@Tigger

13-dec-02
Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: fairlanefastback wrote: Meaning what evidence do we have in general that "Itec seems to be the one that actually has money and pays there bills and things like that" *besdes* that they sent this new check to Hyperion. They paid the original 20K to Hyperion, they paid the original millions to Gateway. Thats a much better track record then any of the other companies I listed.

They didn't pay millions to Gateway in '99 because the Itec of today wasn't created until December 2002.

Garry Hare said in an interview that Itec had been involved with Amiga since the '99 buyout. But Itec didn't exist... this probably means there was another Itec, we'll call the earlier one Itec99 to avoid confusion. Itec99 probably went down with the Kouri Capital bankruptcy in 2001.

So it's come full circle. Two Amiga companies, two Itec companies. The only difference between the new company (Itec02), is that has a lot more control over Amiga D, than Itec99 did of Amiga W.

Last edited by smithy on 13-Jul-2007 at 01:15 PM.

@Tigger

Quote:

Actually Itec addressed that in there court papers. They have complete right to sue Itec for completion of the contract. Hyperion has taken a tact that they do not have to deliver the OS to KMOS under the 2003 contract because they did not agree to the transfer to KMOS. They can say that, but that does not mean they do not have to complete the contract at all, especially after taking the money. If Itec didnt do this (and they were not related companies), it is very likely that KMOS would sue Itec over non-delivery of the OS and easily win. Itec's suit in NY protects Itec from a lawsuit by KMOS or KMOS's creditors.

Bet you it gets thrown out as a premature action.

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

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

Yeah, but do you see where I'm getting at.

Yes, definitely. There's no doubt in my view that Ami(W)/Ami(D)/Itec/Kmos have made a royal mess out of the IP ownership and now they're trying to clean it up/cover their butts. I was just chiming in on the "Itec doesn't exist" part.

Plaz

@Tigger

So ITEC owns 6,999,999 of 7,000,000 of KMOS but needs protection from KMOS and/or KMOS's creditors?

I re-iterate that Hyperion should terminate the contract for breaches and sue Eyetech and Amiga(W)/ITEC/KMOS separately for damages.

@smithy

Quote:

smithy wrote: @Tigger They didn't pay millions to Gateway in '99 because the Itec of today wasn't created until December 2002.

No they did pay the money to gateway, they just werent incorporated in NY until December of 2002.
-Tig

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

@Lou


Quote:

Amiga/ITEC/KMOS want it, let them figure out who has proper ownership of the OS then sign a new contract that doesn't screw Hyperion.

That's what most of us hoped for. But now it seems the battle is for IP ownership and not just the licensing contract.

Quote:

ExecSG may not be considered derivative work at this point that it exists today since it offers memory protection and a new memory allocation system. Derivative means enhancements or additions, ExecSG can stand on it's own merits. A kernal is a kernal. Isn't the Amiga kernal a derivative of TriOS or whatever it was called... Good luck to Amiga proving that ExecSG is a direct derivative of Exec.

They still probably wind up in court over that issue too. Clean room implementation and all that. Wouldn't they have to prove they wrote ExecSG without every laying eyes on classic Ami IP? Just the fact it was written directly as a result of the contract with Ami Inc might be enough to say it has restrictions under the rules.

Quote:

If so they should continue to fight KMOS' termination and execute their own as well as a lawsuit for damages incurred

Then will we see a new suit by Hyperion suing for breach? So far they are only on the defensive to the Ami/Itec suits. Matter of fact it would make some sense to me if they were to file their own suit based on the insolvency issue too. Maybe these are options they're reserving as the other suit plays out.

Plaz

@Spectre660

Quote:

"The Dilema of ITEC's law suit is that until the courts rule that their sale of OS 4 rights to KMOS is Invalid then it is assumed that they sold the rights to KMOS. They have thus at this time have no right to sue Hyperion."

Some how that reminds me alot of the delima when some one would travel back in time to wack their great-great grandparents. Then they could never exist to go back in the first place.

Plaz

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Bet you it gets thrown out as a premature action.

How much are you willing to lose?
-Tig

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

@Plaz

Quote:

Some how that reminds me alot of the delima when some one would travel back in time to wack their great-great grandparents. Then they could never exist to go back in the first place.

exactly.
(I was going to use this a few days ago when I posted)

The reverse is true In the New York suit. The transaction should still be viewed as valid until proven otherwise.
If you sell the rights to an unfinished item (ITEC) do you have any rights to enforce its completion ? Its left to the purchaser (KMOS) to try to enforce.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 13-Jul-2007 at 02:17 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @all It seems AInc.'s/ITEC's lawyers read what Tigger says and act accordingly. Hence ITEC coming back from the dead and the NY lawsuit. That doesn't make him right - it just means we have to stop posting in these threads so as not to give them ideas...as crazy as they are...

good point!

@Tigger

Usually I don't bet for Money.
I am a poor man
Because no one ever bets me because I have a very high percentage on being right.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger So ITEC owns 6,999,999 of 7,000,000 of KMOS but needs protection from KMOS and/or KMOS's creditors? I re-iterate that Hyperion should terminate the contract for breaches and sue Eyetech and Amiga(W)/ITEC/KMOS separately for damages.

First of all I pointed out because they were related it was unlikely they would sue each other, but the creditors are a totally different amount. In addition, you seem to have given Itec 999 shares they dont have and should either be considering the 25M shares there actually are or at least be adding in the millions of shares issued to the at least 2 new investors to the 7M to get a more accurate number. Either of those companies might decide a lawsuit so the company they bought into actually has the assets they bought into for may be necessary.
-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: Because no one ever bets me because I have a very high percentage on being right.

At casinos, we call people like you marks, because they are sure they will win a high percentage of the time.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 13-Jul-2007 at 02:36 PM.

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

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: They still probably wind up in court over that issue too. Clean room implementation and all that. Wouldn't they have to prove they wrote ExecSG without every laying eyes on classic Ami IP? Just the fact it was written directly as a result of the contract with Ami Inc might be enough to say it has restrictions under the rules.

The Friedens have admitted to looking at the Exec code, its tainted and basically they can't recover from that, they need a license, thats about there best win situation here, but even that is liable to leave them with no future, as OS4 cannot make enough money to cover the developer debt is currently has around its neck.
-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: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @Tigger So ITEC owns 6,999,999 of 7,000,000 of KMOS but needs protection from KMOS and/or KMOS's creditors? I re-iterate that Hyperion should terminate the contract for breaches and sue Eyetech and Amiga(W)/ITEC/KMOS separately for damages. First of all I pointed out because they were related it was unlikely they would sue each other, but the creditors are a totally different amount. In addition, you seem to have given Itec 999 shares they dont have and should either be considering the 25M shares there actually are or at least be adding in the millions of shares issued to the at least 2 new investors to the 7M to get a more accurate number. Either of those companies might decide a lawsuit so the company they bought into actually has the assets they bought into for may be necessary. -Tig

I was going by the exhibits presented where they "created" KMOS.

Anyway, you didn't address the rest of my post. If anyone should be terminating a contract and sueing, it should be Hyperion.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Anyway, you didn't address the rest of my post. If anyone should be terminating a contract and sueing, it should be Hyperion.

There are no breaches by Itec on the 2003 contract, thats what this thread is about. KMOS, AI(w) and AI(D) really arent that involved with the 2003 contract. Hyperion basically gave up there rights to breaches with AI(w) on the 2001 contract when they signed the 2003 contract. Those items should have been listed, (x dollars for Olaf, etc). Otherwise Itec only needs to pay the 25K thats listed as a price here. They've done that, they want the OS. Hyperion can't claim now that Itec owes more money or cant buy it because of things that happened before they signed the contract with Itec.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: This voids all lawsuits. Also, since Hyperion have OS4 finished and Amiga/ITEC/KMOS want it, let them figure out who has proper ownership of the OS then sign a new contract that doesn't screw Hyperion. Either way, nothing stops Hyperion from releasing the OS under a different name with parts that aren't derivative work. ExecSG may not be considered derivative work at this point that it exists today since it offers memory protection and a new memory allocation system. Derivative means enhancements or additions, ExecSG can stand on it's own merits. A kernal is a kernal. Isn't the Amiga kernal a derivative of TriOS or whatever it was called... Good luck to Amiga proving that ExecSG is a direct derivative of Exec. Once the contract is terminated by Hyperion (even though it was supposedly terminated by Amiga(D)/KMOS) everyone will be forced back to the negociations table. Infact, Hyperion should accept the contract termination unless that termination holds them liable for anything. If so they should continue to fight KMOS' termination and execute their own as well as a lawsuit for damages incurred by Hyperion because of Eyetech and Amiga's breaches. This way they can recover their costs and pay the developers and still be at a new negociations table for the distribution of OS4.

OK then, now we have an os that can not have Amiga in it's name, can not be sold with Amiga hardware, built quite quite possibly after looking at someone else's sources, and with questionable ownership and support. I thought there already was one of those and the faithful hate it for those very reasons.

There is a bit of sarcasim in the post, just to let you know I don't believe all that about the not named OS. It does seem quite ironic though.

Last edited by stew on 13-Jul-2007 at 02:52 PM.

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger [quote] Lou wrote: @Tigger I was going by the exhibits presented where they "created" KMOS. .

Which says there are 25M total shares and that Itec has 6,999,000 of the 7M outstanding, also thats not when KMOS was created. Since that date we know at least two 7 figure sales of stock by KMOS/AI(D) so the outstanding shares are significantly larger now then 7 million.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Anyway, you didn't address the rest of my post. If anyone should be terminating a contract and sueing, it should be Hyperion.

Why should they have. They thought they could just wait AInc out and have it without a fight. Ben should have remembered himself:
"Besides, if you paid 5 million dollars for something, would you accept other people running off with your IP without putting up a fight? "
He should have seen it coming. What is sad is alot of good people got fed a line by Hyperion & co. that "everything is all right, we have our lawyers just cleaning up the contract and clarifying a few minor issues", when the whole time they were posturing for the ownership battle. Don't be fooled people, they were at this game along time. "Don't turn your back!"

Those that argued so hard for MOS being illegal and not the propper successor because it didn't have the name, ect.. will loose their credibility if Hyperion has to go the HypeOS route. They have to win trademarks and all it looks like, all or nothing. The sad thing is it looks like mutual assured distruction for all involved.

@stew + Tigger

The 2003 ITEC contract says it upholds the terms of the original contract. Hence, Hyperion can terminate based on breaches.

stew,
There are 2 unnames OS's. Hey, while we are at it, maybe AInc. should sue BeOS too. BeOS claimed to be what Amiga OS should have been. Besides, we have Bill McEwan telling the Friedens that he knows they own ExecSG and that he has no rights to it's IP. Hence - good luck proving that one.

Personally - I stopped caring about the Amiga name a long time ago. It's tainted. Hyperion should forge their own market with their own OS just like MorphOS did, just like AROS is doing. The Amiga name is useless to me. Only the Amiga name has been holding them back.

Now that Firefox is on the brink of running on Hyperion's OS, it can truly be marketed as AOS4 (Alternative Operating System)...or HAROS (Hyperion Alternative Research/Reliable/Realtime Operating System). Whatever they want to call it.