@ShadesOfGrey

Quote:

ShadesOfGrey wrote: IIRC, Hyperion wasn't obligated to specific dead line. They were expected to make a "best effort" attempt at a specific dead line.

And surely you arent arguing that a delivery years later is a best effort?

Quote:

Now, if you believe what Hyperion, both the company and some of its contractors (The Friedens). AI did not supply them with the source for OS 3.1 and or the two subsequent updates (3.5 and 3.9). Hyperion had to obtain these sources through other means. This lead to a delay in getting started. AFAIK, AI have never disputed this. If I'm wrong, well sue me . Seriously though, if you can provide a specific reference where AI refute this, I'll reconsider this 'fact'.

This gets refuted everytime it comes up. First of all Umisef has quite convincingly argued that the sources for 35 and 3.9 are not part of the contract, at this point I agree with him. Hyperion didnt want the sources from AI, they wanted the sources from Olaf, because Olafs sources were better. Thats why they signed a contract with him on Oct 10, 2001 before the Nov 3, 2001 contract and why Olaf is included as the buildmaster in the Nov 3, 2001 contract and why Ben Hermans said in the interview published on Nov 7, 2001 that they were using Olafs code, it was superior to the code AI had (which Olaf in fact tells us he provided to AI, so we can get rid of the AI didnt have 3.1 code rumor). So I'm a little confused they signed a number of contracts before Nov 3, 2001 to get parts of the OS, Ben in an interview done at worst 4 days after the contract is signed says they have everything they need to do the OS, and you want to blame the delay on they getting sources late? And remember as we know from the Olaf email, Hyperion didnt pay him a dime of the money they owed him until 2006, so its hard to blame "the cost" of getting software from other sources for the delay because until 2006 they paid him nothing for his OS 4 work and even then only paid him less then 10% of the money he was owed.

Quote:

As for the buy-back clause. As far as I can tell, AI admits they did not actually pay the full amount. While there were other funds transfered from AI to Hyperion. Hyperion's position is that AI can't simply credit those funds toward the buy back if they weren't specifically intended for that purpose. To sue your own analogy/metaphor.

First of all your analogy is really bad. Secondly it appears they have been paid over 40K for a $25K buyback. We have 2500 from McEwen, 2250 from Tachyon, 20000 from Itec, 7200 from KMOS and then 8850 from KMOS for a grand total of 40800. Hyperions position is that they dont know what they checks were for so they get to keep the money, which is funny because they requested both the 7200 and 8850 as part of legal negotiations for the buyback, read the letter from AIs lawyer cancelling the contract, we disagree we owe you any more money on the buyback, but are including the $8850 to settle the issue. Throw in the $25K check from June and whether the buyback has been paid should not be an issue to anyone.
-Tig

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