@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: "...should have read access to the CVS at all time..." And I saw nothing so far that indicated AInc had no access...

Only Hyperion and its subcontractors had access to the CVS, neither AI nor Eyetech had access to the CVS, thats what that says, Olafs contract says the same thing and his email with McEwen something similar as well.
-Tig

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

i'm so sick of constantly have to read about trails and accusations back and forth
all i want is an brand new amiga with up to date specs
all the energy all people in the amiga scene is spending on discussing this back and forth could have been used for so much better. well i see the situation
regarding all the trails, i've been lurking for years been using an amiga since i first bought one back in like 1990
currently have an 1200 and an a4000 elbox tower.

i certanly do not want the amiga to end up as some sort of software layer

if it is a part of a much bigger picture so be it, but one big problem
is that the amiga users thats been around for ages
incase they (we, i'm one of "us"), we need to be fed new working hardware and and usable upgrade for the software, otherwise we're just biting the #### of the amiga inc.

please can this darn trail be done with allready and an positive outcome and an positive future, new new amiga hardware and software

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Document 82-Exhibit H is a letter from McEwen to Hyperion in which he says he intends to negotiate a new contract, something that obviously did not happen, otherwise KMOS would not be cancelling the 2001 agreement in 2006 so this does not support their latest claim that the 2001 agreement was abandoned and replaced by a new agreement.

Actually it completely supports there case. They said they agreement was null & void after the sale and when they took over, McEwen says that here in the email. Instead of a contract, they came up with an agreement, but McEwens email helps not hinders KMOS' point.

Quote:

Quote: Itec is a New York company, if you sell a New York Company something, the venue is New York. I'm not sure if that is the case, can you point out what law says this is so?

Itec has listed probably a dozen cases showing this, but this wikipedia article may help.

[/quote]Venue Law

Quote:

This is getting silly. What you're basically arguing is that writing clauses into contracts, for example ones which state the rules of termination and assignment is useless as you can break them and get away with it. Do you actually think about what you write before?

Who said you can get away with it? I said you can only be punished as far as the contract or law allows. Basically Hyperion can cancel the contract over it, but not alot else, there are not penalty clauses for what happens if such a sale occurs and the others dont agree to it. Of course the joint press release really shows that they did agree to it, but if they had not, its not like the judge can say 4 years later that the sale did not occur, laches, remember?

Quote:

The main reason why Martinez denied AInc's motion for pleriminary injunction was because they could not show that they're the successor of interest and there was no signed agreement by all parties for an assignment of the contract (both of which are written as a requirement in the contract) so if you're going to keep arguing that these clauses are not enforcable you might was well go and argue with the judge

No, the judge didnt carry out an injunction because he said nothing Hyperion did would cause harm to AI that could not be recovered by financial payment, I disagree because Hyperion is deeply in debt, but AI didnt point that out so as far as the judge knows they have lots of money.
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

And I saw nothing so far that indicated AInc had no access...

Docket26, exhibit 19.

And we all know that, as far as Hans-Joerg was concerned, Amiga was not an "involved party" in the development of OS4...

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: Tigger wrote: You said Olaf said something in the court documents, ... Don't be a pettifogger! The relevant part was not "who said it at what opportunuty" - it rather was that it was said at all.

I have no idea what a pettifogger is, so I may or may not be one in the future.
But the problem is it wasnt said. AI didnt have CVS access to the OS 4 code, noone has said they did, you just didnt understand what someone did write.

Quote:

Quote: No, I said a joint press release is by definition an agreement, That does not change the fact that you still need to understand that a press release is a press release - not matter if its joined or not.

Yes but a Joint Press Release means two or more companies AGREED to it, and thus by definition it is an AGREEment.

Quote:

Quote: Total sales were less then 1000 units, I seem to remember to have read it here on AW that the total number of "next gen Amiga hardware" sold was somewhere between 2000 and 3000 units.

I remember telling everyone that was a made up number then, and I remember that Evert in the court documents saying about 1000 units were sold, so I think we should believe Evert.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Only Hyperion and its subcontractors had access to the CVS, neither AI nor Eyetech had access to the CVS, thats what that says,

you sure about that? I am not. Remember that the CVS at one time was stored and operated from the AI site. Sure they made and have backups?

The only reason they might not now have the CVS is because their doors were locked, hardware sold, and lets face it....they went out of business.

IMHO, AI had the CVS and lost it. Now after many years they want the finished product .

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Tigger

Quote:

I remember telling everyone that was a made up number then, and I remember that Evert in the court documents saying about 1000 units were sold, so I think we should believe Evert.

A reasonable estimate was pointed out here in 2006:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=20756&forum=33

Not everyone was making up #s.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: you sure about that?

Yes

Quote:

I am not. Remember that the CVS at one time was stored and operated from the AI site. Sure they made and have backups?

Well now you can be sure.
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @Tigger Quote: I remember telling everyone that was a made up number then, and I remember that Evert in the court documents saying about 1000 units were sold, so I think we should believe Evert. A reasonable estimate was pointed out here in 2006: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=20756&forum=33 Not everyone was making up #s.

Thats not a great arguement, everytime someone said 1000 boards, someone retorted with no, its lots, lots more. Evert has confirmed close to 1000, so we should accept that as gospel and go on.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Thats not a great arguement, everytime someone said 1000 boards, someone retorted with no, its lots, lots more.

I could not disagree with you more.
No one argued my post in that thread.
One poster said:
Quote:

1000 AmigaOnes in total?! Worldwide? Good god surely that can't be right?

That's a mile away from saying "it's lots, lots more".
That was surprise being expressed by BenMatthew ...not denial of my post.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Tigger

Quote:

Not according to Tess, those are trademarks owned by Amino to KMOS and legally owned by KMOS under its new name Amiga Inc. (see document 61 for more info or go to the USPTO site)

No. (Please re-read post #230)

Doc #60 shows that the trademark applications filed by AInc(D) were about to be published for opposition. (Exhibits from Doc #61 are outdated.)
We now know that Hyperion filed an opposition.
So, at best (from A(D) point of view), Amiga Inc. (D) will only become the final owner of the registered trademarks somewhere between 6 months to 1 year.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Since we have AI(D) owning 1401045, 2319266, 2802748, as well as 2369059, 75642361 and probably most importantly 73571532, this entire arguement over trademarks is worthless to Hyperion. I replied: Those are temporary (serial) numbers. AInc. (D) is not yet granted any registered numbers.

Well, I've checked on USPTO and I stand corrected. The first four numbers ARE registration numbers. The last two are serial numbers.

(What a maze in there ! )

@Yo

And I only had to read 433 other post to get to the best one.

Plaz

I just hope the case is now enough documented, discussed in order for the Judge to take a decision.

I'm absolutely not in laws (even if I run my own compagny and have some 'basics' and there aren't U.S laws basics), so I wouldn't pronostic either it's H or A that will win this case.

But since everyone gives he's point of view, mine is just that at some point, Hyperion saw that Amiga (W) was in bad state, so they decided to delay the "real OS4" in order to have amiga inc (W) going bankrupcy.
Amiga was probably aware at some point of this attempt, and searched a way to protect their assets the best they could.

All of his comes from a badly built contract that was too permissive IMHO.

Im still looking in disbelief at no 99 ... but Im pretty sure the laughing sets in soon.
Thats all the comment its worth.

@DC_Edge

I agree with you, but the way the contract is written may lead to believe that Hyperion expected Amiga Inc (W) to go belly up since the beginning IMO.

A+
Woon

@Dandy

What should be the case and what actually is the case are two entirely different things. It's like determining the speed of a car by the nearest speed limit sign. Poor odds if you ask me.

Furthermore, emphasizing how strong of an indication it is has no bearing on how strong your argument is. With a mere indication to back it up you are simply not going to get any further with this argument.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@DC_Edge

They haven't even gone to court yet. This is just the preliminary hearing, if I understand things correctly.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@Sneaky

Quote:

Sneaky wrote: @samface Your example is totally unrelated and out of focus. "Rape" is a crime and so criminal law. We are talking about civil law. That's even in the USofA totally incommensurable

I think you are loosing focus. Wether we are talking about civil law or criminal has no effect on the point I was trying to make. It was just a metaphor that could just as well been about something completely unrelated to crime as well.

Perhaps I should make it even more simple and directly to the point; Dandy's reasoning that Amiga Inc. should loose in this case because of other unrelated wrong doings in Amiga Inc.'s past is an ad-hominem fallacy. My example was just to demonstrate the devestating effects of such fallacy, that it wouldn't have as devestating effects in a civil lawsuit justifies by no means anything.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@Tigger

Quote:

Actually it completely supports there case. They said they agreement was null & void after the sale and when they took over, McEwen says that here in the email. Instead of a contract, they came up with an agreement, but McEwens email helps not hinders KMOS' point.

Tig, an EMail from 2004 in which McEwen is trying to make a deal with Hyperion, which we know never happend, is hardly an indication that they abandoned the 2001 contract KMOS formally cancelling it in 2006 however is proof that they considered the contract to be still in place in 2006, rather than it being abandoned years before. I really don't understand why you waste your time arguing against something that's completely obvious.

Quote:

Itec has listed probably a dozen cases showing this, but this wikipedia article may help. Venue Law

This article is about US venue law, but if there is a dispute between two companies from two different countries, then wouldn't International Trade Law apply instead?

Quote:

Who said you can get away with it? I said you can only be punished as far as the contract or law allows. Basically Hyperion can cancel the contract over it, but not alot else

They can simply say they do not accept KMOS's cancellation of the contract as being valid, which is what they have done.

Quote:

No, the judge didnt carry out an injunction because he said nothing Hyperion did would cause harm to AI that could not be recovered by financial payment

No, the judge denied the request for injunction because AInc failed to prove that there's a high likelyness to succeed in trial with their claims, and the number one cause was the lack of transfer, and the judge stated that the injunction could be denined on that alone.