@Ketzer

Quote:

ExecSG is contract work, is supposed to be a part of OS4 and the developers have received and reviewed the sourcecode to the existing Amiga OS / exec. Thats more than enough.

Ok, that's a explanation I can live with. But besides the contract part in the "old" UNIX World SW wasn't deliverd as binary, if I remember correctly (not been there personally) so everyon could see or had the posibility to read the code they licenced or bought from a SW house.

So how would you proof or gather proof, that you didn't look at code of others, when you are developing SW where competitors exist? No offense, I just wan't to learn and understand.

@Sneaky

Oh no, I've seen Amiga OS code, I'm cursed to life!!!!!!

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Sneaky

Quote:

So how would you proof or gather proof, that you didn't look at code of others, when you are developing SW where competitors exist? No offense, I just wan't to learn and understand.

First of all, it's difficult. A proof of non-existence is in most cases impossible. However, in most legal systems, the one suing has to show that it is likely, but ultimately a judge decides.

To avoid getting sued in the first place, one should not hire people, who previously worked for your competitor, to code your competitive software. One should be able to provide development documentation that shows by what means you achieved compatibility (publicly available api documentation would be ok for example). Even decompiling to achive compatibility is okay in most cases. One should certainly not have been contracted to do a new version of an existing OS and code a competitve OS at the same time.

@pixie

Quote:

Twist as you like on perjury, it won't make you look any better...

Make "me" look better? Im neither the one claiming that its perjury, nor the one who made the testimony. Im just trying to show you its not black and white.

Quote:

No sir, you better understand what perjury is... William either is doing perjury because Amiga was solvent or Amiga was in fact insolvent, you cannot have both. 'Bad chosen' words don't apply in legal matters.

A testimony is not a contract. And since you keep ignoring that "insolvent" is not defined, that the opposite of "financially solvent" is not necessarily "insolvent", especially since its not defined, I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

Last edited by Ketzer on 20-Jul-2007 at 11:41 AM.

@Ketzer
Quote:

hat the opposite of "financially solvent" is not necessarily "insolvent"

It would even defy logic...

Quote:

I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Ketzer

Quote:

To avoid getting sued in the first place, one should not hire people, who previously worked for your competitor, to code your competitive software.

The computer world would have been very different if this logic were followed through.

Intel > Zilog No Z80's
Motorola > MOS No 6502
Digital > Microsoft No Windows NT

etc, etc, etc......

Maybe this is why the Chinese and Indians (who aren't litigious) are cleaning up in IT from the USA (Who are litigious).

@Colin_Camper

Quote:

First of all, it's difficult.

With this I referred to the entire issue. Guidelines have changed over time and still do. Also notice I used "should", there are, unfortunately, no absolutes. At which point you had "too much inside knowledge" not only depends on current legislation but also on interpretation.

@Colin_Camper
Quote:

Intel > Zilog No Z80's

Wrong way!
Three engineers were poached FROM Zilog to Intel.

Cheers,
Tim

@Ketzer

Quote:

Neither side has any evidence for their claims, yet, however, Amiga D has the people that have personal knowledge, while Hyperion has the burden of proof. We'll see

Documents will be available in Discovery process if ITEC LLC are Joined as a counterclaim defendant. this is the main reason Hyperion want to rope ITEC in
to the suit. If this happens then lack of Documents = proof.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 20-Jul-2007 at 12:33 PM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@T_Power

Quote:

Three engineers were poached FROM Zilog to Intel.

Zilog was founded(!) by the guy who had developed the 4004 for Intel, and had headed the development of the 8008 and 8080.

But those were different times. Among other things, Intel was small, whereas Zilog was backed (and largely owned) by Exxon, then the largest company in existence....

(edit: Removed non-sensical mistyping of company name)

Last edited by umisef on 20-Jul-2007 at 01:20 PM.

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @Sneaky To avoid getting sued in the first place, one should not hire people, who previously worked for your competitor, to code your competitive software.

Uhm... If this was the case, the console software developing & publishing industry would have sued itself out of existence...

@pixie

First of all, to call other people stupid is the definition of being stupid in my book.

Secondly, there are plenty of words that means one thing in plain everyday speech while something completely different in a legal context. Bill McEwan is no lawyer nor someone who went to law school, hence everything coming from him would be considered as a matter of speech rather than any definition of a legal term.

What I'm saying here is that just because he considered the company insolvent, that doesn't mean the company really was insolvent from a legal standpoint nor that he would have commited perjury if his personal opinion on the financial state of the company didn't comply with the legal definition.

What this means is that using his testimony that the company was insolvent doesn't make much of a credible testimony and you really can't accuse him of perjury since it's not illegal to be incompetent. This is a good thing since otherwise, you'd be in real trouble, now wouldn't you?

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

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

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

@Sneaky

Quote:

Sneaky wrote: @Tigger #472 I started talking because some people fiercly misinterpreted facts, And of course I write on the court matter. It will be the last post on this matter to you, so feel free to answer it one more time, but then leave it for good.

Can you explain why exactly you decided to join the site on April 24, 2007? I mean this site has been up for a long time, what exactly happened on April 24th that made you think, hey I'll join Amigaworld.net today? And as for you last bit, me and the moderators get to decide what I post about, you don't get to.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

It is the fact, its a fact both Friedens and Ben have admitted too. And your SCO arguement doesnt hold water. -Tig

Ben H. did not write ExecSG, he can only assume as me and you that its based on some AmigaOS3.x code, but that does not make it true, even so if can quote what was did say: “believe there was some AmigaOS3.x code there“, believing there UFO’s exist does in no way make UFO’s exist, the senates alone doesn’t prove anything.

Where can you quote where both Friedens did say that was based on AmigaOS3.x as in using actual code, because if I’m inspired by some one else’s product and design does not nursery violate some one else IP, unless they have patented what I have copied, this goes for MorphOS and AROS too, they are most likely even based freely available Autodocs and AmigaOS header files too.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 20-Jul-2007 at 03:14 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@samface

Quote:

What this means is that using his testimony that the company was insolvent doesn't make much of a credible testimony and you really can't accuse him of perjury since it's not illegal to be incompetent. This is a good thing since otherwise, you'd be in real trouble, now wouldn't you?

When you testify you severe that you’re earnest and that do not lie.
It is a crime to lie under oath, Bill McEwan can not change his testimony.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 20-Jul-2007 at 03:29 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Again, to be incompetent is not a crime. To commit perjury, you would have to know better. To state something that you believe to be true is not perjury.

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

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

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

@samface

Bill Mc Even head a motive to lie, any way what was the point of all shifting around of IP whit in ITec anyway? It was all a cover up, they head no intention of giving away AmigaDE to BBRV.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Wether he had a motive to lie is irrelevant. Was he competent enough to make the judgement wether the company was insolvent from a legal standpoint? No. The everyday speech definition of insolvent is that you are unable to pay your bills, the legal definition is that your debts exceeds your assets. These are completely different but still valid interpretations of the same word. What he said, regardless of wether he had a motive to lie or not, may very well be true for the meaning in everyday speech but false from a legal standpoint. That doesn't make him a liar nor guilty of perjury.

Furthermore, of - bloody - course they didn't want to give away the AmigaDE to BBRV. What's your point?

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

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

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

@T_Power
Quote:

Three engineers were poached FROM Zilog to Intel.

Considering that Zilog was formed by people who left Intel, I'd be interested in hearing why you think that.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

@NutsAboutAmiga
Quote:

Where can you quote where both Friedens did say that was based on AmigaOS3.x as in using actual code,

The Friedens have said a number of things over time which vary with the direction of the wind. Sometimes OS4 is based on the original 3.x code, sometimes the 3.x code was not useful, sometimes they never gained access to the 3.x kernel code. If the search engine on AWN worked worth a crap you would see a lot more of those statements quoted, I'm sure.


Quote:

because if I’m inspired by some one else’s product and design does not nursery violate some one else IP,

Actually I agree with your sentiment here. Taking inspiration from existing code *shouldn't* be considered IP violation, but here in the US that won't prevent someone from suing you for it. Reverse engineering is completely legal in the US, but that still won't stop someone from suing you for it. You can literally sue anyone for anything here. Keeping that in mind, there's probably plenty in the ongoing lawsuits - on both sides - that is complete bunk. But it's our right (and some feel our duty) in the US to waste the public's time and money to prove that common sense is wrong.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end