21-Feb-2024 18:07 GMT.
[News] Amiga vs Thendic Update: Genesi fights back!ANN.lu
Posted on 27-Mar-2004 18:34 GMT by samface (Edited on 2004-03-29 02:28:03 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselä)143 comments
View flat
View list

From http://www.mindrelease.net/amiga-thendic/#65:

REPLY in Support of Motion filed by Plaintiffs Genesi Sarl, Thendic Electronics Components re 49 MOTION to Modify the Order Granting Specific Performance, (LT, ) (Entered: 03/25/2004)


Richard Hughes, Attorney for "Thendic", accuses Bill McEwen of perjury, refering to Bill McEwen's deposition taken on August 14, 2003, nearly four months following the sale Amiga's OS system to Itec wherein he testifies that Amiga's assets included its Intellectual Property Rights to AmigaOS.

Bill Buck testifies as a person with "'a unique knowledge base regarding Amiga'", refering to the days of when he was the CEO of a company that was partnered with ESCOM to develop and promote The Amiga Operating System through a hardware platform, claiming that "'applications such as a web-browser, an MP3 player, and a mail client are application programs that adhere to an operating system just as Microsoft Outlook Express is an e-mail application that works with Windows'". Furthermore, he concludes that "'If the Amiga DE Operating System did not include an operating system and was touted as beeing only an "application" as Amiga now contends, it could not have been promised or discussed integration of Java, MP3 and mail client as stated in the ("Agreement")'".

Bill Buck claims that he was the one who suggested that the Amiga Operating system and the AmigaDE should be seperate enteties as an explanation to his "'Amiga OS is an operating system, DE is something different that makes alot of things work in other than Amiga operating system environments'" statement.

Bill Bucks states: "'I believe the mail attributed to 'Fleecy Moss' was and still is from Fleecy Moss"'.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1priest27-Mar-2004 17:55 GMT
Comment 2Ketzer27-Mar-2004 17:59 GMT
Comment 3René W, Olsen27-Mar-2004 18:05 GMT
Comment 4Emeric SH27-Mar-2004 18:11 GMT
Comment 5Kjetil27-Mar-2004 18:22 GMT
Comment 6Ketzer27-Mar-2004 18:33 GMT
Comment 7XraalE27-Mar-2004 18:38 GMT
Comment 8priest27-Mar-2004 18:41 GMT
Comment 9samface27-Mar-2004 18:49 GMT
Comment 10NihilVor27-Mar-2004 18:49 GMT
Comment 11Ketzer27-Mar-2004 18:56 GMT
Comment 12Joe "Floid" Kanowitz27-Mar-2004 19:03 GMT
Comment 13Ketzer27-Mar-2004 19:15 GMT
Comment 14samface27-Mar-2004 19:19 GMT
Comment 15Ketzer27-Mar-2004 19:20 GMT
Comment 16samface27-Mar-2004 19:22 GMT
Comment 17Joe "Floid" Kanowitz27-Mar-2004 19:22 GMT
Comment 18Anonymous27-Mar-2004 19:31 GMT
Comment 19Joe "Floid" Kanowitz27-Mar-2004 19:38 GMT
Comment 20Ketzer27-Mar-2004 19:39 GMT
Comment 21T_Bone27-Mar-2004 19:43 GMT
Comment 22Anonymous27-Mar-2004 19:45 GMT
Comment 23Ketzer27-Mar-2004 19:48 GMT
Comment 24Emeric SH27-Mar-2004 19:54 GMT
Comment 25Joe27-Mar-2004 20:12 GMT
Comment 26samface27-Mar-2004 20:14 GMT
Comment 27samface27-Mar-2004 20:21 GMT
Comment 28samface27-Mar-2004 20:24 GMT
Comment 29Anonymous27-Mar-2004 20:32 GMT
Comment 30samface27-Mar-2004 21:14 GMT
Comment 31samface27-Mar-2004 21:17 GMT
Comment 32Anonymous27-Mar-2004 21:41 GMT
Comment 33Dan27-Mar-2004 21:59 GMT
Comment 34EyeAm27-Mar-2004 22:12 GMT
Comment 35Joe "Floid" Kanowitz27-Mar-2004 22:19 GMT
Comment 36Peter Gordon27-Mar-2004 22:22 GMT
Comment 37Peter Gordon27-Mar-2004 22:30 GMT
Comment 38samface27-Mar-2004 22:57 GMT
Comment 39Jim Henson28-Mar-2004 01:56 GMT
Comment 40EyeAm28-Mar-2004 01:50 GMT
Comment 41Joe "Floid" Kanowitz28-Mar-2004 01:56 GMT
Comment 42Nicolas Mendoza28-Mar-2004 02:28 GMT
Comment 43Interesting28-Mar-2004 05:13 GMT
Comment 44Interesting28-Mar-2004 05:16 GMT
Comment 45Gru28-Mar-2004 05:46 GMT
Comment 46Bill Toner28-Mar-2004 06:31 GMT
Comment 47Bill Toner28-Mar-2004 06:32 GMT
Comment 48hammer28-Mar-2004 06:34 GMT
Comment 49hammer28-Mar-2004 06:41 GMT
Comment 50hammer28-Mar-2004 06:41 GMT
Comment 51hammer28-Mar-2004 06:48 GMT
Comment 52hooligan/dcsRegistered user28-Mar-2004 08:16 GMT
Comment 53Lamer28-Mar-2004 08:29 GMT
Comment 54Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user28-Mar-2004 08:45 GMT
Comment 55Anonymous Orc28-Mar-2004 09:00 GMT
Comment 56The_Editor28-Mar-2004 09:57 GMT
Comment 57skyraker28-Mar-2004 10:14 GMT
Comment 58Ketzer28-Mar-2004 10:27 GMT
Comment 59Lando28-Mar-2004 10:33 GMT
Comment 60skyraker28-Mar-2004 10:37 GMT
Comment 61hooligan/dcsRegistered user28-Mar-2004 10:37 GMT
Comment 62Don CoxRegistered user28-Mar-2004 10:49 GMT
Comment 63Ketzer28-Mar-2004 11:09 GMT
Comment 64Ketzer28-Mar-2004 11:11 GMT
Comment 65Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user28-Mar-2004 11:11 GMT
Comment 66samface28-Mar-2004 11:19 GMT
Comment 67Don CoxRegistered user28-Mar-2004 11:32 GMT
Comment 68KenHRegistered user28-Mar-2004 11:47 GMT
Comment 69Kronos28-Mar-2004 11:54 GMT
Comment 70Graham_nli28-Mar-2004 12:05 GMT
Comment 71Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:07 GMT
Comment 72Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:12 GMT
Comment 73Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:13 GMT
Comment 74Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:14 GMT
Comment 75Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:17 GMT
Comment 76Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:19 GMT
Comment 77Anonymous28-Mar-2004 12:25 GMT
Comment 78Don CoxRegistered user28-Mar-2004 12:28 GMT
Comment 79Don CoxRegistered user28-Mar-2004 12:30 GMT
Comment 80samface28-Mar-2004 12:30 GMT
Comment 81Gru28-Mar-2004 13:18 GMT
Comment 82Bodie28-Mar-2004 14:14 GMT
Comment 83Gareth Knight28-Mar-2004 14:31 GMT
Comment 84samface28-Mar-2004 15:08 GMT
Comment 85Bill Toner28-Mar-2004 15:30 GMT
Comment 86samface28-Mar-2004 15:51 GMT
Comment 87Framiga28-Mar-2004 15:54 GMT
Comment 88Interesting28-Mar-2004 16:14 GMT
Comment 89MIKE28-Mar-2004 16:16 GMT
Comment 90Interesting28-Mar-2004 16:21 GMT
Comment 91Interesting28-Mar-2004 16:25 GMT
Comment 92Jupp328-Mar-2004 18:50 GMT
Comment 93Joe "Floid" Kanowitz28-Mar-2004 19:59 GMT
Comment 94hammer28-Mar-2004 20:52 GMT
Comment 953seas28-Mar-2004 21:06 GMT
Comment 96Anonymous28-Mar-2004 21:20 GMT
Comment 97abcd28-Mar-2004 23:38 GMT
Comment 98GregS29-Mar-2004 00:28 GMT
Comment 99T1k29-Mar-2004 01:14 GMT
Comment 100gary_c29-Mar-2004 01:54 GMT
Comment 101Ray A. AkeyRegistered user29-Mar-2004 02:46 GMT
Comment 102EyeAm29-Mar-2004 03:37 GMT
Comment 103Ketzer29-Mar-2004 04:30 GMT
Amiga vs Thendic Update: Genesi fights back! : Comment 104 of 143ANN.lu
Posted by Gregs on 29-Mar-2004 06:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (gary_c):
I didn't realize you were a lawyer as well as an Amiga computing fan. The personal profile you posted at moobunny fails to mention this, out of modesty, I suppose. ;-) (Just kidding, but it's amazing to me how we get all these layman's analyses of the case, when really nobody knows squat.)

I am no lawyer Gary_c but I have not been spending my life in a closet either, and I tend to read a few books when I get the chance. Far from knowing squat we have about as much as the judge has to go on, even without the transcripts. Submissions are the critical part of any court case outside criminal law, it only requires a bit of application and a small amount of knowledge to make sensible comments.

Opinions that what Bill Mc said constitute perjury, are just that, opinions worth nothing at all. To be perjury requires more than just a sentence that can be interpreted a few different ways, or a question which is so broad that it too could mean a few things. It requires the conscious misleading of the court on issues before it, not some asides along the way.

This at least should be common knowledge, ever heard two people give evidence about an accident to which they were both witnesses? You could be forgiven most of the time in believing that two accidents occurred -- is one a liar and the other honest, it simply does not work out that way in reality. All the various points must be brought together, the issue itself rules out much that is irrelvant to the evidence. In short, perjury is a specific thing, not "lair liar pants on fire" accusation as it has been bandied about here and elsewhere.

Besides which the whole thing turns on rights to IP, one of the more complex areas of law and contracts. Intellectual Property is one of those rare things which can exist in different degrees, can be both in a specific place and in no-place in particular IP exists in rights to it and these can be many and varied, even a royality is a specific right to IP which is possessed.

Now there is an old saying about not attacking the man but the ball, consider it in this case, instead of having a go at my expertise (which is just that of an educated layman), how about instead making a comment on the issues raised. It is not hard to do, it just requires application and a desire to take things on directly in a forthright way.

Greg Schofield
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 105hammer29-Mar-2004 06:52 GMT
Comment 106Amon_ReRegistered user29-Mar-2004 07:10 GMT
Comment 107hammer29-Mar-2004 07:30 GMT
Comment 108EyeAm29-Mar-2004 10:38 GMT
Comment 109Anonymous29-Mar-2004 16:46 GMT
Comment 110Agima29-Mar-2004 17:14 GMT
Comment 111Agima29-Mar-2004 17:25 GMT
Comment 112Graham_nli29-Mar-2004 17:45 GMT
Comment 113ex-red troll29-Mar-2004 18:24 GMT
Comment 114Anonymous29-Mar-2004 19:30 GMT
Comment 115hammer29-Mar-2004 19:34 GMT
Comment 116hammer29-Mar-2004 19:38 GMT
Comment 117Graham_nli29-Mar-2004 23:23 GMT
Comment 118Graham_nli29-Mar-2004 23:24 GMT
Comment 119Nate DownesRegistered user30-Mar-2004 01:41 GMT
Comment 120ex-red troll30-Mar-2004 03:43 GMT
Comment 121Anonymous30-Mar-2004 05:47 GMT
Comment 122pixie30-Mar-2004 07:01 GMT
Comment 123ex-red troll30-Mar-2004 07:11 GMT
Comment 124pixie30-Mar-2004 07:28 GMT
Comment 125ex-red troll30-Mar-2004 07:39 GMT
Comment 126pixie30-Mar-2004 07:45 GMT
Comment 127ex-red troll30-Mar-2004 08:08 GMT
Comment 128pixie30-Mar-2004 08:16 GMT
Comment 129Don CoxRegistered user30-Mar-2004 08:24 GMT
Comment 130Don CoxRegistered user30-Mar-2004 08:27 GMT
Comment 131Graham_nli30-Mar-2004 13:23 GMT
Comment 132Graham_nli30-Mar-2004 13:24 GMT
Comment 133Graham_nli30-Mar-2004 13:26 GMT
Comment 134Nate DownesRegistered user30-Mar-2004 14:01 GMT
Comment 135priest30-Mar-2004 14:23 GMT
Comment 136JKD30-Mar-2004 15:59 GMT
Comment 137Gregg30-Mar-2004 17:40 GMT
Comment 138Anonymous30-Mar-2004 18:10 GMT
Comment 139pixie31-Mar-2004 09:59 GMT
Comment 140Graham_nli31-Mar-2004 12:52 GMT
Comment 141Gregg31-Mar-2004 13:46 GMT
Comment 142Interesting31-Mar-2004 15:27 GMT
Comment 143pixie31-Mar-2004 17:17 GMT
Back to Top