@gary_c

Quote:

gary_c wrote: @saimo Quote: it is not wise to partner with somebody who proved not to be a reliable partner. Heh, then it should be Genesi that is reluctant, not Amiga, Inc. Recall it was Amiga, Inc. that was the unreliable partner in the companies' first attempt to cooperate, according the courts. (And if you think AI didn't really "lose" the case but simply forfeited it due to an inability to afford legal representation, that still falls under the description of being "unreliable" as a business partner. In what way is mismanaging affairs so thoroughly that not even basic legal requirements can be met an indication of corporate reliability? -- This is quite apart from the actual finding of the court itself, I hope you understand.) It was Amiga, Inc. that failed to pay rent on their offices, owes back taxes in the state of Washinton, has outstanding debts to various companies, owes back wages to former employees -- all a matter of public record -- and apparently went through a series of on-paper ownership changes simply to protect IP and other assets, including from people who have legitimate, court-verified claims. I'm not eager to rehash these old matters, but mention them only because you seem to have forgotten or want to ignore the history and are making bogus statements that reflect that. I acknowledge that circumstances were hard, but this was also the case for Genesi; it's unreasonable and illogical to ignore/excuse one company and condemn the other. The pragmatic thing to do at this point is probably to accept that neither has a spotless past, for one reason or another, and they should let bygones be bygones and do what can be done to salvage things and move forward. If either is unwilling to do that, it only shows their complete disinterest or even contempt for the would-be users of their products. Time will tell, right?

I see I made a mistake with my one-line summary (and, perhaps, I should have used the word "trustable" in place of "reliable") - I was hoping to make you a favour, but I was wrong. Of course, I was referring to what I had told you in post #254 (which, BTW, you skipped in your reply - post #286 - thus forcing me to report it also in post #316):
Quote:

First Pixie, then SeeHund, now you: you all tried to steer the discussion in this direction. Bad or good, pretty or ugly, like it or not, there *are* rules. Rules that AInc, being the owner of AOS, has any right to make as it pleases. If somebody does not like them, then the only way to try to change them is getting privately and professionally in touch with AInc and proposing them a valid alternative. For sure, exploiting the weaknesses of the community, of the market, of Hyperion, you name it, the way BB has been doing over and over again is not the right way and is unacceptable. This, along with personal insults, sly lawsuits, open attacks and whatever has been publically witnessed in these last years (and even before... I've heard negative comments about BB since the VisCorp times), rules BB out as a reliable business partner. No wonder if AInc refused to partner with him. They can't be blamed even if BB had commercially valid proposals. BB is only reaping what he sowed - and he keeps on sowing bad seeds.

Here the matter is not what can be blamed on AInc (and I'm not saying that they made no mistake to be blamed for), but why AInc can't be blamed if they refused BB as a partner (just this specific case). It would be insane to partner with somebody who has already been a former partner and then tried to exploit that to obtain what he had no right to (I'm referring to the lawsuit you mention yourself), publically offends people (bad behaviour from any POV) and potential customers (bad behaviour also from a business POV), openly attacks the other party(*), etc.
You preferred to divert the attention (funny how the first line of the quote already reports a similar/related attempt), but if Genesi/anybody else is reluctant (for whatever reason) to get in touch with AInc, it's them that must shut their noses, stand the smell and do the step... or do you expect AInc to knock at their doors and offer a license?

(*)BTW: BB has been doing it very, very often and we need not to go back too far in time to find something - I'm just seizing the occasion to correct myself: it occurred to me a bit late, but anyway, I must say that I made a mistake when I tried to correct what then I thought to be another mistake. I'm referring to my previous reply to you, where I say "Indeed when I wrote "divide & conquer" I was mostly thinking of the past and I definitely misplaced it after mentioning the first post. Sorry, I mixed things up.". Indeed, that impression was lingering in my mind, although when I made the correction I could not tell why. Now I know. Just look at how this thread started (and, well, also the rest...): BBRV made a post (on AW.net, in an *AOS* forum) in which they draw the attention to their projects and, at the same time, take a cheap shot at AInc - apart from the total lack of professionality and respect, it really looks like they tried to raise havoc among the community and then collect the ensuing splinters for their projects.
Man, how could one possibly want BBRV as commercial partners is beyond me.

Quote:

they should let bygones be bygones and do what can be done to salvage things and move forward.

No, not for me. Not for many. The lessons learned in the past are precious. Ignoring them in the name of a "let's forget the past and start it all over again for our beloved platform" is probably what BBRV and many others may (deeply) wish, but it just does not work in this specific case (an important reason has been discussed just above).

Quote:

If either is unwilling to do that, it only shows their complete disinterest or even contempt for the would-be users of their products.

I disagree. It may just mean that they can do without each other and/or that there are not all the conditions to build a solid partnership (some are discussed above, others have been discussed to death many other times, others are probably unknown).

Quote:

True, but I wonder what the reason would be to keep the license a secret if any of these other guys had gotten one.

Not because one can't see a reason there must necessarily be none.
And, actually, I can see at least two reasons - at least regarding the projects being half-announced these days (but could be valid also for other projects). The first: they have been working secretly for years, so presenting the project(s) directly complete with the license would make for a nice "bang!" effect; the second: the secret avoids the mess the Amiga communities are so keen about (and denotes also professionality).
To say the truth, I've not been really happy with the news leaks because they spoiled everything so shortly before the most suitable moment (the Pianeta Amiga event).

Quote:

Since, also, there's a record of people/companies trying and failing to get a license,

I would like to see such a record just to know how many tried professionally, privately, properly and with sufficiently interesting proposals
I've heard a few of those but, to me, just the fact of whining in and/or making the process public in a certain manner before and/or after the failed attempt, is a sign that shows lack of professionalism.

Quote:

I feel the best assumption is that there is no license until we know for sure that there is one.

Similarly, it cannot ruled out that a piece of HW has license until it is known for sure that it has none

Quote:

But that's getting ahead of ourselves. The first hurdle is developing the hardware, prototyping, bug fixing, redesigning, financing production runs, etc. I think it'd be fine if one or more of these projects did get to the selling stage.

Of course.

Quote:

Unlike Alan Redhouse, I don't think there's room for only one producer of offbeat PowerPC motherboards.

Did Alan ever expressly say or hint at this? - I haven't read all that we said/wrote.

Quote:

In fact, if more than one can survive, it reaffirms the rationale for the others.

Could you elaborate, please?
Whether one or more can survive depends on a number of conditions. It is not always true that if one can survive, then so can the others.

Quote:

Then the question is which one(s) do the best job of finding niches and selling to them.

Obviously.

Quote:

(Assuming a workable piracy protection method can be worked out -- which would be needed for anything sold as a Linux board without AOS.)

I can't quite follow you here. Why did you point out just this particular aspect? What do you mean?


Quote:

Unlike what someone posted earlier, I don't think the prospect of competition from these newcomers is especially frightening to Genesi.

Is that "someone" me, perhaps?
If so, I'd like to point out that when I talked about BB being scared I was just referring to getting access to AOS.

saimo

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC