@T_Power

Quote:

T_Power wrote: The whole "(OEM) LICENSE AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT" between Amiga Inc and the partners is null and void due to a technicality on the first page. Who can see it?

Hyperion surely doesnt want the contract thrown out, then they have been violating trademarks for a long time, and though I have a pretty good guess what you are talking about (Escena), we've discussed that already. I think Hyperion can safely show that the Teron based AmigaOne replaced the Escena board with at least some AI approval. (The micros may be a different case).
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You keep going back to that, it doesnt matter. If Hyperion didnt believe that Itec had the right to buy the OS under the 2001 agreement, then they shouldnt have sold it to Itec. They did, they can't argue now that they didnt believe they had the right to buy it from them after they've had the money for 4 years now.

ok
By the same token Hyperion may have not had the right to sell to ITEC

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

@Tigger
Quote:

...and though I have a pretty good guess what you are talking about (Escena)...

The (Escena) "Target hardware" is not the issue, as that definition is "open".

I suggest Hyperion and Amiga inc meet under mediation and draft a NEW contract beneficial to both parties, otherwise BOTH parties will suffer financial and IP loss.


Cheers,
Tim

Quote:

T_Power wrote: I suggest Hyperion and Amiga inc meet under mediation and draft a NEW contract beneficial to both parties, otherwise BOTH parties will suffer financial and IP loss.

Meditation was available for Hyperion for most of December 2006, and Hyperion appears to have not even attempted it. At this point, AI is much more likely to complete the lawsuit and likely Hyperion will have to pay AIs court costs, which will likely bankrupt them.
-Tig

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

Quote:

By the same token Hyperion may have not had the right to sell to ITEC

Thats a much better point, but noone is going to argue it, because it doesnt help AI, and Ben/Hyperion dont want everyone to know how much they were involved in the AI/Itec/KMOS/AI shellgame. For example, Ben had to know about the Itec sale before it happened because less them 24 hours after Itec bought the rights from AI, they bought the OS from Hyperion. That didnt happen without prior knowledge and agreement, and since that happened Hyperion cant argue the point.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Meditation was available for Hyperion for most of December 2006, and Hyperion appears to have not even attempted it. At this point, AI is much more likely to complete the lawsuit and likely Hyperion will have to pay AIs court costs, which will likely bankrupt them. -Tig

You don't seem to understand that the entire "(OEM) LICENSE AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT" drawn up between Amiga inc and the "Amiga One Partners" is NULL AND VOID.
With the entire document been null and void, any mediation terms in said document are null and void too.

Therefor any OTHER contract entered into between Amiga inc and any of the "partners" which makes reference to this agreement is in jeopardy of been NULL AND VOID too.

As BOTH parties have entered into business dealings with one another without cover of a legal document, I suggest it is in BOTH parties interests to meet under mediation and draft a NEW contract beneficial to both parties.

Cheers,
Tim

Quote:

You don't seem to understand that the entire "(OEM) LICENSE AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT" drawn up between Amiga inc and the "Amiga One Partners" is NULL AND VOID. With the entire document been null and void, any mediation terms in said document are null and void too.

You still seem to be keeping it secret why you think the agreement is null and void. Until you actually point out a valid reason, there is no reason to continue to discuss this.
-Tig

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

Quote:

T_Power wrote: to understand that the entire "(OEM) LICENSE AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT" drawn up between Amiga inc and the "Amiga One Partners" is NULL AND VOID. With the entire document been null and void, any mediation terms in said document are null and void too.

You don't seem to understand that you are likely wrong that the doucment is null and void.
-Tig

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

@all

The most "likely" outcome of all is no OS4 or OS5 to the masses any time soon, if ever. This back and forth BS towards each other in the community is a waste. Such energy is better spent towards pushing Amiga for answers, like showing us where they are with OS5, more info on the ACK boards, etc. This is the response they are used to seeing from us, over intellectualizing, wasted breathe, & debating minutia.

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

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @all The most "likely" outcome of all is no OS4 or OS5 to the masses any time soon, if ever. This back and forth BS towards each other in the community is a waste. Such energy is better spent towards pushing Amiga for answers, like showing us where they are with OS5, more info on the ACK boards, etc.

The ACK boards are basically COTS boards, so its not that interesting to talk about, you can find them on a couple of different webpages. AI is going to win the case, the only real issue here is how much of the OS will they own when the case is over. Hyperion will likely be bankrupted by AI's court costs. If the Friedens signed the Arctic agreement, Exec SG code and all its code goes to AI as well. AI will likely write checks to gather more of the OS, add a few things and 5.0 will be coming out for the ACK boards.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

If the buyback was done in April 2003 or before, would AI only be entitled to the source/object at the time?

Kirka

@Tigger
Quote:

You still seem to be keeping it secret why you think the agreement is null and void. Until you actually point out a valid reason, there is no reason to continue to discuss this. -Tig

1.) When a legal document is drawn up, ANY changes made to that document MUST be initialed by ALL signatories.
2.) A legal document MUST be dated to be legal and BINDING on the parties.

Looking at the document in question "decmossshow_case_doc.pdf" (EXHIBIT A), page 1, line 1, "of October" has been struck through, (deleted) and what appears to be "November" hand written above.
This would be acceptable IF ALL signatories HAD initialed this change, BUT NO initials appear next to this change, therefore this document has been defaced by parties unknown.

Again looking at this document, because the date has been defaced, the document as a whole is DATELESS, therefor the whole document is NULL AND VOID.

It will be noticed that the signatories have initialed each page in the lower left, this is to signify that the ORIGINAL content of each page is acceptable to each party.
This does NOT signify acceptance of changes to the text on the page.
ANY changes on the pages MUST be initialed by ALL signatories NEXT to the said changes.

Because of this legal technicality, the document is null and void, and therefore NOT legally BINDING.


Looking at the document "decmcewenshow_case_doc.pdf" (EXHIBIT F), the "buy-back" contract between Hyperion and Itec becomes inadmissible because of the above technicality, plus another unrelated technicality. (EXHIBIT G) is inadmissible because it too is null and void, as it is NOT initialed and signed by any party.

Cheers,
Tim

@T_Power

Quote:

Because of this legal technicality, the document is null and void, and therefore NOT legally BINDING.

Well then AInc wins. Hyperion worked on OS4 with no legal right to do so. All work would belong to AInc and any distribution of OS4 would be in violation of AInc's IP. Of course Hyperion may keep the $$$ perhaps because it is now a gift. You really can't be serious are you? Hyperion has not contested the validity of the contract but it would be fun to see them try.

@T_Power

Would they have to prove how one month makes a difference? And I assume the contract was signed after the date was modified... would they then blatantly lie and say the date was changed after they signed the contract?

_________________
Currently planning to upgrade my Amstrad CPC

@T_Power

Interesting. It makes you wonder why this was done. Is it really important it was November instead of October? What if Hyperion comes with the "original" contract without that date change? For now this doesn't make much sense to me.

On the other hand, the day was filled in by hand and looking at the layout, this was always done by hand. But it looks a bit odd to me. I think all the contracts I have signed, I always had to fill in the date myself next to my signature. And how much effort is it to print the contracts just before the meeting if you are too lazy to fill in the dates yourself?

Why is AI going to court when they can't produce "proper" evidence? Didn't their lawyers warn them? Or AI wanted to pursue anyway?

And as time passed, I started to wonder how the $50 rebate fits into the equation. Why all of sudden we get the email from AI that we have to find our proof of purchase to redeem our $50 rebate?

Actually I already gave up hope when they sent out the t-shirts. I had the impression back then they said that was all we could expect.

Or are they trying to clean up "the balance"? Could the $50 rebate have any influence on the balance between AI and Hyperion?

Quote:

1.) When a legal document is drawn up, ANY changes made to that document MUST be initialed by ALL signatories. 2.) A legal document MUST be dated to be legal and BINDING on the parties.

Its common and legal in the US for all parties to sign the bottom of each page of the contract to cover each and any changes on it. As you can see, the signatures are there on each page. Page 1 is completely legal in the US despite your claims to the contrary, I personally have had to initial 4 or 500 pages of SOWs to cover the changes during negotiations. Sorry but this is a legal and binding document.
-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: The ACK boards are basically COTS boards, so its not that interesting to talk about, you can find them on a couple of different webpages. AI is going to win the case, the only real issue here is how much of the OS will they own when the case is over. Hyperion will likely be bankrupted by AI's court costs. If the Friedens signed the Arctic agreement, Exec SG code and all its code goes to AI as well. AI will likely write checks to gather more of the OS, add a few things and 5.0 will be coming out for the ACK boards.

I learned long ago in life that what is "supposed" to happen doesn't always. Judges don't always make the "right" decisions. Lawyers don't always present a case as well as their evidence should afford them. Let alone complications with how or if something is enforced, throw in a dash of another jurisdiction, in another country. Lets not even go too far down the path of divining what AI really want to do if they indeed win, which is not necessarily the same as what they are saying publically. Let alone if karma throws its weight around.

I hope you are right that we have working ACK machines with 5.0 (or 4.0) and I hope thats soon. But don't be suprised if it dosen't all fall into place as you keep saying.

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

@all

Some update from the site of the Court Case about the expedite discovery from Amiga Inc..
See the docs from 19 to 21.

Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF

@Tigger
Quote:

The ACK boards are basically COTS boards, so its not that interesting to talk about, you can find them on a couple of different webpages.

I was wondering how you came to this conclusion. Did you just do a search for the specs ACK has posted and found some boards that matched? Do you have a URL or a seller/manufacturer name to toss out here? I know it's all academic, but still...

In one of the forums I ran across a picture of a board that someone said was the board ACK was going to use, darned if I can find it now though.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

@Tigger

Slight shift of focus.

Re Amiga Incs Lawyer's letter to Hyperion 21 Nov 2006 (MCewan PDF page 63 and 64).

re claim of failure to release OS4.0 . is this claim justified in November 2006 in view of the then hardware options available for a release of OS 4.0 ? What would the target market been at this point ?. and if it has not been released how can Hyperion sell it for the range of product Amiga inc claim that Hyperion advertise it for ?.
Also if KMOS bought the OS4.0 rights from ITEC in 2004 as the were then how can they complain now when things were already 3 years overdue at the time they stepped into the picture ?

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