@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: You've insulted their coding skills and glorified your own when it comes to Amiga coding projects. How else should I interpret it?

I'd disagree with your analysis above, and really what you are saying now is I didnt say what you claimed I said, you just decided to string 3 things together including I'm sure Holgers comments that never seems far out of your mind.

Quote:

You're being pretty touchy when we are talking about you. But you are all fire and brimestone when it comes to them. And you have questioned why it took them so long to do stuff, its no different for others to do the same to you. Frankly I actually appreciate you doing that bounty and really don't care if it takes you 6 months. But I do find it funny how long it is taking you given all your talk in the past about other coders.

I care so little what you think we have trouble measuring it with an electron microscope. Sorry every competent software professional should question why it took over 6 years to get to the point we are now. The bounty is kind of like a contract, we'll pay you a couple of 1000 dollars to get Efika ported in 6 months, see I'm not late and thats the difference, and its not my full time job to work on it and thats another difference.

Quote:

Quote: I think everyone who is upset with me saying the judge was confused needs to explain to us why they dont think he was when he put that in his response. I have yet to see a single person who was upset that you called the judge "confused".

There are 3 of you (including yourself) that keep bringing it up. A judge points to a wrong document in his ruling, you can decide he was confused (as I did) or that he can't read (which is apparently what you did.

Quote:

Whether he misread something or not was never the point. The point was that you insisted before and oddly still insisted after that you definately are the one who is going to have the correct prediction on the outcome of this, and the judges decisions in-between, with all of your talk in absolutes.

And the court case isnt over, you guys have got this belief that because AIs lawyers did poorly during the 30 min they talked in oral about the injunction that Hyperion is going to wi this case. They aren't especially with there current line of attack.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 17-Nov-2007 at 01:49 PM.

_________________
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: @Tigger I didn't fully understand that ITEC had to pay for the OS at all, if your claim that they are the "first secured creditor" of AInc (W/Amino) is correct? I mean - if they took OS4 as compensation for the debts AInc (W/AMINO) had with them - then WHY should they pay money on top of that to somebody?

They paid Hyperion, they didnt pay AI. And its not my claim they are the first secured creditor , I'm just repeating what is in the court documents.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

And the court case isnt over, you guys have got this belief that because AIs lawyers did poorly during the 30 min they talked in oral about the injunction that Hyperion is going to wi this case. They aren't especially with there current line of attack. -Tig.

By my troth. He does but crack me up.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 17-Nov-2007 at 01:56 PM.

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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @stew Quote: If I mistakenly gave you a reciept for the full amount whose fault is that. It was Hyperion's clerical error. When the error is discovered I would hope you would pay me the full amount, and if you were taking a tax deduction you would have to have reciepts for the full amount, but as far as me keeping the car, you have a reciept from me for the full amount it is yours. but as far as me keeping the car, you have a reciept from me for the full amount it is yours That's the difference there and the flaw in the argument. Possesion is 9/10th of the law. The "car" was never handed over yet. I think you are right if they had given them the code then Hyperion would be out the $2500 or whatever the amount is and would just have to hope they got paid (or they could try to sue to get the amount citing the clerical error). But, the opposite is also true, since the "car" was never given. Yeah, you do have a receipt for the full amount, but if you went to court and tried have the care taken by force, then the opposite would hapen, and the seller would say, hey yeah we gave a reciept for full amount but that was a clerical error sorry, they still owe us $2500 and haven't paid. And you wouldn't be given the vehicle until you paid the full amount you had agreed to. i.e. No free lunch. (In the AI case it would be too late because of the 6 month clause -- and yes it's been more then 6 months since Itec/KMOS/AI has known they shorted the money even after the incorrect reciept.)

Of course when I said"it is yours" it was with the understanding that you would pay the amount still owed. I find the idea that I could keep the car for myself now laughable. Oh sorry judge I changed my mind. That is too bad, there is an agreement already made. The Hyperion agreement was signed and written by Hyperion themselves. To try and weasel out on their own clerical error makes them look like they are at the least, untrust worthy.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Yeah - but can you please provide a link to when and how this did happen?

This thread, you posted several times in it:

KMOS buys from Amino

I'd also like to point out for those saying I've changing my story (not talking about you Dandy) that this thread from August has the exact same claims in it that some are claiming are new in my Nov posts.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Note that one of the reasons Hyperion wanted ITEC Joined in the Washington suit was because of "the now-apparent dispute between Itec,LLc and Amiga Delaware" .

Which t me seems to be a remarkably silly reason. I mean "look, judge, those two are fighting. Thus you should put join them as defendants for our counterclaims" is just a wee bit of a non-sequitur...

@stew

Quote:

Of course when I said"it is yours" it was with the understanding that you would pay the amount still owed. I find the idea that I could keep the car for myself now laughable. Oh sorry judge I changed my mind. That is too bad, there is an agreement already made. The Hyperion agreement was signed and written by Hyperion themselves. To try and weasel out on their own clerical error makes them look like they are at the least, untrust worthy.

The problem with your view of things is that on many projects,construction and software development, actual accounts are sometimes finalized long after the job is done. sometimes years later. Thats when who owes who what is resolved.
Or as in this case in the event of a dispute. Sometimes things are found out that both sides were not realy aware of before.If is a dispute and it's in your favour you use that fact against the other side(s).

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

The original relationship between KMOS and Hyperion had Hyperion's rights and obligations under the 2001 contracr intact.

You *do* understand that when one hands over "all rights, interest and title" in something (quoted from memory, I don't have the original document handy), one ends up with no rights, no interest, and no title, right?

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: Itec bought the OS from Hyperion in the March 2003 contract, Itec sold the OS to KMOS in October of 2003. Where were Amiga(W) rights to the OS from the 2001 Agreement during all of this ?

Depends on what rights we are talking about. AI(W) didnt lose there IP, etc because, but they no longer had the right to buy the OS from Hyperion because Hyperion no longer owned it. I'm guessing from the wording in the 2004 agreement that Amino had an option to buy the OS back from Itec, but eventually KMOS bought the OS from Itec then bought everything else amiga from Amino, renamed itself and we have the company we have now.
-Tig

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

@umisef

Quote:

Which t me seems to be a remarkably silly reason. I mean "look, judge, those two are fighting. Thus you should put join them as defendants for our counterclaims" is just a wee bit of a non-sequitur...

It is actually going to work in this suit.
either way,joined or not, ITECs submission in the case disputes some of Amiga(D) claims of transfer of rights from ITEC to KMOS.


as Amiga(D) amd ITEC have/had the same person as corporate secretary things
get juicy.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 17-Nov-2007 at 02:11 PM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 17-Nov-2007 at 02:09 PM.

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

@Dandy

Quote:

No. I was talking about the contractual situation here in Germany in general - not about the Amiga/Hyperion case at court in the US...

Well, the general contractual situation in Germany is quite clear --- if you have a contract between two parties, and one of the parties consists of multiple legal entities (German "juristische Person"), then that party is still just one party, but is described as a "Personenmehrheit" (a multiplicity of persons). And as can be seen by the very common example of rental contracts involving a "Personenmehrheit" in good ole Germany, there is absolutely no requirement for the contract in question to contain any acknowledgement of, or rules for dealing amongs the members of, this multi-person single party.

In other words, your conviction that US law is so different from German law in this regard is undermined by the real-world observation of German law behaving in exactly the manner you say it does not.

Quote:

I was looking for a word describing the form of collaboration between companies - like in the Hyperion/Eyetech relationship.

Well, their relationship is that they both signed on the same side of a two-party contract. And that relationship is called a Personenmehrheit. You would be correct in thinking that they *should* have created a more formalized joint venture, but to the best of our knowledge, they did not. That does not stop them from being individual members of a single party made up of multiple members.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: It is actually going to work in this suit. either way,joined or not, ITECs submission in the case disputes some of Amiga(D) claims of transfer of rights from ITEC to KMOS.

Only on a very technical level and I dont think it helps Hyperion at all. Its still Itec buys the OS from Hyperion, sells it to KMOS and KMOS buys the rest of the Amiga stuff from Amino. If anything Itec not ever owning the 2001 contract probably hurts Hyperion, both in Washington and in New York.

Quote:

as Amiga(D) amd ITEC have/had the same person as corporate secretary things get juicy.

We've known that since April, someone thought it was juicy then too. Pixar used to have the same CEO as Apple, how juicy is that 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:

If I mistakenly gave you a reciept for the full amount whose fault is that. It was Hyperion's clerical error.

There is no receipt for $25,000, the full amount. While there was a clerical error on a receipt for less *on a partial payment* there is still nothing showing that the thousands in shortfall between the receipt amount and the full $25k was met. We have no receipt for Bill's supposed wire transfer and no proof the wire transfer went through (essentially the shortfall money). People keep talking about a $250 shortfall, but in terms of proof of payment its much more than that.

Quote:

It has been paid by their own accounting and have yet to deliver.

Not true, there is no receipt for the full amount and they claim otherwise actually to the court. If you are thinking that there is a receipt for $25,000 and they showed proof of $24,750 payment thats not the case. It would be in Amiga's interest to find proof that the wire transfer from Bill personally indeed happened. They oddly have not done so which has to leave one wondering if they can. Right now all we have (unless I've missed something since) is a form you fill out to say you want to request a wire transfer. Did Bill have money in the account? Was there a routing issue and Hyperion never got it? Was the transfer fully submitted for processing? Who bloody knows.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

If you have a receipts for all the money you owe, you would probably think you had paid in full.

Since when has Hyperion issued a receipt that contained Bill's *possible* wire transfer money?

Let me guess, you are taking the wire transfer request form and calling it a receipt? We can all fill out such forms, but they are not receipts. A confirmation from the bank is a different thing than a request form. Its very odd to me they only have shown the request form and not a bank statement showing it coming out of the account or any confirm paperwork from the bank.

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

@umisef

Quote:

You *do* understand that when one hands over "all rights, interest and title" in something (quoted from memory, I don't have the original document handy), one ends up with no rights, no interest, and no title, right?.

Yes.
That's why I can't understand the later dealings between the parties....
They appeared to still be working as partners and not Master and Slave.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 17-Nov-2007 at 04:14 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

We've known that since April, someone thought it was juicy then too. Pixar used to have the same CEO as Apple, how juicy is that to you?? -Tig.

Were the two companies both ever involved in lawsuits against another company for more or less the same reason ?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I'd disagree with your analysis above

It seems quite like 1+2=3 (to steal a line from pixie). So then does this mean that you think they are equal or better at coding? My apologies if I have misinterpreted you.

Quote:

I care so little what you think we have trouble measuring it with an electron microscope.

Well then there is no need for us to converse then is there?

Quote:

and its not my full time job to work on it and thats another difference.

So the Friedens have worked full time for no money for 6 years on OS4. How exactly are they eating?

Quote:

There are 3 of you (including yourself) that keep bringing it up.

I essentially keep bringing up that your opinion on what will happen is not particularly more likely than anyone elses to be what happens and that you think otherwise is sadly funny, yes. You are the one who talks up in absolutes how its all going to go down. Your opinion did not match what reality ended up dishing up. I don't disrespect your opinion, but you mostly talk in absolutes like its not an opinion of what will happen but an absolutely correct foretelling of what will actually happen and you seem to put down anyone who disagrees. You were wrong in that case, the reason you were wrong is inconsequential. The judge is a person, just like everyone else, let alone a jury. Frankly I think all the corporate name changes and different companies paying portions of stuff here and there will not play well with the average jury. In which case even if your legal analysis is 100 percent on target it dosen't mean Amiga wins.

Quote:

And the court case isnt over, you guys have got this belief that because AIs lawyers did poorly during the 30 min they talked in oral about the injunction that Hyperion is going to wi this case.

I think this is the first time I've seen you admit that Amiga's team did anything poorly at all. Did you say this then? If you did I sure as hell missed it. I'm actually impressed you are admitting such though. Bravo. I don't have this belief that you say though BTW. Why are you saying that I do? But as an aside, it sure doesn't help though now does it?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 17-Nov-2007 at 04:25 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 17-Nov-2007 at 04:24 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 17-Nov-2007 at 04:23 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 17-Nov-2007 at 04:22 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 17-Nov-2007 at 04:21 PM.

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

@umisef

Quote:

Well, their relationship is that they both signed on the same side of a two-party contract.

Well, in fact, they didn´t. There are different responsibilities and liabilities for Hyperion and Eyetech, and they are explicitely mentioned as independend contractors (remember the "signment of all parties involved is needed for transfer" thingie?), hence you have a multiple-party contract here.

In Germany, this construct is definetly not an implicit "Personenmehrheit" contract and the contract juristically is a series of contracts in one. If you wish to form a "Personenmehrheit" contract from it, Hyperion and Eyetech would have to be explicitely concluded to one signing party. This is not the case here and in Germany this contract would be definetly a multiple-party contract, not a two-party one (and I bet it is in the US, too).

Btw., multiple-party contracts are much more usual in Germany than you seem to know. This is because of the juristical problems of liability such implicit "Personenmehrheit" contracts definetly bear. It is even more usual to form a juristic person just for a special two-party deal, of which one side is consisting of multiple parties.

Regards

@stew

Quote:

Of course when I said"it is yours" it was with the understanding that you would pay the amount still owed. I find the idea that I could keep the car for myself now laughable. Oh sorry judge I changed my mind. That is too bad, there is an agreement already made. The Hyperion agreement was signed and written by Hyperion themselves. To try and weasel out on their own clerical error makes them look like they are at the least, untrust worthy.

Sure, but sticking with the car analogy, and we now have the understanding you were to pay $25,000.00 and I accidentally sent out a receipt showing $25,000.00 was paid. But we are both in agreement only $22,500.00 was ever paid, neither one of is disputing that now, and I still have the car in my possesion. How many months should I wait before you live up to you end of the deal and pay the full amount? You know you still owe money. There was billing error, that doesn't mean you get several thousand dollars just for free, you still have to pay all the money if you want the car. So yes, after several months, (probably of several weeks) I would either just sell the car to someone else or just keep the car, and give you your money back either way. In Hyperion's case it was even easier, AI(w) or possible Itec if the 2003 contract is valid, had 6 months to pay the full $25,000. I say starting after OS final and from when they knew the billing may have been incorrect (only fair). Guess what? They didn't do it.

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 17-Nov-2007 at 05:17 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:

In Hyperion's case it was even easier, AI(w) or possible Itec if the 2003 contract is valid, had 6 months to pay the full $25,000. I say starting after OS final and from when they knew the billing may have been incorrect (only fair). Guess what? They didn't do it.

ITEC tried to pay, and the money was refused. this was withing 6 months of os4 final.

_________________