Gary Hare , KMOS and OS4 ????

[Tigger]

T_Bone wrote:

You're right.

Now we know why Amiga were ignoring all requests for licensing of Amiga IP too... they didn't own it anymore.

But they are claiming to own it in depositions for the court system, which is where this is going to get interesting for McEwen, also they sold their only real asset while the debters  are trying to collect their money and the company is insolvent, thats probably not going to stand up in the courts.
    -Tig

 

[Tigger]

Rassilon wrote:
Not trying to be offensive, but you would have to be blind to believe that THAT picture of the business card is real.

In THAT picture there are clearly a number of defects, including:

The shine on the boing ball, does not fit with the lack of shine on the rest of the card.

The AA on the Amiga logo does not fit with the crisp reproduction of the rest of the text.

As far as I can tell, THAT photo is a fake.

Now if there are other photos, they may prove otherwise but all the evidence on that one is damning!!

Rasillion,

Just so you know the facts.  Wayne Hunt scanned that business card, I physically saw it, the entire NASAU user group (the founders of this site) saw it, lots of other people saw this one, or the others that were handed out by Garry, this belief that the business card is a photoshop fake instead of a scan is just silly, period.
     -Tig

[Tigger]

CodeSmith wrote:
@T_Bone:

I guess it could be that too.  As to the investors and Amiga Inc, it could well be that the last time Amiga Inc asked for more money, the investors agreed only under the condition that Amiga Inc got rid of AmigaOS.  

Problem is that the got rid of the OS in April of 2003, and this funding, which we really dont have alot of proof for, just happened last week.

Amiga Inc sells the OS, uses the money to settle their debts and in exchange the VCs pay the lawyers for this last round of litigation and resume "normal" funding, knowing that all the money spent will benefit the DE.  

They didnt settle their debts, in fact as far as can be shown they didnt get paid for the OS, they claimed in their deposition to be broke 1 week after they sold the OS, the claimed in the August deposition to have $100 in their sole bank account.  Not one of the creditors have been paid, so why do you think they are using the money to settle the debts??

The only info I have to back this up is what's been posted on the net so far (ie not a whole lot), but that's the theory that makes the most sense to me given the info we do have.

No the theory that makes the most sense is that its a shell game to hide assets that had to be revealed after Bill Bucks last filing.  
     -Tig

[Tigger]

IonDeluxe wrote:
What really amuses me is that so many people claim Fleecy is full of {bleep},

He is.

that nothing he says can be trustesd and is all a pack of lies,

Again thats pretty much true, you are on a roll tonight.

yet these same people use what Fleecy says in thier arguments as well when what he says suits them.

Gee, quote the liar to show he's a liar, why wouldnt we do that again??  
   -Tig