@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Dandy Quote: And I saw nothing so far that indicated AInc had no access... Docket26, exhibit 19.

Hmmmmm - I read the entire Attachment 8 of PDF #26, but could not find any mention that AInc had no access to the CVS.


Quote:

umisef wrote: And we all know that, as far as Hans-Joerg was concerned, Amiga was not an "involved party" in the development of OS4...

Well, the "Design Goals of OS 4" I cited are part of/attached to the 2001 Agreement.
And of course AInc was undeniable party to this agreement.

I think what you mean is that they were not party of the development team - and that's right.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@samface

Quote:

It was just a metaphor

I'lll write it etxra slow for you: N o o o o h, it's not! Because it describes a CRIME! It's like saying Geography is like Math, just because you can find Numbers on Maps!

Quote:

that could just as well been about something completely unrelated to crime as well.

Well if you are soooo smart, why didn't you chose another example then? Because it wouldn't be SHOCKING enough for your taste, and too boring after all?

Fact is, in civil law you have to do something to "get your rights" and reinforce them. In Criminal law those rights are granted by the government and also reinforced by the government. That's all I wanted to clear up for everybody.

@thread
And one hint for some of you: Sticking to the truth helps more in an argument, than shocking the most with short black and white painting. But i surely know that this is not the goal of this and all the other discussions. Far to many intollerant and snobbish people around here for this to happen.

BTW thanks for the ad-hominem link, as this is what certain heavy posters are doing all over these threads IMHO. Now I got a name for it

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Don't be a pettifogger! The relevant part was not "who said it at what opportunuty" - it rather was that it was said at all. I have no idea what a pettifogger is, ...

A pettifogger is a person that is splitting hairs (capillaris separativus) - at least according to the online dictionary I'm using...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: But the problem is it wasnt said. AI didnt have CVS access to the OS 4 code,

Then it just was written.
(That's what I meant with pettifogger/splitting hairs, BTW)

According to the 2001 Agreement ("Design Goals of OS 4") they clearly should have had access to the CVS.
Period.

If you still have doubts then I recommend "course 101" of the language you may call your "mother tongue" in your rocket city!


Quote:

Tigger wrote: noone has said they did,

Noone has said they didn't, either!
(Well, except you and Umisef, of course)

Quote:

Tigger wrote: you just didnt understand what someone did write.

Yes - I know - each time something does not fit into your picture, it's my fault because I didn't understand...


Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: That does not change the fact that you still need to understand that a press release is a press release - not matter if its joined or not. Yes but a Joint Press Release means two or more companies AGREED to it, and thus by definition it is an AGREEment.

Can you please point me to such a definition? All the definitions I found on the web told me otherwise...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: I seem to remember to have read it here on AW that the total number of "next gen Amiga hardware" sold was somewhere between 2000 and 3000 units. I remember telling everyone that was a made up number then,

Yes - you claimed so...


Quote:

Tigger wrote: and I remember that Evert in the court documents saying about 1000 units were sold, so I think we should believe Evert.

Can you please point me to where he said so?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: Im still looking in disbelief at no 99 ... but Im pretty sure the laughing sets in soon. Thats all the comment its worth.

We're at #464 now and still no noteworthy laughter.
It's a pity, isn't it?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Dandy What should be the case and what actually is the case are two entirely different things. It's like determining the speed of a car by the nearest speed limit sign. Poor odds if you ask me. Furthermore, emphasizing how strong of an indication it is has no bearing on how strong your argument is. With a mere indication to back it up you are simply not going to get any further with this argument.

Well, Umisef asked me for an indication ("So, again --- can you point at any statement from anyone which indicates that Amiga, any Amiga, ever had access to the OS4 CVS? "), and I pointed him at one.

It certainly is not my fault, if you're unhappy about that...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

We're at #464 now and still no noteworthy laughter. It's a pity, isn't it?

Speak for yourself

_________________
Dammy

@Dandy

"...should have read access to the CVS at all time..."

The wording is : "should" have access in the sentence you presented, and I think that doesn't show A Inc "did" have access factually.

IMO

A+
Woon

@woon

Quote:

woon wrote: @Dandy "...should have read access to the CVS at all time..." The wording is : "should" have access in the sentence you presented, and I think that doesn't show A Inc "did" have access factually.

That's completely right - it just indicates that they might have had access - just like Umisef asked - no more, no less.

Umisef just asked for an indication - not for proof or evidence.

So your point being?

Last edited by Dandy on 22-Feb-2008 at 11:39 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

here is a good example of a pettifogger...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7AKjrl8Cg

_________________
I was a ZX Spectrum owner....

@woon

Quote:

woon wrote: @Dandy "...should have read access to the CVS at all time..." The wording is : "should" have access in the sentence you presented, and I think that doesn't show A Inc "did" have access factually. IMO A+ Woon

As, supposedly according to Tigger, AInc(W) ok'd Olaf to allow access to the CVS, you would think that they themselves had access to it as well. They probably did, but didn't know what to do with it and, as we know, didn't care either. If KMOS wasn't given access to it, they I suspect that's a problem between the transfer of Amino->KMOS and more incompetence.

@d0c

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: Tig, an EMail from 2004 in which McEwen is trying to make a deal with Hyperion, which we know never happend, is hardly an indication that they abandoned the 2001 contract KMOS formally cancelling it in 2006 however is proof that they considered the contract to be still in place in 2006, rather than it being abandoned years before. I really don't understand why you waste your time arguing against something that's completely obvious.

You keep trying to get us farther and farther from the original argument. In message #378 you said AI was coming up with a new story, that the contract had been abandoned in 2004, yet here we have evidence from 2004 that shows they believed the contract had been abandoned then, so surely you cant still be arguing its a new story, its a story they told back in 2004.


Quote:

They can simply say they do not accept KMOS's cancellation of the contract as being valid, which is what they have done.

Except they didnt, they should have sent that back in response to the Nov 2006 letter, they didnt, so if KMOS is found to have the rights they claim to, the cancellation will be valid, even if KMOS didnt have cause, it was a huge mistake you dont seem to understand.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Then it just was written.

It wasnt written either Dandy. Read Olaf's contract in relation to this. AI did not have access to the OS 4.0 CVS, period. Ask Olaf if you want, you are going to be disappointed with his answer.

Quote:

Quote: Tigger wrote: and I remember that Evert in the court documents saying about 1000 units were sold, so I think we should believe Evert. Can you please point me to where he said so?

Document 54, page 3, lines 20 or so.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Sneaky

Quote:

Sneaky wrote: @samface Quote: It was just a metaphor I'lll write it etxra slow for you: N o o o o h, it's not! Because it describes a CRIME! It's like saying Geography is like Math, just because you can find Numbers on Maps!

Huh??? Again, an ad-hominem fallacy is an ad-hominem fallacy, regardless if applied to criminal or civil law cases.

Quote:

Quote: that could just as well been about something completely unrelated to crime as well. Well if you are soooo smart, why didn't you chose another example then? Because it wouldn't be SHOCKING enough for your taste, and too boring after all?

Well, it's not unusual to emphasize a point with exaggerated examples. It's just a means to make the point clear, that's all. I think you're the one being dramatic now. Besides, when you decided tear apart my example, I didn't just change example but cut straight to the chase with that ad-hominem fallacy link. Is there any way to please you?

Quote:

Fact is, in civil law you have to do something to "get your rights" and reinforce them. In Criminal law those rights are granted by the government and also reinforced by the government. That's all I wanted to clear up for everybody.

Which is, as I explained, not relevant for my point.

Quote:

@thread And one hint for some of you: Sticking to the truth helps more in an argument, than shocking the most with short black and white painting. But i surely know that this is not the goal of this and all the other discussions. Far to many intollerant and snobbish people around here for this to happen.

Am I being untruthful or "snobbish"? Well, wether I'm snobbish is of course highly subjective and you're free to having your opinon, but I do object to anything that would suggest that I'm not being truthful.

Quote:

BTW thanks for the ad-hominem link, as this is what certain heavy posters are doing all over these threads IMHO. Now I got a name for it

Well, we learn something everyday, don't we? :)

Last edited by samface on 22-Feb-2008 at 04:04 PM.
Last edited by samface on 22-Feb-2008 at 04:04 PM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@Dandy

Fine, you gave your reply to umisef's request for an indication. Still, I'm wondering what kind of point you could possibly be making with it.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @woon Quote: woon wrote: @Dandy "...should have read access to the CVS at all time..." The wording is : "should" have access in the sentence you presented, and I think that doesn't show A Inc "did" have access factually. That's completely right - it just indicates that they might have had access - just like Umisef asked - no more, no less.

Well, to be honest, I believe Umisef asked for an idication that they would have had access, not an indication that they should have had access. See the difference?

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy ... AI did not have access to the OS 4.0 CVS, period. ...

You are of course right - Amiga International (= AI) never had access to it.

But what I cited is a strong indication that AInc(W) might have had access.
I never claimed this being a proof or evidence.

If you still can`t understand that - as I already wrote - "English 101" might be your friend...

Period.


Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Can you please point me to where he said so? Document 54, page 3, lines 20 or so.

I`ll read that tomorrow - thanks for pointing me to it...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Dandy ... Well, to be honest, I believe Umisef asked for an idication that they would have had access, not an indication that they should have had access. See the difference?

If the Agreement says "should have access" this indicates (not prooves!) they might have (had) access.

See the difference or still having problems understanding that (-> English 101)?

Last edited by Dandy on 22-Feb-2008 at 08:30 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: Well, I've checked on USPTO and I stand corrected. The first four numbers ARE registration numbers. The last two are serial numbers. (What a maze in there !

Not that big a maze, in fact after a reexamination, all 5 that Hyperion are opposing are all based on previous amiga trademarks that are currently owned by KMOS aka AI(D). I mean lets look at the list from document 100.

Serial #78940417 - Its a Mark, based on Amiga, if we look at document 60, (or the Tess page for it) you see its based on prior registrations (1401045, 2319266, 2369059)

Serial #78940426 - Its a mark, the Black Amiga with the red dot for the i, again if we look at document 60 or the Tess page, we see its based on prior registrations (1401045, 2319266, 2369059)

Serial #78940434 - The Boing Ball (we've talked about it already), also though it doesnt list it, its also based on a Trademark they already own, (2369059 which features the Boing Ball as part of the logo).

Serial #78942544 - Amiga Anywhere as words only, again if we look at document #60 (or the Tess page for it) you see its based on prior registrations ((1401045, 2319266, 2369059)

Serial #78942551 - Amiga Enables as words only, again if we look at document #60 (or the Tess page for it) you see its based on prior registrations ((1401045, 2319266, 2369059)

So all 5 Trademarks that Hyperion is arguing about are based on other Trademarks, lets look at those 3.

1401045 - Amiga as used for computer, originally filed in 1985, originally granted to Amiga Inc Los Gatos Ca, in 1986, current owner Amiga Inc, Delaware (ie KMOS). This is the root trademark for Amiga as a computer, and as document 61 shows us and the Tess system it is clearly owned by KMOS/Amiga Inc.

2319266 - Amiga as a Typed Drawing, originally filed by Amiga Development LLC Feb 17, 1999, granted Feb 15, 2000, current owner Amiga Inc Delaware (ie KMOS). Again as 61 shows you, (and the Tess System) this is owned by KMOS and is related to 1401045.

2369059 - "Powered by Amiga", originally filed by Amiga Development LLC August 19, 1997, registration granted July 15, 2000, current owner Amiag Inc Delaware (ie KMOS). Again owned by KMOS and it features the Boing Ball that as a seperate trademark Hyperion is trying to claim.

Thats why this is a silly arguement. Hyperion is violating there three Trademarks, there is no issue who owns these 3, and there opposition is going to fail, because all 5 of the new ones, are derivatives of Trademarks already owned by KMOS(AI(D)).
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Dandy ... AI did not have access to the OS 4.0 CVS, period. ... You are of course right - Amiga International (= AI) never had access to it.

First of all my pettifogger friend:

AI = Amiga Inc

AII = Amiga International Incorporated

but you knew that already, but I agree AI never had access to the CVS, thanks for coming around to the correct way of thinking.

Quote:

But what I cited is a strong indication that AInc(W) might have had access. I never claimed this being a proof or evidence.

Actually its not a strong indication at all, especially if you read Olafs contract, which I am sure you still havent done. (Document 26, Exhibit 4).
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 22-Feb-2008 at 09:05 PM.

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.