@HenryCase

Quote:

HenryCase wrote: I haven't looked through the court case documents in much detail, but as I haven't heard one important document being discussed much, so I am assuming it is not there. This document is the agreement/contract made between Gateway and (the first Bill McEwen run) Amiga Inc. Surely this document is key in showing what rights Amiga Inc had to the Amiga name in the first place, as well as showing how insolvency (if confirmed) affects these rights. Is Hyperion pushing for these contract documents to be released?

Hyperion would not want to go there I think. The reason being that they want the right to market "Amiga OS 4". If they were to prove Amiga Washington never got full rights from Gateway then they in turn could never have gotten rights to call their OS "Amiga OS 4" from Amiga Washington. And it would look over the top spiteful. They are trying to show they went into the original agreement with Amiga Washington in good faith and that they believe the Amiga trademark ownership lived with that company properly and died with them when it went insolvent. If they went out of their way to prove all trademark ownership lies with Gateway then the judge could simply say they both are infringing on Gateways trademarks and that OS4 can not be sold to anyone,ever, since it has a basis in previous version OS sources. Then they are both screwed (Amiga Delaware and Hyperion).

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @HenryCase Quote: HenryCase wrote: I haven't looked through the court case documents in much detail, but as I haven't heard one important document being discussed much, so I am assuming it is not there. This document is the agreement/contract made between Gateway and (the first Bill McEwen run) Amiga Inc. Surely this document is key in showing what rights Amiga Inc had to the Amiga name in the first place, as well as showing how insolvency (if confirmed) affects these rights. Is Hyperion pushing for these contract documents to be released? Hyperion would not want to go there I think. The reason being that they want the right to market "Amiga OS 4". If they were to prove Amiga Washington never got full rights from Gateway then they in turn could never have gotten rights to call their OS "Amiga OS 4" from Amiga Washington. And it would look over the top spiteful. They are trying to show they went into the original agreement with Amiga Washington in good faith and that they believe the Amiga trademark ownership lived with that company properly and died with them when it went insolvent. If they went out of their way to prove all trademark ownership lies with Gateway then the judge could simply say they both are infringing on Gateways trademarks and that OS4 can not be sold to anyone,ever, since it has a basis in previous version OS sources. Then they are both screwed (Amiga Delaware and Hyperion).

Could they claim fraud by saying that Amiga offering something (implied or otherwise) that they didn't own and would it matter? And if Amiga doesn't own it, could they be giving away the rights to market and sell it?

Last edited by Chuckt on 21-Jun-2008 at 07:39 PM.

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

So if Hyperion succesfuly manage to argue that Amiga were insolvent, the best they can hope to achieve is the continuing use of Amiga OS4.

then if what your saying is true all Hyperion needs to do is "request" the Financials or IRS tax forms and get this mess done!

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @kirka Quote: We know what OS4 is. What do you think Software would cover? Well I know that it DOESN'T cover the naming of Amiga Inc or their right to call themselves that, which is what Hyperion are claiming in 105.

Quote:

2001 Agreement states: ... Article I. DEFINITIONS ... "Software" or "the Software" means the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1 and the upgrades of Amiga OS 3.1 including but not limited to OS 3.5 and 3.9 and associated "Boing Bags"; ...

_________________
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)

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @cgutjahr ... 1. It was never insolvent as per US Code definitions and law suit is in Federal venue. ...

It was insolvent as per Bill Mc Ewens sworn statement at an federall US court.

_________________
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)

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @kirka Quote: We know what OS4 is. What do you think Software would cover? Well I know that it DOESN'T cover the naming of Amiga Inc or their right to call themselves that, which is what Hyperion are claiming in 105.

But we equally know that it is highly doubtable that the transfert AInc(W)->ITEC->KMOS->MKOS->Amiga(D) was legal.

In case it wasn't legal, AInc(D) have no rights to the name "Amiga".

_________________
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:

It was insolvent as per Bill Mc Ewens sworn statement at an federall US court.

Reference to that sworn statement in US Court is? and was it a statement or submitted paperwork? Statement isn't worth a whole hell of alot in court anymore.

Last edited by damocles on 23-Jun-2008 at 09:04 AM.

_________________
Dammy

@Dandy

Quote:

But we equally know that it is highly doubtable that the transfert AInc(W)->ITEC->KMOS->MKOS->Amiga(D) was legal. In case it wasn't legal, AInc(D) have no rights to the name "Amiga".

Your being silly as it would still be Amino's call on what can and can not be called "Amiga."

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: It was insolvent as per Bill Mc Ewens sworn statement at an federall US court. Reference to that sworn statement in US Court is?

Attached to one of the court docs - have a good read...

_________________
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:

Attached to one of the court docs - have a good read...

Yeah, right. The only thing I can remember it was in WA State Court and what McEwen said doesn't hold water in Federal Court. Keep holding your breath for Hyperion, you should see the initial court ruling in 09.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: But we equally know that it is highly doubtable that the transfert AInc(W)->ITEC->KMOS->MKOS->Amiga(D) was legal. In case it wasn't legal, AInc(D) have no rights to the name "Amiga". Your being silly as it would still be Amino's call on what can and can not be called "Amiga."

Aside from your offending reference to my state of mind - "Amino" != "AInc(D)".

As you say - Amino would have the rights - not AInc(D).

_________________
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

By this definition, it seems that Hyperion could sell the source code of OS 3.1+ to anyone they want.

Maybe Amiga, Inc would want to buy it back.

Kirka

@kirka

Quote:

kirka wrote: @Dandy By this definition, it seems that Hyperion could sell the source code of OS 3.1+ to anyone they want. Maybe Amiga, Inc would want to buy it back. Kirka

Well actually, Hyperion bought the source code to 3.1 from Olaf, so perhaps KMOS should be suing him...

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: Attached to one of the court docs - have a good read... Yeah, right. The only thing I can remember it was in WA State Court and what McEwen said doesn't hold water in Federal Court. Keep holding your breath for Hyperion, you should see the initial court ruling in 09.

So you are saying swearing an oath at any US court is worthless, as no other US court takes the oath serious?

_________________
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:

So you are saying swearing an oath at any US court is worthless, as no other US court takes the oath serious?

After Clinton lied in Federal court to avoid having to pay money to a woman he had sex with and got away with it (aside from having to turn in his rights to conduct himself as a lawyer for several years in US Courts), who is going to do what about a statement done in State Court that can be argued that may or may not have been correct terminology? You think WA State Attorney General's Office cares? It's all different venues (ie different laws for state and different laws for federal) so it's pretty meaningless.

My predictions still stands you won't hear the end of this chapter till 09 and then the next chapter, if AI loses, will be the appeals circuit so your looking at four years if they push it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: So you are saying swearing an oath at any US court is worthless, as no other US court takes the oath serious? After Clinton lied in Federal court

Was it a sworn oath?

Quote:

damocles wrote: ...who is going to do what about a statement done in State Court that can be argued that may or may not have been correct terminology?

Are we talking about a "statement" or about an "sworn oath" here?

Quote:

damocles wrote: You think WA State Attorney General's Office cares? It's all different venues (ie different laws for state and different laws for federal) so it's pretty meaningless. ...

From what you write I take that there must be two different types of sworn oaths in the US:
One that is valid only at State courts and one that's valid at Federal courts.
Federal US courts don't accept an oath sworn at US State courts.

Can other US based Amigans confirm that?


Here in Germany an oath is an oath - no matter at what type of court it was sworn.

If a superior court in Germany discovers that you swore an false oath at an inferior court you will nevertheles be sent to prison by that superior court for swearing an false oath at court at all.

And I thought we had similar laws...

_________________
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)

@damocles

Quote:

You think WA State Attorney General's Office cares? It's all different venues (ie different laws for state and different laws for federal) so it's pretty meaningless.

The application of the law is one matter, but the fact that you are swearing under oath to a court to tell the truth IS taken very seriously by any court. A different court may interpret what was said differently, they may have statutes with differing requirements at different levels of goverment yes to determine what applies and what does not. But if there is sworn testimony under oath from a previous court case, no matter the level or venue, if its considered pertinent it is going to be seriously considered to see if its applicable to the statutes and circumstances of the current case.

Quote:

if AI loses, will be the appeals circuit so your looking at four years if they push it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America would never agree to hear this case. It has no far reaching implications in law, it represents no grand social issue, it involves little money in the grand scheme of things. And do you really think Amiga Inc. would want the full spotlight of public scrutiny that a U.S. Supreme Court case would bring on them? I don't.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-Jun-2008 at 02:54 PM.

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @cgutjahr Quote: (a) A-WA was insolvent (not bancrupt) before being dissolved and before Hyperion agreed to the A-WA->Itec transfer and hence exclusive use of the "AmigaOS" trademark went to Hyperion as per the 2001 agreement But the origional contract never ever agreed to transfer the rights of Amiga unconditionaly to Hyperion/Eyetech if things went pearshaped , it limited the use to market OS4 only.

The original contract equally never ever agreed to transfer the rights of Amiga unconditionally to ITEC-KMOS-MKOS-AInc(D).

The condition for that is "the prior written consent of the Amiga One Partners" according to the original contract:

Quote:

The 2001 Agreement states: ... 7.12 EFFECT. The Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each party hereto, and their successors and assigns. Neither party shall assign or subcontract the whole or any part of this Agreement without the other party's prior written consent. ...

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: So if Hyperion succesfuly manage to argue that Amiga were insolvent, the best they can hope to achieve is the continuing use of Amiga OS4.

If Hyperion succesfully managed to argue that they were AInc(W)'s creditors, they might have a point.
In this case it might give them rise to claims beyond "the continuing use of Amiga OS4".

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: They can't release Amiga OS5 or any other variation.

But they could e.g. release Amiga OS 4.0 v1.0, Amiga OS 4.0 v1.1, Amiga OS 4.0 v1.2, ..., Amiga OS 4.0 v999.9, ...

Last edited by Dandy on 24-Jun-2008 at 08:49 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)

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @Swoop I'm talking about the rights to the name, not what they can do with it. Hyperion seem to be trying to claim that Amiga Inc don't have the rights to the name "Amiga" (Not Amiga OS) because they lost that name when they went insolvent. ...

Could the reason that they think Amiga Inc (D) doesn't have the rights to the name "Amiga" rather be that they think the transfers of "the assets" to ITEC-KMOS-MKOS-AInc(D) was illegal and therefor null and void?

(Line of argumentation being that if the transfers were null and void, AInc(D) never got the rights to the name "Amiga" and so calling themselves "AmigaInc" is illegal)

_________________
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)

@fairlanefastback

Could someone contact Gateway for this? Maybe they will be more approachable than ainc, or maybe they can sell any eventual free licence to someone else, like Hyperion.

_________________
retired