@Tigger

Quote:

On March 18, 2003 - Bill McEwen wired $2500 to Hyperion making the debt $22500

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

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@Jose

Quote:

Anyway, just one question for you "legal clerks", does anyone knows if the Itec contract included source ?

Yes for as much as Hyperion has secured the rights for.
-Tig

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

@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. Hyperion isnt arguing they only got paid 22250 anymore, they are using the $24750 number once again so the maybe McEwen's wire didnt go through story really needs to be over, especially given we all know that Hyperion received a $25K check in June of 2007, before the 6 months from "its done" had elapsed.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 14-Feb-2008 at 03:39 AM.

_________________
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: I agree no one is innocent, but I'll side with the lesser of 2 evils... Glad to hear you are back to supporting A Inc instead of Evert. -Tig

I find most of your posts just as amusing as this one.

@Tigger

So in December 2006 A Inc terminate the contract and in June 2007 they try to enforce it by paying? That makes sense... Actually, it makes sense, Amiga Inc sense, which is somewhat different to the common sense.

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.

@AmiDog

Quote:

AmiDog wrote: @Tigger So in December 2006 A Inc terminate the contract and in June 2007 they try to enforce it by paying? That makes sense... Actually, it makes sense, Amiga Inc sense, which is somewhat different to the common sense. 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.

Actually it was ITEC who tried to pay in 2007. Ofcourse, I'm sure they had an OS4 CD in 2004 as well. Too bad Hyperion contracted out the development and that $25,000 gets them ZERO source code. "Best efforts" with only $25,000 only goes so far you know...

@AmiDog

Quote:

AmiDog wrote: @Tigger So in December 2006 A Inc terminate the contract and in June 2007 they try to enforce it by paying? That makes sense... Actually, it makes sense, Amiga Inc sense, which is somewhat different to the common sense.

No. In 2006 KMOS (Amiga Inc (D)) cancelled the 2001 contract. In June of 2007, after Hyperion claimed in court that they hadnt agreed to deliver the code to KMOS there deal was with Itec, 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.

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.
-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: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] Lou wrote: I agree no one is innocent, but I'll side with the lesser of 2 evils... Glad to hear you are back to supporting A Inc instead of Evert. -Tig

I find most of your posts just as amusing as this one. [/quote]


I think anyone who thinks of Evert as the lesser of two evils has been taking too much Evert-nip, watch out for it, they say its addictive, look what happened to Athiest.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

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

@COBRA

Quote:

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

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.
-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: @COBRA Quote: COBRA wrote: @Tigger But the most important question: how could they have cancelled the 2001 contract in 2006, if it was abandoned several years before and replaced by a 2004 contract? Also, how could they request Hyperion in 2006 to perform according to the 2001 contract, if it was abandoned several years before that? 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. -Tig

Agreements were made to be broken...
Is a penalty for breaking the agreement defined in the agreement?

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Agreements were made to be broken... Is a penalty for breaking the agreement defined in the agreement?

No, much like there are no penalties in the 2001 contract. Hyperions only reprecussion was to cancel the contract, KMOS already did that after Itec bought back the OS, Evert needs to provide the OS and get back to not paying his developers and making promises he doesnt keep (ie the things he is good at) instead of starting more lawsuits when he is doing poorly already in the ones he's involved in.
-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: Agreements were made to be broken... Is a penalty for breaking the agreement defined in the agreement? No, much like there are no penalties in the 2001 contract. Hyperions only reprecussion was to cancel the contract, KMOS already did that after Itec bought back the OS, Evert needs to provide the OS and get back to not paying his developers and making promises he doesnt keep (ie the things he is good at) instead of starting more lawsuits when he is doing poorly already in the ones he's involved in. -Tig

With a contract you can sue for "breach of contract"...
With an "agreement", what happens when they agree to disagree? Slap on wrist - pay money back...

@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.

I've stayed out of this mess.....but would like to point out from what i have read. All agreements or contracts point back to the 2001 contract. So whatever anyone says or trys to say.....it all goes full circle back to the first simple agreement.

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

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @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. I've stayed out of this mess.....but would like to point out from what i have read. All agreements or contracts point back to the 2001 contract. So whatever anyone says or trys to say.....it all goes full circle back to the first simple agreement.

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.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

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.

I really don't know what to say on this one, couldn't the judge be... confused?

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Tigger Quote: 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. I really don't know what to say on this one, couldn't the judge be... confused?

Gee Pixie, still cant answer the question broached about the subject, but want to still talk about how I said the judge was confused when the facts are quite clear that he was confused. He referenced two documents with relation to the 25K buyback and neither document mention the buyback (or even 25K) at all. In your mind, what does that make the Judges comment?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

It's pixie, I don't call you tigger now do I?

The thing is, the judge was confused once, he might as well be confused more times... what makes you think he wont be again?

Last edited by pixie on 14-Feb-2008 at 11:41 PM.

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Tigger It's pixie, I don't call you tigger now do I? The thing is, the judge was confused once, he might as well be confused more times... what makes you think he wont be again?

No actually you tend to call me Tiger, which is also annoying, I didnt realize making your account name into a name was a problem. Unlike the part I pointed out, he seems to be basing this on case law, isnt referencing a document that doesnt say what he says it does, so I would guess thats not the case. Do you have some case law that would show the judge was confused here, or a point where he says something about a document that is blatantly not true.
-Tig

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

@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.

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. 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.

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