@all

When you have a special/vested interest, opinions more readily turn into "facts". Not trying to indicate any of you DO, but I see very few posts in any of these threads about the legal activity that do not have a flavor of that special/vested interest contained within.
(Feel free to all post a denial in this regard)

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

@all When you have a special/vested interest, opinions more readily turn into "facts". Not trying to indicate any of you DO, but I see very few posts in any of these threads about the legal activity that do not have a flavor of that special/vested interest contained within. (Feel free to all post a denial in this regard) #6

I submit myself for your scrutiny.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 07-Nov-2007 at 10:16 PM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 07-Nov-2007 at 10:16 PM.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

I submit myself for your scrutiny.

Heh! No, I don't have the slightest intention of trying to connect the dots in that way. I'm really just attempting to prompt people to take a close look at themselves here. Special interest can even relate to a slant based on how one feels they were treated in the past by one party or another. It can even be colored by a perceived "successful" direction one believes any in the triad could have taken...and did not.
For the record, I am as guilty as the next man in this regard, due my relationship with the exceptional individuals I have come to understand and admire, that all have tried so hard to make a success out of this quagmire.
When I hear their stories, I can not help but have a bit of that frustration,
sadness, anger etc. become a part of my own personna, thereby coloring my own posts.

#6

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

@number6

I have nothing against Hyperion. I certainly have spoken out far more in the past against AInc actions. I still don't see why Hyperion should win this case. I stll see it as a sub that wants to renig on a contract and grab some else's ip. As much as I would like to see AInc and Bill Mc get "what they deserve", I can't say I want Hyperion to win. They have been just as dishonest in this mess as AInc. The "insolvency" and "lack of sources" defences look like a criminal using a technicality to get off. They may win in court but be wrong. Someone convince me other wise.

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @all When you have a special/vested interest, opinions more readily turn into "facts". Not trying to indicate any of you DO, but I see very few posts in any of these threads about the legal activity that do not have a flavor of that special/vested interest contained within. (Feel free to all post a denial in this regard)

You like to throw this out often, but gloss over the fact you started this thread which you knew would start discussion about the court cases. I think it funny that the two people posting here who are owed the most money by Amiga, have done the most business with them, and really like them the least (myself and umisef) are the ones who are most vocal that AI likely will win. We're also likely the two most experienced with regard to software contracts. Spectre likes to go on and on about 10-0, without thinking that gee, that means Tigger predicted AI would lose 10 times, because thats how thats gone down so far. The man most likely to get me quit developing for AROS (ie FLFB) thnks this is all about my personal comments about Ben. Ben's written the 3 worst contracts I have ever seen, noone here with any kind of legal knowledge should be able to say that 2001 contract is really good, or the Thendic contract or the Friedens contract. Lots of the reason we have the current lawsuits is the bad contracts written by Ben Herman but that isn't why I think Hyperion will lose. Hyperion is going to lose because they took money and didnt provide a product and thats all AI needs to cancel the contract and get everything back in house. Back in 2003, they should have shipped code to AI and then 6 months later they would have got the perpetual license, because AI couldnt have make 4.1 in 6 months to save there life at that time, but they didnt, they've given AI alot of rope they can use to hang Hyperion and at the end of the day, AI will end up with everything and Hyperion will end up with big lawyer bills.
-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: You really are reading way more into this then you should. I think not.

I think so, gee this is fun.

Quote:

What are you getting out of this?

Relaxation, except when you post.
-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: The judge will look at 7.02 and say you cant accrue costs for the other party and that goes away, in addition once they signed the 2003 contract any chance to get the funds back from acquiring the source code basically went away. The 90K number has nothing to do with what it cost to get source code, you do understand where the 90K number came from right? As usual we have different views of things........... I am very comfortable with the way I see things.(Hyperion victories........)

Is that your way of saying you don't know where the 90K comes from and you dont understand section 7.02?
-Tig

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

@stew

On the evidence presented, it is possible to take that view (that Hyperion et al are trying to steal the AmigaOS IP). However, if you look at it from their point of view, they are merely trying to hang onto "new" IP that Hyperion et al have generated in the form of fresh code.

The Hyperion developers (myself included) don't see their work as derived from the old AmigaOS 68k assembler code, but as written from scratch in a different language. To them, any attempt to take over the resulting software would be stealing their work.

After all, do we consider every program on Aminet or OS4Depot that uses the OS4 #includes or documentation to be a derivative of Hyperion's or Amiga's IP? If that were the case, then every MorphOS or AROS program that ever used the old #includes is suspect. Should that be the same for all the new OS4 system software that has been written?

Frankly, I wouldn't be offended if someone got hold of my sources from the cvs and rewrote one of my programs in a different language for another platform. I would be offended if (s)he used one or more of my source files directly, but not by a rewrite.

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Quote: First of all the reason they only paid $24750 is because Hyperion LIED on the receipt, they sent them $22250 and Hyperion wrote a recipt for $22500, they then paid the $2500 and believed they paid in full. I know that you have these strong feelings towards Hyperion, but as far as the court case is concerned they didn't lie, both parties admitted that they made a mistake.

They backdated a receipt for the wrong amount, you guys might think lie is too strong a word, but its accurate.

Quote:

Of course all of that falls apart, because these chunks of money were paid by different companies. Itec paid the first amount, which even if it was a full sum of $25k would not have been adequate since there were still some outstanding payments due to Hyperion, which the contract specifically states must be paid before the buyin can be made. IIRC the money owed was around $6000, therefore Itec should have paid over $31k. Then of course we now know that Itec are not a lawful owner of the 2001 contract that they claimed to be, which means they don't have the right to the code anyway.

First of all it doesnt matter at all that different companies paid the money, never has in the US, never will. If Itec paid for the code and Hyperion didnt think they had the right to it, then they should have returned the money or delivered the code to AI(W) and had them transfer the code to Itec, what they can't do (but what they did) is keep the money and even ask for more.

Quote:

Then there were the $7200 and $8850 paid by KMOS (Amiga Delaware), which is a different company, and they are definitely not the successor of Itec, which means they would have had to pay the $25k sum in full, if they were the lawful owner of the 2001 contract.

Not at all, every dollar adds up to the total amount, as I said above if Hyperion doesnt believe that KMOS is the successor, then they needed to return the money or deliver the software to AI, not keep the money (and remember they asked for those sums so at that time they considered them the successor) its only after the cancellation of the contract that this ludicrous, there is no successors we own the IP tactic has come out, if KMOS isnt a successor, then Itec, if Itec isnt a successor then the contract is still owned by Amino, and they still have been paid and they still have to deliver the OS. But, due to laches, this entire line of thinking won't occur, KMOS will be seen as the successor and it will all be over.

Quote:

Amiga Delaware, the company who sued Hyperion in Washington, certainly have not paid anywhere near $65k to Hyperion, from the court documents it seems that they paid $7200 and $8850, and Hyperion claim that those were not for the $25 buyin, but for other unrelated debts.

We have a letter from AI's lawyer about the 8850 which strongly disputes that its for other costs,

Quote:

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the contract does it say that Hyperion have any responsibilities with regards to hardware development...

Hyperion picked there hardware partner, its not AI's fault that they went away and only sold a total of less then 1000 units, to prove damages for the coupons as they are claiming, they need to prove that and they can't.
-Tig

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

@tonyw

Thanks for the responce from the developer point of view. I guess I read so much news that takes the infringement side it has tainted my view.

@COBRA

Quote:

As I pointed out, it's not really an issue if Hyperion knew about the party pack

Yes, you can point that out all you want. However, you pointing things out will not change the fact that *if* the party packs would be considered a breach (let's assume for now they would), then (a) Hyperion *knew* about that breach when they signed the 2001 contract, (b) Hyperion knew about that breach when they confirmed the buy-back amount in 2003 to who they supposedly considered the legitimate successor-in-rights to the 2001 contract, (c) at both times, they chose not to bring it up, and (d) there is no possible way in which Amiga could cure the breach.

Yet, according to you, Hyperion's behaviour does not constitute a waiver. According to you, getting McBill to sign this Hyperion-drafted contract not only trapped Amiga Inc in a position where they are immediately in an uncurable breach, but it also allows Hyperion to somehow claim 6 years later that the money AI collected from those pre-contract activities should for some bizarre reason be handed to Hyperion (who have not provided any of the benefit the customers are owed, and expressly disavowed any obligation to provide said benefits). And don't tell me about how AI(W) disappeared --- not only were they around for three years after the contract; But also at the time they actually *did* disappear, Hyperion was perfectly happy to treat Itec/KMOS/AI(D) as the successor to the rights and obligations.

Quote:

The $24,750 was paid by Itec back in 2003, was it not? After that the only time Itec paid was in 2007 before starting the NY suit, which was returned.

Itec (through various agents) paid $24.750. Itec then transferred all its rights and obligations to KMOS, a transfer which Hyperion publicly acknowledged and welcomed. KMOS then paid further amounts. *All* of those amounts are still held by Hyperion, despite Hyperion saying that the buy-back could not possibly have been exercised, and even if it could have, then not by those companies. So why haven't they returned the money?

Quote:

They confirmed the receipt of a certain amount of money. They didn't say that this amount settles the outstanding debts and satisfies the conditions for the buyin.

They confirmed the receipt of a certain amount of money FOR THE BUY-BACK CLAUSE. If, as they say, they buy-back can't happen, then how do they justify hanging on to the money? This money was *confirmed* not to be for other outstanding debts, by Hyperion's accountants. And yet, four-and-a-half years later, Hyperion has both the money and the goods, and Itec has nothing. And you really think Hyperion is the victim here?


Please understand that I have neither love nor sympathy for AI, nor do I believe that things like the coupon scam and the party packs were legal, or that the shell game was kosher, or that Bolton should go unpaid; However, whether or not AI has defrauded a large number of people and has defaulted on their debts is irrelevant regarding their contract with the AmigaOne partners, and that contract is what both Washington cases are about.

Last edited by umisef on 08-Nov-2007 at 12:11 AM.

@stew

Quote:

I wonder why Hyperion signed a contract in which they could be bought out for 25,000 no matter their costs for development (Ben's own words),

His words in essence on ANN yes. Is it the way the contract reads? Thats the big debate. The judge last called it a "buy-in" like Hyperion's lawyer. This will come down to how the judge and/or jury interprets the contract and perhaps communications between the involved parties I would think. But Ben's words to the public on an open internet page I doubt would ever be considered. Amiga best hope that the judge starts thinking of it as a "buy-out" instead in the future.

Quote:

but it does not seem that they should be allowed to get away with this, as they knew the buy back (again Ben's own wording) was a distinct and quite probable outcome from the start.

What we have here it would seem is two companies, both with questionable morality (because of various issues over the years). Ben's words to the public again mean nothing, what the contract says and how the judge will interpret it is what matters. Like you said, why would anyone in Hyperion's position sign such a document as described in public by Ben? The bottom line is that the language in the contract is enough for there to be a case to argue over the sublities in the clause.

Quote:

I can be (and more often than not am) wrong, so can you explain why I should be supportive of Hyperion over AInc in this. It looks to me like a subcontractor trying to grab someone else's ip. No need to bring up the evil past of AInc (Bolton, coupon scam ect..) but just the reasoning on the legal case.

I don't think you should necessarily be supportive of either side. But for the sake of discussion you seem to be deciding against Hyperion based on Ben's public forum posts rather than your intepretation of the actual contract. Since it seems doubtful anyone in Hyperion's place would sign something based on how Ben described it to the public it would seem, like the judge we need to rely on how each of us reads the contract, forget Ben's "own words" on forum posts especially since you already show you don't want to decide this on morality (since you say forget Bolton, forget the coupons). It would not the first time the Amiga community was fed misinformation by an Amiga related firm.

Decide on how you read the contract who should win. I personally read it more along the lines of Hyperion's legal argument, plus I don't see any way in hell they won't give the community the products it wants. To me they are the lesser of two evils, which I have said a number of times before.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 12:19 AM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Is that your way of saying you don't know where the 90K comes from and you dont understand section 7.02? -Tig

No it is not.

I belive that Hyperions laywer sees section 4.01-4.06 as being unrelated to 7.02

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Ben's written the 3 worst contracts I have ever seen

I'd love to show you the constitution and the shareholders' deed for my current employer, but alas, for now confidentiality clauses forbid it. Let's just say that being 10 times the size of the OS4 contract just means they are 100 times more likely to be inconsistent and self-contradictory. Oh, it's also why the company has always been in a complete management mess, with threats of lawsuits flying around all the time, and lawyers being kept busy.

@Tigger

do you know when the 60 days for Itec to respond in the Washington case ends ?
I thought that it should have been by between today 7th-10Nov.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback I think so, gee this is fun. Quote: What are you getting out of this? Relaxation, except when you post. -Tig

Well if yelling about how Hyperion "LIED" and endlessly going around in circles is how you achieve zen and relaxation, then keep it up!

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 08-Nov-2007 at 12:24 AM.

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

@number6

It's still amazing to me how much time and energy goes into this armchair lawyering. Only the judge's/jury's opinions matter in any of this, and no amount of document scutinizing and arguing by IANALs makes a bit of difference. Why anyone in this Greek chorus is trying (and trying and trying) to . . . uh, what, exactly? . . . is really beyond me. I hope it's intrinsically fun; I don't see much value otherwise.

-- gary_c

_________________
zukakakina.com - themes.tikiwiki.org

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: Is that your way of saying you don't know where the 90K comes from and you dont understand section 7.02? -Tig No it is not. I belive that Hyperions laywer sees section 4.01-4.06 as being unrelated to 7.02

Since it doesnt explicitly say that, Hyperions lawyer would be wrong. So where does the 90K number come from in your opinion?
-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 do you know when the 60 days for Itec to respond in the Washington case ends ? I thought that it should have been by between today 7th-10Nov.

Its a district court, so I count it as Nov 14th, though there is probably a day or two leeway based on when they were actually served vs when the summons was issued. I would guess we will see there plea to remove themselves from the case by next friday (16th), though it might not make it till after the holidays after that we have 4 weeks till the pleadings for the counterclaim, which is either Dec 14th or 21st (and since they are closed the 21st) that would push us into January before we have the hearing about item #50. This thing is liable to be a year old before we pick a jury. Because in actuality unless Itec comes forward and says yeah we want to be part of the trial, we are going to have a response requesting they not be added, then likely a response from Hyperion against there comments, then there response, then the judge will rule and all that has to happen before we can start the 4 friday countdown to the pleadings on docket #50.
-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: @stew Quote: I wonder why Hyperion signed a contract in which they could be bought out for 25,000 no matter their costs for development (Ben's own words), His words in essence on ANN yes. Is it the way the contract reads? Thats the big debate. The judge last called it a "buy-in" like Hyperion's lawyer. This will come down to how the judge and/or jury interprets the contract and perhaps communications between the involved parties I would think. But Ben's words to the public on an open internet page I doubt would ever be considered. Amiga best hope that the judge starts thinking of it as a "buy-out" instead in the future.

Honestly I'm not sure how you can be serious and say you read it as a buyin. The language is not vague. Its says

"..Hyperion shall transfer all Source Code, interest and title in OS 4.0 to Amiga.."

what in the above makes you think its a buyin?
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 08-Nov-2007 at 02:42 AM.

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