Quote:

Turrican3 wrote: If we have a problem here (for Hyperion), is the fact the judge dismissed the annexes of the contract, where the features were carefully specified...

Actually he only said Annex II, which is on one copy and not on the other and doesnt have initials. Of course neither Annex has initials, but if the two conflicting sides include the same document, the judge is liable to use it if necessary in the case.

Quote:

Again IANAL, and I've been reading this argument for a while. What I wonder is: how that could possibly have influence on the lawsuit, unless those 3rd parties sue Hyperion for not having being paid?

Q: what proof do you have that the software was completed in 2004, did you make payments according to the documents YOU SUBMITTED as evidence which you were supposed to do upon completion.

A: NO.

Q: Did you inform AI that you were done?
A: NO.

Q: Did you inform the community you were done or your current customers?
A: NO

Thats about how long the done in 2004 questioning is going to be, and then its all over.

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand Hyperion still claim they have not received the famous 25k for the buy back/in, but besides that, I guess the whole 3.x source code mess alone could well be enough for invoking a breach of contract on AInc's side.

Hyperion claims they only received $24,750 towards the buyback in 2003 (which may be correct), HOWEVER they sent receipts totalling $25,000. Also the 3.x source code mess isnt an issue UNLESS and UNTIL Hyperion shows a contract where AI said they would offset that cost. Because they signed a Bill of Sale with Itec for $25,000, not $25,000 plus some other money, and in actuality, we know that AI+Itec+KMOS+AI have paid over 40K so far to Hyperion and still dont have anything.
-Tig

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