Poster | Thread |
Ketzer
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 20:07:42
| | [ #341 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Mar-2003 Posts: 245
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Spectre660
Quote:
Spectre660 wrote:
So they were demanding the source code to an incomplete OS4.0 ? |
They were and are demanding that all source code, interest and title is transferred, no matter in what state. Why? Hyperion took too long. Amiga wanted to act earlier, in whatever direction or to what purpose we dont know.
@thread
As far as third party software is concerned, this will remain owned by the respective parties of course, unless their contracts are messed up. Anything else Hyperion did to the software, eg everything that is part of OS4.0 and not just installed with it, is already owned by Amiga. Hyperion has not, does not and will not own anything they had their contractors add to OS4.0. Instead they are simply in possession of the sources. Hyperion wont even begin to argue in that direction.
Their only chance is to prove that the transfer to Itec was illegal. Hence the attempt to join Itec to the counterclaim. But even if they succeed, that doesnt mean they win. Itec may very well show documents proving their point. Any theres no reason they would be unable to, since they only need Kouris and Ewens signatures.
Some people claim Itec couldnt be the original creditor, whitout evidence. Its entirely possible that it isnt, but again, this proves in no way that it wasnt a first secured creditor. Itec may just as well be the legal follower of the original first secured creditor or reached that status in some other way. However, even if Itec is joined, it will be as a defendent and therefore Hyperion would have to prove anything they claim.
Hyperion's defense that Amiga's claim that the two lawsuits are not contradictory "is so obviously wrong" is ridiculous. Obviously they have no factual defense, cause there simply is no contradicting combination of results possible. So maybe it gets dismissed because its one day too late, who knows.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 20:35:45
| | [ #342 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Lou wrote: @Tigger
Per the contract, payments were applied to all other outstanding invoices BEFORE being applied towards the buy-in. This includes the ARTIC contract despite the fact that it came later. So {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} had to pay in full for the Artic contract before the buy-in was complete. This is because at the time, Hyperion believed ITEC and KMOS to be legitimate successors to Amiga Inc.(W).
|
You are getting more then a little confused here. First of all Hyperion claims they never believed KMOS was the legitimate successor. Secondly Itec has no reason to pay AI(w) debts, nor KMOSs for that matter. In addition, given the conditions of the Arctic contract, it would be very hard for KMOS to owe them a substantial portion of money.
Quote:
No money will move hands until this dispute is over.
|
I have no idea what that means. (change hands maybe?)
Quote:
Hence - accepting the money from the (risen from the grave) ITEC company would only complicate matters further no matter how you look at it.
|
Itec has risen from the grave only your mind, they are the primary stockholder of KMOS, they've sold stock to several companies in the last couple of years. And no, taking money from Itec would not complicate matters.
Quote:
Hyperion admitted to being sent the check but is heavy-handily disputing the fact as to whether ITEC has any rights to OS4 as well as KMOS/AInc.(D). Both can't have rights to it, if either at all at this point. Hyperion will not be further accused of anything else and that's why they filed the motion to bring ITEC into this lawsuit.
|
Hyperion wants to claim noone has the rights to it anymore and they have a license to distribute the OS forever. Actually as I've pointed out before Itec says they are filing the complaint because Hyperion says they dont have to deal with KMOS and KMOS doesnt have rights to the contract. They are just securing the rights they bargained large portions of stock for. Hyperion wants everyone to believe they accidentally committed fraud, have been holding on to over 40K for the buyback that they just forgot to send back and that despite asking for money for the buyback as late as Oct 10, 2006, the buyback option lapsed before July 1, 2005.
Quote:
I have a question. Is Eyetech in business at all today? |
Don't think so, which will make what Hyperion is trying to prove even harder. -Tig
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 20:41:37
| | [ #343 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @Plaz
Quote:
Plaz wrote: @Tigger
Quote:
The exec portions of both of these products were clean roomed and neither team had the original source code, so they are fine. |
Thanks for clearing that up. But is there any problem if these teams had/have copies of the RKMs?
|
Nope, the RKMS are publically available documents, in fact thats how the MorphOS and AROS folks did lots of there work. Thats perfectly legal, its looking at the source code and then writing a replacement/copy/enhancement that gets you into the IP issues.
Quote:
It's clear that's what they're after now. Most of us are wonding what the problem is with Hyperion setting a price, Amiga Inc paying it, Hyperion paying the contractors, handing over the goods, and we all move along. Every one's bouncing the court filings back and forth, but it really all comes down to personal conflics, deceipt and/or greed. I'd like to know those details to better understand. But I know that's probably never going to happen.
|
Well apparently AI(D) offered 2M to do that very thing and Hyperion said no. -Tig_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Boot_WB
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 20:42:37
| | [ #344 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Feb-2006 Posts: 1134
From: Kingston upon Hull, UK | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
Quote:
I have a question. Is Eyetech in business at all today? |
Don't think so, which will make what Hyperion is trying to prove even harder. -Tig
|
Yes, they are.
EDIT Fixed broken quotesLast edited by Boot_WB on 17-Jul-2007 at 08:43 PM.
_________________ 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. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Boot_WB
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 20:45:46
| | [ #345 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Feb-2006 Posts: 1134
From: Kingston upon Hull, UK | | |
|
| @Tigger Quote:
Quote:
It's clear that's what they're after now. Most of us are wonding what the problem is with Hyperion setting a price, Amiga Inc paying it, Hyperion paying the contractors, handing over the goods, and we all move along. Every one's bouncing the court filings back and forth, but it really all comes down to personal conflics, deceipt and/or greed. I'd like to know those details to better understand. But I know that's probably never going to happen.
|
Well apparently AI(D) offered 2M to do that very thing and Hyperion said no. -Tig |
Well, that's only according to an IRC chat session between Bill McEwan and the Friedens iirc. There is no evidence to show this was actually ever discussed between Hyperion and Amiga Inc. Perhaps your comment should be prefixed by "According to Bill McEwan..."_________________ 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. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Ketzer
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:03:09
| | [ #346 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Mar-2003 Posts: 245
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Boot_WB
Quote:
Quote:
Name & Registered Office: EYETECH LTD THE OLD SURGERY, ST. CHADS AVENUE, MIDSOMER NORTON BATH BA3 2HG Company No. 04991848
|
vs
Quote:
Domain name: eyetech.co.uk
Registrant: Eyetech Group Limited
Registrant type: UK Limited Company, (Company number: 1166297)
Registrant's address: The Old Bank 12 West Green Stokesley North Yorks TS9 5BB GB
|
So this would be the one youre looking for.
eyetech
Still, it seems to exist in some way. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Spectre660
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:07:13
| | [ #347 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 4-Jun-2005 Posts: 3918
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Ketzer
Quote:
Hyperion's defense that Amiga's claim that the two lawsuits are not contradictory "is so obviously wrong" is ridiculous. Obviously they have no factual defense, cause there simply is no contradicting combination of results possible. So maybe it gets dismissed because its one day too late, who knows. |
See PDF NO 52 page 29: Amiga Delaware's own documentation. Here KMOS seem to be buying the OS4.0 rights from the ITEC/Hyperion 2003 contract. Not the Rights from Amiga Washington for the 2001 contract. Gets confusing in it's meaning as IANAL.
_________________ Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:08:29
| | [ #348 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
You are getting more then a little confused here. First of all Hyperion claims they never believed KMOS was the legitimate successor. Secondly Itec has no reason to pay AI(w) debts, nor KMOSs for that matter. In addition, given the conditions of the Arctic contract, it would be very hard for KMOS to owe them a substantial portion of money. |
Not so fast, Itec might not have to pay AI(w) directly, but those assets should be first to secure their debts. Furthermore, on BPeck case it would had to be on the table who exactly were Amiga Inc creditors, their conditions and so on. Were they?
Second, how those interest of their first creditors AW wouldn't have first to go bankrupt?
Itec transfer wasn't clear, because it wasn't meant to be, and perhaps now it will just bump on their teeth.._________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Ketzer
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:32:28
| | [ #349 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Mar-2003 Posts: 245
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Spectre660
Quote:
Spectre660 wrote: @Ketzer
See PDF NO 52 page 29: Amiga Delaware's own documentation. Here KMOS seem to be buying the OS4.0 rights from the ITEC/Hyperion 2003 contract. Not the Rights from Amiga Washington for the 2001 contract. Gets confusing in it's meaning as IANAL.
|
I dont see the point youre trying to make. Itec sold in that contract the entire OS4.0 IP, not just the contract. At that point Itec should have already received everything from Hyperion and any transfer clause shouldnt have mattered anymore.
So Amiga sues for copyright infringement; the copyrights they already received from Itec. And Itec sues for nonperformance in one contract that was the basis for another contract.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:34:30
| | [ #350 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
Well apparently AI(D) offered 2M to do that very thing and Hyperion said no. |
*Apparently* Amiga Inc had done business with Kent promising 2.5M*... your point being?
*Of 10M_________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Ketzer
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:37:10
| | [ #351 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Mar-2003 Posts: 245
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @pixie
Quote:
Not so fast, Itec might not have to pay AI(w) directly, but those assets should be first to secure their debts. Furthermore, on BPeck case it would had to be on the table who exactly were Amiga Inc creditors, their conditions and so on. Were they? |
Maybe Peck is in a position to sue, I dont know about that. However, if Itec was a first secured creditor any absorbed asset reduces the debt to Itec, not to anyone else.
Quote:
Second, how those interest of their first creditors AW wouldn't have first to go bankrupt? |
No, such transfers are possible at any time and are even allowed to bankrupt a company, which is why this rule may be changed in the future. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:47:18
| | [ #352 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| @Ketzer
Quote:
Maybe Peck is in a position to sue, I dont know about that. However, if Itec was a first secured creditor any absorbed asset reduces the debt to Itec, not to anyone else. |
Isn't it supposed to be explicit? After all Bolton Peck had won a case, if they were a first secured creditor, Bolton Peck should had know_________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Ketzer
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 21:54:30
| | [ #353 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Mar-2003 Posts: 245
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @pixie
Quote:
Isn't it supposed to be explicit? After all Bolton Peck had won a case, if they were a first secured creditor, Bolton Peck should had know |
Err, why would anyone tell him the other creditors of Amiga, be them secured or not? He could have sued again and maybe find them bankrupt. He didnt, that possibility is gone.
Edit: And this would have been a stupid idea for him. The secured creditor would still have gotten his share, Amiga would still have no money to pay the debt to Peck and Peck would just have to pay more lawyer bills.Last edited by Ketzer on 17-Jul-2007 at 09:57 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Boot_WB
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 22:02:01
| | [ #354 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Feb-2006 Posts: 1134
From: Kingston upon Hull, UK | | |
|
| @Ketzer
Eyetech Group Ltd is the one I linked to. The other "Eyetech Ltd" is an unrelated company.
Regards
Rich _________________ 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. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 17-Jul-2007 22:07:29
| | [ #355 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| @Ketzer
Because one would actually have to say what it is worth to say that it isn't able to cover their debt.... _________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Plaz
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 18-Jul-2007 0:19:43
| | [ #356 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 2-Oct-2003 Posts: 1573
From: Atlanta | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
Well apparently AI(D) offered 2M to do that very thing and Hyperion said no. |
Talking about offering 2mil and accually putting the cold hard cash on the desk in front of you are far different things. Was there ever a guaranteed check delivered and rejected by Hyperion like the one for $25K? If not, I can understand skepticism by Hyperion if the offer seemed vaporous. If there was a solid offer that was rejected, I'd like to know more about that story. As Pixie mentions, the only 2mil I've heard about was second hand from an IRC.
PlazLast edited by Plaz on 18-Jul-2007 at 12:24 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Spectre660
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 18-Jul-2007 1:04:54
| | [ #357 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 4-Jun-2005 Posts: 3918
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Ketzer
Quote:
I dont see the point youre trying to make. |
To be honest I think that I have run out of points. Time to take a rest until next documents.
But before I go let me say that the best way to kill a tree is to destroy its roots. _________________ Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
umisef
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 18-Jul-2007 2:19:58
| | [ #358 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 19-Jun-2005 Posts: 1714
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Amiga Inc. should have sold themselves to a mutual venture between Hyperion and Eyetech as they were the only 2 companies that were really supporting the platform's future. |
And there should have been peace in the middle east, too, and goodwill to all mankind. And a Winnebago!
How much would Hyperion have been able to contribute to such a buyout in early 2003? Remember that according to the information provided so far, the reason the buyback money was paid in Q2/03 was that Hyperion was about to go broke, and an extra $25k might save them...
How much would Eyetech have been able (and willing) to contribute? Eyetech, who for all we know may never have had any issues with Amiga (and probably plenty with Hyperion, because as the 2001 contract states "The successful roll-out of the AmigaONE hardware hinges in part on the availability of AmigaOS 4.0")? Eyetech, who at the time had shipped a few G3 SEs, but was trying to get G4s into the pipeline (which means pre-financing their production, without actual income)?
Do you really think that between them, they could have wiped Amiga's debts, even if they wanted to? If so, there is some prime real estate in Florida I would like to talk to you about...
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 18-Jul-2007 3:30:15
| | [ #359 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @pixie
Quote:
pixie wrote:
Not so fast, Itec might not have to pay AI(w) directly, but those assets should be first to secure their debts. Furthermore, on BPeck case it would had to be on the table who exactly were Amiga Inc creditors, their conditions and so on. Were they?
|
You guys keep mixing this up. Itec got classic OS and the contract involving 4.0 from AI(D) as part of a first secured creditor situation, there is really no issue with the this transfer, as first secured creditor they are ahead of Bolten anyways. The other issue is that AI(w) was still a solvent company after the transaction, they still owned all the trademarks, the DE IP, etc. The transfer that has always had issues is the AI(w) - KMOS transfer because of the debt issues, however that isnt involved in the NY Court case at all, which is the subject this topic is about.
Quote:
Second, how those interest of their first creditors AW wouldn't have first to go bankrupt?
Itec transfer wasn't clear, because it wasn't meant to be, and perhaps now it will just bump on their teeth.. |
No, the first secured creditor can take the asset for any number of reasons. In addition even after the transfer, the company was still solvent. The Itec transfer shouldnt be the one anyone is questioning, a first secured creditor took the collateral back, that happens all the time, it doesnt mean anything illegal happened or that any other creditors were getting ripped off. -Tig_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Itec steps forward in the Big Apple Posted on 18-Jul-2007 3:44:43
| | [ #360 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @Spectre660
Quote:
Spectre660 wrote: @Ketzer
See PDF NO 52 page 29: Amiga Delaware's own documentation. Here KMOS seem to be buying the OS4.0 rights from the ITEC/Hyperion 2003 contract. Not the Rights from Amiga Washington for the 2001 contract. Gets confusing in it's meaning as IANAL.
|
No thats why the lawsuit in New York will go forward. Itec bought the classic OS including the contract from AI(D), they then sign a contract with Hyperion for the buyin, they then pay Hyperion money, after that they sell the OS to KMOS in a stock swap. Now years later, Hyperion says you didnt pay us enough, we arent going to count money from KMOS, etc, and they wont deliver the OS which KMOS bought from Itec to KMOS (AI(D)). So Itec says fine, deliver it to us, here's 25K so there is no dispute about whether you have been paid enough, give us the OS, we'll deliver it to KMOS. Hyperion refused and Itec took them to court, neither Bernd or I are really surprised that Itec filed a lawsuit against Hyperion, and it takes most of Hyperions arguments away from them. They sold Itec the OS in the 2003 contract, Itec has paid them 25K (whether they cashed it or not). If Newetek had bought the classic OS from AI including the contract, and then signed the 2003 contract with Hyperion and paid them 25K and then sold it to DiscreetFX because Tim thinks BP has a good idea of what to do with the OS, would you guys still be arguing that neither Newtek nor DiscreetFX should have the OS despite paying Hyperion for it? Or is this all about disliking McEwen? -Tig _________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|