[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 184 of 250 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 22-Dec-2003 21:42 GMT | In reply to Comment 173 (Tigger): > First of all, given the low royalties that Amiga Inc is receiving from sales
> of AmigaONe now (obviously affected by the free OS4.0 issue), I'm not sure
> cutting sales on Amigaones vs royalties on Pegasus is loss situation.
> Especially if we factor in the OS4 coupons that are currently outstanding,
> each representing a net loss to Amiga given they already spent the money,
> and there value exceeds the royalty Amiga Inc will receive.
That's extremely convoluted logic, depending on a whole bunch of "ifs" and "buts". I suspect any court judge would dismiss it as speculation.
> I agree they dont own DE, but Bill claims they have employees (about a dozen
> all unpaid for over a year now), and if they cant do it, given who has left
> the company, I have trouble believing they could have done a port in December
> of 2000, when they signed the contract. That may be a big sticking point, if
> Amiga promised contractually to do something they couldnt do legally, its a
> pretty big issue, and frankly Bill was getting close to suggesting that in his
> letter about the 250K.
Well, you're not normally inclined to believe what Bill claims, so why start now?
As for whether it was a sensible and doable contract when it was signed, who knows, but it may well be that like many other things they did, they signed it and crossed their fingers hoping everything would work out OK. It didn't, partly because of bad luck, and partly because of gross incompetence.
However, whether it was doable or not is not the issue until the judge decides that it has to be done. At this point, that's just a claim, not a judgement. |
|
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.
|