@Tigger

Quote:

Since Eyetech has sued Hyperion in another case apparently, (Doc 35 Exhibit P)

Hmm, I did not know this. Brilliant

Mainline amiga has turned into a total cluster@#$%. Seriously. Is there anyone left who could possibly contribute anything positive, who's not suing or being sued?

In other news, I installed Windows Home Server this weekend on an old PC I had in the garage for spares. Works like a dream, I can watch my divx movies from my XBox360 and my PC now has a single backup mechanism (Norton Ghost is now at peace ). I don't own any Macs, but I bet if I did I'd be happy with it too. It sure is nice when companies produce stuff one can use.

@CodeSmith

Quote:

CodeSmith wrote: @Tigger Quote: Since Eyetech has sued Hyperion in another case apparently, (Doc 35 Exhibit P) Hmm, I did not know this. Brilliant

Oh ffs that's not redhouse, you think he'd post stuff like:

"Amigaworld.net is full of idiots, to see proper Amiga users with proper realistic opinions visit Amiga.org"

on osnews?

_________________
#amiga.org @ irc.synirc.net

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaPhil ... You seemt to not understand that Amiga cancelled the 2001 contract on Dec 21, 2006, ...

Again:
How can they cancel a contract they 're no party to?

_________________
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)

@Dandy

Quote:

How can they cancel a contract they 're no party to?

Cuz they got the contract in a swap out of IP for debt. That of course, doesn't even touch Evert selling off OS4 to Itec, now does it? He damn well knew then when he signed that contract with Itec what the status was, crying crocadile tears now is a little too late.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

"That of course, doesn't even touch Evert selling off OS4 to Itec, now does it? "

Yes, but per the 2001 contract, so that probably means no source code, no IP for many important parts like ExecSG, maybe Picasso, etc...
So you can also ask, did Itec buy it "according to the 2001 contract" without actually checking what the 2001 contract was ?

_________________

José

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: How can they cancel a contract they 're no party to? Cuz they got the contract in a swap out of IP for debt. ...

At what time did ITEC owe money to KMOS?
Must have missed that - can you please provide a link to a document that tells so?

Quote:

damocles wrote: That of course, doesn't even touch Evert selling off OS4 to Itec, now does it?

No - there is no connection between the events, AFAIK...

Quote:

damocles wrote: He damn well knew then when he signed that contract with Itec what the status was,

How can you know what he knew and what not - are you a clairvoyant?

I take it "he damn well knew the status" Amino/AInc(W) wanted to make him believe...

Quote:

damocles wrote: crying crocadile tears now is a little too late.

Hmmmm - my feeling tells me that "crying crocadile tears now is a little too late" for KMOS/AInc(D), if the judge decides that the whole transfer from Amino/AInc(W) to ITEC is null and void, because Amino/AInc(W) used "wilful deception" to make Hyperion believe they were selling OS4 to Amino's/AInc(W)' legal successor.

_________________
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)

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Hmmmm - my feeling tells me that "crying crocadile tears now is a little too late" for KMOS/AInc(D), if the judge decides that the whole transfer from Amino/AInc(W) to ITEC is null and void, because Amino/AInc(W) used "wilful deception" to make Hyperion believe they were selling OS4 to Amino's/AInc(W)' legal successor.

Judge already decided Itec wasnt the successor and that Itec couldnt be joined to the case, so he isnt going to decide the contract was null and void, if he was going to do that, he would have done that as part of joining Itec. Instead he sent them back to New York.
-Tig

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

@CodeSmith

Off topic.

I spend more time playing Team Fortress 2 on the PC then reading about these lawsuits.

I recommend getting an extended warranty on your 360. My 360 has broken twice, an my son's 360 died once. The three year warranty is only for the three red lights.

Kirka

@Dandy
Quote:

Dandy wrote: Again: How can they cancel a contract they 're no party to?

They own the contract is the simple answer. How can Hyperion be selling an OS they sold to Itec 5 years ago? How can Hyperion use the Amiga trademarks without a licence?
-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: Quote: AmigaPhil wrote: @Tigger I don't remind the dates precisely, but it was a few days only after Hyperion's lawyer revealed that there was no entry filled for Amiga Delaware as the registrant or assignee of the Amiga trademarks. If you read documents 60 and 61 which are from someone at Compumark, and which are posted after Hyperions rather crazed original claims, you will seem a step by step transition in some cases all the way from Commodore to KMOS. All the of the copyrights are owned by KMOS, noone who knows anything about copyright law is going to second guess a Compumark back trace of the copyrights from the original assignee to the current owner and say I think Hyperion should be the new owner. We've seen transfer papers dated 2005 to KMOS, we've seen the official documents from the USPTO site verified by Compumark, its silly to think they have chance of them owning the Trademarks.

From doc #55, the exhibits - results of research on TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) - show that Amiga Inc. Delaware filled a request to register the Amiga trademarks on July 28, 2006.
On the date William Kinsel made the search (July 18, 2007), the TESS documents showed that the last updates for the registration requests were filled on July 12, 2007 and gave the status: "An office action making FINAL a refusal to register the mark has been mailed".

In doc #60, Tim Paterson from Thompson CompuMark declares that "a check on the automated database (The TARR database) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 27, 2007, revealed that the status of all the above marks is APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION".
The exhibits (results of the search in the TARR database) show that the new status is dated July 24, 2007, where the examiners have written and e-mailed an amendment (that is about 2 weeks after the "Notification of Final Refusal" status). The status says: "Approved by the examining attorney for publication for opposition. This is NOT the begining of the Opposition period. In aproximately two months, please visit the web site to learn the actual date of publication for opposition in the Trademark Official Gazette."

In doc #61, Tim Paterson declares that "On July 26, 2007, copies of the Trademark Assignement Abstract of Title for the above registrations were obtained from the files of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The last assignement in the chain of title for all the above registrations shows the title to be in the name of Amiga, Inc., a Delaware Corporation [ ... ]".
Indeed, the exhibit shows that assignement #8 (the last one) was from KMOS INC (California) to AMIGA, INC. (Delaware). Assignement received and recorded on 01/31/2006.
On the bottom of the same page of the exhibit, you can read: "USPTO Assignement data current to: May 2007".

[edit]: Last time I checked the TARR database (today, Feb. 9, 2008), the status of the (main) Amiga trademark was: "An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.". This is dated 2007-12-07.


Not sure if these quotes are adding more light onto the "who owns what since when" situation regarding the Amiga trademarks thought.

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 09-Feb-2008 at 12:59 AM.
Last edited by AmigaPhil on 08-Feb-2008 at 10:08 PM.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Again: How can they cancel a contract they 're no party to? They own the contract is the simple answer. ...

You mean they claim to own the contract and it still remains to be seen if this claim is appropriate...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: How can Hyperion be selling an OS they sold to Itec 5 years ago?

Just have a look around you and see yourself that and how they can...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: How can Hyperion use the Amiga trademarks without a licence?

As a member of the "Amiga One Partners" as per the 2001 contract they had with Amino/AInc(W) perhaps?

Last edited by Dandy on 09-Feb-2008 at 09:36 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)

@Dandy

Quote:

As a member of the "Amiga One Partners" as per the 2001 contract they had with Amino/AInc(W) perhaps?

Well that is what Hyperion claim. So which is it, is Evert a blithering idiot for not knowing back then with his deals with KMOS and Itec who he was actually dealing with or is he lieing through his teeth in attempt to steal OS4 away? If it's the latter, that shows he was being dishonest in the KMOS and Itec when he signed those contracts and could be considered fraud. From what I've been reading over the years, I can not except Evert being the village idiot.

Dammy

Last edited by damocles on 09-Feb-2008 at 12:23 PM.

_________________
Dammy

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

[edit]: Last time I checked the TARR database (today, Feb. 9, 2008), the status of the (main) Amiga trademark was: "An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.". This is dated 2007-12-07.

Yes, Hyperion filed the opposition, they just dont have a leg to stand on. They didnt buy the trademark, they never owned the trademark, we have bills of sale from the original owner all the way to the new owner, so Hyperions opposition is basically without merit.

Quote:

Not sure if these quotes are adding more light onto the "who owns what since when" situation regarding the Amiga trademarks thought.

Not really, all but one of the trademarks are KMOS(AI(D)) for sure, the one in question is owned by KMOS unless Hyperion has alot more evidence to present then the challenge they have so far submitted. We have a bill of sale, and tranfer of the trademark document signed by the government officials in the state of Washington and the CEO of the Trademark owner of the time (Amino ie AI(W)), I dont think they paid for it (what they have presented so far) isnt really a good case against it.
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

You mean they claim to own the contract and it still remains to be seen if this claim is appropriate...

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Amino says they sold it, KMOS says they bought it (for that matter Eyetech and Hyperion said KMOS bought it) and we've seen a notarized bill of sale that says they bought it, so I'm not sure what evidence you think you have that they didnt buy it.

Quote:

As a member of the "Amiga One Partners" as per the 2001 contract they had with Amino/AInc(W) perhaps?

That would be the cancelled 2001 contract I believe if we are going to be accurate.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Amino says they sold it, KMOS says they bought it (for that matter Eyetech and Hyperion said KMOS bought it) and we've seen a notarized bill of sale that says they bought it, so I'm not sure what evidence you think you have that they didnt buy it.

I don't know how US handle it, but in Portugal there's always a third element on a selling, and that is state itself, it would be illegal otherwise.

Last edited by pixie on 09-Feb-2008 at 08:44 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Yes, Hyperion filed the opposition

Yes. (Surprise, surprise )
Amiga Inc. sent his answer to Hyperion's claims on January 16, 2008.
Next step is the discovery procedure which will start on Feb. 15, 2008.

Quote:

they just dont have a leg to stand on. They didnt buy the trademark, they never owned the trademark, we have bills of sale from the original owner all the way to the new owner, so Hyperions opposition is basically without merit.

That is to be seen.
The bad news is that the opposition process WILL take months, even up to one year (till end February 2009) !
To strip the good (?) side of all this, some of us are going to be very busy trying to follow the ongoing legal battle on 4 (or 5) fronts.

Quote:

Not really, all but one of the trademarks are KMOS(AI(D)) for sure, the one in question is owned by KMOS unless Hyperion has alot more evidence to present then the challenge they have so far submitted. We have a bill of sale, and tranfer of the trademark document signed by the government officials in the state of Washington and the CEO of the Trademark owner of the time (Amino ie AI(W)), I dont think they paid for it (what they have presented so far) isnt really a good case against it.

That's a bit more complex than that.
As far as I understand (I've just quickly read the documents), the main ground on Hyperion's claims is that many transfers or assignements which happened since A(W)'s insolvency are invalid or fraudulent.

Also, the "Boing Ball" trademark is a different case. Hyperion does not oppose to that trademark because they think they own it, but because this symbol is already too commonly used to become someone's property. (Althought the boing ball was used to demo the VIC capabilities in 78, then the Amiga in 85, it was not a registered trademark of Commodore. Since then, the boing ball symbol has been used for many other demo, several web sites, products, ... And even if it is now recognised as a Amiga symbol, it has also been used on other computer plateforms, like Atari.)

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

Also, the "Boing Ball" trademark is a different case. Hyperion does not oppose to that trademark because they think they own it, but because this symbol is already too commonly used to become someone's property. (Althought the boing ball was used to demo the VIC capabilities in 78, then the Amiga in 85

Btw that is not going to help Hyperion very much because then the boing ball could be used by, lets say, AROS.

There are even more dangers to Hyperion there -- it could be possible that "Amiga Research Operating System" could be absolutely legal if Amiga Inc loses its trademarks. I dont think that is what Hyperion wants, they just want to damage Amiga as much as possible.

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

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: @AmigaPhil Quote: Also, the "Boing Ball" trademark is a different case. Hyperion does not oppose to that trademark because they think they own it, but because this symbol is already too commonly used to become someone's property. (Althought the boing ball was used to demo the VIC capabilities in 78, then the Amiga in 85 Btw that is not going to help Hyperion very much because then the boing ball could be used by, lets say, AROS. There are even more dangers to Hyperion there -- it could be possible that "Amiga Research Operating System" could be absolutely legal if Amiga Inc loses its trademarks. I dont think that is what Hyperion wants, they just want to damage Amiga as much as possible.

Which is irrelevant since AROS changed their acronym to be a recursive acronym: AROS= Aros Research Operating System.

-edit-
Kitty is AROS' trademark and the Boing ball has been eliminated from most AROS software for legal reasons.

Last edited by Samurai_Crow on 09-Feb-2008 at 09:38 PM.

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Tigger Quote: I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Amino says they sold it, KMOS says they bought it (for that matter Eyetech and Hyperion said KMOS bought it) and we've seen a notarized bill of sale that says they bought it, so I'm not sure what evidence you think you have that they didnt buy it. I don't know how US handle it, but in Portugal there's always a third element on a selling, and that is state itself, it would be illegal otherwise.

That would be why I said Notarized above. Notarized bill of sale, its all good.
-Tig

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

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

Curious AInc insists on playing this card, as they put themselves into several contradictions. Why then has they (AInc) started a law suit against Hyperion, not Amiga One Partners ? Since they (AInc) initiated the suit, wasn't it up to them to join Eyetech, "the necessary party" ?

Why? Simple, Amino/Amiga/itec/planet X inc probably bet everything on the well crafted preliminary injunction.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.