@Boot_WB

Quote:

Boot_WB wrote: @Tigger The agreement regarding the buy-back/buy-in was exhibit F, not G. Additionally it was signed, not unsigned. Since the exhibits F and G were presented in a single continuous pdf it is obvious that the judge was flicking through the exhibits, and "missed" that the unsigned signature page actually referred to exhibit G, not exhibit F. This was a mistake regarding this particular point, this does not mean the judge was "confused" (implying that his reasoning was impaired about the whole case). The remaining points in the decision remain valid.

Again Boot_WB, you are broken vinyl repeating over and over a mantra that is incorrect. Footnote 4 of either 40 (or 38 which is virtually the same document) says

"Further Amiga has submitted with the Declaration of William McEwen a copy of a later (2004) agreement regarding the delivery of rights to OS 4 upon the payment of $25,000 by Amiga. Declaration of McEwen, Exhibit G. This agreement is unsigned, and differs in significant respect from the one presented by Hyperion, dated May 26, 2004. Carlton Declaration, Exhibit 12."

This above it perfectly clear what documents he is talking about. He says the dates are 2004, in fact calls out the date for the signed one provided by Hyperion. Exhibit G and Exhibit 12 are the two versions of the agreement to port to the Arctic PDA. They have nothing to do with 25k or buying the OS. Thus the judge was confused.
QED.
-Tig

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