@Tigger

Quote:

Does anyone see that the Arctic Agreement (Signed version) indicates KMOS accepts Hyperion's rights to OS4.0 ?

Quote:

Where exactly do you think it says that?

Quote:

-Tig

Hyperion version of contract has No provision for Source code to be handed over. Just Object Code.

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

@umisef

Ok, I red it from finnish newspaper couple of weeks ago. So maybe some misunderstanding by writer or me. I tought, that it could be high, because wv they hav esome other hazy behaviour allso.

But 65e is bloody high anyway :)

It is pretty pointless to say, that 75e is low or high, since we dont know, if contractor have to pay taxes, social security, pension etc... And anyway, if one can get good payment, it is good for him.

anyone here still think that Amiga Inc will let this motion proceed ? .
I am sure that they will withdraw it before it goes much further.

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

@fairlanefastback

Tigger has some agenda. Man in mission. Don't know what exactly.

One thing is sure. If he is half as good and talented, what he says, I really don't understand, how he has time or energy for that.

@umisef

Quote:

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".

It is Hyperion that has 'built' the cake over the last 4 years, and it's Amiga Inc that's trying to eat it without paying it in full.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Tigger

Stop changing subject every sentence, please.

You were asked to explain the diffrence between beeing insolvent in Germany, which means having NO MONEY,
and beeing insolvent in US of A, where insolvent means ......
So please fill out the blank or did you change your mind?

Quote:

and in fact the bill of sale is actually signed before the McEwen testimony (sale on the April 24th, testimony on the August 7th).

And in the testemony Mr. McEwan sated, that they weren't able to pay invoices, salaries and debts since what date? I'll help ya:

Declaration Kinsel PDF Page 13
Quote:
(...)
Q: Has it been paying its contributions to Social Security or FICA(sic?) for the ongoing employees?
A:There has been no payments made.
Q:And is that again back since July of '02 approximately?
A: May through July, somewhere in that time frame, yes.

That makes for 2002 I would say.

The ItecLLC Agreement was signed 24. April 2003.

So your assumptions are a bit unsharp, aren't they?

I hope your work on Rockets and Airplanes isn't done withe the same accuracy as your date calculations

@mlehto

Quote:

Tigger has some agenda. Man in mission. Don't know what exactly.

I'm sure he can speak for himself, but from what he says he simply was against Hyperion doing the OS from the beginning on, and now he sees all his doubts confirmed. Whether that's justified or not I cannot say. It's more or less that simple I think. No need to attack him.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Hyperion version of contract has No provision for Source code to be handed over. Just Object Code.

Actually this may hint at something, although as such the contract for the OS4-on-Arctic adaptation does not affect any other ones - according to 4.06.

Last edited by dirigent on 23-May-2007 at 08:20 PM.

@Geennaam

As someone who works in wagon design I agree - decision tracking, box ticking, the unglamorous long slow work of checking, double checking and record keeping are the hallmarks of thorough - and reliable - work.
Let's face it, 3 years down the line if a plane suffers from fatigue cracking, you're not going to remember why you designed that particular feature the way you did unless it has been recorded. (Hell, 3 weeks down the line is a push )

_________________
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.

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: 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!

What exactly do you believe AI has misrepresented in documents they have presented. I mean they got Hyperion to cough up a signed Arctic contract, that was dumb move #7 of the response. That got rid of the entire we dont think KMOS owns AmigaOS comments. The only thing else I think that may get into what you are talking about it Annex II (which we talked about for days) not on Fleecy's copy he presented. Thats not going to bite them at all, first of all as I pointed out its the last page, secondly, both it and Carltons comments support AI's version of the story, and the Freidens contract and writings hurt the Hyperion case as well.
-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: What exactly do you believe AI has misrepresented in documents they have presented. I mean they got Hyperion to cough up a signed Arctic contract, that was dumb move #7 of the response.

The point is what Amiga submitted vs. what Hyperion says they actually signed off on and it not matching and the possibility then that Amiga *may* be misrepresenting which documents are in effect TO THE COURT.

I.E. The Friedens assertion that they "did not sign or have knowledge of an agreement called "Artic Software Development Agreement", which was supposedly dated April 7, 2004 as exhibited by Amiga". Rather saying that the document submitted by Hyperion instead is the real one, that being the one called "Agreement for the provision of software development services". Whether you think that document also screws Hyperion's case is not my point. My point is you said, to my understanding of previous posts, that Amiga would not be foolish enough to do this. Maybe Hyperion is the one playing games, but it appears someone is.

Quote:

The only thing else I think that may get into what you are talking about it Annex II (which we talked about for days) not on Fleecy's copy he presented. Thats not going to bite them at all, first of all as I pointed out its the last page,

Sure you declare under threat of perjury that you did not know the Friendens were contractors and then you submit what may be an incomplete version of a document to support that, where most convienently the section missing is the one that refutes your claim. So under your theory anyone should write important stuff for a contract in a last page of an Annex so you can always just toss it and make it disappear? It speaks to credibility. If it was a mistake (the omission) and Hyperion has provided a false Annex II Amiga I think should probably produce the real one then.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 09:21 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 09:21 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 09:19 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-May-2007 at 09:07 PM.

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

Time for me to go.
Catch you all some time in the future.

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

Quote:

COBRA wrote: @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.

First of all playing devils advocate, Hyperion would have to prove they were, AI doesnt have to prove they were not, and I do not think that Hyperion can do that. Secondly insolvent as written in the contract is likely to be interpreted as described in Chapter 11 of the US code, which involves a court. Back after Bolten and Matt won there lawsuits, I was among several that suggested they find a third unpaid creditor (you need 3 if there are a significant amount of creditors) and force the company into a insolvency hearing (which would have led to restructuring under a chapter 11 bankruptcy agreement in all likelyhood).

Quote:

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.

Even if they werent aware in April of 2003. They were completely aware of McEwens testimony on May 26, 2004 when they signed the KMOS agreement.

Quote:

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

No court has ruled that Amiga was insolvent, they seem to be saying McEwen saying in August of 2003 that AI was not solvent proves there point that AI was insolvent in April of 2003. Not really. In addition, as I pointed out before an agreement like 2.07 won't survive a insolvency or Bankruptcy hearing in the US, otherwise everyone would use it. If that worked, we wouldnt have had to ship all those Amiga boards to the bankruptcy court trustees when Commodore went under.
-Tig

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

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: The point is what Amiga submitted vs. what Hyperion says they actually signed off on and it not matching and the possibility then that Amiga *may* be misrepresenting which documents are in effect TO THE COURT. I.E. The Friedens assertion that they "did not sign or have knowledge of an agreement called "Artic Software Development Agreement", which was supposedly dated April 7, 2004 as exhibited by Amiga".

AI presented an early version of the contract, it doesnt have fake signatures or anything like that on it. How on earth do you believe that is lying to the court. They asked in there discovery for all signed contracts between the parties, that by itself will buy alot of leeway in this effort.

Quote:

So under your theory anyone should write important stuff for a contract in a last page of an Annex so you can always just toss it and make it disappear? It speaks to credibility. If it was a mistake (the omission) and Hyperion has provided a false Annex II Amiga I think should probably produce the real one then.

I'm not saying that Annex II as provided is a fake, its identical to the one leaked to the amiga community years ago. The issue is that as several of us have pointed out, the way the "subcontractors" are grouped, assuming that the Friedens are subcontractors of Hyperion would not be first (or even second) guess. I think it likely that the judge and jury may see it that way as well. Given the contract now provided to us by Hyperion with regards to the wonder twins, it probably becomes a non-issue to AI that will cost Hyperion lots of money.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I mean they got Hyperion to cough up a signed Arctic contract, that was dumb move #7 of the response. That got rid of the entire we dont think KMOS owns AmigaOS comments.

The Arctic contract says that KMOS will "own" the supplied object-code adaptation of OS4 in so far as they will be allowed to use it for demonstration purposes and not sell it. Also, other contracts shall not be affected (4.06). How does that make them "own" AOS4 as such?

@Tigger

So basically what you're saying is you don't know either whether Amiga was insolvent and whether it can be proven, you just don't think it can be proven, fair enough.

Quote:

Even if they werent aware in April of 2003. They were completely aware of McEwens testimony on May 26, 2004 when they signed the KMOS agreement.

Assuming that they have been following the Thendic-Amiga case in detail. It could be that they only found out about that much later though, we just don't know.

Quote:

they seem to be saying McEwen saying in August of 2003 that AI was not solvent proves there point that AI was insolvent in April of 2003

If you actually look at the transcript (the relevant part was already copied here for you with the most important bits even highlighted) you will see that McEwen admits that Amiga was insolvent from May through July 2002. When he admitted this is not relevant.

Quote:

Geennaam wrote: My very obvious examples got "dismissed" by some arguments which was a clear demontration of lack of knowledge. And now the hourly rate is another issue which is clearly misunderstand by people pretending to know all about it. 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.

First of all AI good is really not in my vocabulary, I'm not a big fan of Fleecy especially, I'm not a fan of the Spurs either, but I still think it likely they are going to win the NBA playoffs. See you dont have to be a fan of a side to think they are going to win a contest. Your very obvious example didnt include taking customers IP and having a subcontractor own (and get to use for other purposes) that IP in other products. Thats a violation of several laws in most countries. I absolutely have paid subcontractors to do work and I ship boxes with windriver and Green Hills RTOS in them which we only have executable rights on. But I dont know an example of us taking a customers IP, having a subcontractor move it to new platform (something we do all the time) and then the subcontractor owns that IP clone and being able sell it to others (which is what the Friedens have claimed with Exec-SG). Do you honestly believe they can do this, or are you just another one of the anonymous Hyperion defenders who has posted a few times in 4 years, but shows up right now to remind everyone that Hyperion is great.
-ig

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

Quote:

dirigent wrote: @Tigger Quote: I mean they got Hyperion to cough up a signed Arctic contract, that was dumb move #7 of the response. That got rid of the entire we dont think KMOS owns AmigaOS comments. The Arctic contract says that KMOS will "own" the supplied object-code adaptation of OS4 in so far as they will be allowed to use it for demonstration purposes and not sell it. Also, other contracts shall not be affected (4.06). How does that make them "own" AOS4 as such?

It doesnt, what it does is show that Hyperion was willing to do business with KMOS, after Bill McEwens testimony was public knowledge, which throws out most of there rebuttal. By signing this contract, they are agreeing that first Itec and then KMOS were legal replacements for AI(Washington), now claiming that they werent in there rebuttal makes no sense. And that they did not believe that AI was insolvent and couldnt pass those rights because they agreed that KMOS had them. The Arctic contract hurts Hyperions rebuttal substantially.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Are you sure that if Amiga were insolvent would have any effect on the Arctic contract with KMOS? It is a simple contract to make a demonstration software for a hardware reference design. If Hyperion knew that Amiga were insolvent in the past, then as far as they were concerned at that time, they owned the rights to OS4 and could freely choose what hardware platform to port the OS to. So as far as they were concerned they could have agreed to make that demonstration software for any company, whether it was a successor of Amiga Washington or not.

Quote:

COBRA wrote: So basically what you're saying is you don't know either whether Amiga was insolvent and whether it can be proven, you just don't think it can be proven, fair enough.

No, what I'm saying is they hadnt been taken to court to be found insolvent, if the court decides that means they werent insolvent (and there is case law to support that stand) then they werent, if the court decides on a broader definition say if they have been taken to court at that time would they have been found insolvent, then I dont know whether on April 2003, they would have met the critieria, but either does Hyperion.

Quote:

Even if they werent aware in April of 2003. They were completely aware of McEwens testimony on May 26, 2004 when they signed the KMOS agreement.

Assuming that they have been following the Thendic-Amiga case in detail. It could be that they only found out about that much later though, we just don't know.
[/quote]

No, we do know, Ben was arguing quite a bit about the Thendic case those days, Ben wrote rebuttals, he argued what things really meant in that very transcript. We didnt know McEwen had said isnt going to be believed by anyone.

Quote:

If you actually look at the transcript (the relevant part was already copied here for you with the most important bits even highlighted) you will see that McEwen admits that Amiga was insolvent from May through July 2002. When he admitted this is not relevant.

Actually him admitting it probably isnt relevant, in the US, insolvency is a legal condition, a court decides it, because its before the 2005 rewrite, washington state law may be involved as well, but no court decided they were, so the court is likely to say they werent. In addition, when he said it, and when Ben responded about it, is very important, because by signing the KMOS agreement it shows they didnt believe the insolvency clause had come into effect.
-Tig

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