From the Judges order denying the Injunction.

"Notably absent from the complaint is any mention of a company named Itec,LLC,although MR McEewan did attach a copy of an agreement between Hyperion VOF and Itec,LLC to his declaration. Exhibit G. The role of Itec as initial assignee of the rights of Amiga Washington was not discussed in the motion papers until plaintiff's reply."


Later on the Judge states


"Nor is it clear who "Amiga INC" was on that date, or in what form "Amiga INC." existed"

ahem. looks like he was on to the shell game since then.

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @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?

I'm fairly sure it works that way in Germany btw. 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.
-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: 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. That, not anything else, is what Hyperion should try to argue against.

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.

Quote:

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

They cant, so if Hyperion gets the judge to agree that KMOS (AI(D)) isnt the successor of the 2001 contract then the cancellation didnt happen, thats the case they really should be arguing, not we didnt sell the OS to Itec though we signed a contract that said we did.

Quote:

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?

I saw that happen as well. Server problem, new docs being put up or the the case is being moved are the three most likely reasons.
-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: 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.

Because they bought it from Itec, its that simple, we've seen those documents, what is confusing to you?

Quote:

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.

The 2003 contract involves the OS and only the OS, in doesnt involve the trademarks etc, which is the meat of the case in washington. Hyperion violated AI's trademarks, AI is suing them over that. AI bought the OS from Itec in Oct 2003 and Hyperion still hasnt delivered it to them. 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.

Quote:

It's GONE. If Amiga Inc. wants the source code now they have to sue ITEC.

To prevent that from happening, Itec has sued Hyperion in the NY Court, thats the entire point of the NY lawsuit, glad you now understand that. To prevent themselves from being sued by KMOS, Itec has filed suit against Hyperion.

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.

But thats not what anyone but you is claiming. The 2003 contract only involves the OS, KMOS bought the OS from Itec and still havent received it from Hyperion. The 2003 contract is not in any way a replacement for the 2001 contract.

Quote:

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.

First of all until Itec posted, most believed that Itec was the successor to AI(W), they quite clearly point that they are not, so yes AI should still have the code, but because of the March 2003 contract and the Oct 2003 contract, do you understand now?

Quote:

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.

Except of course AI not only knew about it, they sent Hyperion to Itec, also you understand in your story, you are Hyperion and I'm AI. The problem is that you apparently sold the land and are now telling the guy you sold it to, its not your land because I have a deal with Tigger, even though Tigger said it was fine for me to sell it to you, and oh yeah btw I'm not going to give you your money back, and you apparently think that Itec (ie the guy you sold the land to) is the one that committed a crime.

Quote:

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 the problem is that ITEC did nothing wrong, they signed a contract, they paid money, you may have violated your other contract and I might be able to sue you over it if I wanted to buy it instead, but that doesnt mean Itec doesnt own the property, especially if I dont care if they have it.

Quote:

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?

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, especially since the one who is objecting to the 2003 contract is the one who signed it. Should Hyperion have gotten AI(W) permission in writing, probably, but just because they didnt doesnt take away Itecs rights from the contract.
-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: How can they sell something they do not actually have (in their hands)?

People do it all the time. My company does it on virtually daily basis, any large company does. Drop shipping is basically based on that fact. As I said Arrow Electronics has sued companies in the past (much like Itec is suing Hyperion) to get delivery of items from there vendors to us after we bought lots and they had them transferred to us. Its pretty common in business.
-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: @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:

Read document #1, read what type of case it is. This is mostly about the trademarks, they also want the source code that Itec bought from Hyperion and then sold to KMOS(AI(D)). Most of the case law called out in the first document is about trademarks. Hyperion has taken us down the we arent going to give the source code to anyone in this case.
-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: ahem. looks like he was on to the shell game since then.

Given what we now know about the Itec, Hyperion and KMOS contracts, my entire shell game theory from 2003 and 2004 doesnt work with regards to Itec. Itec never owned the trademarks, IP or even a license for it, so Itec as part of the shell game doesnt really work. Its looks more and more like the anonymous gentlemen who posted on ANN years ago who said instead of a shell game it was a power struggle between Bill and the owners (ie Pentti) was correct. That surely support the much more extensive documents we now have due to the court case.
-Tig

PS If anyone has a link to that very long post on ANN, I'd like to see it.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

PS If anyone has a link to that very long post on ANN, I'd like to see it.

http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1075169273&category=rant

_________________
amiga-news.de

@Tigger
Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: Quote: It's GONE. If Amiga Inc. wants the source code now they have to sue ITEC. To prevent that from happening, Itec has sued Hyperion in the NY Court, thats the entire point of the NY lawsuit, glad you now understand that. To prevent themselves from being sued by KMOS, Itec has filed suit against Hyperion.

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-

I guess with all the transfer from AI(w) -> KMOS -> AI (d) etc it would have been nice to have a signature on the 2003 contract from AI to go with the one from Hyperion is that what you are saying? So now ITEC is afraid of KMOS/AI???


I must say I am confused. First you say it is legal as AI approved and only Hyperion needs to sign as AI does not contest and now you say ITEC is sueing Hyperion to prevent AI from getting.


So again I ASK and you probably won't answer in 4000 words like last time, isn't the fact that AI is sueing Hyperion for the ownership of AOS & source code PROOF that they dispute the 2003 contract?

If so then the 2003 contract (2 party contract) is missing one of the parties signatures/and or they dispute it, obviously if they are suing to get the OS BACK? (you know since a signature is not required

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 15-Nov-2007 at 05:32 PM.

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Spectre660 Quote: Spectre660 wrote: ahem. looks like he was on to the shell game since then. Given what we now know about the Itec, Hyperion and KMOS contracts, my entire shell game theory from 2003 and 2004 doesnt work with regards to Itec. Itec never owned the trademarks, IP or even a license for it, so Itec as part of the shell game doesnt really work. Its looks more and more like the anonymous gentlemen who posted on ANN years ago who said instead of a shell game it was a power struggle between Bill and the owners (ie Pentti) was correct. That surely support the much more extensive documents we now have due to the court case. -Tig PS If anyone has a link to that very long post on ANN, I'd like to see it.

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.
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.

However, seeing as how Acube would just be a distributor, that was a bogus claim to begin with.

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.

@Senex

Quote:

Senex wrote: @Tigger Quote: PS If anyone has a link to that very long post on ANN, I'd like to see it. http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1075169273&category=rant

Thats what I was looking for, thank you sir.
-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: 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. If you buy something and pay for and never get it, would you sue? I would, to prevent that, they are suing Hyperion to get the merchandise (OS 4.0) to give to KMOS.

Quote:

I guess with all the transfer from AI(w) -> KMOS -> AI (d) etc it would have been nice to have a signature on the 2003 contract from AI to go with the one from Hyperion is that what you are saying? So now ITEC is afraid of KMOS/AI???

First of all KMOS and AI(D) are the same company, so there isnt a transfer there. We have a sales agreement for AI(W) to KMOS and sales documents from Itec to KMOS and for Itec to Hyperion.

Quote:

I must say I am confused. First you say it is legal as AI approved and only Hyperion needs to sign as AI does not contest and now you say ITEC is sueing Hyperion to prevent AI from getting.

Yes you are confused. I didnt say anything like your last statement.

1) Itec is suing Hyperion to get the product they bought from Hyperion under the 2003 contract.

Quote:

So again I ASK and you probably won't answer in 4000 words like last time, isn't the fact that AI is sueing Hyperion for the ownership of AOS & source code PROOF that they dispute the 2003 contract?

No, because both Itec and AI(D) fka KMOS agree that AI owns the code and that the 2003 contract is the vehicle that gave it to them. In addition you keep implying that the Washington case is mostly about the source code, its not, the source code is a small part of what is mainly a trademark case. Once again this is the timeline you seem to be ignoring.

March 2003 - Itec buys OS from Hyperion
Oct 2003 - Itec sells OS to KMOS (KKA) AI(D)

Quote:

If so then the 2003 contract (2 party contract) is missing one of the parties signatures/and or they dispute it, obviously if they are suing to get the OS BACK? (you know since a signature is not required

Neither Itec nor AI is disputing the 2003 contract, nor should they, it gives them exactly what they both want.
-Tig

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

@Senex

Greg Ford most have been, an advocate representing the investors, or at least some kind representative for the investors, he clearly does not have any personal stake in Amiga Inc, but on behalf of the investors.

As he put it, he believed that Amiga Inc stone walled, attempts for cooperation.

This might become true whit AHT, but motives way the deal broke down continues to be a mystery.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 15-Nov-2007 at 07:09 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@Tigger

Quote:

First of all KMOS and AI(D) are the same company, so there isnt a transfer there. We have a sales agreement for AI(W) to KMOS and sales documents from Itec to KMOS and for Itec to Hyperion.

We have an interview the Grey H saying some thing different.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/features/index.php?op=r&cat_id=3&rev_id=50&sort_by

Quote:

Question 1.4: What is a KMOS, where did the name come from, what does it mean? Garry: Good question. I asked it myself. Corporate documents needed to be filed while I was in Asia. I returned home to find that the Company, that I had agreed to build, was named KMOS. Like many of you, I asked what's a KMOS, what does it mean? I was told it is sort of like Xerox, it doesn't mean anything but with use will become a positive brand. I pointed out that Edsel (an old auto brand) also didn't mean anything and it went bankrupt. I hated the name. I lost.

He was asked to build a company for some one, that in it self sound odd, to me,

But the point is KMOS was new company that started buy naming rights and so form Amiga Inc (D),

Quote:

Question 1.7: Was there a previous CEO of KMOS? Garry: No. Question 1.8: Is KMOS Incorporated a publicly listed company or privately funded one? Garry: KMOS is privately held. [Question 1.12: Who is Itec and what is their relationship to Amiga, KMOS and you? Garry: Itec has been an investor in Amiga since the purchase of the assets from Gateway. It remains an investor today. Itec is also the Senior (first place) Secured Creditor of Amiga Inc. KMOS purchased the OS asset from Itec. There is no formal relationship between the companies (KMOS and Itec). I am not involved in Itec in any way.

KMOS was new company, they acquired the assets from Amiga(D), they tried to acquire the assist to AmigaOS, buy using Itec,

ITec is company that buys things on behalf of others, its point her is to hide the buyer from the seller; it looks like, Itec acts as dealer.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 15-Nov-2007 at 07:37 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 15-Nov-2007 at 06:25 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

hello,

Im sure you all allready know but I would like to add the links on this forum.
dont need to answer me if old stuff or mistake by me. Its verry hard to follow and understand if not english the native langage.

I just dont know that hyperion is against amino since 31 oct 2007 on a new lawsuit ???:

http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Hyperion+VOF

I dont know amigainc was against gary hare in october 2005 (Diversity-Fraud) ????????? what is gary hare......

http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Amiga+Inc

Its hard to follow and found the truth on all datas each day and I think a lots of amiga users will be mentally killed during the lawsuits time

_________________
BTW, what you have done for the amiga today ????

-A1200+Mediator+VooDoo3+060/50+96mo+SCSI-KIT
-SAM440EP-667mhz-on MapowerKC3000+AOS4.1

Amiga Docs Disks Preservation Project

@Mrodfr

re:Garry Hare

Excellent summary here:
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1161197009&category=news&start=1&2
Including:
Quote:

*** May 18, 2006: The New York Judge dismisses Amiga's complaint, arguing that ""The language of the Agreement could not be more clear that it was [Amiga's] responsibility, not [Hare's] responsibility, to secure the $1,000,000.""

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Tigger

Quote:

Neither Itec nor AI is disputing the 2003 contract, nor should they, it gives them exactly what they both want. -Tig

Oh boy. You keep changing your tune and not answering anything with long posts.


Questions 1. Look at what I am quoting or yours above in this post. How does both AI/KMOS sueing Hyperion for AOS4&sources and ITEC sueing Hyperion for AOS4&sources give them BOTH what they want?

I mean when you say it gives ITEC and AI/KMOS "exactly what they both want" as they are both sueing for AOS4 and source code does this mean:

A. They are going to both have there own Copy of AOS4 for sale (or at least own it even if they don't offer it for sale)
B. They are really the same company so this is a shotgun strategy.


Question 2. Still not answered for about the 3rd time... How is AI/KMOS sueing Hyperion, saying they are the rightful owners of AOS and source, not contradict what you say about the 2003 contract?

Let me draw out, what I think I hear you saying about the 2003 contract.

2003 is a 2 party contract.

Party 1: Amiga Inc Party 2: Hyperion


Now to transfer we agree that Hyperion signed. That is obvious. Some say Amiga Inc, needed to sign, but you say no as long as they don't dispute Hyperion giving the OS sources to another company, in this case ITEC, then no signature is required from the 1st party.

But AI/KMOS IS sueing to GET AOS4 and source code. If they didn't dispute what Hyperion do with it i.e. Keep it, sell it to Itec, wipe their #### with it, then they wouldn't be sueing them.... So they ARE disputing it.

So the 2003 contract only has 1 signature from one party and the second party has a dispute and wants the OS for themselves. So the 2003 is not valid at all.

_________________
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

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @Tigger Quote: First of all KMOS and AI(D) are the same company, so there isnt a transfer there. We have a sales agreement for AI(W) to KMOS and sales documents from Itec to KMOS and for Itec to Hyperion. We have an interview the Grey H saying some thing different.

That doesnt say anything different, it says pretty much the same thing.

Quote:

KMOS was new company, they acquired the assets from Amiga(D), they tried to acquire the assist to AmigaOS, buy using Itec, ITec is company that buys things on behalf of others, its point her is to hide the buyer from the seller; it looks like, Itec acts as dealer.

KMOS didnt acquire any assets from Amiga(D), they are Amiga(D), KMOS first bought the OS from Itec, then they bought the trademarks, contracts and other things from AI(W) at which point they renamed themselves AI, we put the (D) after there name to show they are a Delaware corporation, this is the company suing Hyperion in court in Washington. Itec bought the OS before KMOS ever existed, so your theory doesnt really work.
-Tig

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

@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.

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.

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

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

@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?

Tigger on 02-Dec-2003:
Quote:

There is a reason that Amiga Development LLC (a division of Gateway) is listed in all the copyright notices for OS 4.0, pretending that Amiga Inc owns all the trademarks etc, doesnt make it so.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*