Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.  (Read 5386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SpeedGeek

C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« on: May 31, 2019, 01:08:34 PM »
If you have been following the legal dispute between Cloanto and the Amiga parties with Hyperion then you might be interested in this update:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28135742/CA_Acquisition_Corp_et_al_v_Hyperion_Entertainment_CVBA

(A perfect example of what happens when you hire lawyers and give them a blank check  ;D).
« Last Edit: May 31, 2019, 01:12:33 PM by SpeedGeek »
 

Offline Louis Dias

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2019, 02:57:50 PM »
Has anyone downloaded the documents?  I can't read them because I don't have an account...
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2019, 01:12:25 PM »
Finally IMO some positive news:

Thursday, November 21, 2019
ORDER granting Plaintiffs'16 Motion for Default Against Hyperion Entertainment CVBA signed by Clerk William M McCool. (LW)


 :)
 

Offline CBH

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2019, 01:35:53 PM »
So, Hyperion lose by default.

Niiiiiccceee.

Offline Rob

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2019, 08:34:22 PM »
The motion can still be opposed after being granted so I wouldn't take this to mean that the current situation is coming to a close.
 

Offline CBH

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2019, 10:29:57 PM »
It's a victory by default, they literally didn't contest it when they were supposed to. Ben's an ambulance chaser, he knew it would happen.

Now he could technically run into the courtroom five minutes before closing time and go "I'm here! I'm awake! What was the question again?" but what impression would that make on a judge?

Offline Rob

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2019, 08:20:13 PM »
Now he could technically run into the courtroom five minutes before closing time and go "I'm here! I'm awake! What was the question again?" but what impression would that make on a judge?

I'm not a legal expert and can only go on what i have read on the internet, including various official sources.  It would seem that filing a motion to have the default judgement vacated or set aside would be a little more formal and the time period in which to do so would be a little longer than you seem to imply.
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2019, 09:14:37 PM »
Now he could technically run into the courtroom five minutes before closing time and go "I'm here! I'm awake! What was the question again?" but what impression would that make on a judge?

I'm not a legal expert and can only go on what i have read on the internet, including various official sources.  It would seem that filing a motion to have the default judgement vacated or set aside would be a little more formal and the time period in which to do so would be a little longer than you seem to imply.

It's really not so much a matter of time but rather a matter of "Good Cause":

FRCP Rule 55 – Default; Default Judgment

(a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.

(c) Setting Aside a Default or a Default Judgment. The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b).
 

Offline number6

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2019, 04:04:55 PM »
Now he could technically run into the courtroom five minutes before closing time and go "I'm here! I'm awake! What was the question again?" but what impression would that make on a judge?

I'm not a legal expert and can only go on what i have read on the internet, including various official sources.  It would seem that filing a motion to have the default judgement vacated or set aside would be a little more formal and the time period in which to do so would be a little longer than you seem to imply.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to convey here, but I'll add this in case it clarifies:

Quote
Plaintiffs so move because Defendant Hyperion Entertainment CVBA (“Hyperion”) has declined
to accept service of the Summons and Complaint in this action
and
Quote
On August 12, 2019, Ms. Elsden advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that her firm had not
been retained to represent Hyperion in this action.
 Consequently, no appearance has been filed by anyone on behalf of Hyperion.

Source

Also note that a few days after the above  (August 29, 2019) there began numerous weekly motions to compel in the contract case as well:
Source by date

In short the delays and refusals to respond have been going on since June, 2019.

#6
 

Offline Rob

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2019, 11:53:50 PM »
@number6

I must admit that I haven't been paying close to this court so I was looking at this particular ruling in isolation and just referring to the rules around a default judgement.

Wouldn't the time limited period to apply for the judgement to be set aside begin after the actual ruling takes place rather than during the period in which the defendant failed to take the required action to prevent a default judgement?

My real point is that we should exercise caution in near expectations.
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2019, 02:46:39 PM »
@Rob

Apparently, you still don't get it. There is no specified time period for a Default judgment to be set aside. Hyperion could at any time file a motion to request this, and it will be up to the judge to determine if there is "Good Cause" to do so. But this discussion is really pointless.

Since, you have not been following this case you simply don't realize how very obvious it is, that Hyperion never intended to respond to this case.

Now exactly why is not known, but it's likely that Hyperion expects this judgment to be unenforceable outside the U.S. and what was at stake in the U.S. simply was not worth the legal cost to defend. Also, unlike the rather dubious definition of OS4 in the settlement agreement (which Hyperion used to claim rights to any version of Amiga OS) the Hyperion trademarks were exact and specific. So, Hyperion now has a much more serious problem claiming the rights to any trademarks they want.   
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 11:31:41 PM by SpeedGeek »
 

Offline CBH

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2019, 02:40:19 AM »
Which is the point I originally implied, if he had any intent to contest it he'd have done it by now. It's now so late if he did he'd just look like a dumbass.
 

Offline hlt

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2019, 09:53:41 AM »
I looks like classic AOS gets some nice features, it would be a pity if they won't be able to sell it. What is going to happen with upcoming AOS 3.2 if Cloanto wins?
 

Offline Louis Dias

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2019, 03:52:38 PM »
I don't think Cloanto would stop 3.2 - just they would need licensing fees as well as proper copyrights that don't say "Hyperion"...though Hyperion could still be the 'publisher'.
I think the face to face meetings that happened between August and November may have smoothed some things over.
 

Offline Gulliver

Re: C-A Acquisition Corp. vs. Hyperion Ent.
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2019, 07:20:08 PM »
@Louis Dias

I believe you are more or less right with your assumptions.

For Cloanto it would be a nightmare to get control over 3.2. They don't have the inside knowledge, nor technical infrastructure to carry on the project. They also lack all the third party licenses and the access to OS4 code. Despite all its flaws, Hyperion has all this in a working state.

So it would not be reasonable at all to shoot for a kill, because they will lose it all, and in the best case scenario end up with 3.1 (v40) code that has gaps all over the place and won't compile.

The best solutions for both parties is a mutual agreement IMHO.