16-Apr-2024 05:36 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 52 items in your selection (but only 2 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 52]
[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.

Motion for Relief from Judgement: DENIED : Comment 51 of 52ANN.lu
Posted by Ketzer on 28-Jul-2004 08:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Johan Rönnblom):
> 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.

Making up things again, are we. The ruling certainly doesnt cover any trademark issues, and the contract mentions trademarks as far as they are related to the usage of AmigaDE.
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".
Anonymous, there are 52 items in your selection (but only 2 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 52]
Back to Top