So much spin. Somebody has to be dizzy by now.

I wonder who informed Itec that Hyperion claimed that
the alleged transfer of the 2001 agreement from Amiga(W)
to ITEC was not done in a valid way ?.

Amiga(D) thought that ITEC had transfered it to them with the consent of Hyperion.

ITEC thought that they had just purchased something without any
transfer strings attached and sold it on to KMOS with the original
transfer strings attached and with the consent of Hyperion.

I'm so dizzy my head is spinning..............

save me from this madness dear Judge.....
Please tell me to read the Oral Arguments and The Order denying
the Injunction again............

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Right, ITEC was simply committing fraud implying to be the future owner of Amiga trademarks which would be required to own an OS that uses Amiga trademarks. Nothing in the 2003 contract says that, you are committing fraud by saying thats what happened.

So a contract needs to define the term "fraud" as well. I thought it was convincing someone to take a certain action under false pretenses.

Quote:

Quote: Infact, if Hyperion delivered the OS to ITEC, they would be in violation of the 2001 contract because now ITEC could market and sell the OS which use those trademarks. This is supposedly what KMOS sued Hyperion for with regards to ACUBE. Which is what I pointed out above, but it doesnt mean Hyperion gets to cancel the contract and keep the money, which is what they are doing now.

Hyperion didn't cancel any contract. KMOS attempted to though.
Oh, could you point to me where permission for ITEC to use Amiga trademarks when they aquire the OS from Hyperion is other than Penti being a schizofrentic and telling his other self that it was ok?

Quote:

Quote: ITEC committed fraud to Hyperion. Ofcourse Amiga Inc.(W) sent them to ITEC when ITEC was considering purchasing Amiga's assets...but they didn't purchase anything and attempted to steal an OS for a mere $25,000. Again you are making a claim you have no evidence to support. -Tig

The evidence is in their actions. You yourself admitted to believing at the time that ITEC was the successor. Your claims are no more valid than mine. Everyone knows that laws are subjective. If they weren't, we wouldn't need the judicial system. So just because you can show cases with certain results doesn't mean there aren't similar cases with alternate results. This is all the lawyers do: a search and whine "we are right" and the other side does the same thing and then the judge decides who is right in THIS instance.

If Hyperion had turned over anything to ITEC in 2003, Amiga Inc. (W) could have easily sued Hyperion for breach of contract. The OS comes branded with Amiga trademarks all over it. How can ITEC own an OS that Amiga owns trademarks and patents to? The 2003 ITEC-Hyperion contract is a sham. Hyperion was led to believe that ITEC was the successor to Amiga Inc.(W). By ITEC's own admission they approached Hyperion when Amiga Inc. was interested (read: broke) while they pondered buying the rest of Amiga Inc.'s assets.

Oh and since the 2003 contract will get ripped up by a judge, guess who still holds a valid contract with Hyperion: Amino. Now, KMOS is supposed to own those trademarks, however the contract stated that they go to Amiga Inc.(W) - now Amino. It is up to KMOS to buy the OS from Amino. If you ask me, it's after it is delivered to Amino, however, they've been quite late with their payments.

Now it's up to the judge to decide what contracts are valid and who the parties are. Also, it seems that Amiga Inc.(W) was unable to meet their end of the bargain with regards to the 3.5 and 3.9 sources, so I do think that Hyperion is entitled to some hardship relief.

Last edited by Lou on 15-Nov-2007 at 10:26 PM.

@Tigger

Quote:

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.

Sure, that must be why AInc requested the OS4.0 source code for preliminary injunction, and that must be why in the transcript of the oral hearing AInc's lawyer goes on and on about Hyperion not delivering the source code, he talks about that more than any of the trademark issues, and sure, the Washington case deals with trademark issues as well, but the 2003 contract plays a central role, and the judge in Washington is going to have to decide on the ownership of OS4, and the validity of the 2003 contract. The NY judge asked to do the same. Thus even if there was no connection between the two companies, Itec should be joined to prevent different judges making different decisions on the same thing. That's how I see it anyway, and you obviously see it differently, so let's leave it at that.

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @Tigger I was reading some of the threads (ann) that we've linked to within this current thread. Do you still feel the same way about this? If not, what proof , if any, do we have that your former post is not also accurate re:Gateway?

The Trademark documents now show the transfer to Amino ie (AI(W)) and then to KMOS ie (AI(D)) so no, I dont believe that Gateway owns any of the trademarks from Amiga anymore.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: So much spin. Somebody has to be dizzy by now. I wonder who informed Itec that Hyperion claimed that the alleged transfer of the 2001 agreement from Amiga(W) to ITEC was not done in a valid way ?.

You keep grasping at more straws and not actually looking at the answers. Itec NEVER owned the 2001 agreement according to there own testimony.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

I thought it was convincing someone to take a certain action under false pretenses.

Where is your proof that Itec did that in any way? You dont have any you do.

Quote:

Hyperion didn't cancel any contract. KMOS attempted to though. Oh, could you point to me where permission for ITEC to use Amiga trademarks when they aquire the OS from Hyperion is other than Penti being a schizofrentic and telling his other self that it was ok?

Hyperion and several here including you think the 2003 contract should be declared invalid because of an item in the 2001 contract which Itec never signed and never owned. Itec doesnnt need any of that to own the OS, they need them to sell it as a product, they need it to license it, but they have dont need it just to own the OS.


Quote:

If Hyperion had turned over anything to ITEC in 2003, Amiga Inc. (W) could have easily sued Hyperion for breach of contract.

Technically yes (if AI hadnt told them to sell it to Itec) but they didnt turn anything over and are now being sued by Itec for breach of contract, whats the difference in your mind. They signed a second contract possibly in conflict with the first and apparently alot of you believe that means the second one gets thrown out. Sorry not in my country.

Quote:

The OS comes branded with Amiga trademarks all over it. How can ITEC own an OS that Amiga owns trademarks and patents to? The 2003 ITEC-Hyperion contract is a sham. Hyperion was led to believe that ITEC was the successor to Amiga Inc.(W). By ITEC's own admission they approached Hyperion when Amiga Inc. was interested (read: broke) while they pondered buying the rest of Amiga Inc.'s assets.

First of all it doesnt have Amiga Trademarks all over it, it has its IP which is different and its perfectly legal for them to own it (much like it was perfectly legal for Hyperion to own it before they sold it), distribution of it without a license would likely however be a crime. No, Itec says that Hyperion approached them after being told by AI that they were not interested in spending the 25K. That very comment proves that Hyperion had to know that Itec wasn't the successor, otherwise they would have gone to Itec first and skipped asking AI.

Quote:

Oh and since the 2003 contract will get ripped up by a judge, guess who still holds a valid contract with Hyperion: Amino.

The judge can't rip up a contract just because its in conflict with another contract, that would lead to worldwide anarchy. And Amino doesnt have a valid contract with Hyperion, they sold that a long time ago to KMOS (ie AI(D)).

Quote:

Now, KMOS is supposed to own those trademarks, however the contract stated that they go to Amiga Inc.(W) - now Amino. It is up to KMOS to buy the OS from Amino. If you ask me, it's after it is delivered to Amino, however, they've been quite late with their payments.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but you are incorrect on several points. KMOS is the owner of the trademarks, etc, they bought them years ago and paid in full.

Quote:

Now it's up to the judge to decide what contracts are valid and who the parties are. Also, it seems that Amiga Inc.(W) was unable to meet their end of the bargain with regards to the 3.5 and 3.9 sources, so I do think that Hyperion is entitled to some hardship relief.

A judge isnt going to decide either contract is invalid, and the parties are pretty well understood. As for the 3.5 and 3.9 issue, given the 4 corners clause and them selling the OS to Itec and the 6 years that we've been waiting for the OS, I dont think hardship relief is going to go to Hyperion.
-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: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @Tigger 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? I'm fairly sure it works that way in Germany btw.

Nope.
wiki for German medium-sized businesses: Joint Venture:

(translated from German)

...
If it comes to Joint Ventures, mostly "Equity-Joint-Ventures" are meant. In this case the partnering companies form a new, legally independent company. For a "Contractual-Joint-Venture" the involved companies just enter into a co-operation where cast, risk and asset are shared.
...


Institute For Economic Science Of The University Of Muenster

(translated from German)

...
The intention of an Joint Venture Contract is to regulate the relations between the mothercompanies and their relations to the cooperative venture to create the base for an successfull co-operation.
...
Consequently a network of heterogeneous contractual relationships emerges which is reflected in an tripartite set-up of the agreement:

1. Joint Venture Contract, where the constitutive principles of the cooperation and hence the regularisation of the interdependencies and interrelations of the concepts are contained in. It's an comprehensive contract between the mothercompanies that has an control function. As a general rule the Joint Venture Contract takes priority over the two following contracts on discrepancies;

2) Contract of association/constitution of corporate entity under company law;

3) Single deliverance and performance dependencies between the Joint Venture Endeavour and single or all mothercompanies; separate contracts.
...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: However its not that big an issue especially in a well written contract. In addition I'm not sure I would call it a partnership, though a joint venture is fairly close to what it creates. Contracts bind companies together even if you arent on the same side in many ways, so they shouldnt be entered into lightly and they surely shouldnt be poorly written. The whole no penalties for failure to complete tasks in this contract is just ludicrous in a well written contract.

As you can see from the links above, we have certain legal requirements for Joint Venture Contracts in place.

There are legal rules what has to be included in such contracts.
If one of these basic and legally required things is missing in the contract, the contract will be declared null and void if it comes to court...

Last edited by Dandy on 16-Nov-2007 at 09:36 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:

You keep grasping at more straws and not actually looking at the answers. Itec NEVER owned the 2001 agreement according to there own testimony. -Tig.

The Judge is going to have to figure out how this is posible if they claim that
they bought OS4.0 and then resold it.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Teddy ... 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. ...

I'm not very familiar with the legal system of the US - but I take it that it's quite different from the legal system here in Germany.

If I sign a contract here containing just a single clause that violates the law or an preceding contract, then this entire contract can less than ever become valid.
A court would simply state that the contract is not valid and never has been, as it violates §§ "x" and "y" of contract/law "z".

_________________
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: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: But how can AI(KMOS) cancel a contract they never have been a party to? KMOS says they are the legal owner of the 2001 contract (ie they are AI in the contract), so they are party to the contract.

I know KMOS claim to be the owner of OS4 - but I was not aware that they bought the 2001 contract.
Can you point me to when and how this did happen?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: 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? I dont think so, I mean we are up to 74 documents, so maybe I dont know what one you are talking about, but the latest documents are by ITEC and they are saying that they arent part of the 2001 contract and they are only involved as the buyer of the OS per the 2003 contract, and the seller of the OS in October of 2003.

I thought I had read somewhere their lawyers were the same - but appearently this was a rumor...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: So how can they legally cancel an contract between two other companies? They cant, ...

Aha...

Last edited by Dandy on 16-Nov-2007 at 02:34 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 16-Nov-2007 at 02:26 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)

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: You keep grasping at more straws and not actually looking at the answers. Itec NEVER owned the 2001 agreement according to there own testimony. -Tig. The Judge is going to have to figure out how this is posible if they claim that they bought OS4.0 and then resold it.

Pretty easy, they bought it under the March 2003 agreement and sold it under the Oct 2003 agreement, which of those do you think are impossible events?
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: I'm not very familiar with the legal system of the US - but I take it that it's quite different from the legal system here in Germany.

I doubt its as different as you have implied over the conversations about it, it is however different.

Quote:

If I sign a contract here containing just a single clause that violates the law or an preceding contract, then this entire contract can less than ever become valid. A court would simply state that the contract is not valid and never has been, as it violates §§ "x" and "y" of contract/law "z".

If I understand what you are saying, I doubt that is really true in Germany and I know its not true in the US. If you look at the 2001 contract it in fact says that if any clause is found to violate law (that clause and only the part that violates the law) will be stricken from the contract. Thats how the law works in most jurisdictions with regard to a contract breaking a law, otherwise anyone could get out of a contract whenever they want, especially a large one. As for the other, as I pointed out to Spectre before. If the law worked that way, I'd make me a Billion dollars really easy. Heres a real example:

1) I write a contract with you that says if you move to the US I'll sell you my house and land for $250K, its a good deal, its worth alot more so you sign it.

2) The next day I sell my house to Spectre for $250K take his money and send it to my account in the Grand Caymans, I tell him he can have the house after my kid get out of school in June.

3) The day after that I sell my house to AmigaHeretic for $250K, take his money and send it to my account in the Grand Caymans, I tell him he can have the house after my kid get out of school in June.

4) The next day I sell my house to Lou for $250K, take his money and send it to my account in the Grand Caymans, I tell him he can have the house after my kid gets out of school in June.

5) For the next 6 months I sell the house to everyone on AmigaWorld.net (one per day) and thankfully do to us all winning the Powerball lottery due to EyeAm great astrological powers we all have the cash to send me after they sign the contact.

So June 1st comes around and I tell Spectre he can't have the house and his contract is invalid because I wrote a contract with you first, I tell AmigaHeretic the same and Lou, etc. Do you really think that how it works in your country (or in mine)? And do I really get to keep all that money in the Grand Caymans, if you want I can jump up and down and say Spectre tricked me and I though he was the successor to you and your contract. (AmigaHeretic too, and Lou and the other 180 or so I sold it too, I thought they were all successors). So I have $45M in my bank account, I'm still living in my house, all those contracts are null and void because they interfere with your contract. Now you are heading to the US, you are excited about the new house and I point out that I just remembered Dandy, that I signed a contract the day before I signed one with you that sold my house to my wife for $1 so I your contract isnt valid either. Now you see why the law can't work the way you think it does in my country or in yours?
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

As you can see from the links above, we have certain legal requirements for Joint Venture Contracts in place.

The word you are looking for is not "Joint Venture", but rather "Personenmehrheit" ("person-multiplicity", i.e. the situation where more than one *person* form a single *party*).

Chances are, you have been in one --- it's fairly common in rental contracts, where multiple people (e.g. spouses, or members of a share house [Wohngemeinschaft]) all sign the same contract as renters. Similarly, at times, the rented property may be owned by more than one person, all of whom sign.

Quote:

If one of these basic and legally required things is missing in the contract, the contract will be declared null and void if it comes to court...

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the "default" or "fallback" solution is to declare contracts null and void. That is not so. The first rule in the case of "missing" clauses is to determine what the parties intended , and to act as if that intent had been written into the contract. If the intent cannot be established (or it is established that there was no shared intent), the second rule is to keep as much of a contract "alive" as possible, especially if the contract has been in force for the last 6 years, and has strongly influenced the actions of all involved parties.

However, if you were right, and the 2001 would be about to be wiped out in its entirety, then Hyperion is royally f'ed... Because nothing else allowed them to use Amiga trademarks and IP for the last 6 years. So if the contract actually *were* declared null and void, then Hyperion's OS would be dead in the water. The worst of all possible outcomes.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: I thought it was convincing someone to take a certain action under false pretenses. Where is your proof that Itec did that in any way? You dont have any you do.

Funny, you can't prove that I am wrong.

Quote:

Quote: Hyperion didn't cancel any contract. KMOS attempted to though. Oh, could you point to me where permission for ITEC to use Amiga trademarks when they aquire the OS from Hyperion is other than Penti being a schizofrentic and telling his other self that it was ok? Hyperion and several here including you think the 2003 contract should be declared invalid because of an item in the 2001 contract which Itec never signed and never owned. Itec doesnnt need any of that to own the OS, they need them to sell it as a product, they need it to license it, but they have dont need it just to own the OS.

Yes. Exactly. Handing over source that include IP from one company to another company is going outside the boundries of Hyperion's license agreement pertaining to the 2001 contract. The only option is to sell the OS back to the IP holder - Amiga/Amino. As ITEC presented themselves as the successor to Amiga (W), they co-erced Hyperion into that contract. As the ITEC is not Amiga, the 2003 contract asserts the 2001 contract and was presented as necessary since ITEC didn't plan on changing it's name to Amiga as it's successor. That presentation, ofcourse, was totally bogus.

Quote:

Quote: If Hyperion had turned over anything to ITEC in 2003, Amiga Inc. (W) could have easily sued Hyperion for breach of contract. Technically yes (if AI hadnt told them to sell it to Itec) but they didnt turn anything over and are now being sued by Itec for breach of contract, whats the difference in your mind. They signed a second contract possibly in conflict with the first and apparently alot of you believe that means the second one gets thrown out. Sorry not in my country.

There's a difference between "told" and expressed written permission. "Told" is hearsay. Here's my view of "told". "Hey Hyperion, these ITEC people are probably going to buy us out, deal with them..." ...subsequently followed by "Oops they didn't afterall but we sold everything else to KMOS. Somebody's f'd!"

Quote:

Quote: The OS comes branded with Amiga trademarks all over it. How can ITEC own an OS that Amiga owns trademarks and patents to? The 2003 ITEC-Hyperion contract is a sham. Hyperion was led to believe that ITEC was the successor to Amiga Inc.(W). By ITEC's own admission they approached Hyperion when Amiga Inc. was interested (read: broke) while they pondered buying the rest of Amiga Inc.'s assets. First of all it doesnt have Amiga Trademarks all over it, it has its IP which is different and its perfectly legal for them to own it (much like it was perfectly legal for Hyperion to own it before they sold it), distribution of it without a license would likely however be a crime. No, Itec says that Hyperion approached them after being told by AI that they were not interested in spending the 25K. That very comment proves that Hyperion had to know that Itec wasn't the successor, otherwise they would have gone to Itec first and skipped asking AI.

Hyperion owned it per the 2001 contract until Amiga paid for it. That's the difference. Also, the contract states that Amiga can buy-/buy-back, not a company that owns no Amiga trademarks or IP.

Quote:

Quote: Oh and since the 2003 contract will get ripped up by a judge, guess who still holds a valid contract with Hyperion: Amino. The judge can't rip up a contract just because its in conflict with another contract, that would lead to worldwide anarchy. And Amino doesnt have a valid contract with Hyperion, they sold that a long time ago to KMOS (ie AI(D)).

A judge can declare a contract unenforceable or invalid. That's probably what will happen in the New York case if it continues.

Quote:

Quote: Now, KMOS is supposed to own those trademarks, however the contract stated that they go to Amiga Inc.(W) - now Amino. It is up to KMOS to buy the OS from Amino. If you ask me, it's after it is delivered to Amino, however, they've been quite late with their payments. I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but you are incorrect on several points. KMOS is the owner of the trademarks, etc, they bought them years ago and paid in full.

If that is so then why did ITEC have to sell the 2003 contract to KMOS? Problem is ITEC's ownership of that property will probably be declared invalid for the reasons I've stated above. Hence only Amino can potentially own the OS...or Hyperion, ofcourse.

Quote:

Quote: Now it's up to the judge to decide what contracts are valid and who the parties are. Also, it seems that Amiga Inc.(W) was unable to meet their end of the bargain with regards to the 3.5 and 3.9 sources, so I do think that Hyperion is entitled to some hardship relief. A judge isnt going to decide either contract is invalid, and the parties are pretty well understood. As for the 3.5 and 3.9 issue, given the 4 corners clause and them selling the OS to Itec and the 6 years that we've been waiting for the OS, I dont think hardship relief is going to go to Hyperion. -Tig

Sorry, but the lack of 3.5 and 3.9 helped cause that delay. You do remember Hyperion's counter-claims, do you not?

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: I know KMOS claim to be the owner of OS4 - but I was not aware that they bought the 2001 contract. Can you point me to when and how this did happen? That, not anything else, is what Hyperion should try to argue against.

The KMOS buyout of all Amiga products from Amino (then known as AI) is worded to include all contracts, trademarks, etc for any and all Amiga products, so it gets them the contracts.

Quote:

I thought I had read somewhere their lawyers were the same - but appearently this was a rumor...

Lawfirm is the same, but the arguements arent the same. Itec says they never owned the 2001 contract, and that they bought the OS with the March 2003 contract with Hyperion and sold the OS with the Oct 2003 contract with KMOS. They say that there entire case in New York is solely based on getting Hyperion to complete the March 2003 contract.

Quote:

Quote: So how can they legally cancel an contract between two other companies? They cant, ...

Aha...[/quote]

Thats why Hyperion best effort should be to prove that KMOS isnt the successor of Amino and then get the cancellation nulled out, then KMOS will likely have to pay the lawyer fees, though Amino will likely just go ahead and cancel the contract for cause. The NY case is no win situation for them, Ben or Evert still believes they are going to be able to continue with the status quo after the lawsuits and its really not going to happen.
-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: @AmigaHeretic ... Hyperion violated AI's trademarks,

1) When did this happen?
2) Do the trademarks really belong to AInc (D), or are they still with AInc (W/Amino) - as I up to now only saw evidence of AInc (D/KMOS) accquiring just the OS from ITEC?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: AI is suing them over that. AI bought the OS from Itec in Oct 2003 and Hyperion still hasnt delivered it to them.

No - it was just the other way round.
ITEC bought/took the OS from AInc (W/AMINO).

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Nothing in the 2003 contract invalidates the 2001 contract, the only difference is that after the 2003 contract occurs, Hyperion no longer owns the OS, Itec does.

According to my legal understanding ITEC can only claim to be the legal owner of the OS after they paid the full price for it.

And from the documentation I saw up to now I take they didn't pay the full price up to now.

Furthermore I didn't fully understand that ITEC had to pay for the OS at all, if your claim that they are the "first secured creditor" of AInc (W/Amino) is correct?

I mean - if they took OS4 as compensation for the debts AInc (W/AMINO) had with them - then WHY should they pay money on top of that to somebody?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: 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. ... The 2003 contract only involves the OS, KMOS bought the OS from Itec and still havent received it from Hyperion.

If they bought it from ITEC, they should get it from ITEC.
That's why I think they should sue ITEC.

And ITEC in turn can sue Hyperion, if they think they are the rightful owners of OS4.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ...so yes AI should still have the code, but because of the March 2003 contract and the Oct 2003 contract, do you understand now?

No.
Which AI are talking about - AI (W/AMINO) or AI (D/KMOS)?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Itec bought something from Hyperion, Itec isnt a signee of the 2001 contract, they can buy whatever they want, Hyperion may have technically violated the 2001 contract with the 2003 contract, but that doesnt make the 2003 contract invalid,

As I stated above - here in Germany it WOULD make the 2003 contract invalid.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Should Hyperion have gotten AI(W) permission in writing, probably, but just because they didnt doesnt take away Itecs rights from the contract.

Exactly AInc(W/AMINO)'s missing written permission would be the obvious reason for the contracts invalidity...

_________________
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: ITEC committed fraud to Hyperion. Ofcourse Amiga Inc.(W) sent them to ITEC when ITEC was considering purchasing Amiga's assets...but they didn't purchase anything and attempted to steal an OS for a mere $25,000. Again you are making a claim you have no evidence to support.

Hmmmmm - at least they were quite successfull in making us believe so...

_________________
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)

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Funny, you can't prove that I am wrong.

Yeah, but I cant prove there are not green men on the moon either, but that doesnt mean they exist. The court testimony from Itec says your wrong, the testimony from Hyperion doesnt disagree with that, so why should we assume you are right and Itec is lying and Hyperion is allowing them to do it?

Quote:

As ITEC presented themselves as the successor to Amiga (W), they co-erced Hyperion into that contract. As the ITEC is not Amiga, the 2003 contract asserts the 2001 contract and was presented as necessary since ITEC didn't plan on changing it's name to Amiga as it's successor. That presentation, ofcourse, was totally bogus.

Again a theory with no evidence to back it up. We know Hyperion came looking for money, we know they were sent to Itec, we know they sold the OS to Itec, where did this coersion come from? Lets look at it a totally different way. It would have been totally legal under the 2001 contract for Itec to give 25K to AI, AI to give the 25K to Hyperion, Hyperion to give the OS, rights, etc to AI and AI to give all that to Itec. So why do you think its some crazy thing happening when we get the same results its just AI doesnt touch the money or code but completely knows the deal is going on?

Quote:

There's a difference between "told" and expressed written permission. "Told" is hearsay. Here's my view of "told". "Hey Hyperion, these ITEC people are probably going to buy us out, deal with them..." ...subsequently followed by "Oops they didn't afterall but we sold everything else to KMOS. Somebody's f'd!"

Noone's F'd at all. If Itec delivers the code to either Itec or KMOS that part of the lawsuit in Washington goes away and the entire NY case goes away. Noone is upset that about Hyperion having to give up the code except Hyperion, and they are the only party that signed both contracts, now they dont want to abide by either one because they conflict with each other.



Quote:

A judge can declare a contract unenforceable or invalid. That's probably what will happen in the New York case if it continues.

Yes if it breaks a law (this doesnt) or violates a complaintant's parties rights, which this doesnt, so no, the judge isnt going to declare the contract invalid.


Quote:

If that is so then why did ITEC have to sell the 2003 contract to KMOS? Problem is ITEC's ownership of that property will probably be declared invalid for the reasons I've stated above. Hence only Amino can potentially own the OS...or Hyperion, ofcourse.

Because Itec owned the OS, and actually KMOS bought the OS before they bought the trademarks.


Quote:

Sorry, but the lack of 3.5 and 3.9 helped cause that delay. You do remember Hyperion's counter-claims, do you not?

Hyperion got what they needed from 3.5 and 3.9 within months of signing the original contract, Ben says that very fact in the Feb 2002 update on the OS. Blaming an over 5 year delay on the OS on at worst case 3 month delay of the source code, really isnt accurate and foolishly unlike every good software contract I've signed, there is not delivery timetable for the source code. Technically AI could deliver the source code on Feb 28, 2002 and according to the contract Hyperion still needs to be done on March 1 2002. So according to the contract, AI cannot have caused the delay.
-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: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: Ok, Why would KMOS sue ITEC? I thought you said they agreed to the "OS4 portion of the contract transfer" -remember without a signature though- KMOS didnt agree to anything, KMOS came into the picture after Itec bought the OS from Hyperion. KMOS bought the OS from Itec and never received it despite paying for it.

Maybe they had been much better off, if they had first checked if ITEC was the rightful owner at all at the time...


Quote:

Tigger wrote: If you buy something and pay for and never get it, would you sue? ...

If I buy something here in Germany and later it e.g. becomes obvious that the goods I bought had been stolen before, then I have to give the goods back WITHOUT getting my money back.

Or if I go shopping and someone gives me counterfeit money in return without me noticing it and in the next shop the clerk says that I just payed with bad money and calls the police, then the police will confiscate the banknote and I won't be compensated for it, either.

I such cases I didn't do anything knowingly wrong (except having not checked the items before) - but nevertheless certainly have the damage.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... We have a sales agreement for AI(W) to KMOS and sales documents from Itec to KMOS and for Itec to Hyperion.

What???
I only know of sales documents from Itec to KMOS - when and what did AI(W) sell to KMOS and when and what did Itec sell to Hyperion???

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... AI(D) fka KMOS agree that AI owns the code ...

That which AI owns the code?

_________________
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 ... The judge can't rip up a contract just because its in conflict with another contract, that would lead to worldwide anarchy. ...

Utterly nonsense.
No sign of anarchie because of that here in Germany...

_________________
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)