| [Web] Amiga Inc. is in danger of insolvency and the Amiga brand again faces uncertainty. | ANN.lu |
|
| List of all comments to this article |
| Amiga Inc. is in danger of insolvency and the Amiga brand again faces uncertainty. : Comment 84 of 120 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by T_Bone on 24-Sep-2003 09:53 GMT | In reply to Comment 80 (samface):
> I'd say the last definition is the most simple and best applied to this case.
It hardly matters which one you choose, they all fit to a "T"
> What I wanted to point out is that this article implies that they would be in
> a situation where a liquidation of the company would be the only solution.
No, the article clearly states that as a "Maybe", and as you should know by now, any sentence constructed around a "Maybe" when that "Maybe" is a possibility, is a logical tautology. It's always true, regardless of the input conditions pertaining to the "Maybe". ie: if you state something CAN happen, and it CAN, the statement is "true".
I'm not critisising your logic, I think it's far more likely that there are logical nuances that are getting lost in the translation. I can't blame you for that, because if I tried argueing in your native language, I'm sure I wouldn't do too well :D
> This is simply not a fact and as Bill McEwan tried to explain at his
> deposition; they expect to be able to resolve this situation.
You say the article implies, well, it doesn't. Bill McEwen is doing the "implying" when he says he "expects" things to change, even though he couldn't prove it to the judge. The source of "implication" is McEwen, not the article.
> The fact that this part has been left out in the article tells me that it is
> far from unbiased.
Why would the article contain something McEwen couldn't comment on? He said it was a "secret" so how could the article reasonably state this?
> Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not file any complaints at the time of when
> the defendant asked to reschedule the deposition and both parties agreed to
> the new date. Why has this part been left out?
Because it was already mentioned in the court documents why, and there is no legal reason why it SHOULD have been brought up at that time.
> Also, Amiga Inc. made it perfectly clear to their employees from the start
> that the company is an investment company, meaning that they may run out of
> funds at times.
Well, not ALL the employees, as the court has already decided.
> When a company has no funds, it cannot pay anything or anyone. Everyone
> working for Amiga Inc. where perfectly aware of the risks involved. The court
> even agreed to Amiga Inc.'s plans to pay once the funds become available.
No, the court didn't "agree" to it, the court "demanded" it.
As for being an investment company (I've said this before) the *investers* are the ones who are agreeing to "risk" with their investments, NOT the employees, or the creditors! Or (for crying out loud) the customers! Only the *investors* are supposed to be exposed to risk, that's why they call them "investors"
Amiga Inc has *no* right to subject customers, creditors, or employees money to investment risk! NO legal right. ALL risk is to be burdoned on investors. That's the LAW!
> You see, putting Amiga Inc. in a liquidation process will not benefit any of
> those who Amiga Inc. are in debt to because you cannot find a better guarantee
> for not getting your money back. Why is there no mention of this?
Because nobody WANTS Amiga to liquidate! Not even Genesi! Genesi is sueing to get Amiga to honor it's contract, and actually GIVE Amiga money.
> Since the court decided that Amiga Inc. may pay those debts whenever funds
> become available, the court obviously thinks that Amiga Inc. are still in a
> position of resolving the situation, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to
> continue.
What are you talking about? The court unconditionally decided Amiga is fully liable for the plaintiffs complaint, and was ordered to pay. There was no "bankrupcy" option. This has absolutely NO bearing on the courts opinion of Amiga's credibility.
> Yet the article states that "the future of the legendary Amiga brand and
> intellectual property is once again uncertain". I couldn't disagree more.
How can you disagree with "uncertain"? It's a logical tautology! Regardless of the input conditions, the uncertainty is "true"
Is Amiga's sucess 100% certain? No
Is Amiga's failure 100% certain? No
Therefore, it's "uncertain" and any statements saying it's "uncertain" are true. Always. |
|
| List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
