23-Apr-2024 09:39 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 100 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100]
[News] Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case!ANN.lu
Posted on 12-Apr-2004 17:52 GMT by Rich Woods100 comments
View flat
View list
RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs re 60 MOTION for Relief from Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(AF, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004) RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs re 60 MOTION for Relief from Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (AF, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 1 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 12-Apr-2004 16:27 GMT
I like this line:

"...in short, amiga's preeminent basis for vacating a Court's Order is based on the credibility of a self-professed "forger's" admission."
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 2 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 12-Apr-2004 16:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (smithy):
Posted by smithy (213.48.30.16) on 12-Apr-2004 18:27:18

I like this line:

"...in short, amiga's preeminent basis for vacating a Court's Order is based on the credibility of a self-professed "forger's" admission."
--------------
glad to see someone really read it.

Yeah - pretty funny. I'd love to hear the (rational) explanation for the 1 year delay in the transfer of Amiga's IP from billyboy and Hare.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 3 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 12-Apr-2004 17:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Rich Woods):
I doubt AInc will reply to these issues. Their tactics thus far has
been to avoid answering anything that deals with the case, and instead
invent their own issues.

My favourite in this reply is where they remark that AInc seem to be
under the impression that they are ordered to port DE, while in fact
they are ordered to hand over the sources. :-)

(I think they *could* have added a parenthesis or footnote telling
that the requested information is available on their website since
years anyway, but.. :-)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 4 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Colin Camper on 12-Apr-2004 18:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Johan Rönnblom):
Oh Dear!
This is all ludicrous beyond farce.

I wish it would just hurry up and finish so that bbrv can get back to selling Pegs and Eyetech/Hyperion can get on with A1/OS4.

One peculiar side effect of all these shenanigans has been that, while last year I wouldn't have gone near a Peg/Morphos with a barge-pole, I am now strangely inclined to get one AND an A1 (when I can afford it!).

and I have no idea why!
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 5 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 12-Apr-2004 19:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Colin Camper):
Colin, please feel strangely compelled to buy from http://www.pegasos.co.uk :)

Thanks :)

Neko
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 6 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 12-Apr-2004 19:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Colin Camper):
One peculiar side effect of all these shenanigans has been that, while last year I wouldn't have gone near a Peg/Morphos with a barge-pole, I am now strangely inclined to get one AND an A1 (when I can afford it!).

Hm, then the population can at least replace itself.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 7 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Graham_nli on 12-Apr-2004 19:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (smithy):
That doesn't alter the fact that bbrv should never have used that e-mail as evidence at any point though. He knew that the authenticity wasn't proven, being signed "Fleecy Moss" does not mean that anyone can assume that it is true, sheesh! That also wasn't Amiga's only point against the use of the e-mail by bbrv.

I think that e-mail should just be dismissed by the court as unusable / unreliable evidence, as it clearly is. Anyway, wasn't that e-mail only used to support bbrv's landgrab claim against AmigaOS4 which the judge denied in March, so surely a moot point overall.

Anyway, that article suggests that you cannot submit new evidence at this stage of the court proceedings, just like Ben Hermans said yesterday and a lot of people said was a load of crap.

Looks like Amiga Inc will have to take the case to full appeal to get the outcome changed though, bbrv was lucky to get that default judgement when he did before Amiga could afford representation. Of course there have been plenty of submissions since the judge's last ruling, so the best thing to do is to wait and see what the judge says in response to all this stuff, which hopefully shouldn't be too long.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 8 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 12-Apr-2004 22:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Graham_nli):
Graham_nli wrote:
> That doesn't alter the fact that bbrv should never have used that
> e-mail as evidence at any point though.

Agreed. It's quite embarrassing. However, AInc's response also hardly
reinforces their case. Ok, someone forges an email from a top AInc
representative. What do they do? Deny the mail publicly (for example
in the very ANN thread they clearly monitored)? No. Inform Genesi? No.
Instead they keep quiet and try to use their opponents mistake to the
maximum, like if the court case was some sort of strategy game. It's
not supposed to be - parties are supposed to be cooperative and
helpful - and the judge will hardly be impressed. They should have
done the above and then informed the court with much less verbiage.
Then they would have stood out as a "good" defendant. Now all they
managed to do was making themselves look petty (or desperate).

> Anyway, that articles suggests that you cannot submit new evidence
> at this stage of the court proceedings, just like Ben Hermans said
> yesterday and a lot of people said was a load of crap.

It does not. It says that they can't submit it in their reply brief to
Genesi's reply. They'd have to make a new motion altogether.

This is no mysterious legal ritual. When AInc submitted their motion
for relief three weeks ago, they brought their reasons for why they
wanted to change the court's order. It is then stipulated that the
plaintiffs can reply to the motion, and then AInc can reply to that.

Now, let's say AInc gets some new evidence they want to present, for
example they might want to claim that Genesi have no right to the
contract and that Thendic does not exist. Of course, they can't submit
this info in their reply, as that would leave Genesi without a chance
to respond. They have to file a new motion. Then Genesi gets the
chance to respond, for example by submitting evidence that Thendic
does exist and/or that Genesi has a right to the contract.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 9 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 12-Apr-2004 23:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Johan Rönnblom):
>Now all they managed to do was making themselves look petty (or desperate).

Or, atleast that is what the plaintiff is trying to make the defendant look like. It was for example, noone but Bill Buck himself that insisted that the e-mail was authentic. This issue would have been of less importance if he would have simply admitted to his mistake, but he didn't. On the contrary, he insists on claiming that it is authentic despite the evidence of the contrary supplied by the defendant. And now when they finally admitt that the mail is fake, they try to make it look like the defendant is arguing about petty and irrelevant issues? We're talking about the credibility of what the plaintiffs submitted to the court as evidence to support their case, why would it be a non-issue? Really, I don't see it.

Furhtermore, if you read the defendants Motion for Relief, you will see that there is more to things than just the forged mail, which means that the plaintiff is once again avoiding to address many of the issues raised by the defendant. For example, there is not explanation to the plaintiffs use of Amiga's trademarks, they fail to explain Bill Bucks statements where he clearly shows that he knows very well that the AmigaDE and the AmigaOS are two very distinct products, they fail to explain Bill Buck's misrepresentation of the court's actions and rulings in public forums, they fail to explain why they are preventing Amiga Inc. from complying with the license agreement by refusing to supply Amiga Inc. with technical documentation, etc.

If anything would be desperate about this case, then it is the plaintiffs attempts to cover up that they have misused the judicial system to "shut Bill McEwen up" and for stealing intellectual property from a company that they knew before hand was not going to be able to defend themselves.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 10 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregs on 12-Apr-2004 23:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Sammy Nordström):
Quoting Sammy Nordström below. This is close to my reading as well and you have hit on the vital parts.
1) Misuse of trademarks goes to intention.
2) Pre-knowledge of the actual status of DE and OS4 goes to intention.
3) The use of questionable evidence and the notification that its authenticity has been questioned goes to intention.
4) The non compliance in not offering technical material for the adaption during the contract period and pre-dating the court case, goes to intention.
5) The public statements re-enforce and support the implied intention in the above points.

Amiga Inc is seeking to be relieved of judgement on the grounds of inequitity, ie that the court case is being used to pursue other ambitions and does not stand on its own merits, that the ruling is, in effect, enforcing an inequitable outcome -- not addressed and the heart of the relif motion.

The interesting thing is that Thendic has choosen to rest its case now on whether or not a fraud has been committed. Unfortunately opening the door to Amiga Inc to respond on the question who is the Original Equipment Manufacturing in the terms of the contract. Now Thendic's standing in German Company law, the relationship to Thendic's Pegasos, Genesi, Bplan all have bearing on this question and this is just the area that Garry Hare said they had been gathering arguments in his AW interview.

Whoops, Thendic might just now be in the middle of a minefield of its own creation. And before anyone starts saying that they are equally to blame (ie both Amiga Inc and Thendic) consider that all Amiga Inc did was sign a standard OEM contract and that Thendic brought the case against them and tried to grab IP that in no way belonged to them. This is legal debarcle stems only from one side and as far I am concerned let the chips fall where they may.


" Furhtermore, if you read the defendants Motion for Relief, you will see that there is more to things than just the forged mail, which means that the plaintiff is once again avoiding to address many of the issues raised by the defendant. For example, there is not explanation to the plaintiffs use of Amiga's trademarks, they fail to explain Bill Bucks statements where he clearly shows that he knows very well that the AmigaDE and the AmigaOS are two very distinct products, they fail to explain Bill Buck's misrepresentation of the court's actions and rulings in public forums, they fail to explain why they are preventing Amiga Inc. from complying with the license agreement by refusing to supply Amiga Inc. with technical documentation, etc."

"If anything would be desperate about this case, then it is the plaintiffs attempts to cover up that they have misused the judicial system to "shut Bill McEwen up" and for stealing intellectual property from a company that they knew before hand was not going to be able to defend themselves."

Excellent stuff, and clear as a bell, thanks Sammy Nordström.

Greg Schofield
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 11 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Someone Somewhere on 12-Apr-2004 23:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Colin Camper):
Perhaps one might want to emulate PeggyOS on a A1 and vice versa?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 12 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 12-Apr-2004 23:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Neko):
HAHA, fuck the reseller AGAIN?Or do you want the money to go directly to bplan so Buck doesn't waste it on crap?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 13 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 12-Apr-2004 23:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Gregs):
Excellent stuff, and clear as a bell, thanks Sammy Nordström.

Wonderful stuff, chaps, truly wonderful. What a team.

Thank you so much.

Gregg
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 14 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 13-Apr-2004 00:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Sammy Nordström):
Sammy Nordström wrote:
> This issue would have been of less importance if he would have
> simply admitted to his mistake, but he didn't.

I doubt that. The damage is done by making a bad judgement in the
first place. If they changed their mind two days or two weeks
afterwards, hardly matters.

> And now when they finally admitt that the mail is fake,

They don't, actually. Not that there's anything to "admit". It's all
for the court to consider - however Genesi have of course not
submitted anything that supports the idea that it would be genuine.

AInc's stance on the issues themselves, however, has very much
confirmed the content of the "Fleecy" email, which is a funny twist
imo. :-)

> We're talking about the credibility of what the plaintiffs submitted
> to the court as evidence to support their case, why would it be a
> non-issue?

I never claimed it's a "non-issue", on the contrary I've always said
it's quite embarrassing. It might well change the way the judge will
look upon any other evidence submitted by Genesi. Fortunately for
Genesi, there's very little other evidence submitted by them that
could come into question by this. But a non-issue? I'd never say so.

> For example, there is not explanation to the plaintiffs use of
> Amiga's trademarks,

No, but they explain why they do not feel the need to counter this.

> they fail to explain Bill Bucks statements where he clearly shows
> that he knows very well what the AmigaDE and the AmigaOS are two
> very distinct products,

Again, they explain why they do not need to counter this in this
brief. However, they have countered the argument before in the brief
to support their request for extension of the judgement. Anyway, it's
a weird idea that it would somehow affects the contract that Buck
knows *now* that DE and OS4 are different products. Say I sold you a
car, and it turns out it has no engine. The contract says in some
places that I sold you a car with an engine and in some other places
that it's simply "a car". Now we argue in court over whether the
contract entitles you to an engine, or not. Then I present evidence
that you have since discovered that the car you got has no engine. So
you understood that you've been fooled, how does that help me in this
court case?

> they fail to explain Bill Buck's misrepresentation of the court's
> actions and rulings in public forums,

No they don't. Or, at least, they do address this matter. If they
"fail" or not is of course up to the judge. Personally, I fail to see
why public speculation about the pending case would somehow invalidate
the contract. I know of no laws against such speculation. In fact, I
think it's standard practice for companies involved in lawsuits to
assure everyone that they are "confident that they will win the case".

> they fail to explain why they are preventing Amiga Inc. from
> complying with the license agreement by refusing to supply Amiga
> Inc. with technical documentation,

No, they definitely don't. They just point out that AInc are *not*
ordered to port AmigaDE and thus they have no need for this info. They
are ordered to supply Genesi with the material needed to do the port
themselves. Besides, as the information requested by McEwen is
publicly available on Genesi's websites since years, it wouldn't be
too hard to counter this claim, if there was a need to - but there
isn't.

> etc.

Etc what?

> If anything would be desperate about this case, then it is the
> plaintiffs attempts to cover up that they have misused the judicial
> system to "shut Bill McEwen up"

That's not a misuse of the legal system, if there are valid legal
grounds for going after McEwen and/or AInc! So there's absolutely no
reason to "cover up" this. They need to show that they have a case,
that's all. So far it's been going fairly well, as they've had the
judgements mainly on their side.

> and for stealing intellectual property from a company that they knew
> before hand was not going to be able to defend themselves.

AInc have been able to defend themselves during most of the process.
It is now up to the judge to rule on the two motions regarding whether
the old judgement should be extended, or whether it should be
nullified/restrained.

Now, we can both speculate what the next judgements will be. You seem
to be convinced that the judgement will be nullified. I'm convinced it
definitely won't be nullified, and that there's a pretty good chance -
although far from certain - that it will be extended. We'll see.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 15 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 13-Apr-2004 00:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Gregs):
Greg Shofield wrote:
[a lot of things about "intention"]

What do you mean with "intention"? I fail to grasp your point. Of
course Genesi have some "intention". You seem to be convinced that
this intention is foul. Let's look at your arguments:

> 1) Misuse of trademarks goes to intention.

Misuse? Or fair use? That's up to the court! Genesi obviously think
they have the rights to these trademarks.

> 2) Pre-knowledge of the actual status of DE and OS4 goes to
> intention.

There *can be* no pre-knowledge of OS4 or its status, as there were no
plans for OS4 at the date of contract. The fixation of AInc to "prove"
Genesi's *post-knowledge* of this status only shows they've not
understood the case at hand. What matters is the contract, not what
Genesi may have come to understand later on.

> 3) The use of questionable evidence and the notification that its
> authenticity has been questioned goes to intention.

It goes to show bad judgement perhaps, or stupidity if you wish.

> 4) The non compliance in not offering technical material for the
> adaption during the contract period and pre-dating the court case,
> goes to intention.

This alleged non-compliance is of course highly contested by Genesi.
Thus far, the judge has judged with Genesi on this matter. We will see
whether this will change later on - but allow me to doubt that.

> 5) The public statements re-enforce and support the implied
> intention in the above points.

Could you please state this "implied intention" clearly? I cannot link
these arguments together to point towards any specific intention,
unless you're looking for something utterly conspiratorial like
"Genesi are evil and aim to do bad and evil things in general."

> The interesting thing is that Thendic has choosen to rest its case
> on whether or not a fraud has been committed.

They have not. AInc chose to discuss this. Thendic/Genesi must only
respond to what AInc have written. That's what they have done.

> Unfortunately opening the door to Amiga Inc to respond on the
> question who is the Original Equipment Manufacturing in the terms of
> the contract.

I take it that you have misunderstood the term OEM, and that you refer
to who is the party in the contract. However you're quite wrong -
Thendic/Genesi have not "opened" such a door, AInc have closed it, as
they cannot "respond" on issues they have not brought up in their
original motion. They'd have to do it all again, then, with a new
motion. Which should be no problem if they really have a case.

> and that Thendic brought the case against them and tried to grab IP
> that in no way belonged to them.

Thus far, the judge has decided that it *does* belong to
Thendic/Genesi. We will see if this judgement will change.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 16 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregs on 13-Apr-2004 02:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Johan Rönnblom):
In reply to Johan Rönnblom:

" What do you mean with "intention"? I fail to grasp your point. Of
course Genesi have some "intention". You seem to be convinced that
this intention is foul. <snip>"

Fair enough, vexatious intention, the intention to use the court to achieve some outcome beyond the matters before the court. It is a question of misusing the court proceedings, to intimidate, bankrupt, shut-up, sieze assets, or gain benefit (beyond the matter appearing beofore it).

Intention has to be proved, for instance a litigant may make all sorts of claims of the effect of a case without vextatious intention. But if the motive for the case can be show to be vexatious it is enough to have a case with some merit overturned simply because the ruling would then be inequitable - ie would have an effect that is unjust even if there were some justice in the litigation itself.

These are the actual grounds that Amiga Inc are seeking relief from the judgement (ie I am not just making them up).

" Misuse? Or fair use? That's up to the court! Genesi obviously think
they have the rights to these trademarks. "

Again a fair comment. No I am not saying that the misuse comes from alledgedly using them illegally, but the use of them adds evidence to intention, the misuse exists in using them in order to lay claim to the IP part protected by the trademark.

" There *can be* no pre-knowledge of OS4 or its status, as there were no
plans for OS4 at the date of contract. The fixation of AInc to "prove"
Genesi's *post-knowledge* of this status only shows they've not
understood the case at hand. What matters is the contract, not what
Genesi may have come to understand later on. "

Another good point, between the contract signing and the litigation, OS4 became a separate project carried on by a separate company. This was known. If this had been part of the original motion (ie DE plus OS4) then the intention would have been plainer from the begining, it is in the adding in, much latter in the case of OS4 which reveals an intention to gain more from the litigation than what was being litigated for. If you get my drift. One thing to see both as part of the contract and quite another to see an opportunity to extend well beyond that.

" > 3) The use of questionable evidence and the notification that its
> authenticity has been questioned goes to intention."

"It goes to show bad judgement perhaps, or stupidity if you wish. "

This really depends on US legal ethics. In Australia it is considered misleading to enter documents in evidence if their is a reasonable suspicion that they are not authentic. Notice, this does not refer to the beliefs of the litigant involved, but whether a reasonable person would be suspicious. Both the lawyer and to a lesser extent the client are expected to inform the court if such an issue arises (which it did). It is therefore one thing to give in evidence such a document and quite another to fail to report to the bench that such a document may not represent what it purports to say.

Again things could be very different in the US on this detail.

" This alleged non-compliance is of course highly contested by Genesi.
Thus far, the judge has judged with Genesi on this matter. We will see
whether this will change later on - but allow me to doubt that. "

The previous judgement was ruled on the evidence placed before it and the absence through most of the case of legal representatives for Amiga Inc. The details of non-compliance which effect the possible inequity of the ruling are up to the judge to decide.

At issue, is not what Amiga Inc did or did not do, but whether Thendic took reasonable steps, even though Genesi was added to the list of plaintifs, no arguement has been brought up that Amiga Inc was obligied to deal directly with them as Thendic and not Genesi were the contracted party.

Lets give Genesi the benefit of the doubt and say they made efforts well beyond reasonable ones to give Amiga Inc the required information (ie no debate whatsoever in their efforts to achieve this) the problem is on what basis would Amiga Inc have of recognising Genesi who were not part of the original contract? It boils down to what Thendic did, and the evidence so far, is that they appear to have done little or nothing in this regard.

"> The interesting thing is that Thendic has choosen to rest its case
> on whether or not a fraud has been committed."

"They have not. AInc chose to discuss this. Thendic/Genesi must only
respond to what AInc have written. That's what they have done."

Not just discuss, they brought the question of the email in as an important part of their motion of relief. Thendic and its legal advisors then choose in the latest document to make a change of fraud in this matter a general one, rather than focussing soley on the email issue (an apology would have been a much better avenue of dealing with it -- ie an oversight which we now apologise for would actually not given very much ground away -- regardless even that they may still believe it is geniune -- they need only apologise for not informing the court that reasonable suspicioun surrounded it).

" I take it that you have misunderstood the term OEM, and that you refer
to who is the party in the contract. However you're quite wrong -
Thendic/Genesi have not "opened" such a door, AInc have closed it, as
they cannot "respond" on issues they have not brought up in their
original motion. They'd have to do it all again, then, with a new
motion. Which should be no problem if they really have a case. "

The door they have opened is one about their integrity (this is why it would have been better to simply apologise to the court about the email and thus dispose of the issue). Because this is a general claim "we have not been fraudlant" as against a specific and small admission "we made a mistake in not informing the court..." it is in Amiga's hands whether it is used as a doorway to explore the now twin issues of vexatious litigation and misrepresenting ones-self to the court.

Of course the judge can close the door and rules and precident of which I have no knowledge may make this inevitable, but on the tenis court of law, each volley allows a return shot, you not only have to pound the ball over the net again, you must also be careful not to send it where your opponant gets a tie-breaking advantage. Good tennis players don't try to score with each and every shot, rather they trap the opponant into returning just the shot they want to end the match.

I earlier congratulated Amiga Inc's lawyers on their recent response for not opening any new issues and being a very masterful legal drafters (it is for this skill that good lawyers are sort after). I stand by that observation and not simply because I hope (for other reasons) that Thendic is not successful, but becuase it is just so obvious.

" > and that Thendic brought the case against them and tried to grab IP
> that in no way belonged to them."

"Thus far, the judge has decided that it *does* belong to
Thendic/Genesi. We will see if this judgement will change. "

Your point is absolutely true, if I was in fact refering to DE, I wasn't, though you cannot be blamed for that as I did not make it clear. I was referring to the attempted grap of OS4 IP ownership which the judge most definitely ruled against in their supplementary ruling. But I do agree in terms of DE we will see if the judgement will change -- personally I think it will.

Greg Schofield
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 17 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 13-Apr-2004 04:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Gregg):
 Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 13 of 16




Posted by Gregg (24.62.51.179) on 13-Apr-2004 01:53:28

In Reply to Comment 10 (Gregs):
Excellent stuff, and clear as a bell, thanks Sammy Nordström.

Wonderful stuff, chaps, truly wonderful. What a team.

Thank you so much.

Gregg
-----------------
My sentiments exactly. Maybe sammyface ought to join the Amiga legal team. They could give him a T-shirt and a membership in the Amiga Club.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 18 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 04:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Rich Woods):
Maybe Rich could get entrance to the local looney house and get his own "t-shirt" too...
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 19 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 04:57 GMT
I hope they get their judgement soon that gives them the right to
AmigaOS sources. Not because they want to use those sources in any way
but because then any claims that MorphOS illigally uses AmigaOS
sources are forever invalid. :) That was the real reason for Genesi to
first start this process, because of Amiga Inc's wild FUD, so in my
opinion they only get what they deserve. Genesi does not care about
OS4 in any other way so relax people!
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 20 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 05:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Graham_nli):
IMO you people give too much importance to that e-mail.

And what makes you think that Amiga Inc now could afford legal
representation? Do you know for sure that they are paying for the
lawyers themselves, and not Harry Garry?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 21 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 05:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Sammy Nordström):
IMO they have responded to everything of relevance.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 22 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 05:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):
If some future owner of AmigaOS decides that MorphOS is too successful
and should be stopped by using the "MorphOS is using illigal AmigaOS
source code" claim, what would you say then? Of course that claim is
not true, but a judgement that gives Genesi official right to the
source code will kill that argument. This is certainly not crap in my
opinion, this is very important to secure MorphOS future, and this did
only start because of Amiga Inc's wild FUD about this issue some one
and a half year ago.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 23 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 05:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Anonymous):
Once this case will be solved, I wonder how Rich Wood will occupy he's life;)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 24 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 05:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Anonymous):
The "MOS is illegal" issue is irelevant to the whole mess.
BBRV just wanted it all for cheap, he wanted *the community*, but well, it backfired.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 25 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 05:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous):
I'll send an email to Gary Hare asking them to start their own lawsuit against Genesi/Thendic or whatever they're called these days, wouldn't poor Rich to get bored ;P

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 26 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 07:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Amon_Re):
Just to clarify, that wasn't meant in a serious way.
I have no need to see yet another lawsuit

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 27 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 07:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Rich Woods):
This whole case is bonkers :)

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 28 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 13-Apr-2004 07:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Amon_Re):
> The "MOS is illegal" issue is irelevant to the whole mess.

IMHO this is in *no way* irrelevant to the "MOS is illegal" mess, because that is why this started in the first place. You can dig through the archives here at ann if you have forgotten. If Amiga Inc hadn't done such accusations, then there wouldn't have been any need for any of this.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 29 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 07:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (takemehomegrandma):
I disagree with you on this, but lets not bicker about it.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 30 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 13-Apr-2004 07:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (takemehomegrandma):
But there's some irony in Bill Buck words, saying he believed at the time and that he still belive is practly the same that having Bill McEwen saying: 'we believed at the time that MOS was based on AOS sources and we still do (and both without having solid proofs that was the case)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 31 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 07:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (pixie):
Look, if KMOS believes MOS is based on AOS code, then they should sue, the rest is just bs.
BBRV should have accepted the judgement as is, instead of trying to milk Ainc further, they might just have gotten in a situation where they could loose everything they gained this far.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 32 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 13-Apr-2004 08:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Amon_Re):
Precisely, if one got solid proofs it should sue, or just STFU...
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 33 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 13-Apr-2004 08:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Anonymous):
Posted by Anonymous (80.202.211.249) on 13-Apr-2004 06:18:02

In Reply to Comment 17 (Rich Woods):
Maybe Rich could get entrance to the local looney house and get his own "t-shirt" too...
----------------------------
Apparently you have forgotten the picture(s) of Harv Laser trying to get his "paychecks" from Merlancia cashed - through one of those "check cashing places" which Ryan is so fond of!

http://www.merlancia.us/harv/harvknife.jpg
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 34 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 13-Apr-2004 08:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous):
Posted by Anonymous (195.212.190.98) on 13-Apr-2004 07:09:45

In Reply to Comment 18 (Anonymous):
Once this case will be solved, I wonder how Rich Wood will occupy he's life;)
----------------
His life - not he's life. Guess 8th grade proved difficult for you?

Could post pictures of my Dec trip to Vancouver - that 650 foot long suspension bridge 250 feet above the river was a little hairy.

Or I could post pictures of the Amsterdamn Cafe - with me smoking a nice spliff.

Hey - I ENJOY life - don't just post e-mails like you.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 35 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 09:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (smithy):
Right. And bb swears the email is true and by fleecy, without anything at all to back it up. Ridiculous.

There is doubt, and bb knew it, yet chose to present it as fact.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 36 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 13-Apr-2004 09:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Rich Woods):
I'm not a lawyer and doubt I would be able to be much of help to the already talented "Amiga legal team". Furthermore, I'm already a lifetime member of Club Amiga, which makes another membership kind of "Rich" (pun intended), don't you think?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 37 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 13-Apr-2004 09:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Sammy Nordström):
What is it about umlauts, anyway?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 38 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Apr-2004 11:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Rich Woods):
It will make a change and be far more intersting than the pictures of McBills house.. Do you take your vacations on his lawn?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 39 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 13-Apr-2004 11:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Rich Woods):
>Could post pictures of my Dec trip to Vancouver - that 650 foot long
>suspension bridge 250 feet above the river was a little hairy.

I don't believe you it was 250' high. Please tie a tape measure off on the handrail and jump to see how high it really is.

>Or I could post pictures of the Amsterdamn Cafe - with me smoking a nice
>spliff.

Oh yes! You such a MAN because you can smoke pot in Amsterdam. So now you're a stoner-stalker!!! ROTFLMAO.

Hey, get any pictures of yourself "window shopping" while you were there?

>Hey - I ENJOY life - don't just post e-mails like you.

When you don't have much of a life to enjoy then you must be easy to please.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 40 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 13-Apr-2004 11:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Anonymous):
Why would Harry, my father-in-law, give a damn about any of this?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 41 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil on 13-Apr-2004 12:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Anonymous):
Those long sleeved affairs that buttons up the back are so classy :-)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 42 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 13-Apr-2004 12:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Gregs):
Greg Schofield wrote:
> But if the motive for the case can be show to be vexatious it is
> enough to have a case with some merit overturned simply because the
> ruling would then be inadequate - ie would have an effect that is
> unjust even if there were some justice in the litigation itself.

Uh, according to WHAT law? I think you're *quite* wrong here.

Such an order of things would in fact undermine the most fundamental
principles of the legal system, such as equality before the law,
predictability (sp?) of the law, as well as being disastrous for any
hope of ever being able to base any case on clear evidence.

> These are the actual grounds that Amiga Inc are seeking relief from
> the judgement (ie I am not just making them up).

But you are. AInc are citing no such grounds in their motion for
relief.

> If this had been part of the original motion (ie DE plus OS4) then
> the intention would have been plainer from the begining, it is the
> adding in, much latter in the case of OS4 which reveals an intention
> to gain more from the litigation than what was being litigated for.

You're quite wrong. Genesi/Thendic sued because they wanted an
Operating System. This is plainly stated in their original complaint.
They did not ever sue over some add-on, "content player", or whatever.

> Lets give Genesi the benefit of the doubt and say they made efforts
> well beyond reasonable ones to give Amiga Inc the required
> information (ie no debate whatsoever in their efforts to achieve
> this) the problem is on what basis would Amiga Inc have of
> recognising Genesi who were not part of the original contract?

Genesi hardly made any secret of this, now did they? Also, AInc
never complained when Genesi was added to the court case (and yes,
this was at a stage when they DID have representation). In fact, AInc
have to this date *never* questioned Genesi's right to the contract,
even though some peripheral persons have lately started spreading
rumours (FUD, I'd say) that they could.

> Thendic and its legal advisors then choose in the latest document to
> make a change of fraud in this matter a general one, rather than
> focussing solely on the email issue (an apology would have been a
> much better avenue of dealing with it -- ie an oversight which we
> now apologise for would actually not given very much ground away --
> regardless even that they may still believe it is geniune -- they
> need only apologise for not informing the court that reasonable
> suspicioun surrounded it).

Again, wrong. Thendic/Genesi did not choose this. They were accused of
perjury, they were not asked for an "excuse". Then they have to show
that the issue at hand is *not* grounds for overturning the judgement.
An apology would be totally irrelevant here.

If AInc had not brought the email up as a reason for overturning the
judgement, Thendic/Genesi would not have had to counter the "general"
charge of fraud. But since AInc did, that's what they'd better do.

> It is in Amiga's hands whether it is used as a doorway to explore
> the now twin issues of vexatious litigation and misrepresenting
> ones-self to the court.

AInc would not need any "doorway" to bring reasons for overturning a
judgement. They just need arguments based on solid legal grounds.
However, they would have to do this in a new motion, as they can't do
it in a reply.

If they wanted to use "vexatious litigation" as a reason for
overturning the judgement, they'd better find some case law to support
that reason. Allow me to doubt they'd find any.. in fact, should this
motion fail, and should they then enter a new one blabbering about
"vexatious litigation", then that would probably be a very ironic case
of - vexatious litigation.

> Of course the judge can close the door and rules and precident of
> which I have no knowledge may make this inevitable, but on the tenis
> court of law, each volley allows a return shot, you not only have to
> pound the ball over the net again, you must also be careful not to
> send it where your opponant gets a tie-breaking advantage.

Well, to sum it up: Law is not like tennis.

In tennis, players eventually miss their shots. If nothing else, they
get physically tired. Having an order like that in courts would allow
the defendants to drag a case out infinitely, submitting new replies
forever. Instead, the party opposing the motion gets to answer to the
motion, then the party filing the motion can reply to that answer -
but they may not add any new issues at this point. Then the court
rules (simplified a bit, of course the court may also ask for
additional information, etc).

> Good tennis players don't try to score with each and every shot,
> rather they trap the opponant into returning just the shot they want
> to end the match.

Good lawyers state their case upfront from the beginning. They do not
keep adding new arguments as the case proceeds. Stating at first that
the contract will not be upheld because Pegasos does not run WinCE,
and then that it will not be upheld because Bill Buck submitted a
faked Fleecy mail and speculated about the case in public, and then
that it will not be upheld because Genesi are vexatious litigants or
are not entitled to the contract does not make good defense.

> I earlier congratulated Amiga Inc's lawyers on their recent response
> for not opening any new issues and being a very masterful legal
> drafters (it is for this sill that good lawyers are sort after).

It's possible that they'd make good tennis players. They definitely
don't make good lawyers.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 43 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 13-Apr-2004 12:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Ole-Egil):
Those long sleeved affairs that buttons up the back are so classy :-)

The cross-your-heart sleeves and buckles?

I like to wear those to cocktail parties, and delight and amaze the other guests with my prehensile tongue...

Ewww!

Gregg
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 44 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 13-Apr-2004 12:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Joe "Floid" Kanowitz):
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=umlaut :

umlaut

\Um"laut\, n. [G., from um about + laut sound.] (Philol.) The euphonic modification of a root vowel sound by the influence of a, u, or especially i, in the syllable which formerly followed.

Note: It is peculiar to the Teutonic languages, and was common in Anglo-Saxon. In German the umlauted vowels resulting from a, o, u, followed by old i, are written ["a], ["o], ["u], or ae, oe, ue; as, m["a]nner or maenner, men, from mann, man. Examples of forms resulting from umlaut in English are geese pl. of goose, men pl. of man, etc.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 45 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 13-Apr-2004 12:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Sammy Nordström):
A literal translation of my lastname into english would be "Northstream". I guess one of my forefathers from way back used to live north of the local river or something along those lines.

In case you wanted to know... :-P
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 46 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregs on 13-Apr-2004 13:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Johan Rönnblom):
The vexatious litigant is covered by exactly what Amiga Inc claimed in their submission for relief from judgement - that the judgement would lead to an inequitable outcome. The points they raised where about Thendic's motivation, which the emails were submitted to show.

Now things might be very differnt in a country which uses the code Napeleon, but common law, on which contract law rests, allows for a great many ways of determining fair judgement. English speaking countries for the most part base their legal procedures on common law.

Now Gensesi were joined after the case begun, Amiga did not object, true enough, but the issues of compliance to the contract (giving over technical details) could not be reasonably made until the plaintiff put there case forward in full. And Amiga for most of the case was "out-of-the-room" (not being legally represented). The first opportunity to put Amiga's case came after the first ruling because then it got legal councel again. There is an avenue there, but it may not be necessary, for Amiga has got a fairly strong case on the inequitity of the ruling.

The hoax email, has opened up a can of worms precisely because instead of brushing it under the carpet by an apology to the court, Thendic has stuck by its guns and nailed its reputation to the post as a target.

The judge might intervene at any point, the ruling on relief from judgement is the final word in that court, all the rest is either compliance or appeal.

In any case Genesi is irrelvant, it is not about it but Thendic. By the way the analogy of Tennis and law courts is not new or mine, I simply borrowed it.

You can read the court documents in the way you have, I read them very differently. If you think the last Amiga Inc document was badly drafted, well as far as I can see that is all the argument I require -- the comparison with Thendic's honourable Hughes,is instructive, for he writes drafts like I play tennis -- all force and no direction.

Greg Schofield
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 47 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Eva on 13-Apr-2004 13:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Amon_Re):
AmonRE ... the Hospital is calling you.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 48 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous Orc on 13-Apr-2004 13:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Colin Camper):
getting both boxes is the ideal solution. many cannot afford to, but it offers
the best of all worlds.

I guess we're members of the 'Purple Camp' then?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 49 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 13-Apr-2004 13:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Eva):
Eva, i was joking, in case you don't understand what i wrote there.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 50 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by schmoot on 13-Apr-2004 14:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Sammy Nordström):
>A literal translation of my lastname into english would be "Northstream". I guess >one of my forefathers from way back used to live north of the local river or >something along those lines.

Or maybe he used to jerk off to Polaris? It's always possible.
Anonymous, there are 100 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100]
Back to Top