28-Mar-2024 21:05 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
Comment 41Sammy Nordström27-Jul-2004 09:53 GMT
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
Motion for Relief from Judgement: DENIED : Comment 52 of 52ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 28-Jul-2004 10:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Johan Rönnblom):
>Sammy, you have a short memory. Read those files you have on your site
>again. In those, McEwen clearly states that there is *no* intent
>whatsoever to comply with the contract and that AInc don't consider
>themselves forced to do so, for various reasons.

There is nothing wrong with my memory. Trying to nullify the contract and/or questioning it's validity is NOT the same thing as violating the terms of the contract. Furthermore, they didn't feel forced to make support for the Pegasos because they never recieved a request from "Thendic" to begin with, which remains true to this day. That is not a violation of the contract. On the contrary, it's in full accordance with the terms of the contract.

>Now it's clear that:
>
>- Unlike what McEwen stated under oath, and many others repeated
>everywhere, KMOS/AInc *must* comply with this license.

Put a spin to the story, why don't you? They questioned the validity of the agreement with regards to wether it would include the Pegasos or not.
Furthermore, they wanted to have the agreement nullified since the Plaintiff had repeatedly violated the paragraphs regarding the use of the Amiga trademarks. None of this classifies as claiming that they wouldn't have to comply with the license. On the contrary, they acknowledged the contract in the sense that their defense was based on the terms of the contract, even counter-sued the Plaintiffs for violating the contract.

>- Unlike what many people claimed here and elsewhere, Genesi *do* have
>the right to use the Amiga Operating System trademark, for example on
>their webpage. And they have had this right for as long as the
>contract has existed.

Bullocks. They only have rights for the AmigaDE trademark and only in association with the AmigaDE and AmigaDE licensed products. Please spare us your "interpretations".
Jump...
TopPrevious commentbottom
Back to Top