[News] 4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case | ANN.lu |
Posted on 21-Dec-2003 02:32 GMT by samface | 250 comments View flat View list |
There are 4 new filings in the civil docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case, including:
RESPONSE by Defendant Amiga Inc. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
AMENDED REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs (Entered: 12/16/2003)
DECLARATION of Bill Buck filed by Plaintiff Thendic Electronics Components (Entered: 12/16/2003)
ORDER by Judge Robert S Lasnik granting in part 31 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
A highlight from the latest ruling by Judge Lasnik:
Defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, the Court declines to rule on plaintiffs' request for specific performance at this time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is renoted for 1/16/2004. Plaintiffs shall have until Monday, January 12, 2004 to submit a memorandum in response to the issues and concerns raised in this Order. Defendant, if and only if it retains counsel in the interim, may file a reply memorandum no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2004. No extensions shall be given.
Visit the Civil Docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case here.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case : Comment 128 of 250 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Dec-2003 12:39 GMT | Samface: I never said this was a "black and white" case. However, I think it looks bad for AInc, because they don't even seem to have attempted to argue why the addition of Pegasos to the list of supported products would be "unreasonable".
Now, regarding the claim about Pretory SA being "forced into bankruptcy by the French state": This is not so, according to bbrv the bankruptcy was voluntary. However it may be, I don't think the judge will be impressed by McEwen's "evidence" on the matter, considering that:
a) It was sent by him himself, and not by a legal representant for AInc. This is not just a formality since, as the judge points out, McEwen is simply not entitled to represent the company as a whole - he could represent himself as a person only.
b) It was sent only to the court, not to the counsel of the opposing party.
c) The 'evidence' in question consisted of an anonymous 'report', with no clues of who wrote it, where it has been published (if anywhere) or any cues for how to verify the information.
d) Even if true, it would not automatically mean that AInc could ignore their contract.
e) And in any case, the judge has decided that this filing shall be stricken from the case.
So, regarding McEwen's letter asking for 250000 dollars in advance for a port to the Pegasos, sorry but this doesn't really speak in favour of AInc for the following reasons:
a) It doesn't list any reasons at all for why it would be "unreasonable" to include the Pegasos in the existing contract. On the contrary, it shows that McEwen considers it to be technically feasible.
b) Note the date. This is after most of the case should have been over.. McEwen has already been cross-examined by Thendic's lawyer.. suddenly an 'offer' appears. Sorry, but this doesn't exactly prove a willingness to cooperate.
c) Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in advance? Sorry, this sounds more like another way to say "go away", than a serious offer. Considering that McEwen was quite aware that Thendic/Genesi were fully aware of AInc's financial situation, it should be quite obvious that they would never agree to pay such an amount in advance. The "offer" looks just like another way to win some time. IMO, it was a mistake of McEwen to submit it, since AInc will now have a hard time arguing that they can't do it.
d) Again, McEwen says in the letter that only a CE product could be supported, which is nonsensical as AInc are currently selling non-CE products on their homepage. The same goes for handheld vs personal computers btw, they are selling DE for personal computers *right this minute*, come on..
Finally, no I'm sorry but AInc's arguments will have to be submitted by Genesi/Thendic, not by AInc, apart from the questions already posed by the judge. AInc will be able to answer Genesi's arguments, but by then it will be too late to bring up any new reasons. I think it would still be wise of Genesi to counter some "possible" arguments in their response to the judge, but really.. AInc missed their chance to make their case. They will have to hope that the judge does their work for them. |
|
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.
|