@Tigger

If you agree on the definition of fair market value you can't say a $10 million figure for 2004 was true fair market value, nor have I seen proof of that money changing hands besides. But even if we suppose it did, again moving your own money around from one of your firms to another of your firms does not equate to fair market value on the open market.

I really wish you had $10 million USD plus Tigger, then you could have all the glory that it is to own the rights to the unfinished Whackforce! LOL. Also you couldn't do any worse with the brand I'm sure. But I don't see how you'd make much money back!

What great revelance do you see in Amiga in today's technology marketplace that you (or anyone) could make these multiple millions back?

Quote:

Why werent the debts paid, its alot more money then was owed, so who has the stock and why wasnt Bolten, Matt, etc paid?

I didn't miss this, I've wondered why this company keeps doing stuff like this. Its dishonest, to put it nicely. But this question of yours just speaks to a greater liklihood that $10 million is a fabricated figure. Maybe its real, but then why not pay what you owe especially with all the bad publicity?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Aug-2007 at 11:38 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Aug-2007 at 11:33 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger If you agree on the definition of fair market value you can't say a $10 million figure for 2004 was true fair market value, nor have I seen proof of that money changing hands besides.

I think your definition is different then mine and the courts. We had this discussion last time, when you didnt think the company was worth the $250K I said I would pay for it. The court will sell to the highest bidder, they would likely find my $250K wasnt it, I actually think it likely find that KMOS's $10M wasn't it either, but since it exceeded the debts, it doesnt really become an issue.

Quote:

But even if we suppose it did, again moving your own money around from one of your firms to another of your firms does not equate to fair market value on the open market.

Actually it does, or at least it does in the way it needs to for this talk. If I pay $10M for something, the court will find that the fair market value is at least $10M. Like I said since they are friends here, they are likely to say that KMOS got a sweetheart deal and got it on the cheap, you seem to imply that your friend will write a bigger check to buy something from you then a stranger. Do you often double charge your friends for stuff you sell them?


Quote:

I didn't miss this, I've wondered why this company keeps doing stuff like this. Its dishonest, to put it nicely. But this question of yours just speaks to a greater liklihood that $10 million is a fabricated figure.

Its a notarized legal document, regarding the selling of assets, and raising tax liabilities for both parties, thats not really the place to put a bunch of lies especially about a stock swap (which gets the SEC involved). The additional pages were filed with the trademark and copyright people, you honestly believe that the fax is real (which is yet to be proven) but they faked the transfer years ago despite it making them owe lots of taxes?
-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: @fairlanefastback But given the newly leaked documents, we know theres more money going around then many of us thought. In addition, I'm not sure we've seen the last of the Amiga Center at Kent. I'm not sure that our entire thread on here didnt help and not hinder AI. I have a feeling, that twice as much as they expected comment would never have come out if we the rabid amigaphiles hadnt been working on the story. Since Kent doesnt have a sponser yet, I wouldnt be surprised if it gets a new one that sounds like the old one. -Tig

If you really believe this to be so why on earth would they not pay as promised (promised twice counting Bill's statements to the Seattle Times), given all the bad publicity it brought, things that people will be able to look up for a long time to come? If its such chump change to them? It was even less money than they originally envisioned paying in the original draft with the Thunderbirds!

I think Kent probably learned the lesson of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". But to each his own.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Aug-2007 at 11:52 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Its a notarized legal document, regarding the selling of assets, and raising tax liabilities for both parties, thats not really the place to put a bunch of lies especially about a stock swap (which gets the SEC involved).

Its not a smart place to do so. People do stupid things all the time sadly though. You've decided thats not the case here. I don't have enough information to know either way. But I think its very misguided to conclude that just because its not a smart move that no one would do it.

And the SEC deals with public companies, which these companies are not.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Aug-2007 at 11:53 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The court will sell to the highest bidder, they would likely find my $250K wasnt it, I actually think it likely find that KMOS's $10M wasn't it either

So you think Amiga is worth more than $10 million USD even today? You characterize that as a sweetheart deal amongst a circle of friends. I think Atheist on another site pegs its value at $87 million USD (approx - off the top of my head). So whats your estimate of its worth out of curiosity?

And assuming you are in the dark on OS5 progress (or existance) etc like the rest of us how do you arrive at your above $10 million USD value estimate that someone outside of the circle of friends would pay?

P.S. If they have all this cash and worth why not pay Bolten, pay Kent (if they can apologize enough), fund ACK well to get machines out, offer Hyperion more for a settlement, etc? I'd love to see them move forward in a positive direction. It leaves me like this when I think about it:

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 31-Aug-2007 at 12:09 AM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: But I think its very misguided to conclude that just because its not a smart move that no one would do it.

It would be out of character for Garry or for Kouri.

Quote:

And the SEC deals with public companies, which these companies are not.

Apparently you havent read all the new documents, including the stock filings with the SEC for KMOS stock.
-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: So you think Amiga is worth more than $10 million USD even today?

In 2005, the Commodore name, no OS, no code, etc, sold for 22 million Euros. So yes I think buying Amiga, all its asset, copyrights, and the OS for $10M in stock was probably a sweetheart deal.

Quote:

I think Atheist on another site pegs its value at $87 million USD (approx - off the top of my head). So whats your estimate of its worth out of curiosity?

You understand what these based on right? We have two real companies who have paid $2.50 a share for shares of KMOS (AI(D)). So Atheist took all the shares of KMOS that exist and multiplied by that amount. I have done much the same with the $10M number. KMOS wrote off $247k in debt plus gave AI(W) 4M shares of KMOS stock, given the value of $2.50 a share, that $10M.
-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: @fairlanefastback It would be out of character for Garry or for Kouri.

How well do you know these men to say this?


Quote:

Apparently you havent read all the new documents, including the stock filings with the SEC for KMOS stock. -Tig

This thread mentions this one document:

http://www.tech1computers.co.uk/downloads/faxprint.pdf

What others?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You understand what these based on right? We have two real companies who have paid $2.50 a share for shares of KMOS (AI(D)). So Atheist took all the shares of KMOS that exist and multiplied by that amount. I have done much the same with the $10M number. KMOS wrote off $247k in debt plus gave AI(W) 4M shares of KMOS stock, given the value of $2.50 a share, that $10M.

Its a private company not a public one. You can sell shares for anything you want on paper. It dosen't mean you have the same value in unsold shares or shares assigned to other parties already. If someone else paid 2 cents a share a day earlier or a day later or even the same day its all agreed value since its a private firm. Its not like looking up the going price of Apple Computer on an financial exchange. I'll be interested to see this SEC filing you mention.


Quote:

In 2005, the Commodore name, no OS, no code, etc, sold for 22 million Euros. So yes I think buying Amiga, all its asset, copyrights, and the OS for $10M in stock was probably a sweetheart deal.

Yes that was a lot in Dec. '04. But it is a different brand we are talking about. It would seem no one is knocking down their door in Washington state with anywhere near the same amount of money in offers. And you don't have a public company in play here to validate your estimates that all KMOS shares in existence at the time were all sold and all sold to all parties at $2.50 a share to establish your $10M USD stock worth.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 31-Aug-2007 at 04:21 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 31-Aug-2007 at 04:20 AM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 31-Aug-2007 at 04:19 AM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback It would be out of character for Garry or for Kouri. How well do you know these men to say this?

As we've discussed before, Garry pretty well from his CD-I days we even were on a panel or two together back when I was doing CDTV stuff. Kouri I've met once, but he isnt going to get himself in trouble with the SEC.


Quote:

What others?

The ones pointed to in this thread.

SEC documents for AI(D) stock

-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 Its a private company not a public one. You can sell shares for anything you want on paper. It dosen't mean you have the same value in unsold shares or shares assigned to other parties already.

Not really, and understand we are talking fair market value, fair market value is what someone else is willing to pay for something. $2.50 per share is the last public price we have seen for the stock, a court would either take that, or an average of the two or three latest prices as fair market value to come up with the number. Unless the stock is worth less then a nickel a share, AI wasnt insolvent.

Quote:

Yes that was a lot in Dec. '04. But it is a different brand we are talking about.

Different brand, much less to go with it sold for almost 100x more then what AI has to be worth to not be insolvent.

Quote:

And you don't have a public company in play here to validate your estimates that all KMOS shares in existence at the time were all sold and all sold to all parties at $2.50 a share to establish your $10M USD stock worth.

I dont need that, I need to show that external interests were willing to pay enough money for the 4M shares to cover the debt, showing a stock that several companies were willing to buy millions of dollars worth of shares at $2.50 was worth more the $0.05 a share is pretty easy in my book.
-Tig

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

@Seer

Quote:

Seer wrote: @Dandy ... IMHO, no. I read it differently. As you say, the "partners" are defined, and as such one entity. Hyperion + Eyetech = The "AmigaOne partners", meaning if one signs the other agrees. If not, that's a problem in the communication between Hyperion and Eyetech.

Hmmmmmm - I work in the IT sector for a big, worldwide acting automotive manufacturer and and we have many partners as well, but that does not mean we are in the position to sign documents on their behalf, as long as this isn't stated expressively in the contract.

That's what our legal deparment has to say on this...

Can you please point me to that part of the contract that expressively says Hyperion has the right to sign contracts on behalf of Eyetech?

Quote:

Seer wrote: (Would be nice if all members of say the "DDWG" would have to sign all papers Individually to show they agree)

WTF is "DDWG"???

_________________
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: Let me see: Hyperion is making an affirmative defense now - in 2007. True, and they said they would prove that Eyetech did not approve the transfer from AI to Itec. So until they actually do that, it is assumed that they did approve the Transfer, thats the rules under an affirmative defense. Quote: The original contract between AInc (W) and Hyperion and Eyetech is from 2001. True. Quote: AInc(W) appearently sold their assets twice - in 2003 to ITEC and in 2004 to KMOS - for each of the transactions they would have needed Eyetechs signature. Untrue, they sold part of their assets to Itec, Itec eventually sold those to KMOS and then KMOS came back and bought the rest from AI, thats what the new document shows us. Quote: Its not on the documents AInc presented at court - so none of the claimed transfers can be valid - independently from the "affirmative defense" at court 3-4 years later. Hyperion claims the transfers were not valid, ...

No - wrong!
I claim the transfers cannot have been valid, as Eyetechs signature was missing each time.

No "affirmative defense " involved this time - you claim the transfers are valid - so show me Eytechs signature, if you want me to take your point!

_________________
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: @fairlanefastback ... If I pay $10M for something, the court will find that the fair market value is at least $10M. Like I said since they are friends here, they are likely to say that KMOS got a sweetheart deal and got it on the cheap, ...

I hope the judges at the US courts are not that blind or dumb that they do not think of the possibility of it being just the other way round - that they use their "friendship" to artificially balloon the value of their assets (with fraudulent intentions).

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: I didn't miss this, I've wondered why this company keeps doing stuff like this. Its dishonest, to put it nicely. But this question of yours just speaks to a greater liklihood that $10 million is a fabricated figure. Its a notarized legal document, regarding the selling of assets, and raising tax liabilities for both parties, thats not really the place to put a bunch of lies especially about a stock swap (which gets the SEC involved). The additional pages were filed with the trademark and copyright people, you honestly believe that the fax is real (which is yet to be proven) but they faked the transfer years ago [b]despite it making them owe lots of taxes?[b]

As we know from the Bolton Peck case, they do not give a damn about debts or official court decisions - so what makes you think they would care when it comes to taxes?

_________________
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)

@Dandy

Hmmmmmm - I work in the IT sector for a big, worldwide acting automotive manufacturer and and we have many partners as well, but that does not mean we are in the position to sign documents on their behalf, as long as this isn't stated expressively in the contract.

What kind of partnership ? Here Eyetech an Hyperion are set out to make a new Amiga given the rights to act under the "AmigaOne partners".

Also, are the all rights, do's and don'ts even outlined in any documents ? Is there a contract between Hyperion and Eyetech that dictates what one can do or not ?

Can you please point me to that part of the contract that expressively says Hyperion has the right to sign contracts on behalf of Eyetech?

I never said that it does, only that I read the part you qouted different than that you did. With that said, neither does that Hyperion can, except that (at least in the quoted part) it does look that way (to me).

But who do you thing Eyetech has a bone to pick with ? Amiga Inc for selling or Hyperion approving it without, apperently, consulting with their partner Eyetech >

WTF is "DDWG"???

http://www.ddwg.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Display_Working_Group

("Internal" papers off course are a different matter, but I really doubt that when the DDWG needs to sign a contract with another that Intel, Silicon Image, Compaq Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and NEC would show up to sign)

Last edited by Seer on 31-Aug-2007 at 07:57 AM.

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: fairlanefastback wrote: So you think Amiga is worth more than $10 million USD even today? In 2005, the Commodore name, no OS, no code, etc, sold for 22 million Euros. So yes I think buying Amiga, all its asset, copyrights, and the OS for $10M in stock was probably a sweetheart deal. ...

Yes, but:

1) Commodore never e.g. frauded their customers with coupon actions
2) Commodore had real products to sell in numbers

So in my eyes that alone makes a huge difference...

_________________
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)

@Seer

Quote:

Seer wrote: @Dandy Hmmmmmm - I work in the IT sector for a big, worldwide acting automotive manufacturer and and we have many partners as well, but that does not mean we are in the position to sign documents on their behalf, as long as this isn't stated expressively in the contract. What kind of partnership ? Here Eyetech an Hyperion are set out to make a new Amiga given the rights to act under the "AmigaOne partners".

Our legal folks told me, that the kind of the partnership does not matter.
If one partner wants to sign legally binding contracts on behalf of the other, then this has to be expressively defined in the "partnership contract".
As long as this is not expressively defined in the "partnership contract", the signatures of all involved partners are required for a legal binding contract.

Quote:

Seer wrote: ... WTF is "DDWG"??? http://www.ddwg.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Display_Working_Group ("Internal" papers off course are a different matter, but I really doubt that when the DDWG needs to sign a contract with another that Intel, Silicon Image, Compaq Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and NEC would show up to sign)

Depends on their "partnership contract", I'd say...

Last edited by Dandy on 31-Aug-2007 at 08:32 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:

First of all its a new contract, (and it is a sale agreement), you dont need a lawyer to draw up a document and the signature of the two Managing Partners to activate a buy in clause of another 2001 contract.

It is not a contract on its own, it is the activation of the buy-in clause of the 2001 contract, it refers that other contract specifically. To see what a sale agreement looks like, have a look at this new fax document we're talking about, THAT is a sale ageement, in which the party selling the 'goods' warrants that it is the owner of the items it is selling, has the right to sell, etc.

Quote:

I'm sorry but these documents in fact prove quite the opposite of what you think. What exactly do you think Loan Facility Agreement and Security Agreement do mean?

It certainly does not mean that a contract with a 3rd company can be transferred back and forth between them as they please, if the contract specifically states that transferring it requires prior written permission. You seem to think that first secured creditor status and loan facility agreements are like a joker/wildcard which allows them to do things above the law.

Quote:

And again given Hyperions Affirmative Defense stance, they have to prove that Itec wasnt the successor for even that part of the case to be correct, and they cant do that unless Eyetech or AI(W) comes forward

Actually that is the beauty of this latest document, it does not require Eyetech to be brought into the case at all, and it clearly shows that after the 2003 buy-in contract AI(W) still considers themselves to be the owner of these rights which they're selling in 2004, which means they disapprove of the 2003 buy-in between Hyperion and ITEC, thus not only have AI(W) not given a written permission back then, their future acts also indicate that they do not consider ITEC to be a successor. This is more than enough proof for Hyperion, AI/ITEC will have a hard time coming up with an explanation.

@Dandy

As long as this is not expressively defined in the "partnership contract"[

Have we seen that contract ?

I only have seen a contract that mentions the AmigaOne partners and defines it as being Hyperion and Eyetech, AFAIK it doesn't mention what the rights are between Hyperion and Eyetech, only what the AmigaOne partners are set to do, and setting who of those is to do what. I'll admit I haven't read all documents, but so far I don't think anything can be considered the "partnership contract" between Hyperion and Eyetech.

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

@Seer

Quote:

IMHO, no. I read it differently. As you say, the "partners" are defined, and as such one entity. Hyperion + Eyetech = The "AmigaOne partners", meaning if one signs the other agrees. If not, that's a problem in the communication between Hyperion and Eyetech.

Actually, the "parties" are defined all seperately, all 3 of them, on the very first page of the contract, as 3 seperate companies, therefore it is perfectly clear from the contract that Amiga Inc is dealing with 2 seperate companies. The term "AmigaOne Partners" is just a term used to refer to Hyperion and Eyetech collectively, for the purposes of the contract, to be used in parts of the contract where something applies to both companies. This does not make the two companies a single legal entity, allowing one to act on behalf of the other.