@Spectre660

I think that that is the point that SkunkFish was tring to make in post #646:
Quote:

Hyperion shall develop Amiga OS 4.0 for the Target-Hardware with the minimal feature-set set out in Annex I and pursuant to the development guidelines set out in Annex I.

Quote:

"Target-Hardware" means the PPC based hardware developed and marketed for the Amiga platform including but not limited to the hardware developed and marketed by Phase 5, DCE and the AmigaOne hardware developed by Escena under contract with the Amiga One Partners.

Quote:

OK, so the IF the developer pre-release for the AmigaOne in 2004 DID indeed meet the feature-set there is still a slight problem with calling this the release...

Given the definition of AmigaOne as the Escena, the prerelease may have met the feature set but is not yet available for "any" let alone "all" of the target-hardware. Even given that the later AmigaOne is accepted as a replacement for the Escena, OS4 is not yet available for "all" of the target hardware as can be interpreted as required. Once again it appears a toss-up whether the intent was for the release to be for "any" or "all" of the target-hardware for that condition to be met.

Nathan

BTW, I'll point out this whole case is to determine if Hyperion still retains the rights to distribute their OS as "AmigaOS 4.0"

Much of these other discussions are items for other court cases. But if Hyperion loses this one, there doesn't seem to be much room for other cases. If on the other hand they win, we'll see court cases part 1, part 2 ......... to settle other fine points like who owns what.

Orrrrrrrrr, it would be nice if they could settle out of court and every one get a fair deal.

Plaz

dang spelling.....

Last edited by Plaz on 25-May-2007 at 02:03 AM.
Last edited by Plaz on 25-May-2007 at 02:02 AM.

@Plaz

Interesting. If Amiga Inc can convince the judge that clause 2.07 doesn't apply because they were not "officially" insolvent at the time, then are they off the hook in both cases because all they had was $100, which was too little to pay the wages but too much to be considered insolvent?

Last edited by CodeSmith on 25-May-2007 at 02:30 AM.

@Spectre660

I'm struggling here so let me quote a saying, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear does it make a sound?"

In other words, doesn't Hyperion have to sue for the contract to be deemed null and void on those grounds? Would null and void hurt or help AInc or Hyperion? If null and void does this judge need to go any further with the case? If there is now no contract how is a settlement to be reached?

Nathan

@NathanH

It depends on at what point something would be null and void. if I violate before that point then that is still a violation. If it happened after that point it does not matter. So if the transfer to ITEC was null and void the buyback issued does not count but the contract provisions go on up to the closure of Amiga Washington and the rights rest with Hyperion as only Amiga Washington could enforce the Agreement terms.If the transfer to ITEC and sale on to KMOS was valid then Amiga Delaware have the rights to enforce the terms of the contract. This does not mean that they could not loose though.

Edit: they dont have to sue. they are being sued. If the judge rules in their favour on these grounds It would have the same effect as if they had sued Amiga inc instead.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 25-May-2007 at 02:34 AM.

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

@NathanH

Quote:

NathanH wrote: @Spectre660 I'm struggling here so let me quote a saying, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear does it make a sound?" Nathan

Or as my wife says: If a man speaks and a woman is not around to hear him, is he still wrong? Man I wish I had recorded that "obey till death do us part " 35 years ago!

@Spectre660

Thanks for the explanation.

Nathan

@Spectre660

I understand your point but it is not that simple. I know in building contracting if you continue after changes you have implicitly accepted the changes (new owners contracts ect..), the time to protest is at the change not years later after laboring without contract or license. I don't know if this applies here but there maybe some interesting developments to come. Those who think the whole truth has been told by one side or the other are mistaken, as both sides are trying desperately to twist the truth in their favor.

@Thread

Despite the hot topic in this thread it has been quite civilized this far.
But please don't forget that this is an international forum, and that we have different backgrounds, values etc. from different parts of the world and
the U.S. legal system is very different from the European counterpart.

If you have an opinion, please express it with courteousy, if you think another member has stepped over the line, press the report button and if you want to motivate why, feel free to send a PM to a staff member as well, we are here to take care of those things after all.


And sometimes reports and complains take time, since we do discuss among the staff to make the moderation here as balanced as possible.

Thank you for taking your time to read this post.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@NathanH

no problem,

a case in point. A government fires a high ranking employee and promotes another up to his position. first employee sues and wins. and has to be reinstated. second employees promotion becomes null and void..... (leaving other problems) . court has actually ruled that employee number one never ceased to hold his position as his removal was not legal.

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

@CodeSmith

Quote:

Interesting. If Amiga Inc can convince the judge that clause 2.07 doesn't apply because they were not "officially" insolvent

Yes, I think this could be a very slippery legal item to hang hopes on. Tigger pointed out earlier in this thread that he said some thing similar to Ben years ago about this clause being binding or not in the US.

IANAL or course, but Hyperion's rebuttle (though I think it's a good one) doesn't seem to hit the point of Amiga Inc's claim. Amiga Inc says "You no longer have a license to distribute AOS 4.0". Hyperion say's "Sure we do, because Amiga Inc didn't do their part. As a matter of fact we *think* we do becuase according to clause x.x we own it all any way."

It would be more logical to me if Hyperion defended the license first, then counter sued for ownership of the OS based on other evidence. I think the judge will focus on the license claim, only including ancillary evidence as it applys to the license dispute.

Although Amiga Inc claims to have initiated the buy-back, and there's lot so chatter here about who owns what, the laser focus of the judge is going to be... did Hyperion meet the requirements to retain their license, yes or no. I don't think final ownership will be determined here. If Hyperion wins round one, they be well set for round 2. If Hyperion loses round 1 though, I don't know if there's a point to round 2, but I still wouldn't rule it out.

Plaz

@Plaz

I think there will definitely be a second round, regardless of who wins. As I mentioned in another thread, I strongly believe that Hyperion is fighting for its very existence here. They have spent over a million on OS4, incurring goodness knows what debt in the process, and Amiga Inc is trying to deny them the biggest selling point, the Amiga name. There's very little doubt in my mind that if OS4 were called "AmiOS" or something else instead of "AmigaOS", they would attract a lot less people initially (eventually the OS would have to sink or swim on its own merits, but the first few thousand sales will most probably be from people remembering their old A500s and willing to give it another go).

Amiga Inc on the other hand has seemingly spent the last few years trying to find a profitable business model, and it looks like they haven't been able to find a niche. The sudden interest on all things Classic, after years of treating it as a bargaining chip while the community was continually decreasing, is definitely unusual. I suspect, as do others here, that they want to buff and polish the Amiga trademarks in order to sell them off. Having licensees as "baggage" will probably complicate any such deal, so they are very motivated to get Hyperion off their business plan.

I fairly convinced that, unless the judge hands down an extremely cut and dried verdict, we will see an appeal.

@Plaz

[order of defending]

Yes, but remember that what we have seen so far is only an argument against AI's request for an injunction against Hyperion. The merits of the case are not yet material, only whether an injunction is called for.

AFAIK, an injunction is granted if there is a clear-cut case of fraudulent "passing-off", and the Plaintiff needs time to make a case. An injunction against the Defendant can then be obtained from a court. In this case, Hyperion are trying to show that there is no such clear-cut case, that there is going to be some argument, and that AI has nothing to lose by waiting.

_________________
cheers
tony

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

@CodeSmith

Quote:

They have spent over a million on OS4,

I find this a rather bold claim. While it is, of course, perfectly possible that they have indeed spent all that money (on what, though?), I suspect this is "virtual" spending.

A large part of that money is probably the accrued cost of the Friedens at E30k per month. Then there are also lots of obligations related to OS4 (Note that the E30k/mth to the Friedens are *not* at this point an obligation; Hyperion is not at all obliged to ever pay them).
The interesting part is --- how much ACTUAL MONEY have they ACTUALLY SPENT? And I suspect that number, while likely to be above $25,000, is nowhere near a million bucks.

@Tigger

Quote:

See the problem now?

Yes, quite clear. The problem is you not thoroughly reading.

Please re-read my post

#549

which is a reply to your post

#516

, which is in general the same post which I'm replying now, #682

So you should change the list to :

0) july, 2002 last payments by AmigaInc#1
1) April 23, 2003 - Itec buys Classic Amiga OS, including the contract
2) April 24, 2003 - Hyperion signs the buyout agreement with Itec
3) August 7, 2003 - Bill McEwen in his deposition talks about AI's financial situation in the years 2000-2003

@Sneaky

I think Tigger's argument is that it doesn't matter what Bill McEwen said about his money problems, the only thing that really counts is that Amiga WA was never actually "legally insolvent". Which, if true, confuses the hell out of me. It seems like a "get out of debt free" card - don't pay, claim to have no money, create another company, sell everything to them, shut down the first company. Bingo, no need to pay the bills. It may be legal, but boy does it sound wrong to me.

@Tigger
It's pretty clear that among other things, you are here to troll - i.e. wind people up. I come to that conclusion very simply:

Rather than apologising for being rude about Fleecy & the Frieden's, you make post #668:
Quote:

The title of Sheeplord was given to Fleecy at the Amiga 2000 show in St Louis. ... then Fleecy would get nervous and tell a joke about him having sex with sheep

And also post #665:
Quote:

So a bunch of us were in the bar on Friday which was after the 3 hour sheepapalooza and the booth setup. And someone started talking about had we seen the Hyperion Doom port, conversation went into how fast was it and at that time it was slower then the other two ports, so after a few beers, someone bringing the 3rd fastest amiga port of doom to the Amiga show was pretty funny ... how you could make the game slow enough to be the 3rd fastest, because the 2nd one was pretty miserable

Instead of apologising about being rude, you tell these two stories. Stories which may well be true, but the fact is that they had NO RELEVANCE to any factual points you were trying to make. They were simply excuses to (a) wind some people up further, and (b) to try to allow you to continue to be rude about them.

I'm sure there are many dirty stories about you! Maybe you wet your bed when you were a kid. Maybe you wrote some naff games in BASIC, and were really proud of them. Even if these were true, they have ZERO relevance being posted here. The only reason to do so would be to (a) wind you up, and (b) try to justify keep calling you a bed wetter.

As you seem intellectually incapable of understanding the line between being polite & being rude, I hope you will go back to the Moo Bunny - and stay there.

_________________

@ChrisH

Actually he was asked to explain why he gave them the names and that's what he did. He was also warned not to keep using them though...

_________________
"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

@CodeSmith

Quote:

CodeSmith wrote: @Sneaky I think Tigger's argument is that it doesn't matter what Bill McEwen said about his money problems, the only thing that really counts is that Amiga WA was never actually "legally insolvent". Which, if true, confuses the hell out of me. It seems like a "get out of debt free" card - don't pay, claim to have no money, create another company, sell everything to them, shut down the first company. Bingo, no need to pay the bills. It may be legal, but boy does it sound wrong to me.

Exactly!
This is a typical routine for companies all over the world to avoid big debts and in most of the EU countries and the US it’s almost 100% legal.

Though most of the times it remains to the judge to rule if X company deliberately took advantage of this "hole" in the law system to hurt interests of certain individuals or other companies.

Another of my guess also is that Bill McEwen will certainly have to explain how he still works for a company that owes him already 3/4 million dollars and if he thinks that when a company owes even to it΄s "active president" such amount of money can be claimed insolvent ot not.

I am sure that an experienced judge will find out that AI(W), KMOS, Penti Kurri etc played some dirty games selling and merging companies to avoid debts.

Last edited by Cool_amigaN on 25-May-2007 at 08:38 AM.
Last edited by Cool_amigaN on 25-May-2007 at 08:36 AM.

_________________

@CodeSmith

Quote:

I think Tigger's argument is that it doesn't matter what Bill McEwen said about his money problems, the only thing that really counts is that Amiga WA was never actually "legally insolvent".

The problem is, Tigger is not able to answer simple questions.

He stated, that Insolvent in USA is different from Insolvent Europe/Germany.
I asked him to explain where the diffrences are, he doesn't do it.

He says, Insolvency and bancrupcy in Europe/germany are basically the same.
I find out, No, it's in fact very diffrent. Insolvency->you have no money, and must shut down company. Bancrupcy, you had no money and didn't shut down the company, instead you diverted assets etc. and it's a crime.

So in fact it seems the other way around, in USA insolvency and bankrupcy are the same, as both have to be declared by a court somehow.

But I'm really not interested anymore in finding out as it surely is more complicated than anyone here could imagine. And as here is no Judge or lawyer specialized in US-Economics law, there will be no answer to that question that is nearly correct.