@Tigger


I am sure the following from Itec's own complaint in New York will get Itec Joined in Washington.



"10. In October,2003, Itec transfered its rights to the OS4.0 to a Delaware corporation named KMOS, Inc. A true copy of the transfer agreement between Itec and KMOS is annexed hereto as Exhibit E.

11. Itec understood that Hyperion consented to this transfer of rights and that it had agreed to treat KMOS (nk/a Amiga,Inc) as its contract partner with respect thereoto."

Last edited by Spectre660 on 12-Nov-2007 at 07:45 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: Tig Itec doesn't HAVE any employees. Thats a bold (and inaccurate) statement. At very least we have John Grzymala who is the corporate secretary of Itec as we've seen before and as we've seen in document #73. And John is a person Hyperion is likely to want to question on the case since he's been involved since the before the Itec contract was signed. -Tig

lol!!

John Grzymala is the only name you could come up with??

Well, since John Grzymala is a major part of Amiga Inc.'s past. ( he was their accountant, as well as Itec's and other Penti "shells") I'm sure Hyperion will probably have a lot of questions for him. Also, do not forget, for a long time the only way any one could even contact Amiga Inc, was to send mail C/O John Grzymala. John Grzymala will allready be a part of the lawsuit in Washington, so again, no burden there.

Also, Itec is a company registered in the Bahamas so since they have to get on a plane to fly to a lawsuit anyway, might as well, "lessen" the burden and have them only have to fly to ONE state, Washington, instead of two. That's nice of you Hyerpion.

Any other employees that aren't just shuffled up in the shell game and aren't really just part of the same Amiga/ITEC/KMOS shell that you can find for ITEC Tig??

I don't know why you keep playing like they are two different companies. The judge isn't going to believe it no matter HOW many times you say it in a forum. It's all the same people that own all the same IP. It's the same thing. I.E. it's the same lawsuit, they are not going to waste court time and tax money.

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 12-Nov-2007 at 09:51 PM.

_________________
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

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: Well, since John Grzymala is a major part of Amiga Inc.'s past. ( he was their accountant, as well as Itec's and other Penti "shells") I'm sure Hyperion will probably have a lot of questions for him.

I'd love to see a reference that proves that. And since he is an employee of Itec, it proves my point that there are employees past Pentti and McEwen (especially since McEwen isnt an employee of Itec).

Quote:

Also, do not forget, for a long time the only way any one could even contact Amiga Inc, was to send mail C/O John Grzymala. John Grzymala will allready be a part of the lawsuit in Washington, so again, no burden there.

Now I think you are talking about KMOS, who he may or may not have a relation too, I honestly dont know. But I cant find a reference to him being the accountant for AI(W), he's not on any list of AI(W) employees I've got, and I've got the drives from the servers, so my stuff is pretty accurate.


Quote:

Also, Itec is a company registered in the Bahamas so since they have to get on a plane to fly to a lawsuit anyway, might as well, "lessen" the burden and have them only have to fly to ONE state, Washington, instead of two. That's nice of you Hyerpion.

No, as shown in the documents Itec is a company registered in New York, which part of Itec LLC, a New York Limited Liabilty Corporation made you think they were registered in the Bahamas?

Quote:

Any other employees that aren't just shuffled up in the shell game and aren't really just part of the same Amiga/ITEC/KMOS shell that you can find for ITEC Tig??

I hate to point this out, since I started the theory (and noone believed me at the time), but given the recent documents, the original shell game theory isnt very correct and it seems much more an effort to regain control from McEwen then an effort to not pay what are pretty small bills given the amount of money we've seen thrown into the company.

Quote:

I don't know why you keep playing like they are two different companies. The judge isn't going to believe it no matter HOW many times you say it in a forum. It's all the same people that own all the same IP. It's the same thing. I.E. it's the same lawsuit, they are not going to waste court time and tax money.

The US government says they are different companies, the judge and even Hyperion has agreed they are different companies, you are the only one arguing they are the same company. If they were the same company, then Hyperion wouldnt have had to try and join them to the lawsuit.
-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 I am sure the following from Itec's own complaint in New York will get Itec Joined in Washington. "10. In October,2003, Itec transfered its rights to the OS4.0 to a Delaware corporation named KMOS, Inc. A true copy of the transfer agreement between Itec and KMOS is annexed hereto as Exhibit E. 11. Itec understood that Hyperion consented to this transfer of rights and that it had agreed to treat KMOS (nk/a Amiga,Inc) as its contract partner with respect thereoto."

Can you explain your reasoning for that? Because neither of those say Itec is part of the 2001 contract, and they were joined because Hyperion said they were claiming to be part of the contract.
-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, as shown in the documents Itec is a company registered in New York

Might as well give the link, since it's easier than searching the docs:

here.

#6

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I'd love to see a reference that proves that. And since he is an employee of Itec, it proves my point that there are employees past Pentti and McEwen (especially since McEwen isnt an employee of Itec). Now I think you are talking about KMOS, who he may or may not have a relation too, I honestly dont know. But I cant find a reference to him being the accountant for AI(W), he's not on any list of AI(W) employees I've got, and I've got the drives from the servers, so my stuff is pretty accurate.

Well, no he is an independent accountant that has worked for both AI, ITEC, and HAKAI (another Penti abortion) so no, you actually haven't found an ITEC employee. (As there aren't any)



Quote:

No, as shown in the documents Itec is a company registered in New York, which part of Itec LLC, a New York Limited Liabilty Corporation made you think they were registered in the Bahamas?

That's what Gary Harre claimed when he sued the whole gange i.e. Penti & the AI crew.
You might read this: http://gutjahr.free.fr/temp/amiga_vs_hare/show_case_doc05-11.pdf
Gare Harre says there are no employees and there never where. It's a shell. John Grzymala got mail there but wasn't an employee, there were no emlpoyees and never were.

That is basically the same thing Hyperion is trying to do. Gary wanted to sue in California. ITEC is nothing.


Quote:

I hate to point this out, since I started the theory (and noone believed me at the time), but given the recent documents, the original shell game theory isnt very correct and it seems much more an effort to regain control from McEwen then an effort to not pay what are pretty small bills given the amount of money we've seen thrown into the company.

I said in the begining that the judge is going to take into account their not coming up with a measly $25,000 for something that is SOOO important to them. And Penti shuffling it around and not really keeping track of this "cornerstone" to his business. It really looks like he didn't give two ####s about AOS4 until Hyperion went above and beyond (after Hyperion thought AI abonded it and it was theirs) and THEN Penti thought he should pay attention and get it back for his $25,000. Guess what? To late Penti :) Should pay your bills on time. And give Amiga some respect.

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 12-Nov-2007 at 11:57 PM.

_________________
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

@Tigger

Quote:

Can you explain your reasoning for that? Because neither of those say Itec is part of the 2001 contract, and they were joined because Hyperion said they were claiming to be part of the contract. -Tig

Why would ITEC care about Hyerion's consent to transfer ITEC's rights to KMOS and Hyperion's agreement to treat KMOS as it's contract partner if ITEC was not party to the 2001 agreement by assignment ?
If ITEC were not party to the 2001 agreement by assignment then Hyperion's consent would be of no interest to ITEC.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @Tigger Luck? Do you think this is a lottery? And please stop spreading FUD: Technically the rebates are for an AmigaOne or OS4 or an AmigaOne bundled with OS4. Even if thats true, and I've had people tell me its not.

Forget about those - they're lying...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: There has been no seperate OS4 sold as of today, so my point still stands.

You must somehow bwe dreaming (maybe of AIncs victory at court).

Quote:

Tigger wrote: There were 1800 coupons sold

Where did you get the figure of 1800 sold coupons from (link)?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: and so far only about 600 people have qualified to get those rebates (maybe less), giving the money for all 1800 isnt going to happen in a US court there is no precedent for it.

No no no.
All that participated in that coupon scheme payed the money way back in 2002.
I receibved an receipt about two weeks later stating that they received the money and would "send out the coupon within the next two weeks".

This did never happen - and so in itself is reason enough for any court to decide in favour of all that participated and payed the money - no matter how many you think have qualified.

_________________
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)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @Tigger I'm not thinking it's amazing that a contract can form a joint venture - I think it's amazing how you seem to think that a Joint venture can legally be formed in a subordinate clause of an entirely different contract about an entirely different matter. Did you read the article I posted about 2 party contracts?

Yes.
And this doesn't make your POV any more valid.

I work for an international acting american automotive manufacturer here in Cologne - in the department for legal and governmental affairs.

And believe me - my colleagues here know very well about "Joint Ventures".
We are experienced with that (e.g. Joint Venture with VW, Peugot, Magirus Deutz, Daimler, ... - just to name a few).

And there is nothing like a Joint venture without an contract specifically for the purpose of regulating each and every thinkable aspect of such an endeavour.
It's more like a book than a contract on some sheets of paper - and certainly such an "Joint Venture" cannot be formed in an subordinate clause of an entirely different contract about an entirely different matter.

You should take part in a lesson on international contractual rights once more if you think it can be done this way.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... If you are implying that Hyperion and Eyetech should have more formalized there relationship in another document, prior to signing this, I'd agree, ...

Aha.
And where is this contract about an Joint Venture between Hyperion and Eyetech?
It does not exist, as far as we all know.

And so Hyperion and Eyetech do not form a party or legal entity or whatsoever...
And so the contract in qusetion is an 3 party contract.

Q.E.D.

Last edited by Dandy on 13-Nov-2007 at 06:38 AM.

_________________
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)

@Tigger

Quote:

I think Itecs motion will be granted and frankly I think it should be granted. The big question is whether the judge will remove Itec from the case or throw it to New York, he probably should remove Itec but with all the drama going on, I wouldnt be that suprised if he moves it to New York.

My take on it: Considering that Itec in NY are claiming the same rights/IP (OS4) over the same 2003 contract which AInc is using to claim OS4 in Washington, in fact AInc is claiming those rights based on the money which Itec paid (since KMOS never paid $25k themselves), Itec's responose is not only ridiculous, but is a complete joke. I hope the judge has a good sense of humour. I'd be very surprised if he would change his mind about Itec being joined. This is my opinion, we'll soon find out who's right

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: Well, no he is an independent accountant that has worked for both AI, ITEC, and HAKAI (another Penti abortion) so no, you actually haven't found an ITEC employee. (As there aren't any)

He's a corporate secretary and a member of the board of directors at very least. He signs document in there name, I think naming him an independent accountant is an incorrect statement, given those facts.

Quote:

That's what Gary Harre claimed when he sued the whole gange i.e. Penti & the AI crew. You might read this: http://gutjahr.free.fr/temp/amiga_vs_hare/show_case_doc05-11.pdf Gare Harre says there are no employees and there never where. It's a shell. John Grzymala got mail there but wasn't an employee, there were no emlpoyees and never were.

Read it, no reference to the Bahamas, in fact no reference to Itec at all in that document, if you are going to point to a document to make your point, point to one that actually says something related to Itec and the Bahamas.

Quote:

That is basically the same thing Hyperion is trying to do. Gary wanted to sue in California. ITEC is nothing.

No, Garry wanted arbitration per the contract, Garry got arbitration per the contract.

Quote:

I said in the begining that the judge is going to take into account their not coming up with a measly $25,000 for something that is SOOO important to them.

He's not going to take it into account at all because:

1) They paid $250 less because Hyperion sent a receipt for $250 more then was paid
2) They paid additional money after those payments
3) Hyperion never asked for the additional funds despite numerous times where Itec or KMOS claimed to have paid in full
4) Itec offered a second $25K before 6 months had occurred.
-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: Can you explain your reasoning for that? Because neither of those say Itec is part of the 2001 contract, and they were joined because Hyperion said they were claiming to be part of the contract. -Tig Why would ITEC care about Hyerion's consent to transfer ITEC's rights to KMOS and Hyperion's agreement to treat KMOS as it's contract partner if ITEC was not party to the 2001 agreement by assignment ? If ITEC were not party to the 2001 agreement by assignment then Hyperion's consent would be of no interest to ITEC.

Yeah, that's the thing I said before that Hyperion accuses them of - acting like the true successor - when in their declaration in the NY case and in their pathetic excuse for not being joined in the Washington case, they state that they are not. Hence they drew up the 2003 Itec-Hyperion contract up on fraudulent basis.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Why would ITEC care about Hyerion's consent to transfer ITEC's rights to KMOS and Hyperion's agreement to treat KMOS as it's contract partner if ITEC was not party to the 2001 agreement by assignment ? If ITEC were not party to the 2001 agreement by assignment then Hyperion's consent would be of no interest to ITEC.

You are misunderstanding what they are talking about, they in fact explained it right before the section you are quoting. KMOS bought the OS from Itec, Itec transferred the rights to the OS (ie the 2003 contract) to KMOS so that KMOS would get the OS from Hyperion when it was finished. Hyperion in court said they didnt agree to do that, and tried to tie it to them not agreeing that Itec was the successor of the 2001 contract.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

They paid $250 less because Hyperion sent a receipt for $250 more then was paid

Now wait a minute. Itec paid $2750 less didn't they? $2500 was supposedly paid by Bill McEwen? And Itec claiming rights to OS4 partly based on that money Bill McEwen paid? But Bill is not an Itec employee? Again, showing clear connection between Itec and the Washington case, making Itec's motion to dismiss/transfer even more laughable...

@Dandy

Quote:

Tigger wrote: There has been no seperate OS4 sold as of today, so my point still stands.

You must somehow bwe dreaming (maybe of AIncs victory at court).
[/quote]

As of today, OS 4.0 has only been sold for the AmigaOne, thats a fact, why do you think I was dreaming.


Quote:

Tigger wrote: There were 1800 coupons sold

Where did you get the figure of 1800 sold coupons from (link)?
[/quote]

Thats where Hyperion got there 90K, 90K/50 = 1800, I will agree however that is the number AI has claimed over the years.


Quote:

This did never happen - and so in itself is reason enough for any court to decide in favour of all that participated and payed the money - no matter how many you think have qualified.

If you havent bought OS 4 (or other qualifying product), you aren't owed a rebate, thats commercial law 101.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You are misunderstanding what they are talking about

Its a bad habit I have.
If the judge sees it as I do then you can also
add the "confused" tag to both of us.

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

@Tigger

While my memory may be failing I don't remember this scheme being a rebate but a coupon for 50$ off the price of OS4. There is a difference between a coupon and rebate, not that it should entitel Hyperion to any of the coupon scam money. It seems to me anybody that bought OS4 got charged 50$ too much and anybody wanting to buy should get a 50$ price reduction.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: You should take part in a lesson on international contractual rights once more if you think it can be done this way.

I dont need to take a lesson in international contractual rights, this an contract executed in the US, with US law (in fact Washington State law) being it venue. Under those laws this is a two party contract between 3 entities.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... If you are implying that Hyperion and Eyetech should have more formalized there relationship in another document, prior to signing this, I'd agree, ...

And so Hyperion and Eyetech do not form a party or legal entity or whatsoever...
And so the contract in qusetion is an 3 party contract.
[/quote]

Dont have to for this to be a 2 party contract in the US Dandy, not sure how much simpler I can explain this to you.
-Tig

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

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @Tigger While my memory may be failing I don't remember this scheme being a rebate but a coupon for 50$ off the price of OS4. There is a difference between a coupon and rebate, not that it should entitel Hyperion to any of the coupon scam money. It seems to me anybody that bought OS4 got charged 50$ too much and anybody wanting to buy should get a 50$ price reduction.

None of the dealers, distributers said they would take the coupons (because they didnt think AI would pay them), so it became a rebate system where you were going to send coupon and proof of purchase to AI and they would give you your money. Because of that, at this time only about 1/3 of the coupons would actually be able to be redeemed.
-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: My take on it: Considering that Itec in NY are claiming the same rights/IP (OS4) over the same 2003 contract which AInc is using to claim OS4 in Washington, in fact AInc is claiming those rights based on the money which Itec paid (since KMOS never paid $25k themselves),

Actually they agree that AI(KMOS) owns the OS 4, they also talk about that in the court documents, the issue is that Hyperion is claiming the dont have to deliver the OS to KMOS (who bought it from Itec), so Itec is asking the court in NY to give it to them so they can deliver it personally to KMOS.
-Tig

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