this looks like it will be over faster than expected.... i would say hyperion got ainc by the balls now, just a little bit more squeezing and they are going down for good!

_________________
I was a ZX Spectrum owner....

@Tigger

Tig,

Our little conversation started when I replied to your statement "The[y] signed an illegal contract and can be sued by both ITEC and Eyetech over the issue" on page 20, #297 and asked you on page 26, #508:

You can sue someone on the breach of an illegal contract in the US???

I'm still waiting for the answer to that - but instead of answering my initial question you say:

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy You didnt pay attention.

Hmmmmmm...

(Furthermore I'm still waiting for an reply to my post #562 on page 29)
Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Yes, Hyperion sold something to Itec and in good faith they sold it to KMOS, whose in trouble, thats right Hyperion, glad we are back to being on the same page. The only company in trouble if Itec is not the successor is Hyperion.

Obviously now it was you, who didn't pay attention - as I didn't say "Hyperion sold something to Itec and in good faith they sold it to KMOS".

Instead I meant that Hyperion sold something in good faith (that ITEC was the legal succssor of AInc(W)) to ITEC, while it turned out later, that it is at least doubtfull that ITEC is the legal successor of AInc(W)...

Last edited by Dandy on 26-Jul-2007 at 07:53 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 26-Jul-2007 at 07:50 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)

@Dandy & Tigger and other that participate in this endless quarrel... get a beer and relax.... lets enjoy the fall of amiga inc...

_________________
I was a ZX Spectrum owner....

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: I don't think Copyrights move from the original assignee. Think again.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

From what I gather, Gateway didn't sell copyrights to Amino.

What I do get is that Amiga OS 4.0 is copyrighted by Hyperion.

@tiger

"The[y] signed an illegal contract and can be sued by both ITEC and Eyetech over the issue"

Last edited by pixie on 26-Jul-2007 at 09:21 AM.

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

@umisef

Quote:

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..

Hey you're right, not that it makes any real difference of course.

@Tigger

Quote:

Not true at all Esquilax. Itec does not have to be the successor company to sign the 2003 contract, period.

Not true at all, Tigger. Itec must hold the 2001 contract thereby being the legitimate successor. There are no clauses in the 2003 contract aside from its legal binding to the 2001 agreement.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger Tig, Our little conversation started when I replied to your statement "The[y] signed an illegal contract and can be sued by both ITEC and Eyetech over the issue" on page 20, #297 and asked you on page 26, #508: You can sue someone on the breach of an illegal contract in the US??? I'm still waiting for the answer to that - but instead of answering my initial question you say: [quote] Tigger wrote: @Dandy You didnt pay attention.

You didnt pay attention, Ketzer answered you, you disagreed with his answer I responded at #528. I even gave you a car analogy. In Germany Hyperion would be in just as much trouble as they are in New York.

Quote:

(Furthermore I'm still waiting for an reply to my post #562 on page 29) [quote] I didnt realize I had to answer everything you post, but we are all in agreement that Hyperion has some ownership of the IP, I'm not sure your question even makes sense, are you implying I or anyone else here, think Itec should get the OS for free? [quote] Instead I meant that Hyperion sold something in good faith (that ITEC was the legal succssor of AInc(W)) to ITEC, while it turned out later, that it is at least doubtfull that ITEC is the legal successor of AInc(W)...

You keep glossing over the facts, Hyperion needs to be sure that Itec is the successor before they sell anything to them. Hyperion coming back and saying Eyetech didnt approve it and AI(W) didnt approve it (as they do now) basically implies they sold the OS without informing there partners which is illegal according to the 2001 contract and is committing Fraud against Itec. Now there arguement that they have now found out that AI(W) was insolvent also doesnt hold water, because nothing says the contract goes away (or that the OS cant be bought) after AI(W) goes insolvent, it just gives the AO Partners license to use the names, etc, it doesnt say that the buyback cannot still be implemented. In addition, the only source they have provided for the insolvency issue is McEwens testimony in August of 2003, something Ben and Evert both have known about for over 3 years and yet they have never acted or claimed in any way the rights they now say they have had this entire time.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 26-Jul-2007 at 05:41 PM.

_________________
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: @tiger "The[y] signed an illegal contract and can be sued by both ITEC and Eyetech over the issue" Well if one sign one contract where explicitly says that in case of insolvency/bankruptcy one gets to keep the right to use the name and trademarks bound by it and yet it doesn't hold due to the first creditor thing I would say it would be pretty much illegal in my book, and by Amiga Inc. as it was them who contractually sell something which they cannot own...

You understand that the insolvency/bankruptcy clause is illegal in the US right Pixie, as we have discussed ad infinitum. That clause isnt going to work no matter what happens, and it doesnt matter if it did. This is about the Itec - Hyperion lawsuit, and can you point to the part of the 2001 contract where it says that even if the insolvency clause occurs, the buyback cannot. Hyperion is arguing (incorrectly I might add) that because AI(w) was insolvent they dont have to honor the buyback or the 2003 contract, AI(w) wasnt insolvent, but even if were, it doesnt mean the buyback cannot be exercised, and thats why Hyperion is going to lose the case in New York.
-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 Quote: Not true at all Esquilax. Itec does not have to be the successor company to sign the 2003 contract, period. Not true at all, Tigger. Itec must hold the 2001 contract thereby being the legitimate successor. There are no clauses in the 2003 contract aside from its legal binding to the 2001 agreement.

No completly true Esquilax. Where does it say in the 2003 contract that Itec is the successor of AI(W) or the contract isn't binding? I can save you some time, it doesn't. So we have two possibilites here.

1) Itec is the successor and Hyperion needs to deliver the software to them

2) Itec isnt the successor and Hyperion committed fraud against them if they cannot legally deliver the software, in this case Hyperion is liable for the return of not only the money but also damages.
-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 Not true at all, Tigger. Itec must hold the 2001 contract thereby being the legitimate successor. There are no clauses in the 2003 contract aside from its legal binding to the 2001 agreement. No completly true Esquilax. Where does it say in the 2003 contract that Itec is the successor of AI(W) or the contract isn't binding? I can save you some time, it doesn't. So we have two possibilites here. 1) Itec is the successor and Hyperion needs to deliver the software to them 2) Itec isnt the successor and Hyperion committed fraud against them if they cannot legally deliver the software, in this case Hyperion is liable for the return of not only the money but also damages. -Tig

Too bad Itec represented themselves as the successor and that it could be found to have been done in bad faith and that representation is the basis for the contract which is why it refers to the 2001 contract in the 2003 contract itself. The judge is not likely to be the fool you are hoping for.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 26-Jul-2007 at 05:55 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Too bad Itec represented themselves as the successor and that it could be found to have been done in bad faith and that representation is the basis for the contract which is why it refers to the 2001 contract in the 2003 contract itself. The judge is not likely to be the fool you are hoping for.

How could they have done that in a way that fooled Hyperion given there current testimony?
-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: @fairlanefastback Quote: fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Too bad Itec represented themselves as the successor and that it could be found to have been done in bad faith and that representation is the basis for the contract which is why it refers to the 2001 contract in the 2003 contract itself. The judge is not likely to be the fool you are hoping for. How could they have done that in a way that fooled Hyperion given there current testimony? -Tig

I don't know, but how can they sue someone for a contract that they sold?

Let's use the car analogy here.
If I asked you to fix my car's engine. It's old and won't start anymor. Then while you were fixing it, I sold it to someone else, who knows you are fixing my car, why should I kick your posterior if I don't own the car anymore? You are now the other guy's problem, not mine.

As it turns out, the other guy has a revoked license to drive and can't register the car in his own name too boot.

Oh, the engine you had in there was carburated. The crafty mechanic that you are installed one with sequential fuel injection, distrutorless ignition and a roller camshaft which necessitated a newer designed block, intake and heads found in more moder cars, that while still compatible with the transmission bell-housing and motor-mounts, is a vastly different animal all together. It now get better fuel mileage and can even run E85 fuel.

Now this new owner should be happy the car runs at all considering how old it is, but is only willing to pay for an oil change and tune-up because he is supposed to put his own in within 6 months of driving this one.

So my question is, why should I have a problem with a mechanic to a car I don't own? ... In case you forgot...

Now, the new owner seems to have a history of drunk driving. Me, I'm just a car thief. So I stole that car pretending to be someone that died and registered it to my real self per a faked paperwork from the prior (deceased) owner via forgery.

Again, I should really count my blessings and stay out of it.

Incase you don't know: I = ITEC, you are Hyperion and the new owner is KMOS, the desceased party is Amiga Inc. (W).

Last edited by Lou on 26-Jul-2007 at 07:30 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 26-Jul-2007 at 07:19 PM.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback How could they have done that in a way that fooled Hyperion given there current testimony? -Tig

Hyperion has said that the conveyance was presented as legitimate at the time and that later they found out it was not and that they believe they were purposely lied to to meet that end. We know you don't agree that this is what happened in reality. You have even accused Hyperion of assisting Amiga in hiding assets I believe from people like Bolton. Whatever your interpretation though the fact remains they are saying the nature of rights transfer to Itec as presented to them at the time was a purposeful lie that they came to know later. They freely admit they thought Itec was a rightful successor at the time. But now that it is known to them in their intepretation now that they are not that the contract was enetered into in bad faith by the other party and based on purposely misrepresented circumstances and facts. Hence they are not bound to it. Your oversimplication to make the point you want to make is not the same one-dimensional way everyone will view the situation. Hopefully the judge included.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You understand that the insolvency/bankruptcy clause is illegal in the US right Pixie, as we have discussed ad infinitum. That clause isnt going to work no matter what happens, and it doesnt matter if it did. This is about the Itec - Hyperion lawsuit, and can you point to the part of the 2001 contract where it says that even if the insolvency clause occurs, the buyback cannot. Hyperion is arguing (incorrectly I might add) that because AI(w) was insolvent they dont have to honor the buyback or the 2003 contract, AI(w) wasnt insolvent, but even if were, it doesnt mean the buyback cannot be exercised, and thats why Hyperion is going to lose the case in New York.

I understand that if it is illegal the contract is moot and we don't even reach ITEC because it's already 'fraudly' sold to Hyperion before Hyperion got the chance to do it to ITEC...

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Hyperion has said that the conveyance was presented as legitimate at the time and that later they found out it was not and that they believe they were purposely lied to to meet that end.

And the million dollar question is, in NY, before the judge, during discovery, can they show PROOF that this is what happened. Not a fishing expedition based on smoke and mirrors. PROOF. If they can lay out the evidence then they are in good shape. If not, they are in trouble. This is the 2003 contract that is in play. The court will take into effect those portions of the 2001 contract that apply. But the burden of proof to get out of the 2003 contract is on Hyperion.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@d0c

Quote:

d0c wrote: this looks like it will be over faster than expected.... i would say hyperion got ainc by the balls now, just a little bit more squeezing and they are going down for good!

Ok so can anybody point out what is so ground breaking in the latest court
documents then if it is so Done!

_________________
AmigaOS or MorphOS on x86 would sell orders of magnitude more than the current,
hardware-intensive solutions. And they'd go faster.-- D.Haynie

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @fairlanefastback [quote] And the million dollar question is, in NY, before the judge, during discovery, can they show PROOF that this is what happened. Not a fishing expedition based on smoke and mirrors. PROOF. If they can lay out the evidence then they are in good shape. If not, they are in trouble. This is the 2003 contract that is in play. The court will take into effect those portions of the 2001 contract that apply. But the burden of proof to get out of the 2003 contract is on Hyperion.

Will it even get to be heard by a judge in NY? Or will it have to stay in WA with the counterclaim that preceds the Itec attempt in NY. Thats yet to be determined too. And the reference back to the 2001 contract still is the perpetual license to use the AmigaOS trademark anyway.

And in reality even if Amiga/Itec/KMOS wins will Hyperion actually hand anything over or will they just tell Amiga what Amiga told Bolton Peck? I don't put much past either player in this legal game.

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: I understand that if it is illegal the contract is moot and we don't even reach ITEC because it's already 'fraudly' sold to Hyperion before Hyperion got the chance to do it to ITEC...

What exactly was fraudulently sold to Hyperion?
-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: I don't know, but how can they sue someone for a contract that they sold?

Pretty easy, Hyperion basically gave them the right to do it, by saying KMOS isnt a successor. It happens all the time. I've had Arrow threaten to sue people on our behalf several times.
-Tig

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