@number6

Quote:

@all Anyone have the direct link handy to the Itec doc signed by both Pentti and Lu Pat NG? #6

Its KMOS not ITEC.

http://gutjahr.free.fr/temp/amiga_vs_hare/show_case_doc11-05.pdf

This one may also interest you.

http://gutjahr.free.fr/temp/amiga_vs_hare/show_case_doc09-02.pdf

and this one too
http://gutjahr.free.fr/temp/amiga_vs_hare/show_case_doc11-09.pdf

Last edited by Spectre660 on 19-Nov-2007 at 04:32 PM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 19-Nov-2007 at 04:28 PM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 19-Nov-2007 at 04:20 PM.

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

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: Ok, that's a point. I agree that wording is important in a contract, and I understand that you see it (or want to see it) as a two party contract. So basically, where I see the 2001 agreement as a contract between A+B+C, you see it as A+(B+C). We have in common that it's not A+D (where D is B+C aka "AmigaOne Partners"). Note that in your scheme - A+(B+C), a two party contract involving three companies - I put a "+" between B and C because I believe a "AND" is implied in-between; otherwise there would have been two contracts (one with A+B and one with A+C), OR a single contract with A+D. Reading the discussion on this topic, it seems we are playing with the interpretation we give to the word "party" and extrapolate on the liabilities of the companies involved. Let's have a look at the bottom of the agreement then. There are THREE signatures, not just two where Ben Hermans OR Alan Redhouse signed for Hyperion VOF AND Eyetech Group Ltd. Furthermore, before the signatures, you can read: "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, by their authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement." For me, that makes it clear that is a 3 parties contract.

No the grouping is very important (in US law) to point us to being a two party contract we even have a name for the second party which is the AmigaOne partners. In addition as I've pointed out, I have a 2 party contract between 7 companies sitting here in my office and there are in fact 7 signatures on it, so number of signatures doesnt equal number of parties, it means number of companies involved, I havent ever argued that there aren't 3 companies involved, there definitely are, the issue is the contract is a two party contract.

Quote:

I'd like to add that even if "AmigaOne Partners" regroup the rights and responsibilities both Hyperion and Eyetech have in common toward AInc., AmigaOne Partners is not a legal entity that can be sued and fully assumed solely by either Hyperion or Eyetech.

I'd agree they cant be sued as a legal entity, the regroup of rights is a little bit more in limbo in the situation as Bernd pointd out earlier.
-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: @Tigger Quote: I said then as I am saying now, that Eyetech can't cause problems (for Itec) No that's not what you said then. Let me quote you more time... "No actually on April 23, 2003, AI(W) sold the rights to the classic OS to Itec. " Then in the same paragraph you say...."So the only one we dont know about is Eyetech, so unless Eyetech comes forward and shows good reason that they did not want the transfer to Itec, and oppose it, this should be a non-issue." So as long as that good ol' "3rd" party stays away should be a non-issue. Huh??? Oh, So I guess Eyetech COULD cause problems for Itec. But you just said that they couldn't, but you said they could, but you said you said they couldn't.... oh I'm getting dizzy again!!!

No, they cant cause problems for Itec, they could cause problems for Hyperion. And understand that now we know there was not a transfer of the 2001 contract to Itec, it really doesnt matter. Does that make you less dizzy?


Quote:

Quote: I in fact pointed out that if they showed up its much more likely they would be there to help AI not Hyperion No that's not what you said either. Let quote one more time... "we dont know that Eyetech approved it (but we dont know that they didnt) and if thats an issue, its an issue for both Hyperion and AI" It's an issue for BOTH Hyperion and AI?? But you claimed just now you said it would help AI? Oh I suppose by "it's an issue for them both" you mean it's an issue of "HELP" for both AI and Hyperion?? But how can offer a claim of help for Hyperion? You hate Hyperion? Oh my stomach.... Dizzy, so so dizzy...

Eyetech likes AI more then they like Hyperion. If Eyetech shows up, it would likely be to help bury Hyperion as I have pointed out before. If Itec had bought the 2001 contract (which we now know they did not), then Eyetech would possibly have legal recourse against both AI and Hyperion, thats true, I believed that then, and would still believe that IF Itec had bought the 2001 contract. Now that we know they didnt buy it, then the only company that Eyetech could bring suit against in the 2003 contract is Hyperion, who is the only company to sign both the 2001 and 2003 contracts.
-Tig

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

@Kronos

$50 to $100 per unit is a wide variance. Its a decent guess that that is the range I would think, but umisef seemed to be speaking as if he knew for sure the numbers so I am curious about that since he said he knew their revenue numbers closely match what he has paid in rent for the past six years. Where I come from there is a big difference between $50,000 and $100,000.

$833 a month rent (or something in such a ballpark) for even a small studio apt. is simply not something seen where I am, hence why I said he most likely in my mind is paying very cheap rent then. Its not even seen in very bad areas near where I am.

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Because AI only owns the OS 4 if they pay 25K,

Tig, you're confusing me.
Which AI are you talking about - AI(W/AMINO) or AI(D/KMOS)?

[/quote]

Amino (in fact I really think we should call the companies Amino and KMOS to stop the confusion between the two. KMOS didnt even exist at this point.

Amino gave/sold/lent the ability to buy the remainder of the OS from Hyperion to Itec as part of the first secured creditor document. Hyperion came looking for 25K, Amino said go talk to Itec, Hyperion went to Itec, Itec said ok, they signed the 2003 contract and paid Hyperion over 20K.


Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... 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.

Its getting even worse - do I have to read it this way:

[/quote]
No, read it like I wrote it above.

Itec gets the rights to buy the OS from Amino, Hyperion is about to go bankrupt, so Itec ponies up money for the buyback. In october of 2003, they sell the 2003 contract to KMOS (ie the undelivered OS 4) and eventually KMOS makes the big buy in 2004 and gets all of the trademarks, contracts, etc from Amino.
-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: They can't sue on behalf of Eyetech, but they can sign contracts on behalf of Eyetech?

If Hyperions case were Eyetech and us didnt approve the transfer, a judge might let it go through because of them being two companies on the same party of the contract.. HOWEVER Hyperions story is that we approved the transfer but Eyetech didnt so the contract needs to be null and void because we are hurting our partners rights. Thats the issue thats going to come up. They arent only speaking for there partner, they are saying that the partners disagreed 4 years ago, Hyperion signed the contract anyway and now they want the judge to throw a contract they signed with an unrelated party (Itec) because they claim (no proof shown to date) that there partner actually has an issue with the 2003 contract or a transfer of the 2001 contract or anything else. You understand how allowing that would lead to huge problems in the court of law. I could name you my partner and whenever I didnt like a later contract I signed, I'd just say my Partner Dandy didnt agree to selling the car for that price, so I want the car back, whenever a deal didnt work out the way I wanted it to.
-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: Didn't you say just a few posts earlier that the contract wasn't sold?

No I said the 2001 contract wasnt sold to Itec, that appears to be true now. In actuality both contracts have been sold. The 2003 contract was sold to KMOS in 2003 and the 2001 contract was sold to KMOS in 2004. The key point we now know is that the 2001 contract wasnt ever sold to Itec, it went directly from Amino to KMOS.
-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: @Kronos $50 to $100 per unit is a wide variance. Its a decent guess that that is the range I would think, but umisef seemed to be speaking as if he knew for sure the numbers so I am curious about that since he said he knew their revenue numbers closely match what he has paid in rent for the past six years. Where I come from there is a big difference between $50,000 and $100,000.

Evert quotes the dollars per unit they were paid in his testimony as 55 Euro per unit, so 55,000 Euros or so, that much more then I've paid on my mortgage for the last 6 years, not counting the tax rebates, which drives it even lower.

Quote:

$833 a month rent (or something in such a ballpark) for even a small studio apt. is simply not something seen where I am, hence why I said he most likely in my mind is paying very cheap rent then. Its not even seen in very bad areas near where I am.

Yeah but you live in NY, thats over a 100 more a month then my mortgage for my 3000 sqft house on a 1.25 acre lot, so I'm not sure we should use prices for one of the most expensive areas in the US (ie New York) to say Bernd is wrong about the that number being what he has paid for his rent for the last 6 years, especially since its more then I've paid for my Mortgage in that same period.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

No I said the 2001 contract wasnt sold to Itec, that appears to be true now. In actuality both contracts have been sold. The 2003 contract was sold to KMOS in 2003 and the 2001 contract was sold to KMOS in 2004. The key point we now know is that the 2001 contract wasnt ever sold to Itec, it went directly from Amino to KMOS. -Tig.

Amiga(D) vs Hyperion .PDF no 4 page 60.

Comment on these Emails please.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Amiga(D) vs Hyperion .PDF no 4 page 60. Comment on these Emails please.

Its about Itec buying the OS from Hyperion per the 2003 agreement they will be signing on April 24, 2003 (20 days or so from when this email occurred). What else would you like me to comment on?
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 19-Nov-2007 at 05:45 PM.

_________________
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] Yeah but you live in NY, thats over a 100 more a month then my mortgage for my 3000 sqft house on a 1.25 acre lot, so I'm not sure we should use prices for one of the most expensive areas in the US (ie New York) to say Bernd is wrong about the that number being what he has paid for his rent for the last 6 years, especially since its more then I've paid for my Mortgage in that same period. -Tig

I didn't say it was wrong, I asked how he knew his rent number was close to Hyperion's revenue number over the same period. I think you've answered that now (his likely source for Hyperion's revenue from OS4). I seperately said he is likely paying cheap rent then. Which it would seem he is. Just like you have a cheap mortgage. Yes thats in terms of the perspective of a New Yorker. From someone living in some other country your mortgage may be considered huge and NY's average astronomical. Its all relative, it was not to say Bernd was wrong in any way. That should have been pretty clear. What I simply asked was how he knew the revenue numbers closely enough to make the statement he did. Again I am guessing you have probably named the proper source. Thanks. lol

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 19-Nov-2007 at 05:55 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 19-Nov-2007 at 05:46 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

No the grouping is very important (in US law) to point us to being a two party contract we even have a name for the second party which is the AmigaOne partners.

Not exactly.
Under Article I of the 2001 Agreement, "Amiga One Partners" is defined as "Hyperion and Eyetech collectively".
That means that when reading the contract, you can replace each occurence of "Amiga One Partners" by "Hyperion and Eyetech". Nothing else.

In the end, whether we call it a two parties contract or a three parties contract, the liabilities of the companies involved are the same.

@Tigger

Quote:

Its about Itec buying the OS from Hyperion per the 2003 agreement they will be signing on April 24, 2003 (20 days or so from when this email occurred). What else would you like me to comment on? -Tig.

McEwan from Amiga.com "Take back Owernership of the Product".

Pentii from ITEC " Invest another 20,0000 in buying for ITEC LLC"

Looks like Amiga (W) was trying to buy back OS 4.0 for Amiga(W) with funds from ITEC.

Pentii seemed to have other ideas as to who the OS should belong to.

Maybe the power struggle theory has some merit to it. maybe this is what is unfolding as ITEC's response in Washington is going to Trash Amiga's suit.

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

@Tigger

Since you didn't respond to my previous post, let me ask again:

OK, so, according to your theory, Itec actually executed the buyin (or buyback) of the 2001 contract, without being party to the 2001 contract?

Also, what does it mean exactly, that after this the contract is still in force? That the contract still resides with AI(W) (e.g. Amino)?

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: Its about Itec buying the OS from Hyperion per the 2003 agreement they will be signing on April 24, 2003 (20 days or so from when this email occurred). What else would you like me to comment on? -Tig. McEwan from Amiga.com "Take back Owernership of the Product". Pentii from ITEC " Invest another 20,0000 in buying for ITEC LLC" Looks like Amiga (W) was trying to buy back OS 4.0 for Amiga(W) with funds from ITEC. Pentii seemed to have other ideas as to who the OS should belong to. Maybe the power struggle theory has some merit to it. maybe this is what is unfolding as ITEC's response in Washington is going to Trash Amiga's suit.

The snake is so long that the head is biting the tail thinking it's another snake.
If this power struggle is true, then explain how Bill McScamen is CEO of KMOS. That just doesn't fit.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: The snake is so long that the head is biting the tail thinking it's another snake. If this power struggle is true, then explain how Bill McScamen is CEO of KMOS. That just doesn't fit.

You keep saying that, but its not true. McScamen (I love that btw) is VP of KMOS, not CEO as you keep implying. He's probably VP, because he apparently owns 10% of OS 4.0 according to the emails from PDF #4.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 19-Nov-2007 at 08:44 PM.

_________________
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: Pentii seemed to have other ideas as to who the OS should belong to. Maybe the power struggle theory has some merit to it. maybe this is what is unfolding as ITEC's response in Washington is going to Trash Amiga's suit.

Everyone but Hyperion agrees that KMOS (ie AI(D)) are the owners of OS 4.0, so I'm not sure why you think anything Itec is doing is going to trash KMOS's lawsuit.
-Tig

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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: @Tigger Since you didn't respond to my previous post, let me ask again: OK, so, according to your theory, Itec actually executed the buyin (or buyback) of the 2001 contract, without being party to the 2001 contract?

Itec says they did not buy the 2001 contract, Hyperion carried out the 2003 contract with Itec that does not say Itec is the successor of AI. Technically saying they carried out the buyout without being a party of the contract isnt correct, but the theory is correct, and I did respond twice now to this question. Its not alot different then if AI had sent them 25K and then handed the rights to it over to Itec. The reason it didnt happen that way in all likelyhood is that Itec wanted to be sure they actually got something for the 25K, since the had already invested 100s of 1000s of dollars in AI for basically nothing.

Quote:

Also, what does it mean exactly, that after this the contract is still in force? That the contract still resides with AI(W) (e.g. Amino)?

If Itec didnt buy the contract and Amino didnt sell the contract (at that time) then yes the contract is still in force (minus the buyback clause) and Amino still owns the contract, eventually they sold it to KMOS. The problem is that what Hyperion does after selling the OS isnt really clear in the contract. Thats a problem, but it would have been a problem whether Amino, Itec or KMOS had done the buyback.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

The snake is so long that the head is biting the tail thinking it's another snake.

Are we going to see 3 teams of lawyers in the Oral arguments requested by ITEC for 30th Nov. ?

Amiga(D),Hyperion and ITEC ?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

. Everyone but Hyperion agrees that KMOS (ie AI(D)) are the owners of OS 4.0.

There is a small matter of US$250.00 outstanding that looms larger now.

Also there is no mention of McBill's 10 % of the pie..

Last edited by Spectre660 on 19-Nov-2007 at 09:34 PM.

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