Jump to content
Sgcarmart Trusted Brand Showcase - Jack Cars at Katong i12 from 22 to 28 Apr 2024 ×

Multimillion-Dollar Civil Suits against 3 Workers’ Party MPs

Carbon82

By Carbon82,
in Lite & EZ

 Share

Recommended Posts

Acemundo

Acemundo

Supercharged

Thanks

 

Just a reminder should others get carried away

yes, timely reminder....in fact, appreciate your reminder.

 

 

it just sets me thinking, if there any comments made, thus far, specifically on the court rather than the case to deem it sub judice and which caused the particular persons to issue this reminder on national papers....it is good you reminded us to steer clear of the boiling cauldron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Playtime

Playtime

Twincharged

double post

This kind of things... sometimes dunno really is legislated to protect the innocent or wayang to protect "embarrassing secrets"... when I travel.. I sometimes pai seh when people ask me about Singapore..
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash2017

Ash2017

Twincharged

Someone explain to me this:

 

I paid a lump sum to a software company to develop a computer program for my own company usage. I own the software it can be used in any of my company's branches without any extra cost since I hold the IP.

 

Now why will I, a CEO of a listed company, sell this system to a "3rd party" with a dubious single bidder win, at a paltry $140,000. And make each of my branches pay a sum to this "3rd party" for perpetuity. What savings? 

 

 

i believe the answer to seek is all found in the details in the contract.

 

eg wedding photo

 

after the photo shoot, the photographer gives you print copies BUT the NEGATIVES is the photographer's property.

 

 

 

BUT the short and quick answer to your question is are you the government who can even change our constitution (until is nearly unrecognisable today), if they can do that, what else can they not do.

  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vratenza

Vratenza

Supersonic

The last I checked, we do not have to perform jury national service.

 

Why should anyone care if public opinion has any influence over the court's decision?

 

Unless, once again, there is political motivation behind the civil suit.

 

 

Lawyer Amolat Singh said that the online comments relating to the trial appear to contain “some added colour”, which is “wholly unnecessary if the intent is merely to report the facts”.

 
He added: “While there does not appear to be an attempt to sway or influence the court in its decision, there may be some hint of swaying public opinion.”

 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kb27

Kb27

Supersonic
(edited)

Someone explain to me this:

 

I paid a lump sum to a software company to develop a computer program for my own company usage. I own the software it can be used in any of my company's branches without any extra cost since I hold the IP.

 

Now why will I, a CEO of a listed company, sell this system to a "3rd party" with a dubious single bidder win, at a paltry $140,000. And make each of my branches pay a sum to this "3rd party" for perpetuity. What savings? 

 

It depends. I think by and large you don't hold or owned the IP.

You paid for a licence to use the software only.

The company that produce the software still holds the IP and "owned it"

 

Subsequently, the software practice inow is selling you the number of licences you are allowed to use simultaneously.

Example, you have 1000 computers and you only paid for 50 copies of the software to be running at the same time, the 51st computer will not work, until one other stop working.

 

Anyone tried reading the EULA ? [laugh]

It's in your phone software, your computer software, etc..

Edited by Kb27
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Acemundo

Acemundo

Supercharged

This kind of things... sometimes dunno really is legislated to protect the innocent or wayang to protect "embarrassing secrets"... when I travel.. I sometimes pai seh when people ask me about Singapore..

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Acemundo

Acemundo

Supercharged
(edited)

This kind of things... sometimes dunno really is legislated to protect the innocent or wayang to protect "embarrassing secrets"... when I travel.. I sometimes pai seh when people ask me about Singapore..

Edited by Acemundo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vratenza

Vratenza

Supersonic

From my rudimentary understanding, this is not like Microsoft Windows or Adobe suites.... It is a bespoke software that is developed just for the town councils operations. It has no market value outside of the town councils. 

 

And I believe the garmen commissioned  NCS to create the software from scratch. So the garmen actually owns the software.... Why sell it away and the have the town councils rent it from Aim? 

 

Reminds me of the City Harvest trial. CHS owned several properties and business under it's several pte Ltd.... They still have to pay rental to these pte Ltd to use some of the venues as well as exorbitant sums to event management company they own. The seed money and properties/equipment all came from the same source. 

 

Isnt it a kind of round tripping? 

 

It depends. I think by and large you don't hold or owned the IP.

You paid for a licence to use the software only.

The company that produce the software still holds the IP and "owned it"

 

Subsequently, the software practice inow is selling you the number of licences you are allowed to use simultaneously.

Example, you have 1000 computers and you only paid for 50 copies of the software to be running at the same time, the 51st computer will not work, until one other stop working.

 

Anyone tried reading the EULA ? [laugh]

It's in your phone software, your computer software, etc..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Acemundo

Acemundo

Supercharged

From my rudimentary understanding, this is not like Microsoft Windows or Adobe suites.... It is a bespoke software that is developed just for the town councils operations. It has no market value outside of the town councils. 

 

And I believe the garmen commissioned  NCS to create the software from scratch. So the garmen actually owns the software.... Why sell it away and the have the town councils rent it from Aim? 

 

Reminds me of the City Harvest trial. CHS owned several properties and business under it's several pte Ltd.... They still have to pay rental to these pte Ltd to use some of the venues as well as exorbitant sums to event management company they own. The seed money and properties/equipment all came from the same source. 

 

Isnt it a kind of round tripping? 

 

recently, i read that AIM has quietly, aware from the glare of everyone, went for voluntary liquidation in 2014.  a lesson in sabotage and stealth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
TangoCharlie

TangoCharlie

Supersonic

It's a sale and leaseback of TCMS by the PAP town council to AIM PL. Usually companies do it for cash flow management reasons.

 

This TCMS is EOL then. To go through the trouble of open tender for a EOL software to achieve a savings of $8k make little commercial sense.

 

Now that AIM PL is liquidated, I wonder which entity owns the IP to the new TCMS used by PAP TC.

 

For a detailed account of the AIM saga, try reading Alex Au blog....it's a six parters but the first part already taken down due to some law suit.

 

https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-2/

  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vratenza

Vratenza

Supersonic

Very good information. [thumbsup]

 

Clears up almost all my questions...good to know that I am not alone in my cynicism.... :D

 

It's a sale and leaseback of TCMS by the PAP town council to AIM PL. Usually companies do it for cash flow management reasons.

This TCMS is EOL then. To go through the trouble of open tender for a EOL software to achieve a savings of $8k make little commercial sense.

Now that AIM PL is liquidated, I wonder which entity owns the IP to the new TCMS used by PAP TC.

For a detailed account of the AIM saga, try reading Alex Au blog....it's a six parters but the first part already taken down due to some law suit.

https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-2/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...