Is this thread for real? (AInc has <$100)

[DaveP]

Yes its a Thendic deposition, and not a judges opinion or ruling.

During the cross examination, the Thendic ambulance chaser ( I hate lawyers ) tried to establish three things only:

1. What income, if any, Amiga Inc had and the details of said business contracts.

2. That Bill McEwan was an unreliable witness not to be trusted through establishing debt, previous lost court cases, and questioning the health claims.

3. That Amiga Inc's counter claim and counter sue items were capped by the amount of income passed from Thendic to Amiga Inc.

So, nothing intensive to do with the facts of the case, whether or not Amiga Inc broke contract or whether or not Thendic fulfilled its part of it.

The fact that he spent so much time on (3) suggests he is actually concerned that a counterclaim/sue might succeed and wants to limit the damages by getting Bill McEwan to agree that the damages in general are limited.

I learned two things from this, (1) That Amiga Incs employees are working on a voluntary basis and (2) The Thendic case is weak enough for their legal representative to try all these diversionary tactics as point (3) is the most telling. I would have expected more of an attempt to say "do you agree that the Pegasos is a device covered under section xx.x ?" to establish the strength of the case against the defendant.

Given one can get that from the Thendic side, I wonder what will come out when Amiga Inc cross examines Genesi personnel. Either or, lets hope that photocopies appear undedited on Rich's site.

Oh and Thendics ambulance chaser cannot spell.

I actually came out admiring Bill McEwans articulate and witty responses. Although I am amazed that he signed a contract that basically said that Thendic could do what it liked risk free ( not that it COULD do what it liked, but if it did it then it wouldn't cost them anything ).

What did happen to the SmartBoy and Thendics Wince license?

[DaveP]

With that frequence? What about the fact that
he spells his previous clients' name wrong also.

[DaveP]

@greenboy

Dave, darling! How wonderful of you to join us!

I cannot spell, absolutely, however I am writing software and not legal documents.

"red pundit", lol, not averse to oversimplifying the argument to attempt to discredit are you Mr "blue pundit".  However, you are more than just a pundit, you are a fully paid up hardcore "blue member" ;-)

Woooo where did that get us? Nowhere.

[DaveP]

T_Bone wrote:
> The fact that he spent so much time on (3) suggests he is
>  actually concerned that a counterclaim/sue might succeed
> and wants to limit the damages by getting Bill McEwan to
> agree that the damages in general are limited.

Actually I got the impression he spent alot of time on (3) because it was a circular arguement.

That is true, it went around in circles. However what was far from established was that even if that clause was held to be valid in court, in this case, was its relevance to courtersue.

Of course the lawyer is going to address the countersuit, he   wouldn't be much of a lawyer if he didn't.

Im not arguing that, it is the sheer proportion of time spent on side issues versus the actual issues of the case. Read the Thendic ambulance-chasers' summary - he is trying to establish Bill McEwEn as an unreliable witness and Amiga Inc as a renegade company but does not spend any useful ink on the true subject of the case  - whether the claims of Thendic are even valid.

The only fear I sensed in that round was in Bill,

Who was talking about fear? You are the one who brought this one up, I don't think fear is a good thing to read into anything. I think Bill McEwEn was deliberately avoiding answering the question.

If Bill had good reason to believe Amiga DID have reason to ask for money, shouldn't that reason been the answer to the question, rather than his "Yes, er, well, no, I mean, maybe, you never know, anything can happen in court" answer?

Depends on what he was trying to achieve with the answer. The Thendic A-C seemed to be trying to close down the possibility of damages, this was clearly not in the interest of the Amiga Inc side, therefore an ambivalent answer which basically points to the court as being the responsibility to decide that is whilst evasive, accurate.

Nowhere in discovery does it come out that Amiga Inc do not have reasonable grounds to countersue, what does come out is that clause that means that if they succeed, they have to fight the clause that sayes they are owed no money ( because Thendic paid no royalties ) to *GET* money.

[DaveP]

greenboy wrote:

@greenboy, Dave, darling! How wonderful of you to join us!

There is no us - there is only you and your overinflated boing ball : }  

No I am saying that his is what you SHOULD be saying to me. Probably wasnt clear.

 is only you and your overinflated boing ball : }  

And was that supposed to be an insult? :-?

I've never tried to hide my affiliation or pretended to be impartial. I'm partial as hell, seeing what I've seen. I've never pretended behind  the guises of objectivity, logic, and other conceits. Though I'm usually trying a lot harder to be polite.

That is nice to see. However exactly what did you hope to gain with that labelling exercise is my point? Why not deal with the thrust of the argument rather than say "red pundit"?

Oh, I can just hear McEwen saying in a talk show host voice, "FOURRRTEEEEN BILLION DOLLARS!" Ho! - that must really wow those small-town legal people...

That WAS amusing. Did you ever see the cover of the Linux Format mag with the SCO guy being sent up with a picture of Dr Evil?

Too bad the case isn't in Montana, with Doctor in attendance to give Teach the note for why little William MC was skipping school yet again.

Now come on, you know that by this time Bill McEwEn was wise to the antics of Rich Woods and didn't want to disclose personal information. Although I agree, his answers were woolly and evasive there. Given that Rich Woods posted this little lot on the net suggests he was right not to put extraneous evidence where he did not have to.

Should be an interesting case.

Yep.

  Sometimes almost on schedule and rockin'

Snore!

- if only because someone has to bring SOME of the people in on the correct dates occasionally to actually achieve any semblance of a schedule ; }

SNORE!

BTW I hear the Peg2 is now due out in October. See how relevant that was? Not at all.

[DaveP]

@T_bone

Concern is not as stark emotion as fear, it has 4 meanings all of which were relevant to the context in which I used it.

Of course your final paragraph is also valid, I just felt that rather than discover what Amiga Incs position was they rather focussed on side issues. I did Jury service, and in two times the defense lawyer danced around issues to discredit prosecution witnesses and in both cases the Jury were suspicious as to the strength of the defence case. On the third time this didn't happen, and the defence A-C actually tackled the merits of the evidence and the crux of the case - and won.

Still, thats just my pitiful experience, but the way I read it and interpreted is in my first post on this thread and my first post in a while on a forum topic on Amiga.org.

[DaveP]

Oh yes, of course, McEwen did the transcript. NOT!

Still, a few errors ;-)

Doh!

[DaveP]

Id like proof first that Tigger knows what hes talking about.

Who is this "we" you are referring to?