@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @Tigger 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? They paid Hyperion, they didnt pay AI. And its not my claim they are the first secured creditor , I'm just repeating what is in the court documents. -Tig

Yes - O.K. - but why payed ITEC to Hyperion at all, if they (ITEC) took the OS4-ownership from AInc (W/AMINO) as compensation for the debts AInc (W/AMINO) had with them (ITEC)?

_________________
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)

@whose

Quote:

whose wrote: @umisef Quote: Well, their relationship is that they both signed on the same side of a two-party contract. Well, in fact, they didn´t. There are different responsibilities and liabilities for Hyperion and Eyetech, and they are explicitely mentioned as independend contractors (remember the "signment of all parties involved is needed for transfer" thingie?), hence you have a multiple-party contract here. In Germany, this construct is definetly not an implicit "Personenmehrheit" contract and the contract juristically is a series of contracts in one. If you wish to form a "Personenmehrheit" contract from it, Hyperion and Eyetech would have to be explicitely concluded to one signing party. This is not the case here and in Germany this contract would be definetly a multiple-party contract, not a two-party one (and I bet it is in the US, too). Btw., multiple-party contracts are much more usual in Germany than you seem to know. This is because of the juristical problems of liability such implicit "Personenmehrheit" contracts definetly bear. It is even more usual to form a juristic person just for a special two-party deal, of which one side is consisting of multiple parties. Regards

Thanks - couldn`t have said it better...

_________________
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)

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @stew Quote: Of course when I said"it is yours" it was with the understanding that you would pay the amount still owed. I find the idea that I could keep the car for myself now laughable. Oh sorry judge I changed my mind. That is too bad, there is an agreement already made. The Hyperion agreement was signed and written by Hyperion themselves. To try and weasel out on their own clerical error makes them look like they are at the least, untrust worthy. Sure, but sticking with the car analogy, and we now have the understanding you were to pay $25,000.00 and I accidentally sent out a receipt showing $25,000.00 was paid. But we are both in agreement only $22,500.00 was ever paid, neither one of is disputing that now, and I still have the car in my possesion. How many months should I wait before you live up to you end of the deal and pay the full amount? You know you still owe money. There was billing error, that doesn't mean you get several thousand dollars just for free, you still have to pay all the money if you want the car. So yes, after several months, (probably of several weeks) I would either just sell the car to someone else or just keep the car, and give you your money back either way. In Hyperion's case it was even easier, AI(w) or possible Itec if the 2003 contract is valid, had 6 months to pay the full $25,000. I say starting after OS final and from when they knew the billing may have been incorrect (only fair). Guess what? They didn't do it.

Don't you think you have an obligation to notify me of your mistake, perhaps at the time you try to deliver? As far as I know Hyperion has never tried to collect the unpaid balance AND deliver. No one said anything about leaving the balance unpaid. Don't you think you should send the money back before reselling the car? Sounds like you have the ethics of Hyperion, or a used car salesman. Maybe you should keep the money and the car.

Last edited by stew on 17-Nov-2007 at 06:46 PM.

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Quote: If you have a receipts for all the money you owe, you would probably think you had paid in full. Since when has Hyperion issued a receipt that contained Bill's *possible* wire transfer money?

Yes, you keep saying that. HOWEVER since Hyperion now in fact claims that Itec only paid them $24750, even they are agreeing that McEwens money showed up.
-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: @Tigger Quote: We've known that since April, someone thought it was juicy then too. Pixar used to have the same CEO as Apple, how juicy is that to you?? -Tig. Were the two companies both ever involved in lawsuits against another company for more or less the same reason ?

Only 4 or 5 times I can think about.
-Tig

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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

Sure, but sticking with the car analogy, and we now have the understanding you were to pay $25,000.00 and I accidentally sent out a receipt showing $25,000.00 was paid. But we are both in agreement only $22,500.00 was ever paid, neither one of is disputing that now, and I still have the car in my possesion. How many months should I wait before you live up to you end of the deal and pay the full amount? You know you still owe money. There was billing error, that doesn't mean you get several thousand dollars just for free, you still have to pay all the money if you want the car. So yes, after several months, (probably of several weeks) I would either just sell the car to someone else or just keep the car, and give you your money back either way. In Hyperion's case it was even easier, AI(w) or possible Itec if the 2003 contract is valid, had 6 months to pay the full $25,000. I say starting after OS final and from when they knew the billing may have been incorrect (only fair). Guess what? They didn't do it.

Actually first of all they both agree that $24750 was paid. The $250 discrepancy is because of the faulty receipt. Additional funds have been paid and in fact Itec sent a check for the full amount so there was no doubt they paid in full while not admitting that they actually owed them anymore money. Hyperion not providing software at that point led to the New York lawsuit which led to Hyperion trying to join Itec to the Washington case, we'll know if that was successful in a couple of weeks.
-Tig

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

@whose

Quote:

whose wrote: @umisef Quote: Well, their relationship is that they both signed on the same side of a two-party contract. Well, in fact, they didn´t.

Actually they did, as I keep pointing out and in fact even found a reference to Washington state law that validated and still we have this arguement, despite the fact Hyperion is probably better off with this being a 2 party contract. In a two party contract they can take up the tasks of there other sub-party (ie pick the hardware) as long as Eyetech doesnt object, so why the pro-Hyperion side is arguing that side I have no concept, except Hyperion looks fairly silly for not doing it 3 years ago or so.

Quote:

There are different responsibilities and liabilities for Hyperion and Eyetech, and they are explicitely mentioned as independend contractors (remember the "signment of all parties involved is needed for transfer" thingie?), hence you have a multiple-party contract here.

Actually thats not what it says, it says the other party's (ie singular) signature is necessary for the transfer, thats just one of the points that led us to realize this is a two party contract at least in a US jurisdiction.
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: Dandy wrote: They paid Hyperion, they didnt pay AI. And its not my claim they are the first secured creditor , I'm just repeating what is in the court documents. -Tig Yes - O.K. - but why payed ITEC to Hyperion at all, if they (ITEC) took the OS4-ownership from AInc (W/AMINO) as compensation for the debts AInc (W/AMINO) had with them (ITEC)?

Because AI only owns the OS 4 if they pay 25K, if they dont and Hyperion goes bankrupt (which was apparently the fear at the time, and at a later time when Alan had to bail Hyperion out) then the OS could be stuck in Belgian bankruptcy court for years. So they pay 25K and now own the OS, they took the ability to buy the OS from Hyperion from AI(Amino), not the actual OS, because the OS hadnt been bought by AI.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 17-Nov-2007 at 08:43 PM.

_________________
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: In Hyperion's case it was even easier, AI(w) or possible Itec if the 2003 contract is valid, had 6 months to pay the full $25,000. I say starting after OS final and from when they knew the billing may have been incorrect (only fair). Guess what? They didn't do it.

Sorry but they sent the check in June (ie before your 6 months) for the full $25K, in fact was turning down that money and not sending the code that led to the lawsuit in NY, which is the simple case I cant imagine how Hyperion thinks they can win. In addition, I disagree that its too late to pay now. I believe the six months is going to end on May 31, 2008, which is just over 6 months away now.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Actually thats not what it says, it says the other party's (ie singular) signature is necessary for the transfer, thats just one of the points that led us to realize this is a two party contract at least in a US jurisdiction.

And if the other party is "Hyperion and Eyetech" then you need the signature of "Hyperion AND Eyetech", not "Hyperion OR Eyetech". It is clearly stated in the contract that there are 3 companies. Sure, there are 2 "sides", one side consist of one company "Amiga Inc." and the other side consists of 2 companies "Eyetech and Hyperion". However there's nothing in the contract that gives the right to, say Hyperion to act on behalf of Eyetech, or vice versa.

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Sure, there are 2 "sides", one side consist of one company "Amiga Inc." and the other side consists of 2 companies "Eyetech and Hyperion". However there's nothing in the contract that gives the right to, say Hyperion to act on behalf of Eyetech, or vice versa.

You are just proving my point, its a two party contract (those sides you are talking about are "parties" in US contract speech) between three companies. The signature issue is a non issue now with regard to Itec, because Itec didnt buy the 2001 contract, and even when we were talking about them having bought it, the issue is that there is no penalty for Hyperion going around the signature issue and as the company who signed the 2003 contract, they cant be the one filing a complaint that it violates the rights of another company, they can complain if they didnt sign it and it violates there rights, but they cant not carry out the 2003 contract because they are afraid someone will sue them for violating the 2001 contract if they do. The 2003 contract might violate the spirit of the 2001 contract, but since it doesnt break any laws its a contract that Hyperion must fulfill.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Only 4 or 5 times I can think about. -Tig

The Umpire raises the dreaded finger...

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The signature issue is a non issue now with regard to Itec

So you keep saying. And many people disagree.

I guess it will be a 100% moot point with this "new" Amino i.e. the original Amiga(W) back in the picture and being sued by Hyperion (the topic of the thread) if they still claim ownship as well. If so then the no signature pretty much seals Itec's fate and I suppose any "shells" that Itec sold it onto as well.

_________________
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

@umisef

Since you enjoy attempts of sleight of hand, look at this one.

pdf 71 page 8. lines 1-3

versus

pdf 37 page 17. lines 3-23.

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

@Tigger

I think the main problem here is that you keep repeating the same old points over and over like a broken record without adding anything more to the discussion, so the whole thing just seems to be a power struggle between you and a bunch of other people in this forum. You think the 2003 contract is a simple, stand-alone "sale agreement" while it states "in accordance with the 2001 contract". That is yet to be decided by the judge, like most other things currently being discussed, and the same goes for what signatures are/were required.

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Tigger Quote: The signature issue is a non issue now with regard to Itec So you keep saying. And many people disagree.

Not so many now that Itec isnt saying they are the successor of AI. As for the rest, Amino can't claim ownership, we've seen the bill of sales.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote from you 03May 2007

Quote:

In April of 2003, Amiga bought back the OS from Hyperion. Hyperion signed a bill of sale, Amiga Inc sent them the 25K (plus addiitonal funds they were arguing over) and Hyperion was to give the OS, source and executable back to AI per the 2001 agreement. They didnt do that, complaining that AI wouldnt license hardware for an OS that Hyperion shouldnt have still had in the first place is a little silly. -Tig.

Now you say 17Nov 2007

Quote:

Its still Itec buys the OS from Hyperion, sells it to KMOS and KMOS buys the rest of the Amiga stuff from Amino. If anything Itec not ever owning the 2001 contract probably hurts Hyperion, both in Washington and in New York.

Will you please stand still so that we can catch up with you .

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote from you 03May 2007 Quote: In April of 2003, Amiga bought back the OS from Hyperion. Hyperion signed a bill of sale, Amiga Inc sent them the 25K (plus addiitonal funds they were arguing over) and Hyperion was to give the OS, source and executable back to AI per the 2001 agreement. They didnt do that, complaining that AI wouldnt license hardware for an OS that Hyperion shouldnt have still had in the first place is a little silly. -Tig. Now you say 17Nov 2007 Quote: Its still Itec buys the OS from Hyperion, sells it to KMOS and KMOS buys the rest of the Amiga stuff from Amino. If anything Itec not ever owning the 2001 contract probably hurts Hyperion, both in Washington and in New York. Will you please stand still so that we can catch up with you .

It wouldn't be half as funny if he wasn't on such a high horse all the time.

_________________
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

Here is his time table from earlier on

Quote:

Re: Proof that Amiga Inc are the bad guys Posted on 7-May-2007 16:45:50 [ #300 ] @Spectre660 Quote: Spectre660 wrote: Notice McEwan says Kmos acquired Amiga's Assets in 2004.(MCEwan pdf pg 2). Exhibit F the buy back is dated 24 April 2003 (MCEwan pdf page 32) with ITEC. This has no transfer clause to another party things get a bit confusing here. Anyone ? Legal Council Tigger ? QUOTE A small timetable: April 23, 2003 - Itec buys AmigaOS including the OS4 license from AI (Washington) April 24, 2003 - Benji and Itec sign a bill of sale selling OS4 to Itec Oct 10, 2003 - KMOS buys Itec and gets the OS. April 15, 2004 - Amiga Inc (Washington) announces it has told all trademarks etc to KMOS. March 16, 2005 - KMOS renames itself Amiga Inc. -Tig

Last edited by Spectre660 on 17-Nov-2007 at 11:06 PM.

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

@Derfs

Quote:

ITEC tried to pay, and the money was refused. this was withing 6 months of os4 final.

Well, Hyperion would disagree, probably on a couple different points, but I'll point out just one.

I guess the main one would be that Itec isn't allowed to "sell" the 2003 contract i.e. OS4 code and sources on to another company without their signature/permision (ie they tried to sellOS4 to KMOS) and hence have viloted the contracted. If it is even valid at all.

The 2003 contract was a buy in for Itec, they hadn't even paid for the product yet at the time they sold it to some one else so it wasn't theirs yet, and so they sold Hyperions property to KMOS before Itec even owned it/bought into it.

Bad bad Itec.

Yes, Hyperion is not happy about that. Yes, they didn't except the money, even it was on time.

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 18-Nov-2007 at 02:16 AM.

_________________
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