@gary_c

Heres my view on your questions.

* Why Bill McEwen stated that AmigaOS was an Amiga, Inc. asset in court depositions several months after it was sold to Itek and then KMOS.

Thats not really for Mr. Hare to explain, try bill@amiga.com

* Why Fleecy Moss continued to refer to AmigaOS as if it were still owned by Amiga, Inc. for months after it was sold.

Thats not really for Mr. Hare to explain, try fleecy@amiga.com

* What threat to AmigaOS (presumeably from Genesi), which he referred to in his interview, existed prior to April 2003, that was so severe as to cause Itek and then KMOS to purchase AmigaOS away from Amiga, Inc. (Keep in mind that this is the not the winter of 2004 we're talking about, when Genesi made statements about expanding the scope of the court decision from AmigaDE to include AmigaOS as well, but the spring of 2003, when the sale that didn't become public until 11 months later was said to have taken place.)

Allready covered, simple mistake, move along.

* Why KMOS or Itek or the concerned investors in some form didn't speak up or otherwise lend assistance when Amiga, Inc. lost their legal representation during the protracted court struggle with Genesi?

Fair question, but not very interesting for me.

* Why he (Mr. Hare) referred to AmigaOS as "multiplatform" in his interview.

Thats whats it is supposed to become with time, more relevant to ask if that time has gotten any closer.

* What specific features of AmigaOS convinced KMOS that purchasing AmigaOS was the right move for his targetted market.

Fair but allready in the interview, might get more info, who knows i dont.

* What specific features of AmigaOS give the platform an advantage over the competition in his target markets.

Fair but relevant ?, that depends on what the announcement is about.

* If there is any reason to expect a flow of funds or other resources or benefits between KMOS (made possible by earnings from telecommunications market products) and Hyperion's desktop AmigaOS product development.

When there is a market of any kind, i surely expext there will be, i just fail to see the justification in this question.

/ Well, this is off the top of my head. If I reread the interview or looked back at
/ the sequence of events again, I imagine more ideas would come. These might
/ not be the kinds of questions you had in mind,

Me personally have no questions in mind, other then what i expect will be covered in the announcement, some might pop up when i have heard it.

/ but in my opinion they would lead to much more interesting answers,

More interesting ?, what you expect to find out ?.

/ if he actually answered them honestly, than the marketing fluff he's apt to
/ deliver instead.

You know Mr. Hare better then any of us ?, if not then the last qoute is totally uncalled for, just because hes involved with a company you dont trust, dosnt give you the right to call him a liar, and i would advise you to drop that kind of libel.

My rant ends here, would be nice if someone would check with Mr. Hare if theres gonna be a Q&A.

_________________

@gary_c

Shell games. Nuff said. What seems to make KMOS a conspirator that has done something morally wrong seems to be fine when it is Genesi/BPlan/Pretory playing silly little "shell games".

Ive not seen you once question, on a public forum, the ownership claims that Genesi and Pretory made about Pegasos, or the fund transfers between two subsiduaries in the Buck empire.

Get over this shell games nonsense, I mean really, the judge, if you look at the dates on the dockets, ruled AGAINST Genesis claim for AmigaOS4 BEFORE the KMOS/Amiga Inc triarchy provided a counter deposition.

It makes no difference, even if what you are insinuating is true.

I urge you to go and look at your record of spirited defense and counter accusation ( about the motivation of the poster, its credibility ) and think about the burden of proof you demand in one instance ( claims made about Genesi ) and that of the other. Maybe if you practised what you preached when someone criticises Genesi in a similar vein on a public forum and appeared to be more objective then four of the posters in this thread would not have made a similar comment about your agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I think your questions are pertinent and the answers would be useful, but they are not really answers that can be demanded by anything other than a court.

The way you construct your sentences ( shell games? ) in the main - although I notice you were careful in this thread - suggests you have already hung the witness - no other explanation is possible. This is what people react to.

Dave.