@Tigger

Quote:

I dont think so, why do you think someone is losing the plot?

I am not sure what is going on.

Both sets of lawyers may now be operating on an internal "Lawyer's Code" .
The relationship seems to have changed between the two sides lawyers.
It seems to be more friendly.

We will see what happens in the future.

Amiga (D)'s lawyers seem to be pushing Hyperion to try to Join Amiga (W) and Eyetech UK in the law suit .

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

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @Lou Quote: As I recall someone saying in 2000 that ITEC went bankrupt and so did Amiga Inc.'s money. If someone did, they are mistaken. It was 2001 when the Kouri Capital Group was declared bankrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Kouri If Itec existed at that time, or was affected is unkown as of yet. And no, they dont have to exist at that time to be first secured creditor, Itec could have simply picked up the necessary rights and contracts from the remains.

The remains of what?

It seems that is Pentti went bankrupt and ITEC existed to fund Amino, then ITEC went bankrupt too. Amiga ran a coupon and t-shirt scam and existed for another few months. Even Bill "Scamiga" McEwen admitted the VC funding dried up back then.

So we possibly have a "new" ITEC claiming to be the old ITEC pretending to own the old Amiga (W) then making a new Amiga (D) pretending to own rights to the old Amiga (W).

I would seriously question ITEC's status as a secured creditor of AInc(W) at this point with regards to the New York case.

The funny thing about these trademark documents is that they all looked finalized last week. Hence, KMOS owned no trademarks when they brought up this lawsuit. Patethic. Meanwhile Amiga (W) rises from the grave to allow the transfers. Bolton Peck, where are your lawyers?

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: It seems that is Pentti went bankrupt and ITEC existed to fund Amino, then ITEC went bankrupt too. Amiga ran a coupon and t-shirt scam and existed for another few months. Even Bill "Scamiga" McEwen admitted the VC funding dried up back then.

In May 2001, Kouri Capital Group went bankrupt, that doesnt mean that either Pentti Kouri or George Soros (a multibillionaire familiar to most Americans) who founded the group were bankrupt or that any other companies they were affiliated with were bankrupt. Do you have proof that Kouri capital Group owned Itec? And even if they did, the subsidiary of a bankrupt company, often can survive as a seperate entity.

Quote:

The funny thing about these trademark documents is that they all looked finalized last week. Hence, KMOS owned no trademarks when they brought up this lawsuit. Patethic. Meanwhile Amiga (W) rises from the grave to allow the transfers. Bolton Peck, where are your lawyers?

?? Looks to me the transfers to KMOS happened in 04 and 05, what are you looking at?
-Tig

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

@Lou

Lets assume Kouri Capital was the original investor and first secured.
Lets assume Itec didnt exist at all when Kouri Capital was declared bankrupt.

Simple possible explanation. Itec was founded, bought several things from the bankrupt Kouri Capital, including rights and contracts concerning the investment in Amiga W. You dont expect such obligations to just dissappear, do you?

Quote:

Bolton Peck, where are your lawyers?

Probably trying to explain to him that they ####ed up royally when they claimed in court that a "final" decision by the pto means the trademark has been denied. Indeed, good timing for Amiga, and a display of incompetence on the side of Hyperion.

Last edited by Ketzer on 01-Aug-2007 at 10:07 PM.

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: Quote: Bolton Peck, where are your lawyers? Probably trying to explain to him that they ####ed up royally when they claimed in court that a "final" decision by the pto means the trademark has been denied. Indeed, good timing for Amiga, and a display of incompetence on the side of Hyperion.

No thats what Ben or Evert lawyer is doing. The spent alot of time on AI not having the trademarks and then have a guy from Thomson Compumark tell them they are wrong. Bolten Peck is a former AI(W) employee who sued AI(W) and Bill McEwen for unpaid wages and won in court, I dont think his lawyers are doing anything. What I dont understand is that once we saw McEwen getting paid by KMOS(AI(D)) why his lawyers didnt go after McEwen and get the money from him.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Trademark arguments are going no where, Hyperion does not own the brand Amiga or AmigaOS, but only has right to by contract, they are not owner of it, and I think this understood on both sides, I think this is waste arguing about it.

I do wonder what strategies Hyperion has now, if Amiga Inc (W) does exist, and they can not prove that it was insolvent, if IP stays whit Amiga Inc (W), not KMOS / Amiga Inc (D), to what benefit does this give Hyperion?

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 01-Aug-2007 at 11:45 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: I do wonder what strategies Hyperion has now, if Amiga Inc (W) does exist, and they can not prove that it was insolvent, if IP stays whit Amiga Inc (W), not KMOS / Amiga Inc (D), to what benefit does this give Hyperion?

None, they still have to deliver the OS. Thats why the entire we didnt agree to the transfer is a red herring, ok, if thats true, then AI(W) still has assets, which means it cant be dissolved, which means you need to deliver the OS to it because you have taken in over the 25K for delivery of the OS. At this point Hyperion is basically playing scorched earth policy and hoping they can convince the judge the license granted by the insolvency is theres and has been theres since 2003, however even if that happened they still have to deliver the source code to AI. And in reality they dont have alot of chance of showing AI is insolvent and getting the judge to grant them the rights accorded them by that condition in the contract.
-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: It seems that is Pentti went bankrupt and ITEC existed to fund Amino, then ITEC went bankrupt too. Amiga ran a coupon and t-shirt scam and existed for another few months. Even Bill "Scamiga" McEwen admitted the VC funding dried up back then. So we possibly have a "new" ITEC claiming to be the old ITEC pretending to own the old Amiga (W) then making a new Amiga (D) pretending to own rights to the old Amiga (W). I would seriously question ITEC's status as a secured creditor of AInc(W) at this point with regards to the New York case.

You are right. Anyone with any objectivity would ask the question 'who is Itec today?'. The fact that people don't want to talk about or dismiss it with convoluted scenarios that make it ok reminds me of the whole "maybe the 3rd board member is in the far north of Scotland where there's no mobile signal", or "they're only auctioning off old furniture" or "they have a dozen programmers working on OS5 inhouse" hopeless hopefulness mentality that seems to strike so many people when talking about Amiga Inc.

Anyway, the point is that the whole Itec status smells fishy and Hyperion's lawyers should investigate.

Last edited by smithy on 02-Aug-2007 at 10:38 AM.
Last edited by smithy on 02-Aug-2007 at 10:38 AM.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @Tigger Trademark arguments are going no where, Hyperion does not own the brand Amiga or AmigaOS, but only has right to by contract, they are not owner of it, and I think this understood on both sides, I think this is waste arguing about it. I do wonder what strategies Hyperion has now, if Amiga Inc (W) does exist, and they can not prove that it was insolvent, if IP stays whit Amiga Inc (W), not KMOS / Amiga Inc (D), to what benefit does this give Hyperion?

Per the details of this lawsuit, I think Hyperion should sue Amiga(W) + ITEC + KMOS for damages because they failed to provide all the sources that were originally agreed to. Since Amiga didn't own any of the IP to 3.5 and 3.9 and since an AmigaOne, which is not based on any IP that was developed by Commodore or Escom other than in name only, or any other standalone PPC hardware platform and that they bought modified code from Olaf for the 3.1 sources, then they need to declare OS 4.0 their own IP and also sue to have continued unlimited use of the trademakrs.

As for it being derivative work, let ITEC/KMOS/Amiga(W) sue Olaf for releasing the sources. Good luck with that.

This will allow Hyperion to recover all it's costs and pay it's developers and release OS4.0 to the masses... How can Hyperion be expected to deliver an OS that is not based on sources Amiga Inc. provided if they never provided those sources. Open and shut case.

Last edited by Lou on 02-Aug-2007 at 12:41 PM.

@smithy

Quote:

smithy wrote: You are right. Anyone with any objectivity would ask the question 'who is Itec today?'. The fact that people don't want to talk about or dismiss it with convoluted scenarios that make it ok

Smithy, no evidence has been put forward that Itec was ever bankrupt, so they guys with that version of the story (which not includes you) are the ones with convoluted scenario. Basically you are saying, if Itec went Bankrupt when Kouri Capital went bankrupt and new Itec isnt a reformed old Itec but an entirely new company, and if they didnt acquire the First Secured Creditor Status, then Itec lied about being the first secured creditor. How much more convoluted story can you come up with, and how can you say that is less convoluted then, Itec is AI's original Financier and thus is the first secured creditor, plus this theory is actually supported by the court documents.
-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: Per the details of this lawsuit, I think Hyperion should sue Amiga(W) + ITEC + KMOS for damages because they failed to provide all the sources that were originally agreed to.

First of all as we've pointed out last time you posted the Silicon Knights stuff, that doesnt really pertain to this case, and it cant be used as case law because it hasnt been decided in court. Secondly, only AI(W) was on the hook to provide source, so they can't sue Itec or KMOS over it, and again we have people bringing up non NY case stuff in the NY case topic. Once Hyperion signed the 2003 contract, they basically gave up the right to sue for getting money for this shortcoming.

Quote:

They bought modified code from Olaf for the 3.1 sources, then they need to declare OS 4.0 their own IP and also sue to have continued unlimited use of the trademakrs.

They bought modified code from Olaf to help with there development, they could have used the non-modified code but decided not to, according to the contract they cannot accrue debt for AI (and vice-verse).

Quote:

This will allow Hyperion to recover all it's costs and pay it's developers and release OS4.0 to the masses... How can Hyperion be expected to deliver an OS that is not based on sources Amiga Inc. provided if they never provided those sources. Open and shut case.

It is an open and shut case, its just not an open and shut case for Hyperion. The OS is based on AI's IP. AI contacted Olaf and told him to let Hyperion have the code for the OS 4.0 development, that there was a fee attached to getting that code from Olaf doesnt matter. I get paid to convert code between processors and even languages, I dont own the IP when I am done.
-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: Per the details of this lawsuit, I think Hyperion should sue Amiga(W) + ITEC + KMOS for damages because they failed to provide all the sources that were originally agreed to. First of all as we've pointed out last time you posted the Silicon Knights stuff, that doesnt really pertain to this case, and it cant be used as case law because it hasnt been decided in court. Secondly, only AI(W) was on the hook to provide source, so they can't sue Itec or KMOS over it, and again we have people bringing up non NY case stuff in the NY case topic. Once Hyperion signed the 2003 contract, they basically gave up the right to sue for getting money for this shortcoming. Quote: They bought modified code from Olaf for the 3.1 sources, then they need to declare OS 4.0 their own IP and also sue to have continued unlimited use of the trademakrs. They bought modified code from Olaf to help with there development, they could have used the non-modified code but decided not to, according to the contract they cannot accrue debt for AI (and vice-verse). Quote: This will allow Hyperion to recover all it's costs and pay it's developers and release OS4.0 to the masses... How can Hyperion be expected to deliver an OS that is not based on sources Amiga Inc. provided if they never provided those sources. Open and shut case. It is an open and shut case, its just not an open and shut case for Hyperion. The OS is based on AI's IP. AI contacted Olaf and told him to let Hyperion have the code for the OS 4.0 development, that there was a fee attached to getting that code from Olaf doesnt matter. I get paid to convert code between processors and even languages, I dont own the IP when I am done. -Tig

You conveniently ignore the provision in the 2003 contract that says it is pursuant to the 2001 contract. If Amiga (W) didn't provide source code to 3.5 and 3.9 (and it was Olaf, not them that provided 3.1 source code) then how can they be sued for delivering a product when the plaintiff didn't supply the ingredients?

So irregardless of all these shell games that ITEC/Pentti has played, Amiga (W) didn't deliver the source so Hyperion couldn't deliver the product. What Hyperion did deliver is something else that functions similarly, but not necessarily based in Amiga IP as Amiga never officially handed anything over. It looks and feels like an Amiga OS, but only the trademarks tell us it actually is.

Hyperion, ITEC and KMOS need to sue Amiga (W) for committing fraud in that 2001 contract for claiming to own and not delivering said sources.

If ITEC/KMOS is satisfied with the product that Hyperion is ready to market and sell, then a new contract should be drawn up to reflect the added expenses endured by Hyperion in delivering this product as it stands and the prior contract(s) should be terminated.

All the above is assuming the parties involved are who they claim to be...

Last edited by Lou on 02-Aug-2007 at 04:37 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: You conveniently ignore the provision in the 2003 contract that says it is pursuant to the 2001 contract. If Amiga (W) didn't provide source code to 3.5 and 3.9 (and it was Olaf, not them that provided 3.1 source code) then how can they be sued for delivering a product when the plaintiff didn't supply the ingredients?

Because nothing in the 2003 agreement says Itec has to supply anything but money.
If Hyperion wanted to be compensated for items, it should have been put in the 2003 contract, it wasnt, thats why Hyperion is on the hook here.

Quote:

If ITEC/KMOS is satisfied with the product that Hyperion is ready to market and sell, then a new contract should be drawn up to reflect the added expenses endured by Hyperion in delivering this product as it stands and the prior contract(s) should be terminated.

Itec has already paid for the product from Hyperion, thats what the court in NY is going to decide, and Hyperion needs to deliver it per 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.

@all

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @all What is the *actual* status of the *New York* lawsuit? I've only seen it refered to in an exhibit in the Washington case. Why is there no Justia page for the NY case? Has it been filed and intiated??

Especially since some people are claiming this is a slam dunk case (the NY one) for Itec, why can't we see its being actually filed anywhere? We have some people claiming to know contract law and how cases work in regard to such. I'm honestly damn curious why we don't see anything on the internet as showing this actually having been filed in NY yet?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Itec has already paid for the product from Hyperion, thats what the court in NY is going to decide, and Hyperion needs to deliver it per the 2003 contract. -Tig

Even if it has been paid for (which is still in doubt), the OS sources or the 3.x's were never delivered so the OS will never be delivered.

It's the chicken and egg thing.

The 2001 contract said they can pay before the OS is done or up to 6 months after. Well, it may (or may not) be done, but all the parties have not upheld their end of the deal. Namely Amiga Inc. (W) whom we just found out this week - still exists... Imagine that!

So Amiga Inc. (W) agreed to terms on a fraudulent basis and now Hyperion cannot in good faith accomplish their taske and is being sued by ITEC. It seems ITEC should, once again (supposedly), give Amiga Inc. (W) another financial injection so they can secure the OS sources to 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9.

Interesting how they don't own their own IP but only the trademarks that are used when those products were published... That being the case - what was that about derivative work again?

@fairlanefastback
Quote:

I'm honestly damn curious why we don't see anything on the internet as showing this actually having been filed in NY yet?

Curious enough to ask in some obscure web forum in the corner of the internet but not curious enough to do any actual work to find out...

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@ssolie

Quote:

ssolie wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: I'm honestly damn curious why we don't see anything on the internet as showing this actually having been filed in NY yet? Curious enough to ask in some obscure web forum in the corner of the internet but not curious enough to do any actual work to find out...

Now now, just because Amigans.net is even more obscure..... LOL!

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

I'm honestly damn curious why we don't see anything on the internet as showing this actually having been filed in NY yet?

I think its been put on the back burner. KMOS/AI.D was falling on its sword and ITEC was nervous about their investment. Now that KMOS/AI.D have finally stepped up to the plate, ITEC is going to wait a while to see how things proceed IMO.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Tigger

Quote:

No thats what Ben or Evert lawyer is doing. The spent alot of time on AI not having the trademarks and then have a guy from Thomson Compumark tell them they are wrong.

This is not quite accurate.

Hyperion's Lawyer scored points with their declartions in PDF 55.
They then allowed Amiga (D) extra time to respond during which AMiga(D)'s lawyers got the registration of the trademarks updated.

What has happen is a case of AMiga(D)'s lawyers "Owing" Hyperions Lawyers a "favour" to be granted at a later date.

Certain professions have their own 'code of ethics" between members even if they are on opposite sides.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Hyperion's Lawyer scored points with their declartions in PDF 55. They then allowed Amiga (D) extra time to respond during which AMiga(D)'s lawyers got the registration of the trademarks updated.

???? Not sure why you are saying that. The documents show a long history of the trademarks, not abandoned trademarks as Hyperions lawyer was claiming, in addition we now have AI(D) owning the trademarks, so I am not sure how 55 is any help at all now that the trademark history has been shown.

Quote:

What has happen is a case of AMiga(D)'s lawyers "Owing" Hyperions Lawyers a "favour" to be granted at a later date.

All they owe Hyperions lawyer is a day or two if he files something late. Thats not going to be enough to overcome the mountain of data against Hyperion.
-Tgi

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