@Tigger

Quote:

But that is true so Garry wasnt confused at all.

But, in that case, then please explain why a CEO for KMOS, given the right and discharged with the duty to work with the OS asset, has his decisions overriden by Bill McEwen, given that Garry said that Bill was neither an employee or a shareholder in KMOS.
In other words..who was really running KMOS?

#6

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

@Tigger

Quote:

3) Hyperion has been paid in excess of 25K for the buyback and has not yet delivered the code, we want the code and the extra money back.

Look at pdf no 4. page 61.

The infamous backdated receipt.

it says payment pursuant to article 3.01 of the agreement of 03November 2001 between Amiga, Eyetech and Hyperion .

To bad Itec did not tell Hyperion that the reason for that payment was was not correct then. They never said" we did not subscribe to the contract of 2001. This is a seprate deal"

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @Tigger Quote: But that is true so Garry wasnt confused at all. But, in that case, then please explain why a CEO for KMOS, given the right and discharged with the duty to work with the OS asset, has his decisions overriden by Bill McEwen, given that Garry said that Bill was neither an employee or a shareholder in KMOS. In other words..who was really running KMOS?

I have no idea what you are talking about. But as for who was running the company, probably the Owner not the CEO.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

An example of a deal approved by Garry Hare and killed by Bill McEwen:
Senex quote:
Quote:

Yes, we were interested in licensing the name and OS4, yes we were ready to pay for it, yes we came to agreements with the respective parties - but right when the only thing left had just been to sign and transfer the money, surprisingly Mr. McEwen stepped in with sudden demands and restrictions

Quote:

But as for who was running the company, probably the Owner not the CEO.

ok. Then you are saying Bill stepped in to kill this on behalf of Pentti?

#6

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Look at pdf no 4. page 61. The infamous backdated receipt. it says payment pursuant to article 3.01 of the agreement of 03November 2001 between Amiga, Eyetech and Hyperion . To bad Itec did not tell Hyperion that the reason for that payment was was not correct then. They never said" we did not subscribe to the contract of 2001. This is a seprate deal"

I'd throw back that that by implying that, Hyperion is saying they agreed that Itec was the successor long after they knew about McEwens testimony about AI's lack of funds and unwillingness to pay its bills which of course they have claimed is untrue. The more likely answer is that there accountant (whos not an employee) put a different reference then they should have to be completely accurate.
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: ok. Then you are saying Bill stepped in to kill this on behalf of Pentti?

Are you sure Garry was still there when this occurred (is this the settop box?), from Garry's lawsuit you can see he wasnt there very long also do we know for sure Garry knew this occurred if he was still there? Also I'd like to point out we only have Senex's side of the story, and Garry isnt against telling a half truth every once in awhile, his version of the Amiga Inc (Amino) business card story is not really that accurate except when he admits he gave out that cards at the show.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 10-Nov-2007 at 01:54 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Are you sure Garry was still there when this occurred (is this the settop box?), from Garry's lawsuit you can see he wasnt there very long also do we know for sure Garry knew this occurred if he was still there?

Yes. The deal was made with Garry. Rogue has also posted to clarify the difference in terminology and to be sure people understood correctly the direct reference to Bill McEwen cancelling this deal and not some other entity.
Beyond that, the company made it clear they wanted to move on and not dwell on this. So please understand, this is only my statement, and not any wish on behalf of AHT to bring this issue up.
I only do this to further my own understanding of events.

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: Yes. The deal was made with Garry. Rogue has also posted to clarify the difference in terminology and to be sure people understood correctly the direct reference to Bill McEwen cancelling this deal and not some other entity.

I understand Garry made the deal, thats not my point, my point was Garry still CEO of Amiga Inc when it was cancelled. If you have read the court documents about Garry being quitting, it just happened one day when Kouri was about to demote him. So for example we could have had this scenario.

1) Garry works out deal
2) Garry quits instead of being fired because he gets paid more that way
3) McEwen nixes the deal

In fact given this was the settop box, I'd almost be willing to bet thats what happened, because of how McEwen sees the world vs how Garry sees the world.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I'd throw back that that by implying that, Hyperion is saying they agreed that Itec was the successor long after they knew about McEwens testimony about AI's lack of funds and unwillingness to pay its bills which of course they have claimed is untrue. The more likely answer is that there accountant (whos not an employee) put a different reference then they should have to be completely accurate. -Tig.

Hyperion knew that some other entity would be taking over.
The email form Ben Herman's asked to which entity to make the reciept and
also which year to make it in, backdated to the end of the year gone (2003) or the current year (2004).

The issue is if it was being done as part of the 2001 contract assignment and Buyback clauses or a plain purchase as ITEC claim.

The problem is that the OS4 contract cannot be sold without keeping the assignment provisions.(armchair lawyer view)
If this was done then both Hyperion and Itec would have damaged Amiga(W) and Amiga(W) would have grounds to sue both of them. (armchair lawyer view)

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

@Tigger

Tig this is a good and safe time to change your predictions if you want to.
The Itec reply has scuttled the whole AMIGA side of things.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: The problem is that the OS4 contract cannot be sold without keeping the assignment provisions.(armchair lawyer view) If this was done then both Hyperion and Itec would have damaged Amiga(W) and Amiga(W) would have grounds to sue both of them. (armchair lawyer view)

That would be true, except for the fact that AI suggested Hyperion sell the OS to Itec, so they cant be held responsible for hurting AI(W) when they do what AI asks them too. Also it makes how the April 23 and April 24 event happens much easier then Ben getting his docs done and signed in just a few hours.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Entilzha in response to Gary_C quote:

@gary_c

Quote:

I don't see any cause of the negotiations breaking down other than Bill McEwen's last-minute demands that were unacceptable.

Entilzha:
That's exactly what I mean.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have -never- heard a reference to any other reason for this deal failing to proceed than what I have read from all the principal parties.
That includes those -other- than those I have already mentioned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

In fact given this was the settop box, I'd almost be willing to bet thats what happened, because of how McEwen sees the world vs how Garry sees the world.

Not turning a profit vs turning a profit? Heh!

#6

Last edited by number6 on 10-Nov-2007 at 02:33 PM.
Last edited by number6 on 10-Nov-2007 at 02:18 PM.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Tig this is a good and safe time to change your predictions if you want to. The Itec reply has scuttled the whole AMIGA side of things.

Not sure I need to do this, its pretty much going how I thought it would.

1) I believed Itec would prove they dont need to be joined.
I think they did a pretty good job of doing that

2) Itec would win in New York and that it only was going to cover the 2003 contract.
So far I think the documents support that theory which means Itec and thus KMOS will have the OS.

3) The cancellation of the contract will be upheld because Hyperion didnt do enough to stop it.
I was sure we would have seen by now documents from Ben and the Hyperion lawyers from back in 2006 where they objected to the cancellation of the contract, we havent seen them which is likely to hurt there case in the upcoming hearings. This is the one I thought I would be wrong on, but so far not a shred of evidence that Hyperion tried the moderation asked for an extension,etc. I posted earlier they could have delayed the contract cancellation for months just by asking for it basically and yet they apparently did nothing, or they at least not claimed to have done anything which is very strange. In fact looking back at the response, I dont think Hyperion has objected to the cancellation of the contract, or am I mssing it this early in the morning?

4) Due to #3, AI will win on the merits of the case. AI owns the trademarks, they've proven that, since late December of 2006, Hyperion has not had the right to use them and everyone here knows they've done it.
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @Tigger Entilzha in response to Gary_C quote: @gary_c Quote: I don't see any cause of the negotiations breaking down other than Bill McEwen's last-minute demands that were unacceptable. Entilzha: That's exactly what I mean. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have -never- heard a reference to any other reason for this deal failing to proceed than what I have read from all the principal parties. That includes those -other- than those I have already mentioned.

Except you keep missing the point. I'm not arguing about what people said, I want to know when Bill canceled the deal, because I think it would be interesting to know if thats when Garry left the company. You just keep saying Bill canceled a deal Garry was working, so far I am not arguing that point, I just want to know when it happened on the calendar so we can compare that to when Garry actually left the company (vs when we heard about it months later) so we can see if the reason Bill was making the decisions is because Garry wasn't there anymore.
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: Quote: In fact given this was the settop box, I'd almost be willing to bet thats what happened, because of how McEwen sees the world vs how Garry sees the world. Not turning a profit vs turning a profit? Heh!

No, how they view licensing. McEwen thinks they are Sony (see the Gateway 2000 show) and Garry is of course one of the old CD-I hands (which is where I know him from). Thats two different licensing ideas and its one of the reasons settop boxes never interest McEwen.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Except you keep missing the point.

No Bill. I understand your point completely, as well as how you would find this interesting. I'm not trying to be evasive in answering that specific. It is just NOT my place to do so. Posting public information means one thing to me, posting private information quite another.
afaik, there are only two parties who -might- be willing to answer your direct question, and I have my doubts whether they see it in their best interest to do so.

Quote:

No, how they view licensing. McEwen thinks they are Sony (see the Gateway 2000 show) and Garry is of course one of the old CD-I hands (which is where I know him from). Thats two different licensing ideas and its one of the reasons settop boxes never interest McEwen.

Yes. And Mehdi Ali had some unusual ideas re:licensing as well.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 10-Nov-2007 at 02:48 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You realize ...

And you realize of course, that I did not ask for your opinion, right?

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: No Bill. I understand your point completely, as well as how you would find this interesting. I'm not trying to be evasive in answering that specific. It is just NOT my place to do so. Posting public information means one thing to me, posting private information quite another. afaik, there are only two parties who -might- be willing to answer your direct question, and I have my doubts whether they see it in their best interest to do so.

Yes actually you are being evasive. You are arguing that McEwen overrode Garry Hares decision when he was CEO, instead yes, no or I dont know if Garry was still there thats an interesting point, you start quoting about the contract again, so yes you were being evasive and basically for no reason. If you know the answer and can't give it then you shouldnt have brought it up, its funny that you can provide lots of info about the deal until a question comes up about when it happened and then that particular bit of info was classified, really think they month the deal was cancelled is that secret. I'll bet if I wanted to spend a few hours looking for it, I could find it on the web, its not like it hasnt been talked about before. Given the things I know that Bill did in the two weeks after Garry tendered his resignation, this is remarkably similar to those events and until someone mans up and says Garry was still there, I'm going to guess he wasnt or at least didnt know what McEwen had done.
-Tig

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

@Sneaky

Quote:

Sneaky wrote: @Tigger Quote: You realize ... And you realize of course, that I did not ask for your opinion, right?

You realize you post on the board you are going to get answers even some you dont like right my friend who just happened to find the board on the date Hyperion found out the lawsuit was happening.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Given the things I know that Bill did in the two weeks after Garry tendered his resignation, this is remarkably similar to those events and until someone mans up and says Garry was still there, I'm going to guess he wasnt or at least didnt know what McEwen had done.

Posted May 22, 2005 on AW and indicates the deal was well over at this point.
Quote:

Perhaps you should have a word with AHT (Senex), since they successfully managed to have unsuccessful negotiations with AI.

Added:
Posted March 25, 2005 on AW and indicates the deal was well over at this even earlier point.
Quote:

Amiga Inc did not give AHT a license for OS4 - This is a completely true statement.

Posted October 20, 2005 on AW. Perhaps you have the actual date?
Quote:

Several months ago I terminated my association with Amiga, Inc. I am no longer affiliated with Amiga in any capacity.

Added:
Posted March 20, 2005 on AW was:
Quote:

Q&A IRC Session with KMOS CEO Garry Hare

So, yes. I would conclude from the above that Garry Hare was CEO at the time the deal was overridden by Bill McEwen.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 10-Nov-2007 at 06:03 PM.
Last edited by number6 on 10-Nov-2007 at 05:44 PM.

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