@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @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.

And this is the point where your example fails:
I have no faith in the US legal system and therefore would not make any deal under US jurisdiction...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Now you see why the law can't work the way you think it does in my country or in yours?

Nah, not really...

_________________
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:

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.

I would never sign such a deal without you stating that you had no liens on your house.
and I would want some 'Warranties" in the contract .

.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

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

Both ITEC and KMOS/Amiga (D) have copies of the 2001 Agreement.
So when the Judges rule against them their lawyers will know why.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:10 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback 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.

No Amiga Delaware said they wanted the source code they claimed they paid a little short on through a clerical error from Hyperion directly outside of anything to do with Itec. It was only when the case was not looking so hot that all of a sudden this year Itec then sends its own payment (this time not short like it was from Amiga Delaware) and then Itec says it wants the same thing (through the seeming everpresent in all these companies John G.). As I already stated they may be two different type cases but both share this same goal. You are trying to pull some revisionist history to sweep some serious questions about how these supposed truly seperate entities appear to act with one mind and one set of lawyers. This was a strategy change it appears. Otherwise Amiga Delaware should have been suing Itec from the start and in turn then if Itec felt it needed to Itec should have been sueing Hyperion. It didn't go down that way, one would guess because the whole corporate asset handoff history is questionable or at least complicated in a way that they probably didn't want to have to get too into. As you have had to begrudingly admit in essence when your crystal ball last did not go right and you had to label the judge as "confused". One thing you claim all the time is how cut and dry the Itec action was trying to go after Hyperion in NY state. Whats your explanation as to why they just didn't do that in the first place?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:25 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:24 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:23 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:21 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:14 PM.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

I would never sign such a deal without you stating that you had no liens on your house. and I would want some 'Warranties" in the contract .

You mean like the letter Ben wrote that there were no liens on the software so that KMOS could buy it from Itec? That kind of document?
-Tig

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

@dirigent

Quote:

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

Sneaky felt that it was the other way around. So just because you feel the opposite doesn't mean you are the one just popping in a comment "in the interest of civilized discussion". Sneaky said Tigger was losing ground, you say Pixie was losing ground. You can't play you were taking the high road and others not. You simply have opposing opinions.

Tigger, whenever asked about what law degree he has has not been able to say he has any whatsoever. So its a bit pompous for you to declare that someone should be grateful for a lesson from someone who can not even claim a credential in the field. He also claims to be a better programmer then the Friendans and I don't see any AROS port to Efika yet and that he spends less than 30 minutes a day on here yet he has a tremendous amount of posts. So not everyone is going to share your high esteem for his legal opinion. He was already surprised once by the judge he had to then call "confused". He may have contracts in his office, more than many of us, but that dosen't make him a legal expert necessarily.

As for your he "just fired back", then you admit that his line about English was likely intended as an insult. Two wrongs make a right then, is that your point?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:40 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 16-Nov-2007 at 03:37 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You mean like the letter Ben wrote that there were no liens on the software so that KMOS could buy it from Itec? That kind of document? -Tig .

You mean the one referring to the 2001 contract terms ?

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: No Amiga Delaware said they wanted the source code they claimed they paid a little short on through a clerical error from Hyperion directly outside of anything to do with Itec.

Not at all. Itec paid the money, look at the receipts and the transfers. 20K of it comes directly from Itec and the receipt for $22500 is to Itec.


Quote:

As you have had to begrudingly admit in essence when your crystal ball last did not go right and you had to label the judge as "confused".

What do you name the judge who points to two documents (the signed and unsigned Arctic PDA documents and says they contain the 25K buyback clause, when neither one contains the clause or even is about buying OS4.

Quote:

One thing you claim all the time is how cut and dry the Itec action was trying to go after Hyperion in NY state. Whats your explanation as to why they just didn't do that in the first place?

Because KMOS are suing over trademarks and the cancellation of the 2001 contract and Itec never owned the 2001 contract or the trademarks. It was only after Hyperions ludicrous statement that KMOS didnt own the OS because they hadnt agreed to the transfer (even though we now have seen Ben wrote a letter to help Itec sell it to KMOS) that Itec first sent the check to Hyperion and then sued when Hyperion still refused to provide the software.
-Tig

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

Where in the 2003 ITEC agreement does it say that Hyperion should hand over a completed OS4.0 to ITEC ?

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Tigger, whenever asked about what law degree he has has not been able to say he has any whatsoever. So its a bit pompous for you to declare that someone should be grateful for a lesson from someone who can not even claim a credential in the field.

I dont have a law degree, I just work to contracts day in and day out, for instance the last 3 days we've been negotiating the new Apache contract, as the tech lead I sit in and listen and work the technical issues and shalls of our contract.

Quote:

He also claims to be a better programmer then the Friendans and I don't see any AROS port to Efika yet and that he spends less than 30 minutes a day on here yet he has a tremendous amount of posts.

I'd love you to find a reference where I actually said that, when you can't, we'll add that to the list of apologees you owe me. AROS port to Efika needs to be done at home, I dont post here from home, I dont work on the AROS port at work, clear enough for you?

Quote:

So not everyone is going to share your high esteem for his legal opinion. He was already surprised once by the judge he had to then call "confused". He may have contracts in his office, more than many of us, but that dosen't make him a legal expert necessarily.

You sitll have yet to explain why you think the judge wasnt confused when he referenced docuements not containing the 25K buyback as the source of the buyback. I think everyone who is upset with me saying the judge was confused needs to explain to us why they dont think he was when he put that in his response.

Quote:

As for your he "just fired back", then you admit that his line about English was likely intended as an insult.

Actually it wasnt at all. The fact that a two party contract can involve three or more companies signing a contract probably loses alot in translation. Pixies 1+1+1 = 3 implied I didnt understand that 3 companies signed the contract, I understand that completely, it just doesnt mean that it isnt a two party contract, though my entire its funny we should have realized it was a two party contract comment earlier was really an aside instead of the dominant thread its become in this topic. In reality it doesnt matter much in this case if its a two party or three party, except as a two party contract, Hyperion should be able to take over Eyetechs duties which would lead to new hardware if the contract were still in force.
-Tig

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

@fairlanefastback

I don't see how the shell game is relevent. I have a 70 Buick GS 455 convertible. I agree to sell it to you for 25,000. Dandy (who looks like he likes cars and can appreciate this gem) buys it from you for 25,000 and sends me the money ( of course counting all those 10's I misscounted. I say he is not an entitled buyer and was short anyway. Dandy complains to you so you send me the full amount.

I know the analogy is lame but the point is I don't know who should be the rightful buyer of OS4 but it is not Hyperion, unless. If (this is a big if) they can show the insolvent clause is in effect. The shell game defence is just a red herring.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Where in the 2003 ITEC agreement does it say that Hyperion should hand over a completed OS4.0 to ITEC ?

Here is the 2003 contract.

"Hyperion confirms that for the receipt of 25,000.00 USD, Hyperion shall transfer the ownership of the Object Code, Source Code and intellectual property of OS 4.0 to Itec in accordance with the provisions of the November 1, 2001 agreement between Amiga, Hyperion and Eyetech and to the extent it can do so under existing agreements with third party developers whose work shall be integrated in OS 4.0."

Pretty clear right.
-Tig

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

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: I know the analogy is lame but the point is I don't know who should be the rightful buyer of OS4 but it is not Hyperion, unless. If (this is a big if) they can show the insolvent clause is in effect. The shell game defence is just a red herring.

Actually the contract is worded so badly that it allows AI to buyback the OS after the insolvency clause is implemented, so its not really helping them out.
-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: @Spectre660 Quote: Spectre660 wrote: Where in the 2003 ITEC agreement does it say that Hyperion should hand over a completed OS4.0 to ITEC ? Here is the 2003 contract. "Hyperion confirms that for the receipt of 25,000.00 USD, Hyperion shall transfer the ownership of the Object Code, Source Code and intellectual property of OS 4.0 to Itec in accordance with the provisions of the November 1, 2001 agreement between Amiga, Hyperion and Eyetech and to the extent it can do so under existing agreements with third party developers whose work shall be integrated in OS 4.0." Pretty clear right. -Tig

I'd say that's pretty unclear. It just says OS4.0 doesn't say AmigaOS . I guess it could be any OS that is "named" 4.0 that Hyperion could turn over to ITEC.

This could be something for Hyperion to expliot

Matter of fact since they are still in 2001 contract for the names and copyrights with KMOS under the 2001 contract as Tig says, the the "OS4" they talk about in the 2003 ITEC contract must be a totally different operating system from Amiga OS4. No wonder we've all been confused.

I guess ITEC should have been more specific when they signed their 2003 contrect. Too bad!

_________________
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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Spectre660 [quote] Spectre660 wrote: Where in the 2003 ITEC agreement does it say that Hyperion should hand over a completed OS4.0 to ITEC ? I'd say that's pretty unclear. It just says OS4.0 doesn't say AmigaOS . I guess it could be any OS that is "named" 4.0 that Hyperion could turn over to ITEC.

You asked where does it say that Hyperion should hand over OS 4.0 to Itec, I showed that, now you are playing name games, none of which make any sense given your original question, and none of which will find any traction in a court of law.
-Tig

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

@tig
Quote:

You asked where does it say that Hyperion should hand over OS 4.0 to Itec, I showed that, now you are playing name games, none of which make any sense given your original question, and none of which will find any traction in a court of law. -Tig

I didn't ask the original question.

_________________
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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: I didn't ask the original question.

Ok, point is still the same, a question was asked, I pointed out a correct answer. Do you honestly believe that the judge is going to rule anything like what you commented about? And lets be honest here, they still havent delivered an OS to Itec, saying your crazy theory is right, they still havent delivered an OS to Itec thought they have been paid, so they still lose the New York case. What do you think your claim gains them in court?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You asked where does it say that Hyperion should hand over OS 4.0 to Itec, I showed that, now you are playing name games, none of which make any sense given your original question, and none of which will find any traction in a court of law. -Tig

The key word that you missed was COMPLETED.

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

@Spectre660

how would you hide the fact lots of amiga one owners are using it then.

_________________

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: I didn't ask the original question. Ok, point is still the same, a question was asked, I pointed out a correct answer. Do you honestly believe that the judge is going to rule anything like what you commented about? And lets be honest here, they still havent delivered an OS to Itec, saying your crazy theory is right, they still havent delivered an OS to Itec thought they have been paid, so they still lose the New York case. What do you think your claim gains them in court? -Tig

I was just joking and pointing out how lame and full of holes the 2003 contract is.

Besides, is it any more crazy than you posting 100+ times how Hyperion is going to lose AmigaOS4 to KMOS even when you say NOW that KMOS doesn't even have a contract to AmigaOS4 with Hyperion? KMOS bought OS from ITEC??


Jill = AmigaInc(W)
Sally = Hyperion
Fred=(Itec)
Roger=(KMOS-->AI Deleware)

Sally and Jill have a car together. Fred buys the car from Sally (Jill doesn't sign the contract but doesn't object, leaves the country and is never to be heard from again for years and year and years). Fred, before he fully pays for the car or even has possesion of the car, sells the car to Roger. Roger has no car

Roger tries to sue Sally. Sally, says to Roger, first, I don't any proof that Fred sold it to you, second, I still haven't got all the money from Fred, and besides I have a contract to give it to Fred not you.

I'm pretty sure that's your story today and --- of course now you say the AI(d) vs Hyperion is "about the trademarks" which really is never mentioned in court but only OS4 code and sources. And all you talked about before in the other threads was Hyperion having to hand what they had over to AI(d). But hey spin it however.

It just fun watching the stories change

_________________
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