Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Clause 2.01 of The OS 4.0 Agreement will have this Suit thrown out. It gives exclusive right and license to the Amiga one partners to market and distribute OS 4 (note not only 4.0) as a stand alone version for the "Target Hardware" and as an OEM version shipped with the Amiga One. Buyback dos not affect this right. Target hardware definition is PPC based but not limited to Phase 5,DCE and Amigaone hardware.

I'm not sure why you think the Buyback doesnt affect this. Since 2.06 says that Hyperion shall transfer all Source Code, interest and title in OS 4.0 to Amiga to the extent possible. Thats pretty much contrary to what you are claiming. There is nothing in this contract that is going to get it thrown out, if that were true, the judge would have already done it.

Quote:

Edited: also gives right and license to use trade marks in conjunction with the Amiga One.

And the AmigaOne is tied to Eyetech which is one of the issues with the Acube situation.

Quote:

Amiga Inc lawyers are they this bad?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. AI's lawyers didnt write the contract, and there current lawyers have an awfully strong case.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Another Issue: Was KMOS/Amiga Inc paid any royalties for Amiga OS 4.0 OEM version at any time ? if they were it would prove that OS4.0 was released ............ Edited: This would have implications for clause 2.08

First of all Hyperion never claimed it was released, in fact they claimed the contrary until AI cancelled the contract and then tried to backdate everything. In addition, AI bought back the OS before Hyperion shipped the first version, so it doesnt explain why Hyperion didnt ship AI what they bought from them.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

t.Quote:

'm not sure why you think the Buyback doesnt affect this. Since 2.06 says that Hyperion shall transfer all Source Code, interest and title in OS 4.0 to Amiga to the extent possible. Thats pretty much contrary to what you are claiming. There is nothing in this contract that is going to get it thrown out, if that were true, the judge would have already done it.

Remember that they were two Amiga One Partners.
This would mean that the buyback would have affected Eyteech's right to include OS4.0 on the machines that they sold .

The judge has not reached looking at the contract yet. all this is prelim stuff.when he looks at the contract then we go from there.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 20-May-2007 at 02:30 PM.

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

@Tigger

There were no royalties due Amiga INC for the stand alone version.
There was no new Amiga One hardware.
Hyperion were the only surviving group with rights to market and distribute OS4.0
They did not need to ship anything.

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

@Tigger


Quote:

Not sure what you are trying to say here. AI's lawyers didnt write the contract, and there current lawyers have an awfully strong case.

They have no case at all.
There is no time frame in the contract for hand over of the source code after a buyback.

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

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Remember that they were two Amiga One Partners. This would mean that the buyback would have affected Eyteech's right to include OS4.0 on the machines that they sold . Quote: No, the buyback only effect Hyperions rights to the OS. It says that quite specifically. The judge has not reached looking at the contract yet. all this is prelim stuff.when he looks at the contract then we go from there.

The judge looked at everything provided before making the rulings he has done so far. Implying that he hasn't is just plain silly.
-Tig

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

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger There were no royalties due Amiga INC for the stand alone version.

Actually there were royalties paid to AI, $25 a unit, it was just paid for by Eyetech, not Hyperion. Which is why some of the Teron boards are possible issues as we discussed before.

Quote:

There was no new Amiga One hardware.

There was plenty of hardware when the sale was implemented. AI is not responsible for the hardware part of the deal.

Quote:

Hyperion were the only surviving group with rights to market and distribute OS4.0 They did not need to ship anything.

Hyperion hasnt had any rights for about 5 months now. Before that, I'm not sure you can actually say Eyetech is gone, have they declared bankruptcy and I not seen anything about it?
-Tig

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

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: Not sure what you are trying to say here. AI's lawyers didnt write the contract, and there current lawyers have an awfully strong case. They have no case at all. There is no time frame in the contract for hand over of the source code after a buyback.

So the judge (or judge and jury) will look at what is reasonable. Everyone is going to agree 4+ years is not reasonable and this will be all over. Everyone will agree that contracting to deliver in March of 2002 and only delivering after the cancellation of the license in December of 2006 is not reasonable. Its silly to think they dont have a case. They have a great case, Hyperion would love to swap places with them, because Hyperions case is going to be all about mirrors and smoke and thats probably not going to help them.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The judge looked at everything provided before making the rulings he has done so far. Implying that he hasn't is just plain silly.

Ok. (he does his homework on it )
he is not required to rule on it until discovery and arguments are first presented.
he has to deal with delay tactics etc.
when he gets to the contract one of his first rulings will have to be if a judge or an arbitration panel should do the initial determinations (See Amiga Inc VS Garry Hare).
Problem is that no Arbitration body is specified in this contract unlike the Hare one if it has to go that route.

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

@Tigger

here are things as I see them :

(1) Amiga Inc sue on grounds of IP infringement after terminating contract due breaches etc.
(2) Description of allowed IP use is outlined in Contract
(3) contract states arbitration for determination of disputes except IP issues and these rulings for temporary relief only .

the most a judge can do at this stage is tell Hyperion not to use any Amiga IP until the whole issue is resolved.The judge can then advise both Amiga Inc and Hyperion to
go to arbitration. The Motion for Damages is put on hold at this stage.

The arbitrators would rule on the issue.if they rule on Amiga Inc's points then Amiga could terminate the agreement.
Amiga go back to court armed with the arbitrators decision and ask that Hyperion be permanently prevented from using their IP.
The motion for damages could be resumed.

or they could come to some terms with Hyperion without going back to court and withdraw the order for Hyperion not to use Amiga IP.
.

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

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger when he gets to the contract one of his first rulings will have to be if a judge or an arbitration panel should do the initial determinations (See Amiga Inc VS Garry Hare). Problem is that no Arbitration body is specified in this contract unlike the Hare one if it has to go that route.

Actually unless Hyperion asks for it (and shows just cause, because AI attemped arbitration according to the contract in 2006) arbitration isnt an option. This is going to court and Hyperion is going to get a big bloody nose from everything we've seen presented at the moment.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

http://www.adrforum.com/adr_CaseDetails.aspx?caseid=809

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Everyone is going to agree 4+ years is not reasonable and this will be all over. Everyone will agree that contracting to deliver in March of 2002 and only delivering after the cancellation of the license in December of 2006 is not reasonable.

The contract DOES NOT indicate that Hyperion agreed to have OS4 completed by March 2002. What it says...for the illiterate naysayers, is that Hyperion will do their best to try to have it done by March 2002. It would be something entirely different if it actually said Hyperion would complete OS4 development by March 2002. The case to be argued here is not whether or not Hyperion completed OS4 by March 2002, but did they try their best. Only an absolute fool would ignore the wording of the contract....
Tigger, you are an all out Ainc propogandist...and your spreading lies and changing the wording of a contract and arguing a point based on ignorance just shows your true colors are the same as those of Ainc (who have been lying for years).
Hyperions motives may or may not be moral, but that remains to be seen.


Scott

_________________
AmigaOne uA1-c 512M RAM - Only Amiga Makes It Possible!
Check my blog AmigaOne Computing

@scabit

Relax, if that Zornik guy on IRC was reliable we'll be seeing Hyperion's response in the next couple of days. Then we'll have both sides of the story.

On April 23rd 2003 Amiga Inc entered into an agreement to transfer all rights, titles, source etc to Itec LLC.

On April the 24th 2003 they executed the buyback clause.

The buyback clause was probably used to prevent Amiga Inc from losing all rights to Amiga OS4 rather than for them to actually do anything with it themselves.

@Spectre660


Which again isnt going to apply here. Mediation has to be carried out within 30 days of notification according to 7.07. AI asked for Mediation in the November letter, it didnt occur according to the depositions, since it didnt, anytime after December 21st or so, they are allowed to have the case heard in a court of law. They didnt cancel the contract so they didnt have to mediate or apply for arbitration, which is the sole issue thats interesting in the case you are showing.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 21-May-2007 at 05:07 AM.
Last edited by Tigger on 21-May-2007 at 05:06 AM.
Last edited by Tigger on 21-May-2007 at 05:03 AM.

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

@Rob

Quote:

Rob wrote: On April 23rd 2003 Amiga Inc entered into an agreement to transfer all rights, titles, source etc to Itec LLC. On April the 24th 2003 they executed the buyback clause. The buyback clause was probably used to prevent Amiga Inc from losing all rights to Amiga OS4 rather than for them to actually do anything with it themselves.

Thats the entire premise of the shellgame theory that I suggested over 3 years ago.
-Tig

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

Quote:

scabit wrote: @Tigger Quote: Everyone is going to agree 4+ years is not reasonable and this will be all over. Everyone will agree that contracting to deliver in March of 2002 and only delivering after the cancellation of the license in December of 2006 is not reasonable. The contract DOES NOT indicate that Hyperion agreed to have OS4 completed by March 2002. What it says...for the illiterate naysayers, is that Hyperion will do their best to try to have it done by March 2002. It would be something entirely different if it actually said Hyperion would complete OS4 development by March 2002. The case to be argued here is not whether or not Hyperion completed OS4 by March 2002, but did they try their best. Only an absolute fool would ignore the wording of the contract....

This is what the contract says:

2.02 Hyperion shall use best efforts to ensure that Amiga OS 4.0 is ready for release before March 1, 2002.

So I'd disagree with most of your comments from above. Hyperion sigend up to do the OS in 4 months, sometime after 4 years cancelling the contract isnt unreasonable especially when its over 3 years since you implemented the buyback option. I realize that, most of the people on this board realize that, and the court will agree with that. Hyperions case needs to be different then we werent that late (which I think is what you want them to go with) or this is all over.

Quote:

Tigger, you are an all out Ainc propogandist...and your spreading lies and changing the wording of a contract and arguing a point based on ignorance just shows your true colors are the same as those of Ainc (who have been lying for years).

Please, everyone that knows me knows I dont like AI basically at all. They owe me money, they screwed over my friends over the years and they have made a huge mess of the Amiga situation. Fleecy Moss wont even show up at shows I'm attending because of the rumor I'm going to snap his scrawny little beastialist neck. I'm just real familiar with courts and trademarks and built that timeline years ago that the Seattle folks used for their article because I wanted people to understand what a mess this situation is. Now basically what I've been telling people for years was going to happen, happened and Hyperion is screwed because Ben is incompetant. I told him at Amiwest in 2003 that this was going to occur, but he knew better, he knew AI was going to declare bankruptcy and when it didnt his entire house of cards fell apart.

Quote:

Hyperions motives may or may not be moral, but that remains to be seen.

Hyperions lies have hurt the amiga community every bit as much as Fleecy's. Ben Hermans needs to burned in effigy as much as Fleecy Moss for the fiasco we are in now. At least a dozen people on this board (like me) were at Amiwest in 2003 when Ben was lying through his teeth about an OS he had already sold to Itec, funny he didnt mention that, in fact Itec didnt get talked about at all.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

"...Ben was lying through his teeth about an OS he had already sold to Itec..."

- but that assumes that he knew and believed that he had sold the OS. Now if Ben and Hyperion have cause to believe that they never sold it at all, then he wasn't lying.

Before we repeat all the opinions for the umpteenth time, let's just wait for Hyperion's answer. At least give them the benefit of the doubt.

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php

@tonyw

Quote:

tonyw wrote: @Tigger "...Ben was lying through his teeth about an OS he had already sold to Itec..." - but that assumes that he knew and believed that he had sold the OS. Now if Ben and Hyperion have cause to believe that they never sold it at all, then he wasn't lying. Before we repeat all the opinions for the umpteenth time, let's just wait for Hyperion's answer. At least give them the benefit of the doubt.

We have a bill of sale signed by Ben from April 24, 2003 between him and Itec. Given that this had occurred then, him sitting around telling us all about his OS 4.0 in August of 2003, was a bunch of lies. Ben signed the agreement, its not like he didnt know about it. And he knew Itec had bought the AmigaOS from AI, what do you think that Ben can say now that doesnt make his comments in 2003 a lie?
-Tig

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