@Spectre660

Amiga 2 (KMOS) own ITEC or is it ITEC owning Amiga?

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

Quote:

@Spectre660 Amiga 2 (KMOS) own ITEC or is it ITEC owning Amiga

If some one would only show us the ITEC/Amiga(W) paperwork.
Please....

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

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @Dandy Quote: You can sue someone on the breach of an illegal contract in the US??? The contract can only be illegal if the transfer to Itec didnt happen. If the transfer didnt happen, Itec arent bound by its conditions - but Hyperion are. Hyperion promised delivery of IP, upon which Itec spend money, founded KMOS and so on. If Hyperion promised illegally to sell the IP, they dont necessarily have to transfer it, but can be sued for damages by Itec and Amiga D.

Nahhh - if an contract is illegal, then it's illegal.
Period.

No-one is bound to an illegal contract.

At least not in that part of the world I live in...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

But the court hasn't decided that the contract is illegal yet, so for now it is assumed to be legal. Unless you have information we don't. Do share . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Dandy

How about suing someone for offering an illegal contract ? If person A sells X to person B while person A is not in the position to sell X, but A and B do have a contract I think B sure can sue A over that.

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

@Seer

If person A offers to sell something to person B; they both sign the contract and B pays; then B can sue A to give them the item. That is the principle of reciprocity.

You can't sue for a "bad contract", if you agreed to it. The basic principle of a contract is that person A and person B intend to create a legal relationship with regards to things that will be exchanged. If the other party intended to trick you then that's different. You might get a term ruled unenforceable if at the time of signing both parties believed that the meaning was very different. That would be hard to prove.

If person A offers something illegal then it is up to the police and public prosecutor to collect evidence and decide whether to prosecute. That would be dependent on which jurisdiction the illegal action has occurred in.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Ketzer Nahhh - if an contract is illegal, then it's illegal. Period. No-one is bound to an illegal contract. At least not in that part of the world I live in...

If this was in Germany you would have the exact same problem Hyperion has in the US. There are two possibilites with the Itec-Hyperion contract.

1) It was legal for Hyperion to sell the OS to Itec, if this is true then Itec claims they are in violation of the contract because they have paid (or tried to pay) the 25K and not received the product in question.

2) It was illegal for them to sell to the OS to Itec, if this is true then Hyperion committed fraud against Itec (and possibly Eyetech) by taking funds from Itec and costing them countless other funds for their business based on getting the asset, all while not providing the service they signed a contract to carry out. (Its selling the Brooklyn bridge in essence, and its illegal in most countries of the world).

Why do you think case #2 would be legal in Germany? Can you sell someone a car (you dont own) in your country and take money and when they finally get you to court 4 years later seriously believe you arent going to jail for fraud?
-Tig

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Spectre660 Amiga 2 (KMOS) own ITEC or is it ITEC owning Amiga?

Itec is a principal stockholder of KMOS (Amiga(D)) according to the documents presented or at least was at the time of the transfer of the classic OS to KMOS.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

1) It was legal for Hyperion to sell the OS to Itec, if this is true then Itec claims they are in violation of the contract because they have paid (or tried to pay) the 25K and not received the product in question.

The sale is conditional to the clauses of the 2001 Agreement and the Written consent of the other parties to the OS4.0 Agreement, Amiga(W) and Eytech.

Also the Transfer to ITEC of Amiga (W)'s rights carry like conditions as per
the 2001 Agreement. HYperion and EYTECH written consent.

A third level is raised by the cloudy issue of the ITEC purchase of the OS 3.x
IP from Amiga (W). If this was not done at the same time as the rights to OS4.0 then written consent would also be required from AMIGA (W).

This level of written consent and from which paries for each assignment of rights is key to where these suits end up.

Amiga (W) - ITEC (OS4.0 rights/OS3.x IP ?)
Hyperion - ITEC OS4.0 (Source code rights ?)
ITEC - KMOS (OS4.0 ?)
AMIGA (W) - KMOS (OS 3.x IP and trademarks ?)
KMOS-AMIGA (D) (Transfer or Name Change ?)

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger The sale is conditional to the clauses of the 2001 Agreement and the Written consent of the other parties to the OS4.0 Agreement, Amiga(W) and Eytech.

Can you point to the part of the 2003 contract that says that, and you understand that AI(w) has not say in this because they made the transfer to Itec. Its a fishing expedition by Hyperion and its not working. The only possible issue is with Eyetech and they have to show up (and sue Hyperion) to protect those rights.

Quote:

A third level is raised by the cloudy issue of the ITEC purchase of the OS 3.x IP from Amiga (W). If this was not done at the same time as the rights to OS4.0 then written consent would also be required from AMIGA (W).

Its not a cloudy issue, both Hyperion and AI, say that Itec acquried rights to all the classic OSs with the April 23, 2003 transfer. Its only cloudy because you want to make it that way. Its one of the few things the two companies agree on.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The only possible issue is with Eyetech and they have to show up (and sue Hyperion) to protect those rights.

Sue those who had signed...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Tigger

Quote:

Can you point to the part of the 2003 contract that says that

It's in the 2003 contract, in the paragraph above the 'Definitions' on page 1.

The 2003 contract simply shifts responsibility for paying the 25K to Itec, all other clauses are still defined in the 2001 contract. Hyperion have agreed to the transfer of the payment source assuming that the insolvency clause has not been activated. I think the court must decide if that clause applies regardless of the transfer.

@Tigger

Quote:

2) It was illegal for them to sell to the OS to Itec, if this is true then Hyperion committed fraud against Itec (and possibly Eyetech) by taking funds from Itec and costing them countless other funds for their business based on getting the asset, all while not providing the service they signed a contract to carry out.

Assuming you're right, it would be a very good reason to reject the payment. Remember no money has changed hands between Itec and Hyperion, your post seems to suggest that Hyperion has accepted payment from Itec aleady.

Last edited by Esquilax on 23-Jul-2007 at 06:27 PM.

@Manu

Quote:

My next Amiga like computer

i`m not waiting anymore i`m going to give a go with MorphOS.....

Quote:

Hyperion and Amiga Inc blew it.

As they do all the time..

_________________
http://aros-exec.org/

http://serk118.blogspot.com/

@Esquilax

Quote:

Esquilax wrote: @Tigger Quote: Can you point to the part of the 2003 contract that says that It's in the 2003 contract, in the paragraph above the 'Definitions' on page 1. The 2003 contract simply shifts responsibility for paying the 25K to Itec, all other clauses are still defined in the 2001 contract. Hyperion have agreed to the transfer of the payment source assuming that the insolvency clause has not been activated. I think the court must decide if that clause applies regardless of the transfer.

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

@Esquilax

Quote:

Esquilax wrote: @Tigger Assuming you're right, it would be a very good reason to reject the payment. Remember no money has changed hands between Itec and Hyperion, your post seems to suggest that Hyperion has accepted payment from Itec aleady.

I'm sorry, that would be incorrect, in fact there is receipt from Hyperion to Itec for a payment of $22500, so they did indeed accept payments from Itec. Hyperion also accepted payment from KMOS for the transfer.
-Tig

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Tigger Quote: The only possible issue is with Eyetech and they have to show up (and sue Hyperion) to protect those rights. Sue those who had signed...

The only one of the two signees they can sue is Hyperion. Thats what you guys keep glossing over. Itec only has to abide by the 2001 contract IF they are the successor company, if they are not (as HYPERION claims) then nothing in the 2001 contract bids them, however Hyperion as a signee of the 2001 contract is completely at risk if a court decides Eyetech has to approve the transfer and did not.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

That being the case, why did they feel the need to pay again?

@Esquilax
Quote:

Esquilax wrote: @Tigger It's in the 2003 contract, in the paragraph above the 'Definitions' on page 1. The 2003 contract simply shifts responsibility for paying the 25K to Itec, all other clauses are still defined in the 2001 contract. Hyperion have agreed to the transfer of the payment source assuming that the insolvency clause has not been activated. I think the court must decide if that clause applies regardless of the transfer.

First of all if the transfer occurs then (and only then) does Itec have to abide by the 2001 contract. Hyperion is arguing that Itec are not the successor company (because of Eyetech) but that Itec has to abide by the rules of the 2001 contract which they only have to do if they are the successor. If Eyetech needs to approve it and hasnt, (as Hyperion claims) then Itec doesnt have to abide by anything in the 2001 contract, they are not the successor company, however they do have a 2003 contract with Hyperion which they claim to have completed there side of the bargain and have yet to receive the OS as called out in the contract. Its simple law, Itec signed a contract with Hyperion, they want Hyperion to carry out its part of the contract, they haven't and Hyperion is going to lose in New York if it goes to trial.
-Tig

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

@Esquilax

Quote:

Esquilax wrote: @Tigger That being the case, why did they feel the need to pay again?

Actually what they did is a very common legal strategy, my company has done it alot of times, they in fact asked the judge to allow them to do it during hearing last month. One of Hyperions arguements have been that they have not been paid the $25K yet, they say KMOS doesnt have the right to pay them, Tachyon doesnt have the right, etc. So to be sure that there was no debate that Itec had paid $25K for the OS, Itec sent a check for $25K for the OS to Hyperion, the fact Hyperion has gotten over $40K for the OS so far, just means they will ask for it back and if necessary sue for it back at a later time. Thats why it was silly for Hyperion to not try and cash the check from Itec. That way they would have $25K more money for there legal defense and cashing the check and admitting they got it by the deadline and shipping it back are th same in a court of law.
-Tig

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