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)

@Sneaky

Quote:

So please stop your "I realize English isn't your primary language"-Statements, as they always turn up when you are losing ground in an argument.So please stop your "I realize English isn't your primary language"-Statements, as they always turn up when you are losing ground in an argument.

Just in the interest of civilized discussion - note that the one who was losing ground was Pixie in this case, and he resorted to ridicule without even reading Tig's argument properly (and being grateful for the free lesson in legal matters). So Tig was not the one who started the attack here, he just fired back.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic ... No, March 2003 - Itec buys the OS from Hyperion October 2003 - KMOS buys the OS from Itec Itec is suing Hyperion in New York to get delivery of a product they have sold to AI(ie KMOS).

How can they sell something they do not actually have (in their hands)?

_________________
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:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic ... No, March 2003 - Itec buys the OS from Hyperion October 2003 - KMOS buys the OS from Itec Itec is suing Hyperion in New York to get delivery of a product they have sold to AI(ie KMOS). How can they sell something they do not actually have (in their hands)?

I think an even better question may be... How can they sell something they haven't even paid for fully for yet??

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 15-Nov-2007 at 09:20 AM.

_________________
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

Court description of Amiga(D)INC VS Hyperion VOF Complaint.

"Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF


Plaintiff Amiga Inc. alleges that it entered into an (OEM) License and Software Development Agreement with defendant Hyperion VOF for the development of Amiga's next generation operating system software, Amiga OS 4. Plaintiff further alleges defendant breached the agreement by marketing OS 4 outside the scope of the license, granting third parties the right to distribute OS 4 and use Amiga trademarks, refusing to turn over the source code and object code for OS 4, and failing to deliver OS 4 within the timeline specified in the contract."

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