Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
13 crawler(s) on-line.
 125 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Troels:  41 mins ago
 Gunnar:  56 mins ago
 Rob:  1 hr 1 min ago
 zipper:  1 hr 25 mins ago
 amigakit:  2 hrs 21 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  2 hrs 27 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  2 hrs 30 mins ago
 kolla:  2 hrs 43 mins ago
 Comi:  3 hrs 12 mins ago
 vox:  3 hrs 58 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 22 Feb 2008)
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Next Page )
PosterThread
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 7:07:22
#321 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote:
@jorkany

...
I think the general concensus is KMOS was worried about IP being trapped in bankruptcy court for unkown time period.



So you're saying they went to court (with Hyperion) because they were afraid their IP could be trapped in court?
Hmmmmmm....

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 7:23:15
#322 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@Swoop

Quote:

Swoop wrote:

All that has been produced in court is a request for a money transfer, not a proof of receipt.



We also have the Itec loan document which credits McEwen for paying the 2500, they arent going to do that if the money actually hadnt been paid.



I'd really be surprised if the judge would accept this as a proof that the money really had been paid - I'd rather see it as indication...

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 8:01:25
#323 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@Interesting

...
Given what the judge said when he didnt join Itec, I wouldnt take that as a completely correct statement. The judge says that the venue and jurisdictional provisions of the 2001 contract didnt apply to Itec with regards to the 2003 contract.



What now - "Agreement" or "Contract"?
Could you settle for one thing, please?

EDIT:
Just noticed the contract was from 2003 and the agreement was from 2004 - two different docs.
So just forget the questions above - its clear now...

Last edited by Dandy on 15-Feb-2008 at 08:04 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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 8:20:22
#324 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@AmiDog

...
Itec provided another $25K (ie the full amount) and asked for code to be delivered under the 2003 contract between Itec and Hyperion. Hyperion refused and is now in court in New York over it.



"Hyperion refused" as in "delivering the code" or as in "accepting the $25k"?
(I seem to remember they sent the money back...)

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

Quote:


I got my OS4 CD in 2004, so from my point of view, the "it's done" date would have to be sometime in 2004, some 30 months or so before June 2007, definately not less than 6 in any case.



I'm sorry, the OS4 CD provided in 2004 doesnt meet the requirements of the 2001 contract as has been discussed extensively on this board. Technically the 2006 version doesnt either, but thats another arguement.



Well, none of the AmigaOne hardware meets the requirements of the 2001 contract either - so your point being?

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 8:25:56
#325 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@pixie

...
He referenced two documents with relation to the 25K buyback
...
buyback
...



Hey tig, I know it's annoying you - but I'm annoyed as well as I'm still waiting for an comprehensible explanation from you why you think that things never owned before can be bought back...

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
damocles 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 8:48:47
#326 ]
Super Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2007
Posts: 1719
From: Unknown

@Dandy

Quote:
@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote:
Quote:

I think the general concensus is KMOS was worried about IP being trapped in bankruptcy court for unkown time period.


So you're saying they went to court (with Hyperion) because they were afraid their IP could be trapped in court?
Hmmmmmm....


Your confusing things. AI-DE sued Hyperion because Hyperion continued to use AI-DE's IP after the contract was cancelled vs third parties in bankruptcy court attempting to take IP that belongs to AI-DE so the deal was hatched for Itec to buy OS4 and save Hyperion from bankruptcy. I'd say that is completely reasonable for AI-DE wanting to maintain control of their IP. Wasn't that the same thing when AI wanted full control over MOS when it was being discussed having MOS as OS4? Atleast AI is being consistant, they want full control over Amiga OS vs Ralph or Ben/Evert wanting control over their work which would be OS4. Well, Ben/Evert didn't do any actual coding, but that's besides my point.

Dammy

_________________
Dammy

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 12:18:53
#327 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Tigger

Quote:
First of all there isnt a 2004 contract, they dont say there is a 2004 contract, they say there is a 2004 agreement, and everyone on here has seen it, and most of use saw it on March 15, 2004.


You didn't answer my question though. If you're so picky about the wording, let me rewrite the question with the word 'contract' replaced by 'agreement':

"But the most important question: how could they have cancelled the 2001 agreement in 2006, if it was abandoned several years before and replaced by a 2004 agreement? Also, how could they request Hyperion in 2006 to perform according to the 2001 agreement, if it was abandoned several years before that?"

And while we're at it, would you be so kind as to point me to this March 15, 2004 agreement which was signed by all involved parties.

Last edited by COBRA on 15-Feb-2008 at 12:36 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 13:13:38
#328 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

We also have the Itec loan document which credits McEwen for paying the 2500, they arent going to do that if the money actually hadnt been paid.



I'd really be surprised if the judge would accept this as a proof that the money really had been paid - I'd rather see it as indication...



The request is going to be used as proof unless Hyperion actually says we did not receive $2500 from Bill McEwen, which they havent, and given there trend now to talk about $24750, I dont think it likley they will be doing that.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 15-Feb-2008 at 01:14 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 13:29:40
#329 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote:
@Tigger

Chill out men, I was just kidding on my proxy, I don't have any problems of you calling something that might resemble it... and it's not annoying, I was just let you know that you were mistakenly addressing me. I will try to avoid to refer to you as Tiger in the future.



Technically its the same, I made it a proper name in English, you've made it not a name, though it is a name, so you are confused .

Quote:

I don't have enough attitude to say that a judge is confused, it's an high qualifying job demanding a great deal of responsibility and consideration, where things shouldn't be taking lightly, otherwise everyone and his dog could do it... this and because it would weaken a lot my case had I had hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject and happened to defend the winning case.


Actually a federal judge isnt a high qualifying job in the US at all, its a federal appointment for life, and I point out when presidents, UN leaders/War Criminals and Senators are wrong, why on earth would I not point out when a judge says something that isnt true (ie document xy is about a $25K buyback when it is not).

Quote:

The judge has to be THE BEST, make no mistakes whatsoever, be bright as a star, only then our ego will accept the validity of his decision to be as great as its own.


The problem pixie (and one day you'll have to explain why your name must be in lower case) is that you think I actually care who wins as you do. I dont care who wins at all, they are both a bunch of crooks and if the damaged US satellite that we are going to shoot down could break in two now and one piece hit in Belgium at the residence of Evert Carton and one piece hit at the home of Bill McEwen the Amiga Community would be much better off. However if we are talking about case law, I am firmly of the opinion that AI has a much stronger case and will prevail in the end.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 13:40:14
#330 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@pixie

...
He referenced two documents with relation to the 25K buyback
...
buyback
...



Hey tig, I know it's annoying you - but I'm annoyed as well as I'm still waiting for an comprehensible explanation from you why you think that things never owned before can be bought back...



As I said before (several times) AI owned the whole OS, they let Hyperion use it to create an improvement (4.0), they then buyback the whole OS by acquiring Hyperions pieces. . It doesnt really mean what you seem to be implying it means, this is from Wikipedia

"A buyout is an investment transaction by which an entire company or a controlling part of the stock of a company is sold. A firm "buys out" a company to take control of it. A buyout can take the form of a leveraged buyout, a venture capital buyout ("taking it private") or a management buyout.

The term may apply more generally to the purchase by one party of all of the rights of another party with respect to an ongoing transaction between the two. For example, an employer may buy out an employee's contract by making a single prepayment, so as to have no ongoing obligation to employ the person. A landlord may buy out the remainder of a tenant's lease, effectively paying them to vacate. Contracts may have an explicit buyout provision setting forth the terms or price. In the alternative the matter may be negotiated by the parties. If the entire operation is not purchase, the remainder is referred to as a stub."

First line of the second paragraph is basically what happened here. They both owned the OS, now AI owns the OS, it was a buyout, it even says that contracts may have explicit buyout provisions (as this one did) setting terms (6 months from completion) and price ($25000).
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pixie 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 14:01:02
#331 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Mar-2003
Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal

@Tigger

Quote:
The problem pixie (and one day you'll have to explain why your name must be in lower case) is that you think I actually care who wins as you do.


Well, let's get if I understand it right, you're not cared yet post hundreds of posts on the subjects sometimes with an harsh tone in it, and I'm cared because... I do not see things the way you do? Is that it?

As for my proxy being in lower case it's really simple (1) I'm not worth of being compared to The Pixies, not even if addressed in single mode, I'm not worth it, (2) It's not a personal name as such I never saw the need to capitalize it, (3) it always puzzled me why phase 5 was written with lower case so it is also a tribute to them...

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 14:02:10
#332 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Dandy

Quote:


"Hyperion refused" as in "delivering the code" or as in "accepting the $25k"?
(I seem to remember they sent the money back...)



They sent the money back, (which was silly) and the refused to send the code because it was too late and/or because they didnt know whether KMOS or Itec should get the code.

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

[quote]

Well, none of the AmigaOne hardware meets the requirements of the 2001 contract either - so your point being?


The problem is this, Hyperion needs to tell someone when they think the 6 month clock is starting, they didnt (or at least as far as the court as been shown they didnt), so trying to manufacture a date now, it needs to be abundantly clear that it had occurred.

1) Did the software meet the requirements of the 2001 contract? No
2) Did Hyperion pay the developers 60 days after this 2004 date? No
3) Did Hyperion announce they were done in 2004? No
4) Did Hyperion tell AI they were done or request the missing $250? No

Given the facts above, I dont think any judge will find that they were done in 2004 and that the time ran out and AI no longer had the opportunity to carry out the buyback.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 14:43:09
#333 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote:

Well, let's get if I understand it right, you're not cared yet post hundreds of posts on the subjects sometimes with an harsh tone in it, and I'm cared because... I do not see things the way you do? Is that it?


I dont care who wins, you do or at least you seem to care. Evert wins OS 4 is screwed, AI wins OS 4 is likely not much better off. People who say things like Hyperion should win because they are better for the community, etc care about who wins. When AI wins what are you going to do? I'm going to do the same thing as I will if Evert wins, lots of people on here arent, I think you are one of those people. Over half the people on one of these threads say things like if AI wins, I'm not buying OS4, if AI wins I'm quitting this board, those people care who wins, it won't effect me at all, I'm watching the case because its interesting how much of what we expected was going on behind the scenes in 2003 and 2004 really was correct.

Quote:

As for my proxy being in lower case it's really simple (1) I'm not worth of being compared to The Pixies, not even if addressed in single mode, I'm not worth it, (2) It's not a personal name as such I never saw the need to capitalize it, (3) it always puzzled me why phase 5 was written with lower case so it is also a tribute to them...


1) Thats hilarious, though I now remember you told us that before.
2) Actually technically it is your fourm name
3) Native english speakers thought that was silly and basically never spelled it that way in the US or the UK where we capitalize proper names.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 15:08:40
#334 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote:

"But the most important question: how could they have cancelled the 2001 agreement in 2006, if it was abandoned several years before and replaced by a 2004 agreement? Also, how could they request Hyperion in 2006 to perform according to the 2001 agreement, if it was abandoned several years before that?"


If you read document 35 attachment D, I think you have your answer.

Quote:

And while we're at it, would you be so kind as to point me to this March 15, 2004 agreement which was signed by all involved parties.


Its an agreement not a contract, its not signed by any of the parties. Its the joint press release issued by the 3 companies on March 15, 2004 is what I have been led to believe, and I think that likely to be true. Document 35 attachment D in 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.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 15-Feb-2008 17:45:40
#335 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Tigger

Quote:
If you read document 35 attachment D, I think you have your answer.


No, that doesn't answer my question. My question is:

How could they have cancelled the 2001 agreement in 2006, if it was abandoned several years before and replaced by a 2004 agreement? Also, how could they request Hyperion in 2006 to perform according to the 2001 agreement, if it was abandoned several years before that?

Quote:
Its an agreement not a contract, its not signed by any of the parties. Its the joint press release issued by the 3 companies on March 15, 2004 is what I have been led to believe, and I think that likely to be true. Document 35 attachment D in the court documents.


Which part of that press release says that the original agreement between Hyperion, Eyetech and Amino is considered to be abandoned and no longer in force? Also, where in that press release does it say that a new agreement took place that day between Hyperion and KMOS? And if KMOS considered the 2001 agreement to be abandoned in 2004, why are they asking Hyperion to perform according to it in 2006, and why are they terminating it in 2006?

Last edited by COBRA on 15-Feb-2008 at 05:47 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 16-Feb-2008 14:58:00
#336 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:
If you read document 35 attachment D, I think you have your answer.


No, that doesn't answer my question.



Yes it does at the part that start with

"At Amigas insistance.."
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 16-Feb-2008 16:37:41
#337 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Tigger

Quote:
Yes it does at the part that start with

"At Amigas insistance.."


Let's see: "At Amiga's instence to which we totally agreed, we will honor the terms of the November 2001 agreement with AmigaOne Partners: Hyperion VOF and Eyetech Group Ltd., an English Corporation, in their entirety."

How does that answer my questions above?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
damocles 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 16-Feb-2008 16:48:23
#338 ]
Super Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2007
Posts: 1719
From: Unknown

@COBRA

Quote:
Let's see: "At Amiga's instence to which we totally agreed, we will honor the terms of the November 2001 agreement with AmigaOne Partners: Hyperion VOF and Eyetech Group Ltd., an English Corporation, in their entirety."

How does that answer my questions above?


If I'm reading that correctly, that completely answers your question. Since they agreed to abide by the terms (Hyperion and Eyetech) with AI-DE from AI-WA/Eyetech/Hyperion's 2001, then AI-DE can cancel Hyperion's contract. Stick a fork in it, it's done.

_________________
Dammy

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 16-Feb-2008 17:13:02
#339 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@damocles

You're missing the point completely. KMOS are now saying that the 2001 agreement was abandoned several years ago and replaced by a 2004 agreement. If this is so, why are they asking Hyperion in 2006 to perform according to the 2001 agreement? And why are they cancelling the 2001 agreement in 2006, if it was already abandoned several years before? I'm still waiting for some answers to these, and no, a press release which says in 2004 that "KMOS agree to honor the terms of the 2001 agreement" doesn't answer it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 16-Feb-2008 20:20:04
#340 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote:
@damocles

You're missing the point completely. KMOS are now saying that the 2001 agreement was abandoned several years ago and replaced by a 2004 agreement. If this is so, why are they asking Hyperion in 2006 to perform according to the 2001 agreement? And why are they cancelling the 2001 agreement in 2006, if it was already abandoned several years before? I'm still waiting for some answers to these, and no, a press release which says in 2004 that "KMOS agree to honor the terms of the 2001 agreement" doesn't answer it.


Yes it does Cobra. This joint press release is the 2004 agreement. Since they agreed to honor the terms of the 2001 agreement, that means they need to tell them they are cancelling the license under the 2001 agreement and give them 30 days for mediation, which they did. Just because you dont like the answer, doesnt mean it isnt the answer. You asked for the 2004 agreement, I've shown it to you.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle