@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?

Um, you live in the great Empire State (Excelsior!) and you're wondering why they don't have a web site that shows pending court cases? Are you sure you live in the same state that less than a decade ago still wanted company tax info submitted on 9-track (i.e. mainframe) tape, the same NY that only a couple years ago discovered that the internet was a great way to renew registrations? Let me answer your question then: because it's New York State!

From New York's ecourt system:
Quote:

Note that only those cases for which a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) has been filed will be displayed.

I take this to mean that it doesn't show up online until a judge actually gets to look at it.

I assume you're not questioning the validity of the official-looking New York Supreme Court, County of New York document that is attached as Exhibit 1 in the official-looking Federal District Court document (AKA document 52) in the second link that Bernie posted in the very first post in this thread. I know you're not insinuating that Mr. Gotthoffer is trying to pull a fast one on the US court system.

From the looks of Justia, it only seems to list 'popular' cases.

ISTR from your various postings that you live in or near the metro NYC area. Why don't you just go downtown to the state courthouse and ask?

_________________
Tony T.

People who generalize are always wrong.


1989 - 500 / 1991 - 3000 / 1997 - Genesis Flyer 1200T / 2003 - A1XE

@Tigger


Since you have answers for everything have a look at these pdfs again.

Pdf no 35.page 3.lines 7-11.
what was assigned to ITEC since every thing is so nicely documented.
Were are the documents relating to these Assignments ?

pdf no 39.page 11.Lines 5-7.
Hyperion states why they entered into the ITEC Agreement.

pdf no 49.page 2. Lines 15-18.
Amiga(D) has invited the Washington court to examine the Hyperion/ITEC agreement.

I wait for the Judge on these.
Should be fun.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Since you have answers for everything have a look at these pdfs again. Pdf no 35.page 3.lines 7-11. what was assigned to ITEC since every thing is so nicely documented. Were are the documents relating to these Assignments ?

The Classic OS (including the OS 4.0 contract of Nov 2001), we've only discussed this at least a dozen times. The documents actually don't need to be presented, though we may see them, in actuality, Hyperion isn't disputing it happened. We have McEwen (CEO of AI(W)) saying they sold it, Kouri (CEO of Itec) saying they bought it, and Hyperion saying we dealt with Itec because we heard they bought it, why exactly do you think they need to prove it?

Quote:

pdf no 39.page 11.Lines 5-7. Hyperion states why they entered into the ITEC Agreement.

Of course the real reason is Hyperion needed the money, nothing in the 2003 contract says that Itec must be the successor of AI, or even talks about Itec being the successor of AI, which is why point 13 is silly and point 14 doesnt matter. (You are pointing to point 12 with your lines above).

Quote:

pdf no 49.page 2. Lines 15-18. Amiga(D) has invited the Washington court to examine the Hyperion/ITEC agreement.

Absolutely, in response to Hyperions claims above. This is the answer to pdf 39, I'm not sure what your point is, the document has been included since the first filing.
-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 Classic OS (including the OS 4.0 contract of Nov 2001), we've only discussed this at least a dozen times.

Follow up question.

Would such a transfer of IP etc normally be recorded by some US registration Body ?.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The Classic OS (including the OS 4.0 contract of Nov 2001), we've only discussed this at least a dozen times. The documents actually don't need to be presented, though we may see them, in actuality, Hyperion isn't disputing it happened. We have McEwen (CEO of AI(W)) saying they sold it, Kouri (CEO of Itec) saying they bought it, and Hyperion saying we dealt with Itec because we heard they bought it, why exactly do you think they need to prove it?

Oh my... word of mouth is SO prone to fraud.... taxes come to mind, is it enough two people agreeing one sold something to another? Were the tax payed? At least in Portugal there's always taxes involved when transferring goods

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

Are you people still at it. What's the point of this useless long thread.

You are not going to understand the court case anyway. Why insist on continuing to bombard one and other with so called facts and misinterpretations. This is pointless people. Get a live and do something useful.

_________________
AmigaOne-XE G3 OS 4.
A4000 PPC
A1200 PPC

@syrtran

Quote:

syrtran wrote: @fairlanefastback From the looks of Justia, it only seems to list 'popular' cases.

I'm guessing it'd be as popular as Amiga v. Hyperion in how many people would be looking at it and how often, since the endgame is the pursuit of the same thing. So I'm not sure what is making you designate one popular and the other not. And thats assuming for a second that thats what determines what ends up on Justia.

Quote:

Are you sure you live in the same state that less than a decade ago still wanted company tax info submitted on 9-track (i.e. mainframe) tape, the same NY that only a couple years ago discovered that the internet was a great way to renew registrations?

Well I was refering to anywhere on the internet (that I looked). That said you are saying any business, including the corner coffee shop can only submit tax returns on 9-track tape to the state? My friend's company based in NY never had to do that. Not sure what this has to do with anything anyway, lol.

Quote:

ISTR from your various postings that you live in or near the metro NYC area. Why don't you just go downtown to the state courthouse and ask?

Internet searching was enough effort for me, along with asking here. I think I also have many more interesting places in the city to go than there, places with no need for metal detectors for starters.

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

@PulsatingQuasar

Move along then, don't spoil our fun!

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The Classic OS (including the OS 4.0 contract of Nov 2001), we've only discussed this at least a dozen times. The documents actually don't need to be presented, though we may see them, in actuality, Hyperion isn't disputing it happened. We have McEwen (CEO of AI(W)) saying they sold it, Kouri (CEO of Itec) saying they bought it, and Hyperion saying we dealt with Itec because we heard they bought it, why exactly do you think they need to prove it?

When (and were) did Kourri say they bought it ?

Last edited by Spectre660 on 03-Aug-2007 at 07:03 PM.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Would such a transfer of IP etc normally be recorded by some US registration Body ?.

IP transfer? No, or at least I cant think of who you would do that with. You've seen the trademark paperwork, of course Itec didnt get any trademarks and again we keep getting further away from the topic of this thread which is Itec vs Hyperion in the Empire State.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

IP transfer? No, or at least I cant think of who you would do that with. You've seen the trademark paperwork, of course Itec didnt get any trademarks and again we keep getting further away from the topic of this thread which is Itec vs Hyperion in the Empire State. -Tig

Back on topic
http://www.merlancia.us/amigabk/decgarryharemain.pdf

See page 5 .Lines 13-16.

Gives the Impression that Itec was subject to the 2001 agreement and were making sure that KMOS took on the conditions after the purchase.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Gives the Impression that Itec was subject to the 2001 agreement and were making sure that KMOS took on the conditions after the purchase.

You are missing the point.

1) KMOS (AI(D)) says the contract was transferred from Itec to them, Itec we know got it from AI(W) which is completely what Garry says here, everyone on Amiga's side believes this, its Hyperion who is arguing to the contrary, which doesnt help there case.

2) Hyperion claims that Itec is not the legal owner of the 2001 contract because it was not transferred to them correctly (ie Eyetech didnt approve of the transfer).

3) All I am saying is that the 2003 contract does not say or imply that Itec is a assignee of the 2001 3-party contract, and Itec is not bound by the 2001 contract if they are not the assignee.

Hyperion cant have it both ways, they can't say that Itec has to abide by the contract, but that they are not the assignee of the contract. And in either case, Hyperion needs to deliver the OS per the 2003 contract.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 04-Aug-2007 at 06:48 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

You are missing the point.

Pointless to reply.

See ya in Washington.New York's closed.

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

New York's case is close because ITEC gave up the rights to the contract when they sold it to KMOS.

Interesting on how it seems, after reading that, that the Amiga name was not transferred to KMOS and that ITEC only acquires source code and object code, but again, not the name and trademarks which seemed to have been with Amiga (W) to die a dismal death.

@Spectre660

Seems everybody missed that point.

@Chip

Hm.. Point 5 in the linked PDF states KMOS was to honor the 2001 agreement. So what does that have to do with Itec and their 2003 contract ? Just asking.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Interesting on how it seems, after reading that, that the Amiga name was not transferred to KMOS and that ITEC only acquires source code and object code, but again, not the name and trademarks which seemed to have been with Amiga (W) to die a dismal death.

Itec just acquired that OS, eventually KMOS bought that from Itec(appears to be a stock swap), KMOS at a later time acquired the trademarks directly from AI(W). With the trademark info we have now, thats pretty apparent though thats what the story has always been and why I wrote the original timeline.
-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: Pointless to reply.

You are very good at that. You dont have an answer so you say its pointless to make one. Do you actually think any of my 3 points are wrong?

Quote:

See ya in Washington.New York's closed.

Is this more wishful thinking or have you actually seen documents the rest of us havent seen.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

3) All I am saying is that the 2003 contract does not say or imply that Itec is a assignee of the 2001 3-party contract, and Itec is not bound by the 2001 contract if they are not the assignee.

PDF 37. Page 17. Lines 12 -23

Amiga (D)'s Lawyer said it.
Have a good one.

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

@Spectre660
Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: 3) All I am saying is that the 2003 contract does not say or imply that Itec is a assignee of the 2001 3-party contract, and Itec is not bound by the 2001 contract if they are not the assignee. PDF 37. Page 17. Lines 12 -23 Amiga (D)'s Lawyer said it. Have a good one.

Make a point, what you quoted surely doesnt make one.

Fact: Hyperion says that Itec was never the assignee of the contract

Fact: If Hyperion were right about Itec not being the assignee then they cannot be bound by the clauses of the 2001 contract, because they have not signed it or replaced one of the signees.

Fact: The 2003 contract does not say that Itec must be assignee for it to be valid.

To prove point #3 wrong, you need to point to something in the 2003 contract that says Itec is the assignee, there isnt such a thing, so you are pointing to PDF 37 where AI(D) says Itec was assigned the contract, yet are glossing over the entire next section where Hyperions lawyer argues that Itec was not the assignee of the 2001 contract. I'm not sure whether you are deliberately trying to be obtuse or not, but the data you pointed to proves points 1 & 2 of my post, and a rereading of the 2003 contract proves my third point which you fruitlessly are throwing PDF #37 at.
-Tig

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