Author Topic: Amazing i dont see AH Lawsuit? (Read 1062 times)

BGBMAW · « **on:** March 30, 2004, 05:35:47 AM »

well it was amazing to see HT openly comment on lawsuit.

I sure in the hell hope he wins.

Tlaking to a friend, he was sayn' "if you develop a code while working under someone, its theres"...???

Just wondern'

Love
BiGB
xoxo

SLO · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2004, 07:28:10 AM »

ask Dale

Maniac · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2004, 07:32:56 AM »

Stolen from AGW :

Quote

This case is set for trail on January 10, 2005.

1. Dale has filed a counter-claim against iEN claiming that he is the owner of the patent and not iEN. Dale seeks a judgment delaring him the sole owner of the copyright in the software code that is the subject of the suit.

2. Dale filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied, but the court granted another opportunity to file another one after more discovery.

3. It appears that iEN didn't make royalty payments on the patent use contract for some six years. Then, iEN made a payment in 2003, for all six years of missed payments, just a week before its lawsuit was filed. But Dale returned the payment and all sums previously paid ($50 by ICI).

4. In returning the payments, Dale rescinded the contract and demanded that iEN stop using his patent and offered iEN an opportunity to enter into a new contract. Whether the contact is rescinded is a contested. Whether Texas or NC law applies is also contested.

5. Expert designation is June 4, 2004.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:28:36 PM »

Um... what is HTC expecting to get from IEN? They dont have any money.

Oh well - have fun!

LePaul · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:35:09 PM »

I'm no lawyer but I find # 3 more than a bit intriguing.

What's IEN's motive? "We have nothing to loose,everything to gain" ?

1K0N · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:19:19 PM »

I think you ask for summary judgement when the other party clearly doesn't have much basis to win, hoping that the judge will agree that you are right, I would bet that IEN's lawyers didn't provide the proper paperwork with dates and sigs that make sense, so the judge is giving them more time to provide the correct info...
Seen similar issues

IKON

Terror · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2005, 05:10:58 PM »

Exhuming this thread from the old archives....

What is the status of this legal action?

Terror

Thrawn · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2005, 05:25:13 PM »

If IEN is claiming to own the patent at this point, I imagine they do.

Chairboy · « **Reply #8 on:** May 17, 2005, 05:30:11 PM »

Unless there's been a ruling, it's silly to believe anything being said. If they were still contesting this, they'd obviously continue to claim that they owned it. It's part of the 'if we say it enough times maybe it'll come true' strategy.

I'm curious about the outcome, but conjecture at this point can hardly help anyone, and may even harm. Frustrating place to be, but try not to make life complicated for the staff at HTC if you value their sanity. The best way to do that, probably, is to not talk about it in any context other then asking if there's been an update.

Terror · « **Reply #9 on:** May 17, 2005, 05:30:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
If IEN is claiming to own the patent at this point, I imagine they do.

They claimed that long before the suit was brought....

Terror

boxboy28 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2005, 09:10:38 PM »

Well all you AH lawyer step up and Help Dale and the crew if needed! Its a Shame WILD WILLIE thinks he has the right as his products cant even keep people wanting to play it!

Thrawn · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2005, 11:06:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Terror
They claimed that long before the suit was brought....

Terror

I'm guessing that if the trial was over and they claimed ownership and the judge ruled in favour of HTC, it might be actionable on HTC's part. And if the trial is not over, the judge might get pissed of at IEN claiming ownership when the judgement and it's still up for debate.

Chairboy · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2005, 11:11:58 PM »

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6042477.WKU.&OS=PN/6042477&RS=PN/6042477

Flit · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2005, 12:39:38 AM »

let it go guys, and remember WB's a thief:(

hitech · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2005, 02:51:45 PM »

It has been settled, as to how, I can not comment.

HiTech