@AMiGR

Quote:

AMiGR wrote: @COBRA Quote: Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to beleive and share your opinion/views with others, but when you present these assumptions as facts, you are misleading other people on this website. Whether me, you or Tigger believe this is grossly irrelevant, in terms of the court case. Tigger's whole point is that: Unless if Hyperion's lawyer contests the fact they they have been paid the money, it will be assumed by the judge that they did. That's how it works. They may or may not have done so but unless Hyperion states that it did not happen, it did and I hardly think that Hyperion will not play this card if it's viable. We do not know whether they will yet.

I believe as Cobra does it seems, that Tigger goes well beyond that. The scope of his statements go well beyond that single point and I think thats what Cobra is trying to say if I read what he wrote correctly.

As an example:

Quote:

Tigger wrote: AI hasnt provided any fake documentation to a federal court, thats automatic jail time. People implying that are silly.

Its just not possible to know this either way, its all conjecture in either direction.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Hmm, why you care about him caring seems to be as reasonable a question then. I'm not asking that though, just like I wouldn't ask what you asked in the first place. An observation though, it takes two to tango and he had a dance partner in this.

The two of them have been having quite the conversation. I'm not objecting to that - in fact it's a great popcorn moment. But this subject of "did they/didn't they pay some small change later" is irrelevant since both parties (Amiga/Hyperion) aren't arguing about this.

If Amiga failed to make this payment, then the number one argument Hyperion will make is that Amiga didn't buy the OS - but since they seem to be under the impression that Amiga did buy back the OS, there really doesn't seem much chance of that.

I just think COBRA has spent much too much time on this small detail when the rest of the conversations on the thread (including COBRA's) have covered so much ground.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Well it seems its an issue of semantics. I'm not sure that COBRA is arguing that the court will investigate anything, I have taken what he wrote more as a general point that Amiga has not provided proof of full payment. I don't think he is saying its certain they have not fully paid either or assumed that Hyperion will say otherwise. I took his comments to mean just simply that we, as outsiders looking in, have not been shown proof of full payment in the public court docs. Perhaps he is in a public forum trying to drop a hint to Hyperion that it could be quite a good strategy to employ, that I don't know.

I agree that if Hyperion dosen't argue the point it will be accepted by the court as paid, I just think maybe people are taking about different things here. Its hard to tell sometimes with Tigger talking in absolutes about how Amiga would conduct themselves to the court. Amiga dosen't seem to have much respect for court rulings, but that aside, since this is someone else and not oneself saying you are sure what they are doing and how they are doing it is a stretch.

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

for a lighter side to this thread and reminder to all to be careful about the current view of things, The Police do it well..........


"I can see that destiny you sold turned into a shining band of gold."

and

"I will turn your face to alabaster when you find your servant is your master'

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

@AMiGR

Quote:

Whether me, you or Tigger believe this is grossly irrelevant, in terms of the court case. Tigger's whole point is that: Unless if Hyperion's lawyer contests the fact they they have been paid the money, it will be assumed by the judge that they did.

You also missed my point completely. Tigger painted a picture of the whole situation by assuming that all that was said and claimed by AInc is correct and is the only relevant information to know about the whole affair, even though AInc provided inadequate proof of their claims and Hyperion has not yet prepared their response. Assuming that certain claims will not be opposed by Hyperion due to lack of evidence is no more intelligent than assuming they will be opposed.

@fairlanefastback

Indeed I'm not saying something is one way or another (e.g. I'm not saying they did pay, neither am I saying they did not), all I was trying to point out is that there is a distinct difference between facts and assumptions and that making assumptions appear as facts can seriously mislead the community into beleiving things which may not be correct.

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

If Amiga failed to make this payment, then the number one argument Hyperion will make is that Amiga didn't buy the OS - but since they seem to be under the impression that Amiga did buy back the OS, there really doesn't seem much chance of that.

I have not seen Hyperion state that they consider the buy-back having been executed by Amiga Inc. They signed the buy-back contract, but as I pointed out there is no evidence so far that they did receive the full $25k sum and so far Hyperion did not make any statements regarding that. So my suggestion: save the "if"-s and just wait for what Hyperion has to say in response to Amiga's claims.

@Tigger

Re US "Discovery Process"

as there were 3 US companies Involved ,Amiga INC #1, ITEC LLC and KMOS/Amiga Inc # 2
how easy will it be to get internal documents from the two earlier ones, Amiga INC #2 and ITEC LLC? could/would these be requested or allowed ?would any documents apart from the contracts/buyback agreements still exist ?

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

@COBRA

True, fair enough.

Although I do agree with him that McEwen is not stupid enough to risk his freedom by lying in Federal court, we haven't seen the response yet. Whatever happens, whoever wins, one thing is certain: The ####e will hit the rotating element with blades.

_________________

The opening Claim

A. Amiga Inc is the Successor in Interest to The Agreement and
All Trademarks

This may be the key.

if proven true then Hyperion are wrong.
if proven false then Amiga Inc are wrong.

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

@Tigger
Quote:

Willing to bet that you cant get a South African lawyer to tell you that doing the date that way will void the contract unless one of the parties says that the date was added after the signing of the contract and without there knowledge.

Not so, in South Africa ANY changes on a legal document MUST be initialed by ALL parties, NEXT to the change.

Quote:

.....They also will likely have to find proof. In addition, as others have pointed out, its not in the best interest of Hyperion for the contract to be thrown out.

This is where you are totally WRONG, it is not in Amiga inc's interest to have this contract declared null and void.
If it is void, Amiga inc has then allegedly allowed the 3.1 source code to be used by Hyperion with no legal restraint, and no compensation. This would be a BIG loss for Amiga inc. The ONLY loss for Hyperion would be the loss of the AMIGA name and trademarks.

Quote:

Initialing next to every change doesnt make it any harder to abuse or tamper, I just xerox a signature from one place and put it in another. -Tig

Now what good will that do?
Your copy of the contract will be different to the ORIGINAL.

The main reason for initialing next to changes on a contract are to prevent tampering with the contract between signing the document and making COPIES for all the relevant parties. (Depending on the type of contract this period could be hours or even days)

I'll put forward a set of events which could occur with your USA legal system, but CAN'T happen with the SA legal system.

It's 19H45 in the evening four parties have just completed initialing 175 pages of a legal contract, and signing the last page.
"Joe" invites all to celebrate with a round or two at the pub while he takes the contract to Mrs "Smith" to copy for all parties. The other three parties are all to happy to rush to the pub. (Shame poor "Joe" he'll miss the first round... )

In the lift on the way up to Mrs "Smith" and the Xerox machine, "Joe" turns to page 62 and draws a line through subsection 7.2.3, and page 64 deletes subsection 7.3.1.
Two parties have just been prejudice by those two deletions, and all done legally and in a binding manner according to USA law.

Those changes with all the other "correct" changes will appear on ALL parties contracts. At 22H00 when the half drunk and tired souls receive their freshly copied contracts, the most they will do is flip through the first few pages and the last, then pop the contract into the envelope.

Off they all jet home, the next day flip through the contract and pop it into the safe.
......Five years later "Sam" phones "Joe" up and asks about XYZ, "Joe" says what are you talking about, check "page 62, subsection 7.2.3"..


"Sam" says ..... XYZ!!@@...

Enjoy your USA legal Swiss cheese.

Cheers,
Tim

@T_Power

Quote:

Not so, in South Africa ANY changes on a legal document MUST be initialed by ALL parties, NEXT to the change.

And what Tigger is trying to explain to you is that in this case, nobody would care.

Firstly, it does not matter one bit whether it was October or November 2001 when the contract was signed.
Secondly, much public noise was made by all involved about signing the contract, in November. So even if it mattered, it can easily be shown that the change is genuinely reflecting reality.

Quote:

I'll put forward a set of events which could occur with your USA legal system, but CAN'T happen with the SA legal system.

And how does your glorious legal system prevent "Joe" from modifying the original *before* they get initialed? Not with a ball point pen, of course, but rather in the computer, prior to printout. When it comes to 175 page documents, people don't read them any more while initialing than they do after receiving their copies....
(Oh, and the typical scenario for signing contracts when everyone is around is for there to be multiple unsigned/unitialed copies, *all* of which get signed/initialed by *every* party, and then each party gets to take one copy with original signatures. In most places in the world, a photocopy of a signature is not worth the paper it is on.


ObGeek: Of course, all of these issues would disappear if we moved to fully electronic documents, signed using public-private-key encryption. Then one actually signs the document (i.e. the content, the words), rather than the container (i.e. the piece of paper the words one intends to sign may or may not be printed on).

Meanwhile, back in the USA in the Mainstream Sector.... Microsoft has reported that they have sold 40 million copies of Windows Vista and it continues to sell at twice the rate that Windows XP sold for them.

While OS 4 is stuck in muck...

40 million copies

Ready! Shoot! Aim!

Last edited by DonnieA2 on 17-May-2007 at 01:39 AM.

Possible areas violated by Amiga Inc in the original contract

Clause 3.02
4.01 (b)
4.04
4.06
7.12

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

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: The opening Claim A. Amiga Inc is the Successor in Interest to The Agreement and All Trademarks This may be the key. if proven true then Hyperion are wrong. if proven false then Amiga Inc are wrong.

If a) is false then Hyperion has illegally sold the OS to Itec, which is a problem. Thats the issue, Ben and Carlton both have talked about KMOS buying the company, etc. If they had an issue, they should have gone with it then, they also shouldnt have sold the OS to Itec. Since Ben had a huge hand in the whole OS to Itec, buyout money to Hyperion 24 hour shopping spree, I dont think they want that to even come up as an issue.
-Tig

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

Quote:

umisef wrote: @T_Power Quote: I'll put forward a set of events which could occur with your USA legal system, but CAN'T happen with the SA legal system. And how does your glorious legal system prevent "Joe" from modifying the original *before* they get initialed? Not with a ball point pen, of course, but rather in the computer, prior to printout. When it comes to 175 page documents, people don't read them any more while initialing than they do after receiving their copies.... (Oh, and the typical scenario for signing contracts when everyone is around is for there to be multiple unsigned/unitialed copies, *all* of which get signed/initialed by *every* party, and then each party gets to take one copy with original signatures. In most places in the world, a photocopy of a signature is not worth the paper it is on.

Exactly Bernd, my 500 page example are usually at least 3 and sometimes 4 copies all of which we all initial, the prime gets one, we get one, and the legal folks get one, if we have more then one prime or we have a subcontractor they also get one. If all 3 copies (Eyetech, AI and Hyperion in this case) have the same date on it, it doesnt matter in any country whether its initialed or not, no judge is going to throw out a contract because all 3 copies have a hand written date on it, and as you have pointed out, the contract signing was all over the internet when it occurred.
-Tig

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

Quote:

COBRA wrote: You also missed my point completely. Tigger painted a picture of the whole situation by assuming that all that was said and claimed by AInc is correct and is the only relevant information to know about the whole affair, even though AInc provided inadequate proof of their claims and Hyperion has not yet prepared their response.

As I have told you before, I am not in any way assuming that it is the only relevant information, I've got lots of other relevant information I know about. Under threat of perjury in a federal court, McEwen, Moss and there lawyer has said they have paid the full amount, we've seen from the documentation that Kouri thinks he has paid the full amount. They sent Hyperion $8,850 in November to clear up any possible misunderstanding about them having paid the full amount, which apparently is a number Ben gave them as a sum still owed for the buyback. Anyone believing that Hyperion is going to flip this case based on they didnt pay the money to Hyperion is working on a delusion I believe, I dont think 3 people (one a lawyer) are willing to go to jail to lie about whether they paid $2500, especially since they could just send Hyperion a check for that amount now and have it over.
-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: Not so, in South Africa ANY changes on a legal document MUST be initialed by ALL parties, NEXT to the change.

Are you a lawyer, again ask a lawyer or a judge and get back to us.


Quote:

Now what good will that do? Your copy of the contract will be different to the ORIGINAL. The main reason for initialing next to changes on a contract are to prevent tampering with the contract between signing the document and making COPIES for all the relevant parties. (Depending on the type of contract this period could be hours or even days)

I'm sorry in my system we initial all the originals (apparently the Australians do it as well). Boeing, SCI and DCMA for instance each get a copy all three are identical, each have original initials and original signatures.

Quote:

I'll put forward a set of events which could occur with your USA legal system, but CAN'T happen with the SA legal system.

It can surely happen with your system, thats why we have multiple originals. With your system I just make the changes to the single original, Xerox and copy over the initials on the pages I want to change and make the 3 copies. With our system, I have to break into Boeing and the Pentagon to get the other 2 originals and make changes on them so that the 3 originals match and also find all those copies they've made that dont have the changes. Your system, every copy has the change that says you have to wear 2 left boots on Fridays while making my product.

Quote:

Enjoy your USA legal Swiss cheese.

Seems your system is the one with the problem
-Tig

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

@AMiGR

Quote:

Although I do agree with him that McEwen is not stupid enough to risk his freedom by lying in Federal court, we haven't seen the response yet.

From what I have seen from Bill so far I have no problem questioning his intelligence :) Also, if I make a claim to have paid a sum I will attach an authenic, dated bank transaction receipt of the same amount. It's just strange to me that they cannot do that, and instead attach a receipt of a lower amount and a few letters. I suspect there's a lot of detail there we don't know yet and I predict there will be arguments revolving around this. Let's wait and see.

@COBRA

Quote:

I have not seen Hyperion state that they consider the buy-back having been executed by Amiga Inc. They signed the buy-back contract, but as I pointed out there is no evidence so far that they did receive the full $25k sum and so far Hyperion did not make any statements regarding that. So my suggestion: save the "if"-s and just wait for what Hyperion has to say in response to Amiga's claims.

Yep I know, you and Tigger have been going round in circles arguing this point for 4 pages. Since neither of you can prove the other wrong, it just seems pointless to be continuing spending so much time trying.

Technicalities aside, common sense says that Amiga Inc haven't spent 4 years and countless thousands on legal fees for the sake of a few dollars they've short changed Hyperion. Your point - while valid - seems to be clutching at straws.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate