19-Apr-2024 00:49 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Web] Amiga Inc auction updateANN.lu
Posted on 14-Jun-2003 06:32 GMT by Citadel57 comments
View flat
View list
It appears Amiga Inc never owned some of the hardware they were possessing. from http://www.murphyauctions.net/amiga.html

Amiga Inc is being sold by order of the property management. Some of the equipment listed has been claimed by vendors as of Wednesday, June 11, 2003. The equipment was only on the premises as a "loaner" to Amiga for development reasons. The following items have been removed from the sale:

IMAC PC
EPSON 740i printer
NOKIA MEDIA terminal
NETBOOK pda
SHARP pda
MY FRIEND pocket pc
AQUAPAD mobile internet device
VADEM CLIO pocket pc

We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1DaveP14-Jun-2003 05:45 GMT
Comment 2JoannaK14-Jun-2003 06:44 GMT
Comment 3Fabio Alemagna14-Jun-2003 07:17 GMT
Comment 4Anonymous14-Jun-2003 07:53 GMT
Comment 5Toby14-Jun-2003 08:04 GMT
Comment 6Bill Hoggett14-Jun-2003 09:04 GMT
Comment 7Anonymous14-Jun-2003 09:10 GMT
Comment 8Bill Hoggett14-Jun-2003 09:20 GMT
Comment 9Anonymous14-Jun-2003 09:38 GMT
Comment 10William F. Maddock14-Jun-2003 11:28 GMT
Comment 11Matt Parsons14-Jun-2003 12:06 GMT
Comment 12Troels ErskingRegistered user14-Jun-2003 13:05 GMT
Comment 13MIKE14-Jun-2003 13:43 GMT
Comment 14Rich Woods14-Jun-2003 15:55 GMT
Comment 15Rich Woods14-Jun-2003 16:03 GMT
Comment 163seas14-Jun-2003 16:54 GMT
Comment 17Analnymous14-Jun-2003 17:11 GMT
Comment 18Matt Parsons14-Jun-2003 21:11 GMT
Comment 19Anonymous14-Jun-2003 22:33 GMT
Comment 20Anonymous14-Jun-2003 22:54 GMT
Comment 21Samface14-Jun-2003 23:30 GMT
Comment 22Samface14-Jun-2003 23:34 GMT
Comment 23Abuse15-Jun-2003 06:36 GMT
Comment 24Olegil15-Jun-2003 06:49 GMT
Comment 25Emeric SH15-Jun-2003 06:57 GMT
Comment 26dammyRegistered user15-Jun-2003 07:07 GMT
Comment 27Don CoxRegistered user15-Jun-2003 09:19 GMT
Comment 28DaveP15-Jun-2003 09:21 GMT
Comment 29Fabio Alemagna15-Jun-2003 13:15 GMT
Comment 30Tronman15-Jun-2003 19:48 GMT
Comment 31JoannaK15-Jun-2003 20:58 GMT
Comment 32greenboyRegistered user15-Jun-2003 22:42 GMT
Comment 33priest16-Jun-2003 08:34 GMT
Comment 34priest16-Jun-2003 08:39 GMT
Comment 35Ketzer16-Jun-2003 09:36 GMT
Comment 36Gary Peake16-Jun-2003 13:33 GMT
Comment 37Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user16-Jun-2003 13:51 GMT
Comment 38Gary Peake16-Jun-2003 14:14 GMT
Comment 39DaveP16-Jun-2003 14:40 GMT
Comment 40hooligan/dcsRegistered user16-Jun-2003 15:35 GMT
Comment 41Anonymous16-Jun-2003 15:46 GMT
Comment 42Nate DownesRegistered user16-Jun-2003 16:09 GMT
Comment 43Nate DownesRegistered user16-Jun-2003 16:15 GMT
Comment 44Nicolas Sallin16-Jun-2003 18:54 GMT
Comment 45Bill Hoggett16-Jun-2003 19:01 GMT
Comment 46Ray A. AkeyRegistered user16-Jun-2003 19:14 GMT
Comment 47Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user16-Jun-2003 19:23 GMT
Comment 48Ray A. AkeyRegistered user16-Jun-2003 19:38 GMT
Comment 49Tronman17-Jun-2003 07:16 GMT
Comment 50cheesegrate17-Jun-2003 09:03 GMT
Comment 51Tryo17-Jun-2003 11:09 GMT
Comment 52Colin Camper17-Jun-2003 11:12 GMT
Comment 53samface17-Jun-2003 12:18 GMT
Comment 54Tryo17-Jun-2003 12:30 GMT
Amiga Inc auction update : Comment 55 of 57ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 18-Jun-2003 05:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Tryo):
I really don't see the double standards in what you mentioned above and what I said in my previous post. The questions regarding MorphOS legal status was there way before I asked them and alot of these issues still as of today remains unanswered. Bolton, on the other hand, brings an issue that already has been settled in court into the public for the sole purpose of discrediting Amiga Inc.

It's still as of today, perfectly natural to question MorphOS legal status since it's a fact that they have made use of Amiga Inc.'s trademarks and even names of their staff members and contract workers while marketing their reverse engineered OS. It is also a proven fact that they have made use of Amiga Inc.'s IP while developing it. However, I could never be the judge of wether MorphOS is legal or not, all I'm saying is that it's perfectly natural to question their legal status and will remain as such as long as the issue still hasn't been settled in a court of law.

Bolton Peck has had his case settled, that makes it perfectly natural to question why he brings the issue into public. See the difference?
Jump...
#56 Janne
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 56Janne19-Jun-2003 07:06 GMT
Comment 57samface19-Jun-2003 12:32 GMT
Back to Top