@Tigger

Quote:

First of all if the transfer occurs then (and only then) does Itec have to abide by the 2001 contract. -Tig

Please.
The 2003 contract can only be valid if the proper transfer conditions were done re the 2001 contract transer clauses.

The New York Suit is Junk.

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

@Tigger

I'm not going to get drawn into a circular argument with you, please try to understand that the 2003 contract cannot exist without the legitimate holding of the 2001 agreement. INeither you nor Itec can seperate the two.

If Itec really do have both the agreements it would mean that AiD do not. Therefore either way, one of these cases is going to fall on its backside. Hyperion are using a divide and conquer strategy against AiD and it seems to me that the NY case is a panic response to prevent a Kouri led Itec from being joined with Hyperion against a Kouri led Amiga.

http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=8113

Reading the details of this lawsuit, I think the Friedens have a legitimate claim on the IP ownership of ExecSG.

@Esquilax

Quote:

Esquilax wrote: @Tigger I'm not going to get drawn into a circular argument with you, please try to understand that the 2003 contract cannot exist without the legitimate holding of the 2001 agreement. INeither you nor Itec can seperate the two.

Not true at all Esquilax. Itec does not have to be the successor company to sign the 2003 contract, period.
-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: Please. The 2003 contract can only be valid if the proper transfer conditions were done re the 2001 contract transer clauses.

Again, not true at all. Hyperion agreed to sell something to Itec, there are no clauses in the 2003 contract that say Itec must be the successor of the 2001 contract in order for the 2003 contract to be enacted. Hyperion is in violation of the 2003 contract.
-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: @Esquilax Quote: Esquilax wrote: @Tigger I'm not going to get drawn into a circular argument with you, please try to understand that the 2003 contract cannot exist without the legitimate holding of the 2001 agreement. INeither you nor Itec can seperate the two. Not true at all Esquilax. Itec does not have to be the successor company to sign the 2003 contract, period. -Tig

For Hyperion to have been coaxed into signing that contract, ITEC had to have presented themselves as the successor company. So we have yet to truly see who has committed fraud.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=8113 Reading the details of this lawsuit, I think the Friedens have a legitimate claim on the IP ownership of ExecSG.

??? First of all there is no judgement on this suit as least where you sent us, and secondly it has almost nothing to do with IP rights, its a licensing deal, in fact it pretty far removed from the Amiga situation.
-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: http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=8113 Reading the details of this lawsuit, I think the Friedens have a legitimate claim on the IP ownership of ExecSG. ??? First of all there is no judgement on this suit as least where you sent us, and secondly it has almost nothing to do with IP rights, its a licensing deal, in fact it pretty far removed from the Amiga situation. -Tig

Oh, a licensing deal is far removed from the Amiga situation huh?

The wheels of the bus go round and round...

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger [quote] Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] Lou wrote: Oh, a licensing deal is far removed from the Amiga situation huh? The wheels of the bus go round and round...

With regards to the Friedens and ExecSG is surely does. If you have a point make it Lou, but using a lawsuit that hasnt been decided and which is about licensing as proof of who is going to own IP (ie the ExecSG issue) is really weak.
-Tig

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

@Esquilax

Quote:

to prevent a Kouri led Itec from being joined with Hyperion against a Kouri led Amiga.

Uh, you *do* understand that Hyperion is asking for Itec to be joined WITH Amiga and AGAINST Hyperion, right?

Hyperion asks for them to be joined as defendants in the counter-claim. For the counter-claim, Hyperion are plaintiffs and Amiga(D) are defendants....

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger For Hyperion to have been coaxed into signing that contract, ITEC had to have presented themselves as the successor company. So we have yet to truly see who has committed fraud.

Hyperion wasnt coaxed into signing the contract, it was there idea, they needed the money. If Hyperion didnt think they were the successor company they shouldnt have signed it, as a signee of the contract it was THERE responsibility to verify the deal they were working was ok with there partner. It was not Itecs job to verify it was ok with Eyetech.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Hyperion wasnt coaxed into signing the contract, it was there idea, they needed the money. If Hyperion didnt think they were the successor company they shouldnt have signed it,

lol!! Umm.. I think you just made the point for him. You said, "If Hyperion didnt think they were the successor company they shouldnt have signed it", isn't that what he basically just said?? That means Hyperion must have thought they were the successors if they signed it... hmm how would they have gotten that idea, ITEC told them they were? So I think his point stands that if ITEC was not true successor to the company, then indeed "we have yet to truly see who has committed fraud."

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @Dandy Quote: I somehow fail to see why it should have been Haage&Partner's job to donate away their IP??? Whether they were supposed to donate or sell I dont know. But H&P, being in possession of 3.5/3.9 source, were part of the subcontractors - for some reason they left soon after.

Not sure what you mean with "were part of the subcontractors" - in case you mean they had a contract with AInc, I'd say they possibly legally terminated it - just like AInc recently tried with the Hyperion contract.

Anyway, it never became clear to me, what disgruntled H&P so much that they left the Amiga "market", but I could imagine that it was something AInc did/said/required.

_________________
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)

@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.

Well, it was Tigger who claimed "They signed an illegal contract...".

I was just wondering how it can be posible to sue someone over the breach of an illegal contract, as in that part of the world where I live it is not possible for all involved parties to enforce an illegal contract.

_________________
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)

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @Dandy Quote: Nahhh - I think you misread me. I didn't say ITEC committed fraud - I said "They are actively involved in AInc(W)'s fraudulent game to get rid of debts ... With that I meant they very well knew what was going on and for what purpose - so you can't say they acted "in good faith"... I don't see where any fraud was commited between AI.W and ITEC. (OS4, IP, Contract etc.) ...

I didn't say that there was fraud between AInc(W) and ITEC.
What I said was:
"They are actively involved in AInc(W)'s fraudulent game to get rid of debts..."

_________________
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)

@Seer

Quote:

Seer wrote: @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.

Yeah - but wouldn't that mean annother trial - different to the one we're dicussing here?

_________________
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)

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @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 . . .

Just read my last reply to ketzer...

Last edited by Dandy on 24-Jul-2007 at 10:26 AM.

_________________
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)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @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. ...

No.
I know e.g. for sure (decision of the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany), that if I rent a flat here in Germany and the contract explicitely says that I have to renovate the rooms in a certain timely order, this contract is illegal.
Such a contract is illegal as well, if it e.g. states that the hirer is not allowed to have a washing machine in his flat, but only in the cellar.

And it had been ruled out by the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany, that such an illegal contract cannot be enforced by any party.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... 2) It was illegal for them to sell to the OS to Itec, if this is true then Hyperion committed fraud against Itec ... ... Why do you think case #2 would be legal in Germany?

Today it is your opinion that it was illegal for them to sell (while it remains to be seen if the court will share your point of view).

It would not be legal here in Germany to consciously sell something that is not your own without the permission of the legal owner. Something like this would be fraud here.
BUT:
If someone sells me a stolen car and I have no chance to see that I've been frauded and I sell this stolen car later on, then I acted in "good faith" and can't be punished for that.

If it later becomes obvious that I sold a stolen car in good faith that it was not stolen, I have to give the money from the deal back to the person I sold the car to and then I can sue the person who sold me the stolen car to get my money back.

The car is returned to its legal owner.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: 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?

Just read my answer above...

_________________
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)

@thread


Now these documents might proove to be interesting...


"54 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007
Declaration

55 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007
Declaration

56 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007
Memorandum

57 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007
Certificate of Service"


Didn't have much time to read them, but this part of document 56 (filed by Hyperion) looked quite interesting:

"AMIGA DELAWARE IS NOT THE REGISTRANT OF THE RELEVANT TRADEMARKS

1. The US PTO Has Not Recognized the Assignment of Amiga Washington’s
Trademark Rights to Amiga Delaware
(...)
2. The US PTO Has Issued a Final Refusal to Register Five Trademark
Applications Filed by Amiga Delaware"

Last edited by hatschi on 24-Jul-2007 at 10:10 AM.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Spectre660 ... Again, not true at all. Hyperion agreed to sell something to Itec, ...

If I got you right here, there must have been a common understanding between these two parties at that time that Hyperion was the owner of that "something".

Or why did ITEC ask Hyperion to sell them "something"?
(As you say "Hyperion agreed" I assume they must have been asked by ITEC)

_________________
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)