@Tigger

Quote:

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 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

I don't appreciate that - I am not a broken record, as I have not said this before, and I am not repeating any mantra.
Furthermore you say "Again Boot_WB, you are broken vinyl" - could you please then point me to where I have been repeating myself endlessly in previous posts?

If you actually take the time to read what I have said, I am agreeing with your analysis of the judge being in error. I am also adding how this has probably occurred. However I disagree with your interpretation that the judge is "confused," as I believe you are implying the judges whole interpretation is confused, not just this single fact.

Exhibit F (Document #4) - is a "signed" copy of the 2003 agreement between Itec LLC and Hyperion. This is the "agreement regarding the delivery of rights to OS 4 upon the payment of $25,000 by Amiga"

Exhibit G (Document #4) - is an unsigned copy of the 2004 "Arctic" agreement between KMOS and Hyperion.

Exhibit 12 (Document #26 attachment #6) - is a signed copy of the 2004 "Arctic" agreement between KMOS and Hyperion.


Exhibit 12 does indeed differ significantly from Exhibit G, however as you rightly point out they are both agreements relating to "Arctic" and nothing to do with the buy-in/buy-out.

It would appear that in leafing through the evidence the judge has concatenated the two (Exhibits F and G), and mistaken the whole as an unsigned 2004 "agreement regarding the delivery of rights to OS 4 upon the payment of $25,000 by Amiga".

However, this is a single small point in the judges summation, and the remainder of the judge's analysis remains valid.

Or are you trying to say that the judge's whole summation was confused? That would be one explanation as to why his interpretation of the evidence presented differed from that of your multitalented self (programmer, lead software engineer, accountant, lawyer )

If I am now doing an impression of a scratched record (and I have a few) it is because you have misinterpreted my original statement. I have thus tried to demonstrate my point more clearly.

Last edited by Boot_WB on 26-Jun-2007 at 06:02 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.