Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Everblue on August 05, 2008, 09:31:43 PM
-
Ok, I am no lawyer, but I am reading the final dispostion on this litigation here:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/116/
From what I understand Hyperion have to either return the 'copyrighted material' (OS4?) to Amiga Inc. or destroy it.
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me on the matter can shed some light.
-
I'm not a lawyer either, but that document is basically a confidentiality agreement, as requested by both Amiga Inc. and Hyperion. If you scroll down to the last few pages, you'll see that lawyers from both sides signed it.
No-one has won anything. We can just expect that we'll be seeing fewer of the lawsuit details published on-line from now on.
Hans
-
Oh hmmmm - so how will we know how it will hit us, as Amiga fans? Should we expect some sort of announcement by either parties?
-
Everblue wrote:
From what I understand Hyperion have to either return the 'copyrighted material' (OS4?) to Amiga Inc. or destroy it.
It clearly states that the case is now in the 'disclosure and discovery phase' and no public announcements of such will be forthcoming.
Any material submitted during this phase is basically off-limits to the public and either party is not allowed to disclose anything concerning it.
I much prefer reading the actual time-line of events ... reads like a who's who in Amiga Inc :lol: :lol:
http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/ (http://Linky)
-
We can just expect that we'll be seeing fewer of the lawsuit details published on-line from now on.
Which means both sides are serious about getting this settled. I doubt we are going to get much of anything beyond this, except what appears or disappears on AI or Hyperion's web sites. I smell money exchanging hands.
Dammy
-
Ok so I guess, that something positive for us is coming out of this.
And we know who published OS4 for Hyperion.... and that the same company have a motherboard that is perfectly capable of running OS4 :-D :-o
-
I agree with Dammy that this suggests that they are serious about a settlement. They also asked for a specific judge to act as a mediator in such talks. However, it is just talk, and any negotiations take time. As nice as it would be, I wouldn't expect OS 4.1 to be available for the SAM 440 motherboard when Amiga OS 4.1 is released a few weeks from now.
Hans
-
Well I guess you are right, but at least there is some hope.
Hope is last to die :-D
-
From what I understand Hyperion have to either return the 'copyrighted material' (OS4?) to Amiga Inc. or destroy it.
Would AI care either way, though, given that AOS 5 isn't based on AOS4 anyway?
-
Would AI care either way, though, given that AOS 5 isn't based on AOS4 anyway?
Trademark and copyrights is what it's all about. AI wants complete control over it's IP. It's not about gaining control over a OS that will sell a few hundred more mobos, it's about the IP. Atleast that is what I've gathered over the years. I suppose in a few months we shall find out if I was right or not. The first sign which way this is going to go is if 4.1 release is delayed or not. If it is, ball is in play.
Dammy
-
Hans_ wrote:
I agree with Dammy that this suggests that they are serious about a settlement. They also asked for a specific judge to act as a mediator in such talks. However, it is just talk, and any negotiations take time. As nice as it would be, I wouldn't expect OS 4.1 to be available for the SAM 440 motherboard when Amiga OS 4.1 is released a few weeks from now.
Hans
I would not assume anything of the sort yet. Disclosure had to happen sooner or later in the case, so that each side could see the evidence against them from the other party. That is American Law for most, if not all cases if you watch any of the Law related American TV shows.
I would say that this is just a normal phase to the case to show that it is going forward to the next phase. Progress in the case may still be released, but none of the sensitive details, or information about OS4, or also any information that the parties can prove would be detrimental to their business might be covered under this document to protect information shared between the two opposing parties. The document clearly states that the information requested to be covered by this document must meet the criteria set forth within it to be protected.
In other words, either parties cannot just request that everything from this point forward be covered by a blanket non-disclosure agreement.
Still, this will severely limit the amount of information coming out of the case(s) from this point forward.
That is my take on it, but I am not a lawyer either.
Edit: Although I read through most all of the document, after a while it gets pretty boring and I skimmed through some of it at the end. I did NOT see the part about asking for a specific Judge to act as the mediator. If that is the case, ignore what I have written above.
-
Everblue wrote:
Well I guess you are right, but at least there is some hope.
Hope is last to die :-D
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. :roll:
We have a better chance of contracting syphilis than we do of getting anything of benefit from Amiga, Inc. :lol:
-
DOUBLE POST
-
@Methuselas -
Even if we are abstinent, We have a better chance of contracting syphilis than we do of getting anything of benefit from Amiga, Inc. :lol:
There. fixed that for you. :lol:
HTH
-
Ilwrath wrote:
@Methuselas -
Even if we are abstinent, We have a better chance of contracting syphilis than we do of getting anything of benefit from Amiga, Inc. :lol:
There. fixed that for you. :lol:
HTH
*snort*
-
Sad we no longer get to watch from the sidelines. Is it possible that there is something damaging that may be being introduced into the court. What could be more damaging than AIncs long history of press releases on non-existent products and reneging on the stadium naming deal? That there is in fact no Amiga Inc outside India?
-
The fact that this has dragged on for so long without a trial says that neither party is certain of the strength of their case. For them to take this long and only be at the discovery stage of proceedings confirms this. So up until now, its just been hot air, claim and counter-claim, without anyone really declaring if they have anything of substance to back their side up. Lawyers encourage this "negotiation" citing it as less risky and cheaper than going to trial. When it fails, as it usually does, the lawyers then apply for court-appointed mediation on the same grounds ie less risky, less costly, and all discussions are "without prejudice" ie not admissable in Court or available to the public. It will drag on and the legal fees will continue to mount until both sides wake up to their lawyers little game. All because neither party wants to risk a judicial decision because neither side is certain of the strength of their case, and they both are secretly hoping for the best compromise.
-
@stefcep2
At least the Itec case against Hyperion has been disposed of.
What that means is somewhat debatable.
#113 and whatever follows (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=23959&forum=2&start=100&viewmode=flat&order=0)
#6
-
So, to sum up everything in more undestandable language (I am not native english speaker and law texts are not my cup of tea).
1. There is going to be a judical settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion on which Eyetech and Itec will appear. The settlement will be held in October and will be conducted by the judge Kelley Arnold (asked by both parties).
2. After the failure of settlement, the Court has 45 days to set the following deadlines of:
- Discovery cutoff
- Dispositive motion cutoff
and dates of:
- Trial Date
- Lodging Date
In my understanding the trial might be as well next year or in two years. It doesn't say that it is 45 days after the judical settlement. It only says that 45 days after the settlement the Trial Date has to be set.
Am I correct?
BTW, what is the Lodging Date? I looked up in several dictionaries and none of them defines this as a law term. I figured out that this is the date until which you can issue a motion of complaint to the sentence after the trial. Am I correct?
-
number6 wrote:
@stefcep2
At least the Itec case against Hyperion has been disposed of.
What that means is somewhat debatable.
#113 and whatever follows (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=23959&forum=2&start=100&viewmode=flat&order=0)
#6
Hi #6,
If ITEC has to pay Hyperion Entertainment's legal fees, Hyperion W O N !!!!!!!!!!
WooooooooHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I'll save the laughter until all the results are visible.
Hi mailman,
I believe lodging means, that some of the people from Europe may testify in person, so the trial date would have to be when they can attend, within reason. Hence "lodging" in Seattle for the trial dates.
-
number6 wrote:
@stefcep2
At least the Itec case against Hyperion has been disposed of.
...
Yeah - I just read it on amiga-news.de:
"Lawsuit:
ITEC action in New York against Hyperion dismissed
The action brought by Itec LLC in New York against Hyperion VOF has been dismissed there, as the agreement of 24. April 2003 between the two parties refers to the one between Amiga Inc., Hyperion and Eyetech of 3. November 2001 and the latter exclusively provides two courts in the Washington state in case of an litigation."
(My translation of the German original)
-
1. There is going to be a judical settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion on which Eyetech and Itec will appear. The settlement will be held in October and will be conducted by the judge Kelley Arnold (asked by both parties).
That meeting will most probably end with the same way
it started or worse. I'm not having my hopes up for that meeting, not at all.
-
Actually, there are 2 reasons why a court appointed settlement can't work.
Amiga Inc. Wa. no longer has the contract, and the company that DOES, their name isn't on the contract. Only the original Amiga Inc. Wa. can be the owner. (Amiga Inc. Wa. will cease to be on Sep. 28, 2008? Or should I say Amino LLC? BTW, what great products does Amino LLC Wa. make??!?!?! Website? WHO works there?)
2nd thing is, Hyperion Entertainment in NO way, shape or form has an obligation to have to pay their lawyer's fees due to KMOS's (MKOS?) action against them. They're the equivalent of an unconcerned party bringing a lawsuit into court.
Will Amiga Inc. Del. (if they're allowed to hold that name) pay H.E.'s court costs? I think not!
-
Looks like the chips are stacking up against KMOS (aka AmigaDon'tCare)...
As one of the most vocal defenders in the threads on amigaworld.net...and even to the point of being temporarily banned from posting by a TOTALLY biased moderator...
Edited by Argo : obscene smileys
...no I'm not bitter...
(http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/owned.gif)
-
Atheist wrote:
Actually, there are 2 reasons why a court appointed settlement can't work.
Amiga Inc. Wa. no longer has the contract, and the company that DOES, their name isn't on the contract. Only the original Amiga Inc. Wa. can be the owner. (Amiga Inc. Wa. will cease to be on Sep. 28, 2008? Or should I say Amino LLC? BTW, what great products does Amino LLC Wa. make??!?!?! Website? WHO works there?)
2nd thing is, Hyperion Entertainment in NO way, shape or form has an obligation to have to pay their lawyer's fees due to KMOS's (MKOS?) action against them. They're the equivalent of an unconcerned party bringing a lawsuit into court.
Will Amiga Inc. Del. (if they're allowed to hold that name) pay H.E.'s court costs? I think not!
When you initiate a law suit and lose, the defending party can recover their court costs from you in the USA. This was implimented to stop frivilous lawsuits that were so common at one time...
-
lou_dias wrote:
Edited by Argo : quoting obscene smileys
We're a PG-13 site guys.
:-o :-D :lol: :laughing:
:cheers:
-
lou_dias wrote:
When you initiate a law suit and lose, the defending party can recover their court costs from you in the USA. This was implimented to stop frivilous lawsuits that were so common at one time...
Hi lou_dias,
Hmmmmm, well, in a court appointed settlement, is there a "winner" and "loser" for money to be paid out for lawyer's fees of one side over another? I guess there never really was a trial as some kind of settlement occurs with both walking away, both feeling like they've lost. So both pay their own fees?
Frankly in my opinion, Amiga Inc. Del. is a fraud, as they have NOTHING holding them back from releasing AOS5 onto a starving hungry world! Well, other than it doesn't exist????
I haven't read even one sentence anywhere of HE opposed to AOS5.0 being sold, anyhow. HE never opposed AmigaAnywhere2 being distributed.
-
Atheist wrote:
lou_dias wrote:
When you initiate a law suit and lose, the defending party can recover their court costs from you in the USA. This was implimented to stop frivilous lawsuits that were so common at one time...
Hi lou_dias,
Hmmmmm, well, in a court appointed settlement, is there a "winner" and "loser" for money to be paid out for lawyer's fees of one side over another? I guess there never really was a trial as some kind of settlement occurs with both walking away, both feeling like they've lost. So both pay their own fees?
Frankly in my opinion, Amiga Inc. Del. is a fraud, as they have NOTHING holding them back from releasing AOS5 onto a starving hungry world! Well, other than it doesn't exist????
I haven't read even one sentence anywhere of HE opposed to AOS5.0 being sold, anyhow. HE never opposed AmigaAnywhere2 being distributed.
Well I don't think you get your costs back in the case of a settlement because it's like saying, as the defense, that you are partially wrong in this...
Also, I have no idea who HE is...and I don't think the world is so hungry anyway. I have gotten a taste of open-source software (OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Mozilla) and it is good...combine that with an Amiga-like OS that boots up in seconds and we have a winner.
-
@Atheist
Thanks for your answer. I hope the rest of my understanding is correct.
-
@lou_dias
I agree with your sentiment regarding AW.net's moderators, but all those mean graphics are being directed at me when I look at them. :-(
-
weirdami wrote:
@lou_dias
I agree with your sentiment regarding AW.net's moderators, but all those mean graphics are being directed at me when I look at them. :-(
What is your username there? And I believe I specified no one in particular but just generally the condsending, elitist know-it-all side that can't accept alternate possibilities to outcomes they never had any control over.
I said early on that if the ITEC contract is "in accordance with the 2001 contract" then those rules apply. Then I got a beatdown saying that it's simply "no, it's I pay $25,000 and you give me OS4." Seems the judge agreed with the former angle.
-
You know things are bad when the drama surrounding OS4 is more interesting than OS4 itself.
What's on the other station?
-
coldfish,
What's on the other station?
An ad for OS4.1
-
Manu,
1. There is going to be a judical settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion on which Eyetech and Itec will appear.
Since Itech and Eyetech are phonetically the same, I wonder if they'll have to refer to one in the courtroom banter as "with an 'I'" or something?
-
jorkany wrote:
Manu,
1. There is going to be a judical settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion on which Eyetech and Itec will appear.
Since Itech and Eyetech are phonetically the same, I wonder if they'll have to refer to one in the courtroom banter as "with an 'I'" or something?
Would that have anything to do with "An 'I' for an 'Eye'"? :-P ;-) :-)
-
lou_dias wrote:
weirdami wrote:
@lou_dias
I said early on that if the ITEC contract is "in accordance with the 2001 contract" then those rules apply. Then I got a beatdown saying that it's simply "no, it's I pay $25,000 and you give me OS4." Seems the judge agreed with the former angle.
Hi lou_dias,
I read almost all of the threads and posts of the court cases over there.
And, I must say that they gave quite the wide latitude to the ones who were putting anti-Hyperion statements forward, and more than a few warnings to pro-Hyperion posters.
I left there quite a while ago over that issue.
BTW; "HE", I was meaning "Hyperion Entertainment" for short.
-
I haven't read even one sentence anywhere of HE opposed to AOS5.0 being sold, anyhow. HE never opposed AmigaAnywhere2 being distributed.
I haven't read even one sentence anywhere of Hyperion Entertainment opposed to AOS5.0 being sold, anyhow. Hyperion Entertainment never opposed AmigaAnywhere2 being distributed.
Is the paragraph in full.
======
These two products are no threat to AOS4.x. One doesn't even exist!! Hahahahahahahaha!
OTOH, when they win the USPTO dispute, they may have something different to say about it. :-D
-
So, Amiga Inc. Del.'s King Kong law firm made a mistake in pursuing the case in Del.? Some "experts"!
We'll know in 4 weeks whether Itec has cash or not. If they don't pay Hyperion Entertainment's lawyer by the end of Sept., then when the negotiations in Oct/Nov happen, Mr. Kinsel can call them the deadbeats that they are.
Or can he?
Can it be brought up in negotiations that the other party is untrustworthy to anything they may agree to, if Itec doesn't pay Hyperion's lawyer bill in total before the negotiation starts? (Since they can't bring up the hogwash Kent Arena scam?)