24-Apr-2024 14:45 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 263 items in your selection (but only 63 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 263]
[News] Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003.ANN.lu
Posted on 16-Nov-2003 08:23 GMT by Rich Woods263 comments
View flat
View list
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003 in Washington Federal District Court. Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003 in Washington Federal District Court.

It also looks like Amiga is again without counsel.

"This matter comes before the Court on "Plantiffs' Motion for Judgement and dismissal of Counter Claims for Lack of Representation." Although corporations must be represented by counsel, defendant's failure to retain new counsel has not yet been given rise to a sanctionable failure to prosecute. Plantiff's motion for judgement and dismissal of the counterclaims is DENIED. Defendant must, however, obtain counsel to defend this litigation if it hopes to avoid an adverse ruling on plaantiff's pending motion for summary judgement.

DATED this 7th day of November,2003.

/s/ robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Get it here .

Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 201 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 192 (samface):
Who exactly is making a HW independent OS? Amiga Inc?
AmigaDE is not their OS, it's TAOs.
OS4 is NOT multiplatform.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 202 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 196 (samface):
Sorry, bPlan *IS* Genesi...
It's actually the German part of it... Genesi != BBRV. Genesi = bPlan+Thendic+
management.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 203 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 196 (samface):
How come you think you know this as facts when you are only assuming this based on the little information you have?
--

Are you calling Mr McEwen a liar? Yes, you are... :-)
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 204 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 198 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
That's like saying that Amiga Inc. is not competing with Genesi, only former bPlan's hardware and software. Besides, do you seriously believe that AmigaOS4 and the AmigaOne would exist without Amiga Inc.?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 205 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 199 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
>Dunno about you but most people here accused him for removing pages.

Yet, the one and only to finally confirm the documents authenticity by publishing the complete civil docket, taken straight from the court's elektronic case files archive, is the one asked to apologize to Rich Woods. Life is full of irony, isn't it?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 206 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 204 (samface):
AmigaOne? Sure, just without the name.
AmigaOS4 needed AmigaInc till the contract with Hyperion was signed...
Hyperion does NOT need AmigaInc to develop OS4 anymore.
If you don't call Mr Hermans a liar too, that is (you already called McEwen
one).
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 207 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 203 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
No, the one claiming that Amiga Inc. would have no employees is.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 208 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 206 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
You are avoiding the question, do you really believe any of those products would exist without Amiga Inc.?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 209 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 207 (samface):
Sorry, Bill McEwen stated that they have no offices, money or paid employees
in one of the documents you posted. So, YOU call him a liar...
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 210 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 208 (samface):
I did answer, open your eyes.
AmigaONE, yes, AmigaOS4, no.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 211 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 19-Nov-2003 13:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 208 (samface):
Actually, without Amiga, Inc both of those products would have shipped already.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 212 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 209 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Alkis, read the documents again. Bill McEwen clearly states that they do have employees, positioned in several countries including my own (Sweden).
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 213 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 212 (samface):
Read my comment again...

"... no offices, money or paid employees ..."

Noticed a word? "Paid"? :-)
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 214 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 210 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
I seriously doubt that. Eyetech's plans for making PPC expansion boards for the A4000 and the A1200 were dropped some time ago due to Escena's inability to deliver and it is not very likely that they would have partnered with MAI (and that other far eastern company, whoever they are) if it was not for Amiga Inc.'s and Hyperions demand for new PPC hardware suitable for AmigaOS4.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 215 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 211 (Nate Downes):
In what ways have Amiga Inc. delayed the delivery of those products?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 216 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 13:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 213 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Read the full post, especially the part where he writes "no employees".
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 217 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 214 (samface):
Don't forget that without OS4, there would still be MorphOS and there could be
an H&P offer.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 218 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2003 13:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 216 (samface):
An employee that is not being paid is not an employee in most countries, including mine. He/she is a freelancer.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 219 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 19-Nov-2003 14:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 215 (samface):
By failing to negotiate in good faith for the rights to the name.

(Reminder here folk, the first use of the name AmigaONE was made by a small german company freshly created by former Phase5 employees, called bPlan)
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 220 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 14:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 218 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
They are employed, as in have signed contracts of employmency. I don't know about you, but signed contracts of employmency and voluntary work are two completely different things.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 221 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 19-Nov-2003 14:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 220 (samface):
Contracts of employment also requires payment for services. If no payment is made, then the contract is terminated, by most countries rules including the US's.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 222 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 14:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 219 (Nate Downes):
>By failing to negotiate in good faith for the rights to the name.

In that case, the blame is just as much bPlan's, wouldn't you say?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 223 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 14:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 221 (Nate Downes):
If the employee brings the issue to court, yes. A contract cannot be terminated until both parties has agreed to doing so or until a court has decided that the contract is no longer valid.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 224 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 19-Nov-2003 14:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 192 (samface):
Samface wrote:
> Still caught up in the hardware oriented thinking, I see. Well, I thought I could get you to see things out of a more software oriented view.

No problem; in terms of software -- including everything that's underway -- there's also more activity involving the Pegasos as far as I can tell.

> You see, while Genesi seems to be focused on creating this new OS independant hardware, Amiga seems to focus a bit more on creating a hardware independant OS.

I realize that was the initial white paper. But I haven't seen much tangible progress other than Hyperion's work on AOS4. It seems to me the roadmap beyond that is pretty speculative. Apparently even AmigaDE, which was supposed to be Amiga's main product, is coming along extremely slowly. This tends to make me think that it's rather unrealistic to say what will or will not happen beyond it.

> So, while the Pegasos seems to be more attractive from a PPC hardware oriented user's point of view (more OS's to choose from on the same platform), the AmigaOS seems to be more attractive from a OS oriented user's point of view (more hardware to choose from for the same OS).

Yet we read about how Tao is actually reducing the number of chips Intent supports (as Bill McEwen testified, saying the number could fall even further). This doesn't exactly instill confidense about future hardware options, does it?

> Many people choose the x86 platform because of the cheap and fast performing hardware, but there is also alot of people choosing the x86 platform because they want Windows (I know, people are stupid ;-)). It all depends on what type of users you target and which strategy that is going to be the most successful one remains to be seen.

Yes, this is just what I've been saying. I wouldn't want to argue about future unknowns any further. We can just see how things turn out.

> You with me yet?

I'm afraid your case still isn't pursuasive. It seems to be based on concepts expressed by Amiga staff back when they had the luxury of taking the long view. Now they seem unobtainable as a practical matter, even if they were possible in technical and marketing terms, which is very dubious.

-- gary_c
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 225 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 14:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 217 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
I don't think Eyetech would even consider 600 users as a viable business. Furthermore, they have tried negotiating with bPlan and H&P before, why would those negotiations have been more successful without Amiga Inc.?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 226 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 19-Nov-2003 14:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 224 (gary_c):
Well, since I don't think negative things about one option is going to make the other any better, please spare me those old and many times repeated anti-Amiga Inc. arguments. I will not go for an OS independant hardware solution no matter how many adversities the hardware independant solution bumps into, especially when the adversities is not caused by the hardware independant solution to begin with.

Anyway, all I ever wanted to point out is that your arguments were rather subjective and depending on wether you are a software or hardware oriented user. There is no benefit of having a computer capable of running nearly all operating systems besides the one you want/need if you are a software oriented user.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 227 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Kemp on 19-Nov-2003 15:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 221 (Nate Downes):
In Luxembourg, as far as I'm aware, even just being late with the monthly check (or bank transfer, rather) makes the company liable to paying a (considerable) fine.

I guess this entire discussion depends on the definition of "employee"... I would agree with the majority of people on here that "employee" refers to a situation where a regular amount of money goes from a company to a person in exchange for services rendered.

From what I gather (and anyone can feel free to correct me with factual information), the current Amiga Inc./Bill McEwen definition of "employee" is that of people doing work for them, but not necessarily of these people being rewarded by a predetermined and timely-paid amount of money. It would be interesting to see if any of the people currently doing work on any Amiga Inc,. project have other employers, or other sources of income.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 228 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 19-Nov-2003 15:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 223 (samface):
 Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 223 of 227




Posted by samface (131.116.254.197) on 19-Nov-2003 15:19:53

In Reply to Comment 221:
If the employee brings the issue to court, yes. A contract cannot be terminated until both parties has agreed to doing so or until a court has decided that the contract is no longer valid.
---------------
How about a cite of law? Like simple basic contract law sammyface?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 229 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 19-Nov-2003 20:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 227 (Christian Kemp):
Posted by Christian Kemp (Trusted user) on 19-Nov-2003 16:02:45

In Reply to Comment 221:
In Luxembourg, as far as I'm aware, even just being late with the monthly check (or bank transfer, rather) makes the company liable to paying a (considerable) fine.

I guess this entire discussion depends on the definition of "employee"... I would agree with the majority of people on here that "employee" refers to a situation where a regular amount of money goes from a company to a person in exchange for services rendered.

---------------------
I went over this in another thread - with the lega definition of an "employee".
In the US if your paid and you have an employement contract you're an employee with all the rights thereoff. (And lack of rights - in the "right to work" states - of which Arizona and Nevada are several).

To say you're an employee and are not getting paid negates the efinition of "employee".

Perhaps sammyface can research the difinition of "employee" both here in the US and also in the EU - I am sure the EU has a comman efinition of employee.

Also sammyface the death or disability of a person can negate contracts.

-------------
From what I gather (and anyone can feel free to correct me with factual information), the current Amiga Inc./Bill McEwen definition of "employee" is that of people doing work for them, but not necessarily of these people being rewarded by a predetermined and timely-paid amount of money. It would be

-------------
Maybe sammyface might find this interesting in his legal pursuit of knowledge...

http://faculty.gvc.edu/ssnyder/404/studyguide.html

-------------
Sammyfce might find this interesting also in his pursuit of the law...

http://www.lectlaw.com/d-d.htm

------------
EMPLOYEE - A person who is hired by another person or business for a wage or fixed payment in exchange for personal services and who does not provide the services as part of an independent business; Any individual employed by an employer.
--------------
Above is a legal definition

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e009.htm
------------
Maybe sammy face can loook up the definition of "altered" and "left out" and do a crituque of both as would be legally defined.

He could also look up FIRST - in regards to his posting the court documents "first".

Another interesting world might be "liar".
--------------


interesting to see if any of the people currently doing work on any Amiga Inc,. project have other employers, or other sources of income.

----------------
Of course they do, peake, akey and the rest aren't paying their bills while waiting for "another round of funding" - only a fool would "work" for nothing. bills have to be paid somehow.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 230 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 19-Nov-2003 20:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 228 (Rich Woods):
shutup, Dick head
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 231 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 19-Nov-2003 20:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 227 (Christian Kemp):
Posted by Christian Kemp (Trusted user) on 19-Nov-2003 16:02:45

In Reply to Comment 221:
In Luxembourg, as far as I'm aware, even just being late with the monthly check (or bank transfer, rather) makes the company liable to paying a (considerable) fine.

I guess this entire discussion depends on the definition of "employee"... I would agree with the majority of people on here that "employee" refers to a situation where a regular amount of money goes from a company to a person in exchange for services rendered.

---------------------
I went over this in another thread - with the lega definition of an "employee".
In the US if your paid and you have an employement contract you're an employee with all the rights thereoff. (And lack of rights - in the "right to work" states - of which Arizona and Nevada are several).

To say you're an employee and are not getting paid negates the efinition of "employee".

Perhaps sammyface can research the difinition of "employee" both here in the US and also in the EU - I am sure the EU has a comman efinition of employee.

Also sammyface the death or disability of a person can negate contracts.

-------------
From what I gather (and anyone can feel free to correct me with factual information), the current Amiga Inc./Bill McEwen definition of "employee" is that of people doing work for them, but not necessarily of these people being rewarded by a predetermined and timely-paid amount of money. It would be

-------------
Maybe sammyface might find this interesting in his legal pursuit of knowledge...

http://faculty.gvc.edu/ssnyder/404/studyguide.html

-------------
Sammyfce might find this interesting also in his pursuit of the law...

http://www.lectlaw.com/d-d.htm

------------
EMPLOYEE - A person who is hired by another person or business for a wage or fixed payment in exchange for personal services and who does not provide the services as part of an independent business; Any individual employed by an employer.
--------------
Above is a legal definition

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e009.htm
------------
Maybe sammy face can loook up the definition of "altered" and "left out" and do a crituque of both as would be legally defined.

He could also look up FIRST - in regards to his posting the court documents "first".

Another interesting world might be "liar".
--------------


interesting to see if any of the people currently doing work on any Amiga Inc,. project have other employers, or other sources of income.

----------------
Of course they do, peake, akey and the rest aren't paying their bills while waiting for "another round of funding" - only a fool would "work" for nothing. bills have to be paid somehow.

Opps -

EMPLOYER - A person or business who pays a wage or fixed payment to other person(s) in exchange for the services of such persons.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 232 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 20-Nov-2003 00:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 226 (samface):
samface wrote:
> Well, since I don't think negative things about one option is going to make the other any better, please spare me those old and many times repeated anti-Amiga Inc. arguments.

I just responded to your points. I guess if you don't want to hear the arguments, don't bring up the subject.

> I will not go for an OS independant hardware solution no matter how many adversities the hardware independant solution bumps into, especially when the adversities is not caused by the hardware independant solution to begin with.

> I don't think of the Pegasos as an "OS-independent" hardware solution, but rather as an "OS-rich" hardware solution. While people will have the option of running OpenBSD or Linux or OpenBeOS or AROS, etc., MorphOS is still the crown jewel and will remain so for many users and applications.

> Anyway, all I ever wanted to point out is that your arguments were rather subjective and depending on wether you are a software or hardware oriented user. There is no benefit of having a computer capable of running nearly all operating systems besides the one you want/need if you are a software oriented user.

Right. If you want to run AmigaOS4(TM), then the Pegasos isn't the right hardware choice, at least not unless the companies decide to make that an option.

-- gary_c
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 233 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 20-Nov-2003 02:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 232 (gary_c):
Oops, sorry. This paragraph was marked as a quote, but these are my words, not Samface's:

I don't think of the Pegasos as an "OS-independent" hardware solution, but rather as an "OS-rich" hardware solution. While people will have the option of running OpenBSD or Linux or OpenBeOS or AROS, etc., MorphOS is still the crown jewel and will remain so for many users and applications.

-- gary_c
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 234 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 20-Nov-2003 05:03 GMT
I was just looking at Samface's documents, and I discovered something interesting: the date where Genesi wants a summary judgement, ie this Friday, is also the date the discovery phase of the trial is supposed to end. Could it be that Genesi doesn't want the judge to look at the evidence too closely?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 235 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 20-Nov-2003 06:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 234 (Anonymous):
> I was just looking at Samface's documents, and I discovered something interesting: the date where Genesi wants a summary judgement, ie this Friday, is also the date the discovery phase of the trial is supposed to end. Could it be that Genesi doesn't want the judge to look at the evidence too closely?

As I understand it, a summary judgement is based on facts in the case that are not in dispute. It seems this would make it impossible for Genesi to try to win the case the way you are suggesting. Also, I don't think a ploy as obvious as manipulating deadlines would be looked on very favorably by the court. :-/

-- gary_c
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 236 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Tigger on 20-Nov-2003 06:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 234 (Anonymous):
>>>>
I was just looking at Samface's documents, and I discovered something interesting: the date where Genesi wants a summary judgement, ie this Friday, is also the date the discovery phase of the trial is supposed to end. Could it be that Genesi doesn't want the judge to look at the evidence too closely?
>>>>
Samface's documents, thats great. Thats also a silly theory, first of all the judge has already looked at all the evidence presented so far in the case, he has made comments about the evidence in regard to the motions. Amiga Inc's lawyers left 2 months ago, McEwen personally filed yesterday for a two month extension because he still does not have legal counsel so nothing new on discovery from Amiga Inc. McEwen also is about to get that funding according to his note to the judge yesterday, just like he has been about to get funding since August 2002. Same story for 16 months now, you have to love that. Unless the judge is even more incredibly lenient then he has already been, he is going to rule for Thendic on Friday, two weeks ago he basically gave McEwen his last chance, and McEwen didnt take the gift and get himself a lawyer. He didnt catch on that:

"Defendant must, however, obtain counsel to defend this litigation if it hopes to avoid an adverse ruling on the plaintiffs' pending motion for summary judgment."

Would be a bad thing for Amiga Inc. Instead he still doesnt get a lawyer, files on his own behalf to obtain an extension on a case he has already stretched way out (as he has done with all his court cases).
-Tig
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 237 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 20-Nov-2003 18:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 236 (Tigger):
Posted by Tigger (68.62.180.102) on 20-Nov-2003 07:55:45

In Reply to Comment 234:
>>>>

"Defendant must, however, obtain counsel to defend this litigation if it hopes to avoid an adverse ruling on the plaintiffs' pending motion for summary judgment."

Diana S Shukis
CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN
524 2ND AVE
STE 500
SEATTLE, WA 98104-2323
206-587-0700
FAX 587-2308 (fax)
  Assigned: 02/06/2003
  TERMINATED: 10/03/2003
  LEAD ATTORNEY
  ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing

Amiga Inc
(Defendant)

Stephen P VanDerhoef
CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN
524 2ND AVE
STE 500
SEATTLE, WA 98104-2323
206-587-0700
FAX 587-2308 (fax)
  Assigned: 02/06/2003
  TERMINATED: 10/03/2003
  LEAD ATTORNEY

representing

Amiga Inc
(Defendant)

This info can be gotten at sammyface's site:)

(And no - I got this from the court site).

Notice the termination date of the attorneys - 7 weeks ago. I doubt the judge is going to give billyboy ANOTHER 8 weeks to get his "round of funding" and as he puts it "council" (sic).
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 238 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 20-Nov-2003 18:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 235 (gary_c):
>As I understand it, a summary judgement is based on facts in the case that are
>not in dispute. It seems this would make it impossible for Genesi to try to
>win the case the way you are suggesting. Also, I don't think a ploy as obvious
>as manipulating deadlines would be looked on very favorably by the court. :-/

That's the thing, what if they *know* that there is evidence, which has not yet been closely examined, which will bring doubt on some of those as-yet undisputed facts? (something like a document contradicting that evidence)

As for "obvious ploys", lawyers play to win. If they think something might have a chance of working, they'll give it a try - sometimes it even does work! (remember OJ's glove?)
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 239 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 20-Nov-2003 22:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 238 (Anonymous):
Exactly. I don't think the plaintiff is trying to get a quick judgement for no reason at all. There obviously is something for them to gain on not having the court reviewing the entire case properly before judging.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 240 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 20-Nov-2003 23:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 231 (Rich Woods):
For christ sake, Bill McEwen stated in his testimony that they have atleast eleven, maybe more, employees that are getting paid on the prospects that Amiga will right itself. Are you saying that Bill McEwen is lying in his testimony? If so, then Amiga Inc. could just as well be flourishing and your "evidence" that they don't have any money would be completely worthless by your own reasoning.

Anyway, if their employees work for money or not is their business, now isn't it? Besides, if they are working for free, it's either because they have such strong faith in the company or because someone is putting a gun to their head, what do you think? On the other hand, please don't answer that. I just figured out your most probable answer. One question though, how can Bill McEwen afford all those trips all over the world in order to put his gun against their heads?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 241 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 21-Nov-2003 10:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 240 (samface):
Posted by samface (213.114.40.41) on 21-Nov-2003 00:19:13

In Reply to Comment 231:
For christ sake, Bill McEwen stated in his testimony that they have atleast eleven, maybe more, employees that are getting paid on the prospects that Amiga

Could you please quote the motion, page and line number(s) of such a statement?



will right itself. Are you saying that Bill McEwen is lying in his testimony?

You said it - not I.


If so, then Amiga Inc. could just as well be flourishing and your "evidence" that they don't have any money would be completely worthless by your own reasoning.

Didn't you get a copy of Amiga's D&B rating that I had in the Thendic-Amiga PASSWORD PROTECTED directory?

out your most probable answer. One question though, how can Bill McEwen afford all those trips all over the world in order to put his gun against their heads?


Trips all over the world? You smoking some top grade black Afghani hash? billyboy can't even afford gas to get out of his own driveway!
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 242 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 21-Nov-2003 13:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 241 (Rich Woods):
>Could you please quote the motion, page and line number(s) of such a statement?

Deposition upon oral examaination of Bill McEwen, page 16, line 19-21:

19 Q. And are they getting paid on the prospects that
20 Amiga will right itself?
21 A. They will be paid once revenue is there, yes.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 243 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Tigger on 21-Nov-2003 15:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 242 (samface):
>>>>
Deposition upon oral examaination of Bill McEwen, page 16, line 19-21:

19 Q. And are they getting paid on the prospects that
20 Amiga will right itself?
21 A. They will be paid once revenue is there, yes.
>>>>

I'm sorry Sam, I didnt realize that light over your head was that dim. The employees are racking up money owed to them with the understanding that when (BIG IF) Amiga Inc rights itself they will be paid all their back wages. That is EXACTLY what the above statement says. Thats further backed up by lines 11-18 of the same page 16 you are quoting from, and all of page 17. All McEwen is doing is every month he adds a months salary to the amount Amiga Inc owes to each and every employee. None of them have actually been paid since Summer of 2002. Thats why I told you when this came out that Amiga Inc owes way more then 2.2 million because well over a year salary for almost a dozen people plus their other debts from the lawsuits far exceed the 400K in debt McEwen says is the total debt sans the big 3's back pay. Now that you understand more of the real story, are you still feeling really good about Amiga Inc??
-Tig
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 244 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 22-Nov-2003 01:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 243 (Tigger):
Posted by Tigger (143.116.116.200) on 21-Nov-2003 16:50:27

their other debts from the lawsuits far exceed the 400K in debt McEwen says is the total debt sans the big 3's back pay. Now that you understand more of the real story, are you still feeling really good about Amiga Inc??
-Tig

---------------
I guess sammyface is going to say it is all speculation.

Oh and they ARE employees.

Sheesh - I'm beginning to feel sorry for this guy.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 245 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 22-Nov-2003 14:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 243 (Tigger):
Nothing you said is NOT something I wasn't already aware of. Please stop insulting my intelligence by placing my words into a completely different context. The issue was wether Amiga Inc. has any employees or not and I think that the issue has been settled now since not even you or Rich seem to be able to dispute that as a fact.

As when it comes to what I think of Amiga Inc.'s salary policy; that is the exact same policy as my father used while starting up his small mechanical workshop, he had two work for free for nearly two years before he was able to charge his own company for his work. The mechanical workshop is now doing very well, expanding every year, and has Volvo as their biggest customer. I see NOTHING dubious about such salary policy for a small start up company and I find it morally questionable of Genesi to take advantage of Amiga Inc.'s situation.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 246 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 22-Nov-2003 20:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 245 (samface):
Welcome to business 101 there samface.

First rule of business: You are going to be beaten up, trampled, stomped on, chewed up and spit out. Both your competition and your partners are not looking out for your best interest but their own. They can and will use any and every edge to try and make money even if that is at your expense. Even your customers are not beholden to you, they are looking to serve their needs, and if they can get it cheaper, faster, smarter, stronger, flashier or sleeker elsewhere you know what, they buy it elsewhere. You have to earn your place, it cannot be given, bought, traded or sold, you must earn it.
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 247 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 22-Nov-2003 23:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 246 (Nate Downes):
Yes indeed, while I as a customer vote with my wallet. Fair enough?
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 248 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 23-Nov-2003 01:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 247 (samface):
 Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 247 of 247

Posted by samface (213.114.40.48) on 23-Nov-2003 00:18:24

In Reply to Comment 246:
Yes indeed, while I as a customer vote with my wallet. Fair enough?
-----------------
Whoah! This is the FIRST intelligent thing I have seen you post that is virtually IRREFUTABLE!

Money talks - and BULLSHIT walks!

------------------
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 249 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 23-Nov-2003 15:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 246 (Nate Downes):
Posted by Nate Downes (Trusted user) on 22-Nov-2003 21:39:48

In Reply to Comment 245:
Welcome to business 101 there samface.

First rule of business: You are going to be beaten up, trampled, stomped on, chewed up and spit out. Both your competition and your partners are not looking out for your best interest but their own. They can and will use any and every edge to try and make money even if that is at your expense. Even your customers are not beholden to you, they are looking to serve their needs, and if they can get it cheaper, faster, smarter, stronger, flashier or sleeker elsewhere you know what, they buy it elsewhere. You have to earn your place, it cannot be given, bought, traded or sold, you must earn it.

-----------------
A magnificent piece of prose I must say.

More than business 101 - I'd say it would be the equivalent to working on your PhD degree - actual in the field, real life world experience - and all the success and heartbreak that goes with it.

Maybe a new course should be started - Amiga 101 or Merlancia 101 - how NOT to run a "business".
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 250 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 23-Nov-2003 17:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 246 (Nate Downes):
BTW, I'd just like to add:

>Even your customers are not beholden to you, they are looking to serve their
>needs, and if they can get it cheaper, faster, smarter, stronger, flashier or
>sleeker elsewhere you know what, they buy it elsewhere.

Which is the main reason for why the common person owns a PC with Windows rather than an Amiga. I, on the other hand, am an Amiga user rather than a common PC owner and choose what products to buy and companies to trust with completely different criterions. I'm NOT the kind of person you convince by using anti-competitive business methods and I do NOT believe such business methods are favourable to me as a customer, especially not in the long run.

Microsoft's monopoly is a perfect example of what happens when people's short-term need is more important than the future and I find it rather alarming that a company is allowed to operate with such business methods in the Amiga market. Maybe all these long years of adversity in the Amiga market has caused some Amiga users to forget what caused the adversities to begin with, or maybe their short-term need for new products has simply grown too strong for their objectivity, I don't know. What I do know is that when we loose our sense of business moral and let our short-term need for new products take over, we become just like any other PC owner out there no matter how much we try to hide behind our proud history as Amiga users.

So please, don't come here and preach to me about how the "real" business market works. You see, it's because I do know how it works that I don't want to be a part of it.
Anonymous, there are 263 items in your selection (but only 63 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 263]
Back to Top