24-Apr-2024 02:47 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] Motion for Relief from Judgement: DENIEDANN.lu
Posted on 26-Jul-2004 02:21 GMT by Sammy Nordström52 comments
View flat
View list

The court has finally responed to Amiga Inc.'s motion for relief from judgement; the motion is DENIED. Furthermore, the court clarifies the specific performance granted to the plaintiff.

As always, the court documents are available at:
http://www.mindrelease.net/amiga-thendic

According to a recent interview with Garry Hare, CEO of KMOS, this should conclude this case and KMOS intend to comply with the court ruling.
Quote from http://www.swaug.org.uk/amiwest2004-ghi.php:

Q: On the subject of the law suite, anything to say?

THe law suite is no longer pending, the final ruling was 10 days ago and the judge said that the original agreement stands and all clauses enforced and enforcable. There are a number of implications. We haven't heard anything since from Genesis, Bplan or Pegasos.

The lawyers theory: took so long because court was taking it seriously
My theory: the court forgot about it!

Q: You intend to comply fully?

Judge has been clear, Yes.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Nate DownesRegistered user26-Jul-2004 02:06 GMT
Comment 2JKD26-Jul-2004 04:11 GMT
Comment 3Golem26-Jul-2004 04:40 GMT
Comment 4Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 05:27 GMT
Comment 5hooligan/dcsRegistered user26-Jul-2004 06:38 GMT
Comment 6Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 06:41 GMT
Comment 7Ronald St-Maurice26-Jul-2004 06:54 GMT
Comment 8Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 07:09 GMT
Comment 9John Q Public26-Jul-2004 07:20 GMT
Comment 10Darrin26-Jul-2004 07:52 GMT
Comment 11Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 07:55 GMT
Comment 12Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 08:01 GMT
Comment 13Johan Rönnblom26-Jul-2004 09:17 GMT
Comment 14gary_c26-Jul-2004 09:18 GMT
Comment 15Anonymous26-Jul-2004 10:32 GMT
Comment 16gary_c26-Jul-2004 10:37 GMT
Comment 17Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 10:57 GMT
Comment 18Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 11:00 GMT
Comment 19priest26-Jul-2004 11:12 GMT
Comment 20Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 11:23 GMT
Comment 21Anonymous26-Jul-2004 11:33 GMT
Comment 22Anonymous26-Jul-2004 11:34 GMT
Comment 23Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 11:44 GMT
Comment 24Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 11:52 GMT
Comment 25Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 11:55 GMT
Comment 26priest26-Jul-2004 12:01 GMT
Comment 27Sammy Nordström26-Jul-2004 12:12 GMT
Comment 28Ketzer26-Jul-2004 12:49 GMT
Comment 29Anonymous26-Jul-2004 13:09 GMT
Comment 30Johan Rönnblom26-Jul-2004 13:52 GMT
Comment 31MIKE26-Jul-2004 14:34 GMT
Comment 32Elwood26-Jul-2004 14:41 GMT
Comment 33Kronos26-Jul-2004 14:42 GMT
Comment 34hooligan/dcsRegistered user26-Jul-2004 15:34 GMT
Comment 35Darth_XRegistered user26-Jul-2004 16:21 GMT
Comment 36Nate DownesRegistered user26-Jul-2004 17:47 GMT
Comment 37Kronos26-Jul-2004 18:58 GMT
Comment 38Anonymous26-Jul-2004 23:58 GMT
Comment 39Anonymous27-Jul-2004 06:24 GMT
Comment 40gary_c27-Jul-2004 08:52 GMT
Motion for Relief from Judgement: DENIED : Comment 41 of 52ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 27-Jul-2004 09:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Johan Rönnblom):
Sigh... More "neutral information" from our own "Ami-Sverker"...

>Clause 5.1 of the contract only refers to "schematics" which are
>"reasonably necessary, in Thendic's discretion, for Amiga to integrate
>the Licensed Software into Thendic's products."

This I agree with, but then you continue...

>Thus, there's no need
>to provide anything beyond the OpenFirmware specs, as it is not
>necessary.

What in god's name got you to this conclusion? You think that all you need for writing hardware drivers for a specific hardware device is a specification of the firmware? You think that firmware specifications classifies as "hardware schematics"? Oh my...

>Also, as the clause clearly says: "However, Amiga is, and at all
>times shall remain, responsible for integrating its DE Operating
>System, which may include, but is not limited to, a Java enabled
>browser, MP3, and a mail client, into any of Thendic's products."

Yes, but there is a specific clause in the agreement, which is just as enforceable, that specifies the conditions that "Thendic" must comply with when requesting support for a new device that is not on the list of supported devices.

>So, Genesi can clearly request a port to the Pegasos 2, no problem. As
>for the alleged failure of Genesi to provide this information until
>now, well, that's of course debatable. But it seems that to pursue
>this further, Genesi need to provide undisputable proof that they have
>taken the steps necessary. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to
>deliver the information and request to Garry Hare personally at
>AmiWest. Seems like a missed opportunity, really.

Again, a registered letter should do the job just fine.

>KMOS/AInc's problem, which I'm not really sure if Genesi intend to
>pursue further, is of course that this won't provide Genesi with an
>"operating system". And that's what the contract expressly specifies,
>and also what the judge refers to now. So even if KMOS/AInc would
>deliver AmigaDE, it seems there's still room for Genesi to complain
>further when what they are delivered turns out not to be any operating
>system at all.

The contract specified the AmigaDE as an operating system. Wether it from a technical standpoint actually is an operating system on it's own or not is irrelevant. "Thendic" agreed to the terminology used in the agreement when they signed it.
Jump...
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 42Anonymous27-Jul-2004 10:21 GMT
Comment 43Sammy Nordström27-Jul-2004 10:25 GMT
Comment 44gary_c27-Jul-2004 12:07 GMT
Comment 45Sammy Nordström27-Jul-2004 12:50 GMT
Comment 46gary_c28-Jul-2004 01:17 GMT
Comment 47Sammy Nordström28-Jul-2004 06:09 GMT
Comment 48Olegil28-Jul-2004 06:10 GMT
Comment 49Alfred Schwarz28-Jul-2004 06:37 GMT
Comment 50Johan Rönnblom28-Jul-2004 08:01 GMT
Comment 51Ketzer28-Jul-2004 08:34 GMT
Comment 52Sammy Nordström28-Jul-2004 10:22 GMT
Back to Top