@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @umisef Quote: (3) Hyperion refused to accept the payment from Itec. Pity they didn't do that to any of the earlier payments, instead asking for more money whenever pressed.... Allow me to comment. The Warrant Breach claim of Hyperion puts an UNRESOLVED Amount due to Hyperion from Amiga Inc NOW (after the Suit had been filed).

Actually since Hyperion is not allowed to accrue debts for AI in carrying out the Nov 3, 2001 contract per 7.02, I think they can argue that they are not responsible for the debts as you are implying.

Quote:

It has spliced it in to the whole argument so it appears in the sequence of money due BEFORE the 25,000.00 buy back can be invoked in the chain of events as interpreted by following the contract. This is how it will be interpreted in the context of the lawsuits..

Actually since they can't accrue debts for AI in carrying out the the Nov 3, 2001 contract, I dont think there is alot of debts here. Between Itec and KMOS they have paid ove 40K towards the 25K buyback, plus the additional uncashed 25K check, for Hyperion to imply they havent been paid the 25K is pretty ludicrous.
-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: AMIGA INC are being SLAUGHTERED in the courts.

If Hyperion is winning as you are saying, then why spend more money on a new court case which will slow down the final resolution? Don't have an answer do you. On the other hand if they think there hand is going badly adding another court case and slowing it all down might lead to a settlement offer which is the best Hyperion can hope for.
-Tig

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

@umisef

Quote:

Saying that they were not aware of AI having sold party packs would be... how to put it.... monumentally stupid, maybe?

As I pointed out, it's not really an issue if Hyperion knew about the party pack, it is in the contract that they get exclusive rights to market and distribute, and this means AInc is expected to hand over any activities it is has been doing in that area.

Quote:

Of course, we all know that Hyperion knew damn well H&P was not going to play ball, was in conflict with AI, and that AI did not have complete source to 3.9. However, it would be hard for anyone to *prove* that.

There's nothing wrong with Hyperion knowing about problems between Amiga Inc. and H&P (if they did know), in fact knowing about such issues might have been the reason why they added that warrant clause in the first place, to make sure that in the contract there's a common understanding that this must be sorted out by Amiga Inc.

Quote:

They paid $24,750, plus two more payments afterwards. That money is still with Hyperion, despite Hyperions strong claims that there is absolutely no reason for them to have received that money in the first place.

The $24,750 was paid by Itec back in 2003, was it not? After that the only time Itec paid was in 2007 before starting the NY suit, which was returned. I have not seen KMOS/Amiga Delaware pay $25k, the smaller amounts KMOS/AI(D) paid were for other, unrelated debts, which are not mentioned in more detail in the case.

Quote:

the Arctic contract makes it quite clear that it's a "pay first, work when paid" arrangement.

The money they owed may not be from the arctic deal, but it's a possibility, we don't know what went on between the two companies at that time, what promises AInc made (with regards to transferring funds) and how tolerant Hyperion has been with them.

Quote:

Hyperion did issue a *receipt* for $22,500 (really $22,250) of the money *explicitly stating* that it was received for the buy-in clause

They confirmed the receipt of a certain amount of money. They didn't say that this amount settles the outstanding debts and satisfies the conditions for the buyin.

Quote:

Hyperion refused to accept the payment from Itec. Pity they didn't do that to any of the earlier payments, instead asking for more money whenever pressed....

They asked for more money because they were still owed money.

@Tigger


.Quote:

f Hyperion is winning as you are saying, then why spend more money on a new court case which will slow down the final resolution? Don't have an answer do you. On the other hand if they think there hand is going badly adding another court case and slowing it all down might lead to a settlement offer which is the best Hyperion can hope for.

Because slaughter is a merciless business.

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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: As I pointed out, it's not really an issue if Hyperion knew about the party pack, it is in the contract that they get exclusive rights to market and distribute, and this means AInc is expected to hand over any activities it is has been doing in that area.

That is your interpretation of it, I and other surely dont see it that way, despite you comments to the contrary, knowing about it and not explicitly forbidding AI from doing it in the contract is a huge issue. Your belief that they are implicitly banned from the action even though everyone knew they were carrying it out even before the contract was signed won't hold up in court, especially when they say they were financially hurt by the effort and can prove it in court. Do you believe DiscreetFX is unlawfully marketing OS 4.0 now?

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with Hyperion knowing about problems between Amiga Inc. and H&P (if they did know), in fact knowing about such issues might have been the reason why they added that warrant clause in the first place, to make sure that in the contract there's a common understanding that this must be sorted out by Amiga Inc.

But they wrote the contract and listed H&P in Annex II even though they knew H&P was going to have nothing to do with th 4.0 effort, so it swings both ways.

Quote:

The $24,750 was paid by Itec back in 2003, was it not? After that the only time Itec paid was in 2007 before starting the NY suit, which was returned. I have not seen KMOS/Amiga Delaware pay $25k, the smaller amounts KMOS/AI(D) paid were for other, unrelated debts, which are not mentioned in more detail in the case.

First of all the reason they only paid $24750 is because Hyperion LIED on the receipt, they sent them $22250 and Hyperion wrote a recipt for $22500, they then paid the $2500 and believed they paid in full. At best case Hyperion will be allowed to collect the $250 without interest because they are at least 50% responsible for the shortcoming, technically the judge could rule that they had been paid in full since thats what the receipt says. Since then, they have been paid $7200 more for the OS, plus $8850 more for the OS and then of course the $25K this year and still nothing has been provided in way of code.

Quote:

They confirmed the receipt of a certain amount of money. They didn't say that this amount settles the outstanding debts and satisfies the conditions for the buyin.

The confirmed receipt of the amount of $22500 for the buyout of the code.

Quote:

They asked for more money because they were still owed money.

AI disagrees and Hyperion has yet to show why AI owes them more money then the over $65K they have paid for the $25K buyout.
-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: Because slaughter is a merciless business.

Are you writing fortune cookies or answering questions?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

First of all the reason they only paid $24750 is because Hyperion LIED on the receipt, they sent them $22250 and Hyperion wrote a recipt for $22500, they then paid the $2500 and believed they paid in full. At best case Hyperion will be allowed to collect the $250 without interest because they are at least 50% responsible for the shortcoming, technically the judge could rule that they had been paid in full since thats what the receipt says. Since then, they have been paid $7200 more for the OS, plus $8850 more for the OS and then of course the $25K this year and still nothing has been provided in way of code.

The guys are really getting to you I see. Both sides agreed there was a clerical error. "Hyperion LIED on the receipt". My God man I know you are smart enough to know there was no reason for Hyperion to provide a receipt for more money than they were actually paid. And not even Amiga is accusing them of a "LIE" on the receipt (so why are you so itent to with CAPS and all?). Amiga said they made a mistake in what they thought they paid due to the clerical error Hyperion made because they were paying the total from multiple funding sources. And you know the other monies mentioned by you, that according to Hyperion were for other things (Amiga disagrees). This is a he said, she said in that regard. We can each have an opinion of who we * think * is more likely telling the truth. But thats the best case scenario of what we can do on these particular details. You didn't settle what you wanted to settle with Ben it seems at that Amiwest in the past. Why not just take your anger up with the man directly and leave the rest of the Amiga community out of it? Hyperion purposely "lieing" on a receipt to the benefit of the other party and not themselves, its hogwash on its face.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Nov-2007 at 07:01 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Nov-2007 at 07:00 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Actually since Hyperion is not allowed to accrue debts for AI in carrying out the Nov 3, 2001 contract per 7.02, I think they can argue that they are not responsible for the debts as you are implying.

The debt is caused by breach of contract warranty conditions on the part Amiga Inc (w) and indemnity for the costs incurred by this breach (contracts top get the OS 3.9 contributors).

The Judges will sort this out first. then go on to the rest of the arguments on both sides.
This one should go Hyperions way. They have put a figure of at least US$ 90,000.00 as the cost to them. If this Amount stands then subtract whatever they have been paid by ITEC,MCEwan and KMOS towards the buyback. If there is a positive diference then Amiga ++ have not paid 25,0000 above other liabilities and have lost their main cause to terminate the 2001 agreement .

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: The guys are really getting to you I see.

You really are reading way more into this then you should.

Quote:

Both sides agreed there was a clerical error. "Hyperion LIED on the receipt". My God man I know you are smart enough to know there was no reason for Hyperion to provide a receipt for more money than they were actually paid.

Except then they can say AI didnt pay them the full amount because they only got $24,750 and use that as a reason they havent shipped the code, which is what they are doing in the court documents right now. We dont have a letter where they say hey, you guys owe us $250 more, or anything like that, they sent an invalid receipt which leads to everyone buying the OS thinking the full amount, and now keep coming back with they didnt pay us the full amount, its too late now, we get to keep the code, the funny part of that is they havent sent the $24,750 back as part of that effort, but thats the current claim.

Quote:

And not even Amiga is accusing them of a "LIE" on the receipt (so why are you so itent to with CAPS and all?). Amiga said they made a mistake in what they thought they paid due to the clerical error Hyperion made because they were paying the total from multiple funding sources. And you know the other monies mentioned by you, that according to Hyperion were for other things (Amiga disagrees).

Where exactly does Hyperion say the $7200 and $8850 were for other things? AI's lawyer was pretty adamant that Ben was asking for at least the $8850 as part of the buyback clause for 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.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: Actually since Hyperion is not allowed to accrue debts for AI in carrying out the Nov 3, 2001 contract per 7.02, I think they can argue that they are not responsible for the debts as you are implying. The debt is caused by breach of contract warranty conditions on the part Amiga Inc (w) and indemnity for the costs incurred by this breach (contracts top get the OS 3.9 contributors).

Again Spectre according to 7.02 of the contact, Hyperion cannot accrue debts for AI, you are implying they can.

Quote:

This one should go Hyperions way. They have put a figure of at least US$ 90,000.00 as the cost to them. If this Amount stands then subtract whatever they have been paid by ITEC,MCEwan and KMOS towards the buyback. If there is a positive diference then Amiga ++ have not paid 25,0000 above other liabilities and have lost their main cause to terminate the 2001 agreement .

The judge will look at 7.02 and say you cant accrue costs for the other party and that goes away, in addition once they signed the 2003 contract any chance to get the funds back from acquiring the source code basically went away. The 90K number has nothing to do with what it cost to get source code, you do understand where the 90K number came from right?
-Tig

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

It seems to me that SOME people watch too much court series.

_________________
AmigaOne-XE G3 OS 4.
A4000 PPC
A1200 PPC

@Tigger

Quote:

You really are reading way more into this then you should.

I think not. You can't help but reply from what we have seen. You know that Spectre660 and Cobra will not be turned to your point of view, you've been through all of this with them over and over and over and over and over and over and over, ETC times 1000+. They seem amused at keeping you going, you seem annoyed. And your Ben thing you have spoken about. This master plan of LIEing on a receipt, somehow knowing Amiga would not notice where they planned all along to use it against Amiga years later. Did they orchestrate the clerical error on Amiga's side to not pay fully as well then? Not to mention they still claim never to have gotten the Bill bank wire that Amiga can only show a request for and not a confirmation that it went through, which would mean even a greater shortfall if so. You know all this stuff backwards and forwards but you keep wanting to distort as if somehow this will hurt Ben it seems. Did it ever occur to you he may just be laughing about all your efforts here? You are a smart guy, you are coding an important AROS project, you work on important things like the Osprey for the U.S. military. You say you do lead a full life doing things like scuba diving etc. You can talk about this taking no more than 30 minutes a day from your life talking about the case endlessly (but even that adds up). But you aren't even doing so where its leading anywhere forward in those you are conversing with. At least they are getting some sort of entertainment value. What are you getting out of this?

Quote:

Where exactly does Hyperion say the $7200 and $8850 were for other things? AI's lawyer was pretty adamant that Ben was asking for at least the $8850 as part of the buyback clause for the 2001 contract.

They spoke that they had legal fees to deal with on behalf of speaking for Amiga in another case as one example of what those monies were supposedly for and other coding work outside of the AOS 4.0 job. Though this has been spoken about before with you. Again its just another example of you wanting to re-hash endlessly. I'm pretty sure you guys will keep it up, so you don't need me for the effort. Again its a he said, she said situation.

Thats all I have to say man. Peace.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Nov-2007 at 07:48 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Nov-2007 at 07:46 PM.

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

@PulsatingQuasar

You are so right!

@Ben Madlock's sidekicks

Booooooring!

@Tigger

Quote:

The judge will look at 7.02 and say you cant accrue costs for the other party and that goes away, in addition once they signed the 2003 contract any chance to get the funds back from acquiring the source code basically went away. The 90K number has nothing to do with what it cost to get source code, you do understand where the 90K number came from right?

As usual we have different views of things...........
I am very comfortable with the way I see things.(Hyperion victories........)

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

@fairlanefastback

Quite true that Cobra, Spectre660 and others will not be turned to Tigger and Umisef's position and vice versa.

I wonder why Hyperion signed a contract in which they could be bought out for 25,000 no matter their costs for development (Ben's own words), if they valued OS4 so highly? Were they planning on the insolvency clause from the get go? I am not going to say that Hyperion has no case because I am no legal expert, but it does not seem that they should be allowed to get away with this, as they knew the buy back (again Ben's own wording) was a distinct and quite probable outcome from the start.

I can be (and more often than not am) wrong, so can you explain why I should be supportive of Hyperion over AInc in this. It looks to me like a subcontractor trying to grab someone else's ip. No need to bring up the evil past of AInc (Bolton, coupon scam ect..) but just the reasoning on the legal case.

@Tigger

Quote:

That is your interpretation of it, I and other surely dont see it that way

Sure, it's a big world, I'm sure there are several people who think that if one company has exclusive rights to market/distribute a product, it's OK for another company to market the same product and take money from customers with it

Quote:

But they wrote the contract and listed H&P in Annex II even though they knew H&P was going to have nothing to do with th 4.0 effort, so it swings both ways.

When are you going to stop speaking in the name of others? You keep making such wild claims, that "they" knew this, they knew that, yet you have no idea what negotiations took place internally. Either the contract was drafted earlier when they thought H&P was in the game and accidentally left it in there, or they were still expecting that a deal will be made with H&P. In any case, if AInc knew that they will not be able to obtain the 3.5/3.9 sources, then they must have been really stupid to sign this contract in which they warrant the opposite.

Quote:

First of all the reason they only paid $24750 is because Hyperion LIED on the receipt, they sent them $22250 and Hyperion wrote a recipt for $22500, they then paid the $2500 and believed they paid in full.

I know that you have these strong feelings towards Hyperion, but as far as the court case is concerned they didn't lie, both parties admitted that they made a mistake.

Quote:

At best case Hyperion will be allowed to collect the $250 without interest because they are at least 50% responsible for the shortcoming, technically the judge could rule that they had been paid in full since thats what the receipt says. Since then, they have been paid $7200 more for the OS, plus $8850 more for the OS and then of course the $25K this year and still nothing has been provided in way of code.

Of course all of that falls apart, because these chunks of money were paid by different companies. Itec paid the first amount, which even if it was a full sum of $25k would not have been adequate since there were still some outstanding payments due to Hyperion, which the contract specifically states must be paid before the buyin can be made. IIRC the money owed was around $6000, therefore Itec should have paid over $31k. Then of course we now know that Itec are not a lawful owner of the 2001 contract that they claimed to be, which means they don't have the right to the code anyway. Then there were the $7200 and $8850 paid by KMOS (Amiga Delaware), which is a different company, and they are definitely not the successor of Itec, which means they would have had to pay the $25k sum in full, if they were the lawful owner of the 2001 contract. $7200+$8850 doesn't add up to $25k. Besides, it seems that KMOS are not a legal owner of the 2001 contract as it turns out, that is Amino, and they haven't paid a penny to Hyperion so far, and if they did now, it'd be too late anyway.

Quote:

AI disagrees and Hyperion has yet to show why AI owes them more money then the over $65K they have paid for the $25K

Amiga Delaware, the company who sued Hyperion in Washington, certainly have not paid anywhere near $65k to Hyperion, from the court documents it seems that they paid $7200 and $8850, and Hyperion claim that those were not for the $25 buyin, but for other unrelated debts.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the contract does it say that Hyperion have any responsibilities with regards to hardware development...

@stew

Quote:

I wonder why Hyperion signed a contract in which they could be bought out for 25,000 no matter their costs for development (Ben's own words), if they valued OS4 so highly?

Maybe USD25,0000.00 would have been ok for an OS4 based on the H&P kernel and the original time frame .
Things did not work out and new solutions were implemented without changing
the original contract.

Add in shell games,disputes and strong arm tactics on both sides and here we are today. 3 lawsuits filed.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

If Hyperion is winning as you are saying, then why spend more money on a new court case which will slow down the final resolution? Don't have an answer do you.

I do, and I already gave you the answer in a previous post, let me quote:
Quote:

In case you haven't noticed, neither Amiga Delaware, nor Itec are a legal successor of the OS4 contract (unless they can provide some documents which I haven't seen yet), which means Amino (who are the same company as Amiga Washington which the 2001 was signed with) are the ones who have those rights. I think that after finding out that this company is still active, the only logical thing for Hyperion to do is to take the opportunity and get a declaratory judgement on the ownership issues.

@COBRA

Please don't use that "W word" (Warranty).
It makes some people see red (3.5 and 3.9 Boing balls).........

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

@stew

Quote:

Quite true that Cobra, Spectre660 and others will not be turned to Tigger and Umisef's position and vice versa.

Tig has been very consistent.
Bashing every pro Hyperion point of view.
Even the Judge's order denying the Injunction..

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