@dirigent

Quote:

dirigent wrote: @Tigger Quote: April 23 - Itec buys the Classic OS from AI And the other Amiga One partners agreed, as was apparently required?

Perhaps you missed what happened the next day. Thats Hyperions agreement. Now if Eyetech wants to enter the picture and argue that they didnt agree, they (not Hyperion) may have a case, but Hyperion agreed to the new owner by executing the buyback clause with them.
-Tig

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

@mlehto

Quote:

In WV car factory workers get somewhere 60-65e per hour.

Really? Things must have changed a lot in the last 15 months. Because according to
this article (German), even workers covered by the rather generous "Haustarifvertrag" (company-specific award) were making 2600 Euro per month, working 28.8 hours per week. That's less than 21 Euro per hour, pre-tax.

Don't confuse the cost to the business with what the workers are actually paid; Especially in Germany, the two are radically different.

You can check the image below (from the
c't 2007 Gehaltsumfrage) to see what employees make *annually* in software development. To get contracting rates, the rule of thumb is "double it" --- so 180,000 Euro for 12 months of contracting would correspond to about 90,000 as an employee. As you can see, that's seriously above average....

@dirigent

It deals with royalties payable by Hyperion TO THIRD PARTIES if the Arctic version is released for sale (Recitals section).Thus accepts that there are rights own/enforced by Hyperion..

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

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Quote: Plus Hyperion is lying that they didnt know about AIs money problems There's a difference between knowing that a company is having financial problems, and finding out that they are insolvent.

Lets say that had been kicked out of there offices for non-payment, lost a number of judgements to creditors (all of which Ben knew about), but the kicker was in August when Bill McEwen under oath said he had no money, that should allow Ben to retroactively get rid of the April 24th contract, and of course doesnt explain why they signed the Arctic Contract in in April of 2004, they definitely knew AI had been "insolvent" as they claim, then.

Quote:

Anyway I'm still waiting for you to give us the correct definition of "insolvent" under US law, since you seem to be pretty sure that Amiga are not insolvent I'm sure you must know the exact definition.

Chapter 11 of the US code covers Bankruptcy and Insolvency (however you need to understand that the law was largely rewritten in 2005, so some issues in there may not apply in Washinton in 2003 when deciding the case). The problem is that even if we take it as a given that Bill is correct and AI was legally insolvent on August 7th of 2003, that has nothing to do with the fact that AI had sold the contract (and Hyperion had agreed to the sale) on April of 2003.
-Tig

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

@Boot_WB

Quote:

There seems to be some confusion between the term "completion" and the term "release."

No, there is not. There could be, if anyone was trying to make that distinction, but nobody is.

From the Carton declaration, paragraph 66:

Quote:

Hyperion did in fact complete and release Amiga OS 4.0 to the contractual specifications \[...\] in December of 2004.

Note: "complete and release". No distinction made. Release payments would be due.

@Spectre660

Quote:

It deals with royalties payable by Hyperion TO THIRD PARTIES if the Arctic version is released for sale (Recitals section).Thus accepts that there are rights own/enforced by Hyperion..

These are the infamous "subcontractors", aren't they? So it*s just an allusion to the OS4 contract.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @dirigent It deals with royalties payable by Hyperion TO THIRD PARTIES if the Arctic version is released for sale (Recitals section).Thus accepts that there are rights own/enforced by Hyperion..

Yeah but that doesnt do what you think it does. It means AI would have to pay Hyperion to ship OS 4.0 on the PDA, I dont think anyone here actually is arguing that point, it doesnt mean that KMOS is giving up ownership of the OS.
-Tig

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

The first violation of The Agreement was committed by AMIGA INC .
First Violation was stating that they had all rights to Amiga OS (Including 3.5 and 3.9)
Second was failure to hand over all source code and documentation required. (3.5 and 3.9)
Third violation was that they did not notify Hyperion that they had a dispute( over 3.5 and 3.9)

Lets see how far beyond this we get.

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

@mlehto

Quote:

mlehto wrote: I find it quite amazing, that you smash hyperion in here, ainc elsewhere, same time as you describe yourself as very good senior programmer, senior project manager and you have even good and insight knowledge of US law and corporate level contracts. I think that this picture all together is not very trustworthy.

There was also I believe some mention by him that Amiga would never be foolish enough to mis-represent documents submitted to the court and now at this juncture it appears that possibility actually exists. There are a lot of definitive statements that come from Tigger, as with anything we all need to take them with a grain of salt!

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

@Tigger

I'd say that the first question is: Was Amiga really insolvent when the contract was signed? Looking at your most recent reply about this, you are not entirely sure of this yourself.

Second question: Was it publically known that Amiga were insolvent when Hyperion signed the contract in April 2003, or did Amiga Inc. inform Hyperion of this? If not, then noone can claim that Hyperion were aware of such, thus can't claim they are lying. Saying that Hyperion knew Amiga had money problems is useless, because having money problems does not mean they're insolvent, you know that.

Third question: Under US law, what happens if Amiga was insolvent when the contract was signed, but failed to notify Hyperion of this fact?

@umisef

Quote:

They took the money. They receipted it. They kept it. None of those are open for debate.

They didn't reciept $25,000 for the buy-in. Hence why its up for debate to the court in their documents. They show a large percentage of it paid. But it needs to be paid in full to be valid.

They have a clause saying any other debts must be covered first. They list one such debt. Again its not shown that the full amount for the buy-in was tendered. For something so important if I were Amiga I would have made sure I had reciepts totaling the required $25,000, they don't show that.

Even if the buy-in is executed they contend they still have a license. So there is the issue up to debate of whether its was a "buy-in" with a license still existing or a "buy-out" with Amiga being able to kill Hyperion's license as it suited them.

Much is open for debate, hence the legal battle and these points being presented to the court.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 04:58 PM.

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

@Geennaam

Quote:

As being a subcontractor, the subcontractor itself is responsible for paying the social taxes and the other taxes for being selfemployed.

OK, which part of the "double it to get contractors' rates" sentence did you fail to comprehend?

@Geennaam

Quote:

It's apparent, at least to me, that all that Tigger is about is to tell us why AmigaInc is good and Hyperion is bad no matter what evidence is shown by Hyperion.

The problem with Tigger's posts in my estimation is he is trying very hard to in essence say, "hey guys I have the experience to know what I'm talking about, and most of you don't, so heed my words".

So far it seems there are those who accept that and then those that don't. Bottom line is I get the impression you are right, he dosen't even read all the Hyperion stuff by his own admission but still keeps talking about Amiga having the complete upper-hand. Just on a very basic level, someone who dosen't read the full arguement before being so very very definitive, well that says something to me.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

They didn't reciept $25,000 for the buy-in. Hence why its up for debate to the court in their documents.

Oh, we can all debate long and hard whether enough money was paid.

However, we CANNOT debate that (a) some money was paid, (b) it was receipted by Hyperion, on 31/12/03 as having been paid for buyback, and (c) they never gave it back, despite claiming no buyback could possibly have occurred.

In fact, Hyperion later explicitly mentions another Euro 5000 charge (for the legal opinion) which they considered unpaid, and which they were demanding Amiga pay. They did not offer to take it out of the money they might have been "holding in trust" for Amiga, no, they demanded more money.

Hyperion clearly behaved (and still behave) as if they were entitled to the money they received from Itec. The only reason they would be entitled to it would be under the buyback clause. You cannot have your cake, and eat it, too. And having eaten the cake over the last 4 years, Hyperion now find themselves in a position where they are trying to argue "but look at our lovely cake".

@COBRA

to speed this definition thing along

Quote:

Law Encyclopedia This entry contains information applicable to United States law only. Insolvency An incapacity to pay debts upon the date when they become due in the ordinary course of business; the condition of an individual whose property and assets are inadequate to discharge the person's debts. .

answers.com
wiki insolvency

Last edited by jkirk on 23-May-2007 at 05:40 PM.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@umisef

Quote:

However, we CANNOT debate that (a) some money was paid, (b) it was receipted by Hyperion, on 31/12/03 as having been paid for buyback, and (c) they never gave it back, despite claiming no buyback could possibly have occurred.

(a) Meaningless if not all.

(b) Reciepted for the clause in the contract, is it a "buy-in" or "buyback" in that clause, thats up for debate and has presented to the court as such. Even so its not showing full payment, so again meaningless.

(c) I wouldn't "give it back" without full payment either. Its seems some feel that Hyperion should do favors for Amiga, but not the other way around.

Now I think the real question will be besides the $5000, what other debts Hyperion will claim were owed concerning the two payments over that that Amiga claim they made. So Amiga may well have paid more than enough and perhaps Hyperion owes them an updated and proper reciept, that remains to be seen.

Quote:

Oh, we can all debate long and hard whether enough money was paid.

Thats the whole entire point though. The price was the price was the price. Hyperion does not dispute some payments, they dispute that the $25,000 for the "buy-in" was fully paid. So the "enough or not" is the main point when it comes to the money issue.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 05:22 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

I wouldn't "give it back" without full payment either.

So you'd keep money you believe someone sent you in error?

And you'd do so silently, after having made several actions which you should know would be perceived by the other party as acknowledging the legitimacy of the payment?

Remind me never to do business with you!

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: I wouldn't "give it back" without full payment either. So you'd keep money you believe someone sent you in error? And you'd do so silently, after having made several actions which you should know would be perceived by the other party as acknowledging the legitimacy of the payment? Remind me never to do business with you!

I was refering to the "buy-back - the code" not the money FYI.

No I would not keep money I believed someone sent me in error. The point is Hyperion says the full $25,000 was not paid. They say there is only a partial payment in place, which not suprisingly they are contending is not enough, because it is not FULL payment.

Quote:

Oh, we can all debate long and hard whether enough money was paid.

Again this the point. Hyperion does not dispute partial payment. Their lawyer, in order to do his job as their lawyer has to come up with alternative defenses should intial points fail. Thats just the lawyering business. So if you are unhappy about the "who is Tachyon" piece, yes I agree that was sadly funny/

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 05:45 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 05:42 PM.

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

@umisef

Quote:

So you'd keep money you believe someone sent you in error?

If you agree it was sent in error and the other party agrees as well that should be sent back, then obviously the correct thing to do is send it back. This is not the case with Amiga and Hyperion though, Amiga never said they wanted Hyperion to return any money, do they? If Amiga admit that the buyback is invalid and Hyperion is the rightful owner of OS4 and request the incomplete sum to be transferred back, I doubt that Hyperion would have a problem with transferring them such a small sum (negligible compared to the amount they invested into OS4 development). But until the debate is settled, nobody is going to transfer anything.

@fairlanefastback

Exactly, in business there is an old saying..

PAYMENT IN FULL = FULL DELIVERY