Access Denied: Amiga Inc loses first stage

@derfs
Quote:
That isn't what I insinuated at all. On the merits of the evidence before the court it is not likely they will succeed in the eyes of the judge. What I am trying]to get across is that not only is the judge unable to dismiss the case at this stage ( it is an injunction, not an interim judgement ) but that more importantly that unless Amiga Inc improve their evidence they are pretty much set up to lose as the onus is on them to prove their case. That being said, it is worth the risk for Hyperion to press on and release what they like. However Hyperion might have decided to show "good faith" and to sit and wait until the product is complete.

Quote:

I don't understand you at all. Hyperion has never been able to do what they want, they have operated within the limits of the contract ( where possible * ) and has not released AmigaOS4 on any other hardware than for which it was licensed under the agreement with Eyetech. This has unfortunately allowed Amiga Inc to block AmigaOS4.0 ever since Eyetech left the business of making AmigaONE hardware.

There are three main reasons for delay:

1. Amiga Inc not providing sources in a timely fashion as a prerequisite to the contract. This is the first material breach of the contract.

2. The change in prerequisite hardware, for the longest time Hyperion were without the target hardware required for the completion of the software. This is the second material breach of the contract, and this is down to Eyetech and Amiga Inc.

3. Quality control, the addition of additional features seen as needed to be able to market the product in the target market. Whether or not this is a third material breach depends on delays caused in the contract. It is a successor breach to (1) and (2) and it is arguable, in this context, if it constitutes a material breach.

There is a final reason for 3 years worth of delay:

4. Amiga Inc refusing to license hardware for use with AmigaOS4.0 after Eyetech left the business of making AmigaONE hardware.

It is a subtle situation and I never said that Hyperion have ever been able to do what they want, I am saying that the court will not step in and stop them.

@Billsey
I don't want to take sides in all this, I just find it really really sad. However, I do remember Amiga Inc setting up the deal with Hyperion with a view that if they went broke then the OS would be in good hands. That was made public. I have said it before and I will say it again, on a moral basis if Amiga Washington can avoid their debts by becoming insolvent then they should not be able to transfer their assets elswhere. Of course my views do not represent a legal position, just one of common decency. If Amiga Inc lose their IP due to creating shell companies to avoid debt whilst forgetting to transfer assets strictly by the law, so be it.

All the end user wants is an Amiga OS, I don't really care if blind Freddy owns the IP so long as there is a product. I hazard to say Amiga Inc HAVE stopped that product being realised since they handed it over to Hyperion.

ace

@Mitch

Quote:

Spot on and quoted for truth.

@all

You know, I love this thread, never have I seen a thread more coherant and well argued than what I have read here. There are a couple of misunderstandings, but apart from that, generally everything is well argued and discussed.

Nice one guys.

@Mitch
Quote:
I think calling what Amiga Inc. did with the transfer of their assets a "shell game" is pushing it as well. So until anything is proven perhaps it is best to stay away from such topics.

@Mitch

Thank you for the good summary. It was helpful.

There were 2 things that really surprised me:

1. I didn't expect the judge to be so specific in his ruling. I just expected him to say "denied", with maybe a couple of general comments.

2. I also didn't expect any specific indication that Amiga Inc was going to be admonished for not being able to prove that it was the actual owner of Amiga.

It appears to me that AI's lawsuit may very well have backfired. They may be in deep trouble. Unless they can provide proof that they legally transferred ownership from one entity to the next, they are in jeopardy of losing everything.

Perhaps this will provide the incentive to do some serious negotiating -- for both companies. If this continues on to trial, either company could end up losing everything.

Regards,
Don Feldbruegge

@thread

Now thats news i like

Thanks for the summary to all

Justia has a corrected version of the Judge's order (listed as document number 40). At first glance, it looks as though the person doing the filing forgot to put some kind of UPC symbol across the top of the document. Nothing big, but I haven't looked any deeper, so there might be other differences as well.

@Billsey

Quote:In the initial version the formatting was messed up on page 3. That's probably the only change.