[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 137 of 250 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2003 13:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 119 (samface): > "Appendix A specifies that the list of products can be expanded only 'with the
> consent of Amiga'. Absent evidence of such consent, one could persuasively argue
> that Amiga is under no obligation to integrate the Licensed Software into any
> Thendic product not listed in Appendix A, including Pegasos."
Exactly. One could argue that. This is what the case is all about, or rather whether ainc has "unreasonably" withheld their consent. There's nothing that's "obviously not true". Both Thendic and Ainc, and to an infinitely greater extent you, have IMO failed to *persuasively* argue in favor of their respective OPINION.
Your claiming that ainc has NOT unreasonably withheld consent BECAUSE they have withheld consent (and instead proposed another deal outside of the contract they signed and which is up for judgement here) is... Well, it defies description! |
|
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.
|