@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: The snake is so long that the head is biting the tail thinking it's another snake. If this power struggle is true, then explain how Bill McScamen is CEO of KMOS. That just doesn't fit. You keep saying that, but its not true. McScamen (I love that btw) is VP of KMOS, not CEO as you keep implying. He's probably VP, because he apparently owns 10% of OS 4.0 according to the emails from PDF #4. -Tig

Actually he said he was "Acting President". So while this implies they are looking for a new President, until they find one he is doing that job, rather than just the job of a VP.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003813881_kentarena31m.html

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=kentarena25m&date=20070725&query=amiga

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=kentarena18m&date=20070518&query=amiga

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Eyetech likes AI more then they like Hyperion.

I know you have stated this before, but I don't understand why?
As I understand it Eyetech fell out with AI, over the MicroA1 licensing.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@fairlanefastback

How many references to him saying he is VP of AI(D) fka KMOS would you like me to post? I mean the third example lists him as VP whose recently been named acting president, and it also lists Pentti as the chairman. And the real comment was that Bill isnt the CEO, he's not.
-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: @Lou Quote: The snake is so long that the head is biting the tail thinking it's another snake. Are we going to see 3 teams of lawyers in the Oral arguments requested by ITEC for 30th Nov. ? Amiga(D),Hyperion and ITEC ?

I would be surprised if AI(D) sent lawyers, though they can obviously, Itec doesnt want to be part fo the case, AI(D) doesnt want them to be part of the case, Hyperion needs to convince the judge that Itec reasoning is faulty and that may be fairly difficult.
_Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 19-Nov-2007 at 10:35 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

AI(D) doesnt want them to be part of the case.

Thus the best reason for Amiga(D)'s legal team to be present.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback How many references to him saying he is VP of AI(D) fka KMOS would you like me to post? I mean the third example lists him as VP whose recently been named acting president, and it also lists Pentti as the chairman. And the real comment was that Bill isnt the CEO, he's not. -Tig

"The real comment". LOL. Geez dude no one is attacking you. Neither CEO or just saying VP was accurate. "Acting President" is the most accurate description of his position we have. And when Kent presented him they did so as "President" of Amiga. It could mean he was demoted not long after the Kent thing started for all we know or that a mistake was made at the time. As you and the Seattle Times say he had been named Acting President back at the time or earlier, thats what his job is which means not just his VP duties, but also the duties of the President of the firm. And thats assuming he was not trying to downplay his role once the reporters started looking for interviews. But he, according to his own description of himself is not only handling VP level work.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 19-Nov-2007 at 10:58 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Technically saying they carried out the buyout without being a party of the contract isnt correct, but the theory is correct

Well, since the contract only allows AInc to get their hands on OS4 via that $25k payment, and since the 2003 contract is for Hyperion to provide OS4 for a payment of $25k to Itec, I think we can conclude that indeed the 2003 contract is an attempt to execute that clause of the 2001 contract by Itec, instead of AI(W). Right?

Quote:

If Itec didnt buy the contract and Amino didnt sell the contract (at that time) then yes the contract is still in force (minus the buyback clause) and Amino still owns the contract, eventually they sold it to KMOS

And what happens, for example with regards to the royalty payments? If Itec "own" the OS, and they market/distribute the product, would Itec then have to pay Amiga(W) royalties for 4.1 and beyond, instead of Hyperion? Or does the 2001 contract not apply to Itec at all, and thus the 2003 contract would also destroy the clause regarding royalty payments to Amiga?

Last edited by COBRA on 19-Nov-2007 at 11:15 PM.
Last edited by COBRA on 19-Nov-2007 at 11:14 PM.

@COBRA

Pdf 72.3 is good reading.
pages 45-53 are fun. reading them for the first time now.

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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: @Tigger , I think we can conclude that indeed the 2003 contract is an attempt to execute that clause of the 2001 contract by Itec, instead of AI(W). Right?

I said the theory is correct about what happened, I jsut wouldnt phrase it that way because of legal issues that may entail.


Quote:

And what happens, for example with regards to the royalty payments? If Itec "own" the OS, and they market/distribute the product, would Itec then have to pay Amiga(W) royalties for 4.1 and beyond, instead of Hyperion? Or does the 2001 contract not apply to Itec at all, and thus the 2003 contract would also destroy the clause regarding royalty payments to Amiga?

Its a bad contract, there are lots of questions. What happens to the royalty payments if AI had bought it? Does Hyperion still pay them, does Hyperion still get to sell the OS? Does Hyperion still get to write 4.1? You seem to want to imply that the contract gets weird only because Itec bought the OS, the contract gets weird once the buyback happens, because besides the fact AI owns the OS, according to the contract everything else stays the same, which is pretty strange. A well written contract would have explained the duties that occurred after the buyback or cancelled the contract after the buyback, neither of those occurred here.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: The snake is so long that the head is biting the tail thinking it's another snake. If this power struggle is true, then explain how Bill McScamen is CEO of KMOS. That just doesn't fit. You keep saying that, but its not true. McScamen (I love that btw) is VP of KMOS, not CEO as you keep implying. He's probably VP, because he apparently owns 10% of OS 4.0 according to the emails from PDF #4. -Tig

Yeah, that's what I thought you might say... But the I thought something was fishy about they wire transfer receipt...as in he sent it but who received it...

@Lou

That Email to John G. also disputes his current story about ITEC.
Pentti says 90% for ITEC and 10% for McBill(AMIGA(W) ?).
look at John G's statement pdf no 73 page 3 lines 5-9 and
then look at the Email from pdf 4 page 60.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Lou That Email to John G. also disputes his current story about ITEC. Pentti says 90% for ITEC and 10% for McBill(AMIGA(W) ?). look at John G's statement pdf no 73 page 3 lines 5-9 and then look at the Email from pdf 4 page 60.

Why would you say that. McEwen bought in for 10% (2500 of the 25000 price) not AI(W). They email says its McEwen and Itec buying the OS, not AI or AI & Itec, what are you having problems with?
-Tig

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Sounds like you pay very little rent I would think. :)

Not really; However, over the last 6 years, the conversion rate between Euro (OS4 revenue) and AUD (what I pay rent in) has fluctuated a lot, so this *was* a rather haphazard guess.

Oh, and all those years, I have lived in various rather-far-away-from-the-city-center suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. Right now, for example, I am living in a lovely three bedroom house 45km from the city center, next to a National Park yet directly on a train line, which costs me AUD 1408 per calendar month --- which at current exchange rates is a tad under 900 Euro (as of 10 days ago --- haven't seen AUD-to-EURO rates recently, having only just returned from China this morning). A few years back, I was paying $1,083 per month, and due to the exchange rate, that was actually less than EURO 500.

Quote:

BTW how do you have access to Hyperion's books (or the info in them) to know what their actual revenue numbers have been over the last 6 years?

I have access to the court documents, in which Evert states "more or less 1,000 copies sold", and also mentions the prices for both OEM and standalone. And it was a quick-and-dirty estimate. Looking closely now, it might be that I have actual paid more in rent than the complete OS4 revenue --- but I can always claim that for the last 4 years, I have not lived alone, and thus not all the rent for the place me and my partner stay in was actually paid by me.


Be that as it may --- the point stands. Unless Ben or Evert are bleeding money into Hyperion like crazy, Hans-Joerg is extremely unlikely to only do OS4 work, because the grand total OS4 revenue is just enough to pay one person's (possibly cheap) rent, no other living expenses.

@Dandy

Quote:

Certainly, as Google and people from Melbourne equally are intimate connoisseurs of German jurisdiction.

Sach mal, Du Depp, Dir *ist* bewusst wo ich urpsruenglich herkomme, oder etwa nicht?

(Case in point --- one of less than a dozen books I took along when moving to Melbourne from Hamburg-Harburg was actually the text of a particular law. A German law, obviously. Not contract law, granted...)

@umisef

Ja kraß, Hamburg!

@Tigger

Quote:

I said the theory is correct about what happened, I jsut wouldnt phrase it that way because of legal issues that may entail.

Well it's either one or the other, either it is the execution of this particular clause of the 2001 contract by a company who is not a party to the contract (Itec), which is obviously legally questionable, as you implied, or it is not execution of the clause of the 2001 contract, which means Hyperion sold the OS to Itec outside of the scope of the 2001 contract, which again is probably illegal.

Quote:

Its a bad contract, there are lots of questions. What happens to the royalty payments if AI had bought it? Does Hyperion still pay them, does Hyperion still get to sell the OS? Does Hyperion still get to write 4.1?

Yes, these are not clearly outlined in the contract.

Quote:

You seem to want to imply that the contract gets weird only because Itec bought the OS

No, that's not what I'm implying. I'm simply considering your theories, and following through on their implications. There are clearly certain issues with the contract even if AI(W) executed the clause, but implying that Itec executed that clause instead of AI(W) creates many more problems, because the contract clearly does not allow anyone else but AI(W) to execute that clause. I would think that in such a situation where the 2001 contract does not describe such a case (when a 3rd company wants to buy the OS), the 2003 contract should address these issues and describe the status of the 2001 contract and the remaining rights of the parties after the execution of the 2003 contract. And then that should be signed by all parties of the 2001 contract, to ensure that everyone agrees to this. Had they done it that way, it would not be legally questionable now.

@Tigger

Quote:

Why would you say that. McEwen bought in for 10% (2500 of the 25000 price) not AI(W). They email says its McEwen and Itec buying the OS, not AI or AI & Itec, what are you having problems with? -Tig.

Beacuse the same email was presented by Amiga(D) in support of the fact that "Amiga" had paid Hyperion .
Also Does MCEwan still "own 10%" ?.
Should we have him Joined in WAshington too ?

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

@all


Is it Ben Hermans ?.
still up to legal tricks

PDF 72.3 page 50 . Paragraphs 30 & 31.

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

@COBRA

As OS 4.0 has intellectual property its rights should only
be transfered by assignment of rights. Thus the 2003 agreement
should be seen as Hyperion agreeing to assign their rights, subject to
the 25,000 being paid and the conditions defined in
the 2001 agreement being met.
If the conditions for assignment in the 2001 agreement
are not met, that is written consent from Amiga(W) and Eyetech Ltd
then no valid assignment possible as per the 2001 agreement.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shall

Last edited by Spectre660 on 20-Nov-2007 at 11:03 AM.

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

@Spectre660

Itec claims that it is not necessary for them to be the assignee of the related trademarks to be able to buy the OS. That is obviously going to be an issue in court. I was simply going down the road of "what if that was in fact correct", what would its implications be, how would it work with regards to the 2001 contract, and the rights of the parties to the 2001 contract. It's only a thought exercise.