@Tigger

LOL! Giving up from a winning position? That would be the biggest mistake on the earth. (even if you don't like it)

@Chip

What winning position?

Against (KMOS)AI.D, granted that will probably be a win.

Against ITEC, slam dunk loss if it goes to court in NY or even Washington.

I see where certain rights to Amiga IP weren't secured properly by KMOS. But ITEC will be a different thing all the way around. They have a contract with Hyperion. As a first secured creditor, the position they are in is pretty sound, where Hyperion's is not. . . . IMO of course.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wolfe

Quote:

Against ITEC, slam dunk loss if it goes to court in NY or even Washington. I see where certain rights to Amiga IP weren't secured properly by KMOS. But ITEC will be a different thing all the way around. They have a contract with Hyperion. As a first secured creditor, the position they are in is pretty sound, where Hyperion's is not. . . . IMO of course.

Why do so many people forget that Hyperion are asking that
their agreement with ITEC should be declared invalid due to apparent lack of written consent to the transer by Amiga (W) and Eyetech ?.

PDF no 55 sheds some light on this as ITEC were never an assignee of the Amiga trademarks. Thus written consent would have been needed from Amiga (W) for an agreement dealing with trademark usage (OS4.0).

Thus PDF 55 is a 2 pronged attack.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 30-Jul-2007 at 12:19 AM.

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

@COBRA

Quote:

If sombody starts a lawsuit in the US which claims your rights by doing so (through another company), you can certainly sue them for it somewhere else and request a judgement which protects those rights you have, which means that in case the outcome of the US lawsuit demands those sources (through another company) you don't have to turn them over since you have a declaratory judgement in the EU which says the opposite.

It still does not help. OS4 developers are not working to Amiga Inc but to Hyperion Entertainment. It is only making it worse if Hyperion can not deliver working operating system to Amiga Inc.

Unless developers are going to drop Hyperion and start writing their own OS.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@Spectre660

Quote:

Why do so many people forget that Hyperion are asking that their agreement with ITEC should be declared invalid due to apparent lack of written consent to the transer by Amiga (W) and Eyetech ?.

Because not everyone is falling for Hyperion's clever re-use of the name "the Itec Contract".

One of the Itec contracts might have required consent. It's the other, however, which Hyperion signed, and is now apparently being sued over in NY.

@umisef

Quote:

Because not everyone is falling for Hyperion's clever re-use of the name "the Itec Contract". One of the Itec contracts might have required consent. It's the other, however, which Hyperion signed, and is now apparently being sued over in NY.

I thought that "The ITEC Contract" was the one in pdf no 52 pages 14-15 which was supported by info in PDF 52 pages 17-23

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

I thought that "The ITEC Contract" was the one in pdf no 52 pages 14-15 which was supported by info in PDF 52 pages 17-23

Well, "The Itec Contract" has been used interchangably for two separate contracts by Hyperion, even within the same document. I reckon it was done intentionally, just to create the kind of confusion you seem to suffer.

One Itec contract, the AI(W)-Itec one, might require consent.
The other, the Hyperion-Itec one, is the one they are being sued over in NY, and the one Hyperion would love to make disappear.

Equating the two by using the same name allows them to cast the "but it needed consent" argument on the second contract. Well done, but still not making sense...

@Spectre660

Quote:

Why do so many people forget that Hyperion are asking that their agreement with ITEC should be declared invalid due to apparent lack of written consent to the transer by Amiga (W) and Eyetech ?. PDF no 55 sheds some light on this as ITEC were never an assignee of the Amiga trademarks. Thus written consent would have been needed from Amiga (W) for an agreement dealing with trademark usage (OS4.0). Thus PDF 55 is a 2 pronged attack.

A. Permission from Amiga W ? In accordance with first secured creditor, OS4, Contract 2001 and trademarks as per OS is what was secured (my understanding). Therefor permission from Amiga W is a NIL item (unless a court deems otherwise). Eyetech on the other hand is a different story. Eyetech's silence is consent. Why is Hyperion suing on Eyetech's behalf? Could it be they are worried? Eyetech is in the contract but is no longer active in Amiga. If Eyetech is going to get angy with anyone it would be suing Hyperion for the 2003 contract without their permission. Hyperion basically spoke on the behalf of the partnership. Easy win with a jury IMO. But, it will end up in discovery (NY) first. Burden of proof is on Hyperion. Discovery will determine if the case goes forward. If the case does go forward, Hyperion is toast IMO.

What I see is SMOKE & MIRROR's comming from Hyperion. Although I want them to push forward with the OS, they made a deal, took money and need to stick to it. I am not looking at this case from a point of who I want to win. I'm looking from the perspective of what's right. AI can die for all I care but . . . Hyperion made a big mistake and now doesn't want to pay the price . . To bad . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wolfe

I will have to huff and puff and blow you little case down.

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

@umisef

The 2003 contract can't stand on its own.ITEC could never get a judgement
for Hyperion to hand over OS4.0 without reference to the 2001 Agreement
which would move things to a Washington court.
Maybe damages but not OS4.0

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

ITEC could never get a judgement for Hyperion to hand over OS4.0 without reference to the 2001 Agreement

Why?

@wolfe

I could not agree more. I am glad you are more articulate than me and put it so well!

@Spectre660

Don't huff & puff to hard, you might pass out . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@stew

Thank You! Just trying to get by 2 bits worth in, or was it 2 dollars . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@itix

Whoa, your post was #666

Quote:

It still does not help. OS4 developers are not working to Amiga Inc but to Hyperion Entertainment. It is only making it worse if Hyperion can not deliver working operating system to Amiga Inc.

Actually it helps a great deal. It's very much debated who has what rights to what parts of the OS. Such a suit in the EU should clarify that.

@wolfe

Quote:

Against ITEC, slam dunk loss if it goes to court in NY or even Washington.

Blablablabla...
Yeah and if case if the judge will decide differently, the "judge was confused" text will came again...

@all:

Aren't you guys have better things to REPEAT your already disproved arguments like a broken record? It will not become valid by repeating. You can try, but it's only good for confusing people who has no knowledge on this. Or is it your goal???

Yeah, and I'm not the first one who asks this... It could mean something too...

@umisef

Quote:

Why?

Beacuse of the Nature of the OS4 agreement.

The transfer of rights of each party under the 2001 OS4 agreement are
restricted. To sell/Transfer to another party the written consent is
required. In other words it is a closed agreement fixed bewteen the three parties. Other parties cant get in without written consent from the
3 Original Parties. Also Future consent should be needed from the Trademark
Owner (AMIGA (W)) for future Assignments.

Without reference to the 2001 Agreement ITEC has no legal
right to have bought into OS4.0 Its like joining a private club. Only by Invitation.

This also has bearing on the secured creditor story.
Hyperion should have been notified of this status acording to the Provisions
of the 2001 Agreement and If they had AMIGA (D) would be waving the Letters about it for all to see.


Edited (Amiga (W))

Last edited by Spectre660 on 30-Jul-2007 at 12:43 PM.

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

@wolfe

I think that the New Yotk suit is just a ploy to delay ITEC from being Joined in the Washington lawsuit.

If they are joined AMiga(W)/ITEC documents become available to Discovery.
The are not currently available.

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

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: A. Permission from Amiga W ? In accordance with first secured creditor,

First secured creditor? Have you seen any proof? Are you sure the company called Itec today even existed prior to 2003?

@Spectre660

Quote:

Without reference to the 2001 Agreement ITEC has no legal right to have bought into OS4.0 Its like joining a private club. Only by Invitation.

An invitation extended by Hyperion. If Itec is not the successor, then the 2001 contract has no relevance to them; One might argue that, not being a successor, they might very well be unaware of its content (its content being confidential, after all, and Itec not being party to the contract).

In the 2003 contract, Itec did not commit to doing something which they could not do. They committed to paying money, which they have done, and then tried to do again. They have certainly held up their end of the bargain.
Hyperion, on the other hand, in 2003 committed to delivering OS4 to Itec. They now say that they should not have done that, because they were not allowed to invite others into the exclusive club. Well, that's too bad. Hyperion *did* it. And neither Amiga Inc(W), nor Eyetech, seem to ever have voiced any objection.

So what it comes down to is Hyperion trying to back out of a deal, saying "Well, this deal would violate the rights of these other parties, and because of that, we cannot proceed", while both other parties have given explicit (Amiga Inc, whoever is the successor) or at least silent approval, and it is only Hyperion that wishes for the deal not to go ahead.

If I agree to drive a whole lot of rubbish down to the tip for you, and we make a contract that lists then when, where and how, including which car I will use --- and then it turns out that the car is owned by my brother, who says "sure, knock yourself out. Whatever!" and the trailer is owned by my aunt, who hasn't been within 100km of it for the last 2 years.... Do you *really* think I could use that to get out of the contract? After taking your money, in advance, and spending it?