@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Hyperion is Evert and Ben. Hyperion is represented in court by a lawyer who is stating their position, he is their advocate and voice. Their position in regard to the contract is that its a "buy-in". That includes Ben.

Ben doesnt work for Hyperion anymore, he may or may not still own part of it. We have testimony from Evert, we have testimony from the Friedens, we have comments from the lawyer. You have no reference to Ben saying that its a buyin during the court case, just lots of references explaining it as a buyout when the contract was signed. In addition, you have yet to tell me how from the comment I posted, you read this as a buyin, what part of it makes it a buyin in your opinion?


"..Hyperion shall transfer all Source Code, interest and title in OS 4.0 to Amiga.."

What screams buyin to you in this statement?
-Tig

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

@RedMelons

Quote:

RedMelons wrote: @Tigger Quote: So do you think its ok that Hyperion gets your $50 rebate instead of you? Er, no.

Then why are you not upset about the new lawsuit which is basically trying to take this $50 from AI and give it 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: @fairlanefastback Quote: fairlanefastback wrote: Hyperion is Evert and Ben. Hyperion is represented in court by a lawyer who is stating their position, he is their advocate and voice. Their position in regard to the contract is that its a "buy-in". That includes Ben. Ben doesnt work for Hyperion anymore, he may or may not still own part of it. We have testimony from Evert, we have testimony from the Friedens, we have comments from the lawyer. You have no reference to Ben saying that its a buyin during the court case, just lots of references explaining it as a buyout when the contract was signed. In addition, you have yet to tell me how from the comment I posted, you read this as a buyin, what part of it makes it a buyin in your opinion? "..Hyperion shall transfer all Source Code, interest and title in OS 4.0 to Amiga.." What screams buyin to you in this statement? -Tig

You have your playmates for spinning in circles, you don't need me for that. Your partial quote from the contract looks good standing by itself. Its not as if you and I have not been through this discussion several times already. I'll let the other guys do the repeating of why your partial quote does not tell the whole story. Or just re-read previous threads. Its the complete document that counts. But you know that already. But keep up your unstoppable urge to go in circles for your relaxation or whatever it was.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 09:43 PM.

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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Tigger Round and round... with 1) 2), 3) seperate entities listed. That's a lot of bias to ADMIT in the same sentence that their is a "lack" of description on what the relationship is (as some are pointing out) and then say that is proof that there IS a relationship they are a joint venture. WTF?

Just for fun AmigaHeretic, how many two party contracts between 3 or more entities do you have in your bookcase in your office. If its more then my 9 thats great, lets talk about them, if its not, then really arguing about something you either dont understand or more likely don't want to understand is silly. Its a two party contract, I posted a column from a lawyer working in Washington State (ie where the lawsuit is occuring) all about two party contract between more then two companies and the issues with them and still you are arguing that a two party contract can't occur between 3 entities.
-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: @RedMelons Then why are you not upset about the new lawsuit which is basically trying to take this $50 from AI and give it to Hyperion? -Tig

Well Amiga could clear this mess up right now, with refund checks to all involved. Amiga so far has shown a track record of keeping the cash and likely earning interest on it. People from England have taken further baths in exchange rates over the years. If Hyperion gets it via the suit at least there is a fresh chance for the rebates to be honored. Amiga in the meantime continues to do nothing about re-uniting people with their money. In your bloodlust for Hyperion you imply Hyperion would simply get the money and keep it if they could. Have they told you their plans for it if they do get it via the suit? You are trying to make people angry at Hyperion, why not help us out with a real reason in regard to this issue?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 10:00 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 10:00 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 09:58 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 09:56 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback

I agree that AInc should repay the coupon and be fined, perhaps someone should serve time for fraud if hat could be proven. Has nothing to do with the ip ownership however.

Quote:

Regardless this case is about what the contract says in a legal sense and how that is interpreted by judge and jury.

Your statement sounds like the argument that a guilty party uses to get off on a technicality. Does not mean the person is not guilty. I am more interested in what is right, what the parties intended the contract to mean and not the legalities. The ultimate verdict may be based on the legalities but that does not mean that both parties understood the contract to mean buyout. I don't know how to understand the intentions of the contract other than the explanations of the parties involved. Only one party has changed it's tune in reguard to the buyout option. Sameone that changed the date for OS4 being finished.

@Tigger
Quote:

Then why are you not upset about the new lawsuit which is basically trying to take this $50 from AI and give it to Hyperion?

Because I don't think a computer or the purveyors of said hardware/software are worth getting upset about - I really don't care anymore - they all blew it.

However, I did get a few years of enjoyment out of my AmigaOne -

Eyetech provided me with a complete AmigaOne-XE system and Linux OS, and replaced the psu under warranty.

Hyperion provided me with OS4, several updates, and a lot of information and discussion through these forums.

AInc took $50 and gave me a t-shirt and a load of bull.

My sympathies tend to lie with Eyetech/Hyperion.

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @fairlanefastback I agree that AInc should repay the coupon and be fined, perhaps someone should serve time for fraud if hat could be proven. Has nothing to do with the ip ownership however. Quote: Regardless this case is about what the contract says in a legal sense and how that is interpreted by judge and jury. Your statement sounds like the argument that a guilty party uses to get off on a technicality. Does not mean the person is not guilty. I am more interested in what is right, what the parties intended the contract to mean and not the legalities. The ultimate verdict may be based on the legalities but that does not mean that both parties understood the contract to mean buyout. I don't know how to understand the intentions of the contract other than the explanations of the parties involved. Only one party has changed it's tune in reguard to the buyout option. Sameone that changed the date for OS4 being finished.

These are businesses that are familiar with using lawyers. Would not what is right be the proper legal disposition of what the contract states? It is the agreement for which men representing both parties signed their names to after, one would presume, consulting legal advice. And if they did not consult legal advice than shame on them. Experience tells us neither company is totally trustworthy. So each of their words to us are meaningless. What they had drawn up, should have been(and probably was) reviewed by a legal expert on each side, and after due consideration as seasoned businessmen signed by a representative of each party.

And please explain to me, since you are skipping over this a bit yet taking this up as an overall moral issue. Why Amiga Delaware should get to get their hands on what was another company entirely, one that still exists, and last we know owes money still to multiple parties? What makes Amiga Delaware more deserving morally, since you want to make decisions on moral grounds, than Hyperion to get this peice of the pie that you feel was Amiga Washington's? If you want to weigh in with morality on more of an even keel should this not be Bolton OS by now?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:25 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:25 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:23 PM.

_________________
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: Its not as if you and I have not been through this discussion several times already. I'll let the other guys do the repeating of why your partial quote does not tell the whole story. Or just re-read previous threads. Its the complete document that counts. But you know that already.

FLFB, I dont remember you ever explaining why you think the language in the contract means buyin. Care to point to one of the several times where you have done it before and I'm sorry, but I can quote the entire section if you want, there is nothing I didnt post that implies that its a buyin instead of a buyout.
-Tig

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Amiga so far has shown a track record of keeping the cash and likely earning interest on it.

I'd point out that Hyperion has shown the same track record with the money from Itec, Tachyon, KMOS, etc.

Quote:

In your bloodlust for Hyperion you imply Hyperion would simply get the money and keep it if they could.

Thats not what I said. What I said is that they are asking for the coupon money for 1800 people and only about 600 people actually qualify for $50 refunds. Tell you what give me the $90K and I'm more then willing to send out $30K in checks and keep the rest because the other 1200 don't qualify for rebates, thats a better offer then Hyperion has said in this new lawsuit. If they had said, 600 of our customers deserve rebates, and we want the money for it to give it to them, that would have been one thing, instead they say that Hyperion has been damaged financially by this (though they have given no rebates themselves and it can't have cost them sales) and they deserve the 90K. Do you read anything in the new lawsuit that says that money is going to the actual buyers of the AmigaOnes who had bought coupons? I havent found such a reference.
-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: @fairlanefastback Quote: fairlanefastback wrote: Its not as if you and I have not been through this discussion several times already. I'll let the other guys do the repeating of why your partial quote does not tell the whole story. Or just re-read previous threads. Its the complete document that counts. But you know that already. FLFB, I dont remember you ever explaining why you think the language in the contract means buyin. Care to point to one of the several times where you have done it before

If you are really serious you have some serious memory issues. Luckily the search function exists to serve you regardless of your recollections.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:28 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I'd point out that Hyperion has shown the same track record with the money from Itec, Tachyon, KMOS, etc.

Thats part of a legal dispute now isn't it? Its part of the whole open case that will be judged not by you and for which you were not a 1st hand party. None of us were.

But when it comes to Amiga with the coupons the community (in the form of some of its members) is a 1st hand party. And Amiga is not disputing things being wrong with it. Though they are keeping the cash, and have for years.

So I'm not prepared to pass a similar judgement against Hyperion yet in the same manner as most of the community has deservedly done towards Amiga. If Hyperion gains the money and does nothing to honor rebates then fine. But that has not happened. Its premature to say they are up to no good in regard to this.

Quote:

Do you read anything in the new lawsuit that says that money is going to the actual buyers of the AmigaOnes who had bought coupons? I havent found such a reference.

And so you decide it must be going into the pockets of Hyperion never to be seen again. How much of their post lawsuit business plan is supposed to be in there in the lawsuit? Maybe the $90k is based on a wrong estimate for all you or I know. But you have no proof of what the plans of Hyperion would be to do with such monies if they retrieved them. Neither do I. I think they'd be fools to burn bridges with the community at that point. And doubt they would. But sure if they did at that point than they'd deserve to be poorly judged. But before? No. If you can prove Hyperion is lieing willfully in documents submitted to the court pass on your verifiable information to Amiga's legal team and show us what you have.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:53 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:48 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 11:47 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback

I have posted many times in the past that I thought if Bolton was not paid he should be given the OS. I think the shell game is despicable, and have said as much. AInc was free to sell give or trade it's assets to whomever it's owners decided. To do it to avoid debts is inexcusable however. Still don't see Hyperion being given any more rights to the os through any of AInc manuverings though. Amiga Delaware is more deserving than Hyperion because the owners of the ip decided it. It was their right. If we don't like it we could purchase it to give to whoever we decide to give it to.

Once again I don't think any assets should have been transfered until all outstanding obligations were taken care of. In fact if this was done to keep from paying debts I think someone should do jail time!

Hyperion agreed (again according to Ben who was the author of the original contract according to his own words) to a buyback clause. If it was exersized then I feel Hyperion should live up to it.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: @Tigger Round and round... with 1) 2), 3) seperate entities listed. That's a lot of bias to ADMIT in the same sentence that their is a "lack" of description on what the relationship is (as some are pointing out) and then say that is proof that there IS a relationship they are a joint venture. WTF? Just for fun AmigaHeretic, how many two party contracts between 3 or more entities do you have in your bookcase in your office. If its more then my 9 thats great, lets talk about them, if its not, then really arguing about something you either dont understand or more likely don't want to understand is silly. Its a two party contract, I posted a column from a lawyer working in Washington State (ie where the lawsuit is occuring) all about two party contract between more then two companies and the issues with them and still you are arguing that a two party contract can't occur between 3 entities. -Tig

Well, since you did RESPOND to the one simple thing I was posting about I'll just use 'your' logic...

Let me be as vague as possible about how many two party contracts between 3 or more entities I have in my bookcase office, I'd say I have a somewhere in the the amount of were there located at the aproximation.

Is that vague enough for you? I hope so because by what you said that is proof that I do have the knowledge and I must have many, many, many 2 party contracts on my bookshelf.

_________________
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

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @fairlanefastback I have posted many times in the past that I thought if Bolton was not paid he should be given the OS. I think the shell game is despicable, and have said as much. AInc was free to sell give or trade it's assets to whomever it's owners decided. To do it to avoid debts is inexcusable however. Still don't see Hyperion being given any more rights to the os through any of AInc manuverings though. Amiga Delaware is more deserving than Hyperion because the owners of the ip decided it. It was their right. If we don't like it we could purchase it to give to whoever we decide to give it to. Once again I don't think any assets should have been transfered until all outstanding obligations were taken care of. In fact if this was done to keep from paying debts I think someone should do jail time! Hyperion agreed (again according to Ben who was the author of the original contract according to his own words) to a buyback clause. If it was exersized then I feel Hyperion should live up to it.

Last we know Bolton has an open judgement against Amiga #1 (Amiga Washington). The same people appear in Amiga #1 and Amiga #2 (Amiga Delaware). If they had sold it to someone truly different in a real world sense in an effort to salvage AI Washington I'd buy more what you are saying. But since it has most outwards appearances that they are the same folks overall and because I believe they indeed became insolvent and it was agreed to in the contract by both parties Hyperion should get what they were promised in the contract. Bill shouldn't get to cry broke in one case when it suited him and then say they never were in another, now that their needs with their new legal opponent are different than the last one. They didn't have to agree to the insolvency clause, but they did.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:09 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:09 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:08 AM.

_________________
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: Thats part of a legal dispute now isn't it? Its part of the whole open case that will be judged not by you and for which you were not a 1st hand party. None of us were.

There isnt really a legal dispute, Hyperion agrees they gave them money for the buyback, they said it wasnt enough and now AI cant carry out the buyback because its too late, but both sides agree that a substantial amount of money was paid for the buyback and has not been returned, why do you think that point of fact is in dispute?

Quote:

And Amiga is not disputing things being wrong with it. Though they are keeping the cash, and have for years.

Absolutely which makes it identical to Hyperion who says they got the money and have provided neither a refund nor the product in question at least most of the coupon holders got shirts, lottery ticket and CAM membership. Hyperion has given no return on the cash given to them and in fact says that they are not going to get the product in question but still doesnt return the money.

Quote:

Do you read anything in the new lawsuit that says that money is going to the actual buyers of the AmigaOnes who had bought coupons? I havent found such a reference.

Quote:

Maybe the $90k is based on a wrong estimate for all you or I know. .

It would be amazing for the wrong estimate to be the exact amount taken in, especially since they say that where they got that number. What exactly do you think they estimated wrong, how many units they sold? They have already presented that to the court. You have yet to explain how Hyperion was hurt financially by the rebate scheme, which is what they are claiming, the normal two ways you would do that, can't really apply in this case because of the issues with the case.
-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: Is that vague enough for you? I hope so because by what you said that is proof that I do have the knowledge and I must have many, many, many 2 party contracts on my bookshelf.

Yeah pretty much, either you want me to believe you can swim at the Farallon Islands with no fear or you are poor speller, and if the first case is it really your opinion that the 2001 contract is not a two party contract between 3 entities?
-Tig

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

@fairlanefastback

With parties seemingly the same the transfer looks fishy. Quite possibly someone should go to jail. Does not grant Hyperion additional rights. I don't know why you would believe Bill Mc when he had motive to lie so he could renig on debts. How can you hold the ip held by several parties in jepordy because of one obviously untrustworthy individual. There would be few shareholders in the world if that were the case. While Bill Mc had motive to lie then (yes I agree he lied), Ben had such motive then. I tend to believe him when he stated he believed the contract had a buyback option. They both have motives to lie about the past now so take the recent statements with that in mind.

@Tigger

Quote:

Hyperion agrees they gave them money for the buyback, they said it wasnt enough and now AI cant carry out the buyback because its too late,

Lol. Hyperion said they were given money towards a buy-in and that it was short. And that other monies named as being sent were for other debts owed to them by Amiga such as legal expense reimbursement for a previous case and other coding projects. They even referenced were it said that any monies owed for anything else had to be paid before any monies sent could go towards the buy-in. And additionally they say its too late to exercise the buy-in as per how they read the contract.

You know this and its fundamentally different than what you write. Indeed if it wasn't there would be little to argue and there would be no great list of documents to sift through. Anyone can read the court docs and see what Hyperion is saying. As for refunds, partial payment I don't believe was covered as to whether it was refundable or not in the contract. And with no proof that Bill's wire transfer went through they are thousands of dollars short. I realize you don't like dealing in the necessary subtlties of the arguements, you like zingers to cast Hyperion in a horrible light. Maybe they deserve that horrible light, but at least be accurate to what they actually are saying and supposedly are "agreeing to" in order to achieve it. LOL. If you think they'd agree to the "buyback" language after all they have submitted to the court that you say they agree to, no offense, but you'd have to be nuts.

Quote:

Hyperion has given no return on the cash given to them and in fact says that they are not going to get the product in question but still doesnt return the money.

Well in a business to business relationship for a buy-in clause never fully paid but with no guarantee for refunds of partial payments I don't find that equatable for direct comparison like you do. Even a very small business can come up with $25,000 in one shot via credit at worst. They didn't. If they were so concerned with guranteed refunds they should have had it addressed in the contract. Could Hyperion refund the partial payment provided? Sure they could. I'd have no problem with seeing that, it would be a very gentlemanly thing to do. But since I buy the argument that payment was partial, since I buy the idea it was a "buy-in" rather than you who buy the concept it was a "buy-out" we'll still make no headway on this. We haven't before, we won't now.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:45 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:45 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:33 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:30 AM.

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

@stew

Quote:

With parties seemingly the same the transfer looks fishy. Quite possibly someone should go to jail. Does not grant Hyperion additional rights. I don't know why you would believe Bill Mc when he had motive to lie so he could renig on debts.

So if you think he (Bill) was lying in his court mandated deposition that he should not be held accountable for what he said? Where is this morality barometer now? He verified insolvency in my book. Hyperion has a contract with a clause guaranteeing more rights if insolvency occured and it predates the "fishy" as you put it transfer. If Bill lied and it wasn't true he should learn his lesson not to lie to a court. Both of these entities agreed to the clause and one in my mind verified in a legal proceeding it occured. So they should be held accountable to it. If Ben lied or not on ANN its simply not the same standard. Still very crappy indeed. Again, lesser of two evils. You might not like the insolvency clause for whatever reason but if it occured as I read the contract as a lay person Hyperion gets that one aspect of the IP. Amiga agreed to the contract, where is the ip grab from that?

Unfortunately before this case we did not have public statements about this clause abounding as we somewhat did for the other clause you want to zero in on to make your decision. And its an important clause if you read the contract. So again thats why it comes down to the contract again as a whole document.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:49 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 09-Nov-2007 at 12:44 AM.

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