@Lou

Quote:

Where as the hardware supplier changed the hardware and supplied it bugged

Not according to the managing partner of Hyperion.... Remember, it's a performance feature, not a bug.

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou ... Not once were they prevented from stopping and saying "no, we won't do anything until you hand over the source code you promised us". ...

And what about :

Quote:

2001 contract: Article II. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AMIGA ONE PARTNERS; APPOINTMENT ... 2.02 Timeline Hyperion shall use best eforts to ensure that Amiga OS 4.0 is ready for release before March 1, 2002. ...

???

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

What "Source Code" means is defined in the "Definitions"-section:

You appear to be looking at "Amiga OS Source Code" for a definition of "Source Code".

Anyway --- if your interpretation of "Software" (bracketed in such a way that it includes OS 3.5/3.9 source, rather than binaries only) was the intended interpretation... Then please explain what the difference is between "Software" and "Amiga OS Source Code", and why those two separate definitions are necessary.

Last edited by umisef on 28-Feb-2008 at 01:35 PM.

@umisef

Yet, for the contract it is the same, justice is blind, yada yada. It's still a failed clause.

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

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @pixie ... Just like Hyperion were able to hire contractors to fulfill their obligations, Amiga Inc. could have someone else to fulfill theirs. ...

Could you please point us to where this is stated in the 2001 contract?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@jahc

Quote:

jahc wrote: @samface Quote: It's the kind of logic that is logical. If A was completed without B, B was obviously not necessary for completing A. It was completed with B, and B was provided by someone else. I've never seen someone twist facts around like that. At first I thought it was comical, but now I find it quite scary. You dont sound well.

I remember him saying some postings ago something along the lines that he is kind of politician in Sweden...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Lou

Quote:

You keep proving your lack of programming knowledge.

An your being silly about contracts.

Quote:

I don't need any source code to make any type of software, I can write it all from scratch, however, if I am trying to re-implement another system, in order to do it properly and efficiently, I would need to see the source and/or and well-defined outline of the overall design. So indeed 3.5 & 3.9 was necessary, otherwise all we have is a 3.1 port and Hyperion's own enhancements/implementation of 3.5 & 3.9 upgrades which would not at all be considered IP of Amiga since it was done without those original sources. At this point, Hyperion would own those enhancements lock stock and barrel, yet KMOS think this it's included in the $25,000.00 price tag.

Sure it would be, your doing extra work for free under the contract, it still belongs under the contract. If you willfully go beyond the contract, you are violating the contract.

If I have a contract with you to build a house and you willfully violate the contract by adding things not called for in the contract, do I have to pay you for all the extra fancy trim work and marble floors you installed into the house? You think your going to barge into my new house and rip out that fancy trim work and marble floors because I won't pay you beyond what the contract calls for? You violated the contract, not me, so it's your problem, not mine.

_________________
Dammy

@woon

Quote:

woon wrote: @pixie What I can see : 1. Hyperion got 3.1 sources from Olaf 2. Hyperion and Amiga sign a contract where they state the necessary source code which seems to be 3.1 sources shall be provided by Amiga

Quote:

2001 Contract: Article I. DEFINITIONS ... "Amiga OS Source Code" means the Source Code of the Classic Amiga OS including but not limited to the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9;

Quote:

woon wrote: 3. Hyperion having OS 3.1 sources at home means that it is not necessary that Amiga provides the OS 3.1 sources.

What do you mean with "neccessary" - "neccessary" to comply with the legal requirements of the contract or "neccessary" to write the code?

Quote:

woon wrote: So, the necessary source code Amiga shall provide is nothing.

Of course it was necessary for AInc. to provide the "Source Code of the Classic Amiga OS including but not limited to the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9;" in order to comply with the legal requirements of the contract!

Quote:

woon wrote: 4. It was strange to add such a clause to the contract, considering the Olaf Deal had already happened, before.

My opinion is:
Considering that Olaf wasn't paid by AInc. for the work he had done for AInc. by cleaning up the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1 in the first place, the Source Code
remained his property.

If he gives Hyperion access to this Source Code, he has the right to demand a fee for this access. If Hyperion pays him the fee this doesn't change the fact that AInc. still owes him the money.

As AInc. breached the contract by not providing the source code, I'd say it's nothing but fair that they now have to refund Hyperions additional costs then. So lets keep in mind that AInc now owe Olaf AND Hyperion money for the OS source(s), not to mention the additional costs for contracting the developers of the missing OS 3.5 and 3.9 parts.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

So lets keep in mind that AInc now owe Olaf AND Hyperion money for the OS source(s),

Funny --- you expect them to pay twice for the same thing?

Quote:

the Source Code remained his property.

It never was his property to start with. It's uncontested that Olaf's sources are a derivative of AI's IP.

Quote:

If he gives Hyperion access to this Source Code, he has the right to demand a fee for this access.

Of course. Do we agree, however, that Olaf could not give access to Hyperion to sources co-owned by Amiga, unless Amiga actively authorised him to?

Quote:

If Hyperion pays him the fee this doesn't change the fact that AInc. still owes him the money.

Why? Olaf is no longer retains ownership in *his* part of the combined sources, once Hyperion actually pays his fee. What would Amiga be paying Olaf for, then? Work they do not have access to, and that Olaf has sold to someone else (in a contract which states that it was done as a contractor for Amiga, which in and by itself is rather dubious, if excusable, behaviour)?

Quote:

Of course it was necessary for AInc. to provide the "Source Code of the Classic Amiga OS including but not limited to the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9;"

That's the definition of "Amiga OS Source Code" you quoted there. Which is *not* the phrase used in the "shall provide" clause, now is it? In fact, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the contract is that definition referenced at all --- there may be a very good reason for that. Think about it...

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: Where as the hardware supplier changed the hardware and supplied it bugged Not according to the managing partner of Hyperion.... Remember, it's a performance feature, not a bug.

A "managing partner" is not a developer or expert in development and I'm sure that statement was just PR and will get thrown out.

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: @Samface: You keep proving your lack of programming knowledge. An your being silly about contracts.

Am I now? That doesn't disprove my quote that you quoted.
I am being no less silly about contracts that people like you, Tigger, umisef and Samface are being. As I keep saying: we are entitled to our opinions and they are useless as the only one that matters is the judge's (and jury if it comes to that).

Quote:

Quote: I don't need any source code to make any type of software, I can write it all from scratch, however, if I am trying to re-implement another system, in order to do it properly and efficiently, I would need to see the source and/or and well-defined outline of the overall design. So indeed 3.5 & 3.9 was necessary, otherwise all we have is a 3.1 port and Hyperion's own enhancements/implementation of 3.5 & 3.9 upgrades which would not at all be considered IP of Amiga since it was done without those original sources. At this point, Hyperion would own those enhancements lock stock and barrel, yet KMOS think this it's included in the $25,000.00 price tag. Sure it would be, your doing extra work for free under the contract, it still belongs under the contract. If you willfully go beyond the contract, you are violating the contract. If I have a contract with you to build a house and you willfully violate the contract by adding things not called for in the contract, do I have to pay you for all the extra fancy trim work and marble floors you installed into the house? You think your going to barge into my new house and rip out that fancy trim work and marble floors because I won't pay you beyond what the contract calls for? You violated the contract, not me, so it's your problem, not mine.

Am I now?
Regardless of the extra work (aka features), the house was supposed to be built using your blueprints. Then you give me a deadline that I have to "use best efforts" to comply with, so I have to hire someone to make up blueprints for me. Well, the house is built but you violated the contract because you never gave me blueprints and that cost me alot of time and money.

...and the wheels spins again...

As I proposed some time ago:
Why can't we just twiddle our thumbs and wait for it all to be over? These rant threads are useless and change nothing.

Last edited by Lou on 28-Feb-2008 at 04:28 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 28-Feb-2008 at 04:21 PM.

@umisef

Quote:

Not according to the managing partner of Hyperion.... Remember, it's a performance feature, not a bug.

remember to put a at the end or readers will get a different meaning.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Lou

Quote:

Am I now?Am I now? Regardless of the extra work (aka features), the house was supposed to be built using your blueprints. Then you give me a deadline that I have to "use best efforts" to comply with, so I have to hire someone to make up blueprints for me. Well, the house is built but you violated the contract because you never gave me blueprints and that cost me alot of time and money. Regardless of the extra work (aka features), the house was supposed to be built using your blueprints. Then you give me a deadline that I have to "use best efforts" to comply with, so I have to hire someone to make up blueprints for me. Well, the house is built but you violated the contract because you never gave me blueprints and that cost me alot of time and money.

Then it's all on you. Had you followed the contract properly, you would not have started without the blueprints. What you did do is go to a subcontractor who already had the blue prints who shared it with you to allow you to build the house so it cost you nothing and minimal time lossed. Not only did you take six years to build the house (don't even try saying the lack of blue prints cost you any significant time period of those six years because it didn't), you add stuff to the house beyond what the blueprints call for. Then your telling me that you own my house? Get your construction sign off my property, enjoy the money the contract called for and have a good life.

_________________
Dammy

@Rogue

Quote:

EDIT: And BTW, Dammy, no this is not about any contractual dispute. Read what I wrote here, and you might understand. If not... well.. At least I tried.

Well, I dont know about dammy, but I understand. You're participating in this corporate theft. Any respect I had towards you is now officially gone.

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: Am I now?Am I now? Regardless of the extra work (aka features), the house was supposed to be built using your blueprints. Then you give me a deadline that I have to "use best efforts" to comply with, so I have to hire someone to make up blueprints for me. Well, the house is built but you violated the contract because you never gave me blueprints and that cost me alot of time and money. Regardless of the extra work (aka features), the house was supposed to be built using your blueprints. Then you give me a deadline that I have to "use best efforts" to comply with, so I have to hire someone to make up blueprints for me. Well, the house is built but you violated the contract because you never gave me blueprints and that cost me alot of time and money. Then it's all on you. Had you followed the contract properly, you would not have started without the blueprints. What you did do is go to a subcontractor who already had the blue prints who shared it with you to allow you to build the house so it cost you nothing and minimal time lossed. Not only did you take six years to build the house (don't even try saying the lack of blue prints cost you any significant time period of those six years because it didn't), you add stuff to the house beyond what the blueprints call for. Then your telling me that you own my house? Get your construction sign off my property, enjoy the money the contract called for and have a good life.

No, I had to find some of your orginal builders then they had to re-think and re-ink the blueprints. Had I not built the house, I'm sure you would have sued me not even trying. And now that you did leave it all on me, you get none of it until you pay up (it's a modular home and has to be delievered).
Now you can not buy the house and I'll own it and sell it as I wish or you can pay up.
Remember, possession is 9/10 of the law.

Look at this another way, let's say I'm a home-owner (which I am). I hire a contractor, we come to an agreement with an estimate. However it goes over budget as the material I supplied (or was supposed to), I didn't. So the contractor has other jobs lined up and had to purchase his own materials. That contractor has every right to do what he did. He did the work, a judge would determine his compensation and I would lose in court and have to pay.

@Lou

Quote:

No, I had to find some of your orginal builders then they had to re-think and re-ink the blueprints. Had I not built the house, I'm sure you would have sued me not even trying.

Why, was that in the contract? If you didn't like it, you can claim I've failed to live up to my end and end the contract. Yet you went ahead because you would have built even communities based on my house design with a nice profit and I didn't even charge you up front license fees, just future revenue shares.

Quote:

And now that you did leave it all on me, you get none of it until you pay up (it's a modular home and has to be delievered). Now you can not buy the house and I'll own it and sell it as I wish or you can pay up. Remember, possession is 9/10 of the law.

I left nothing to you, now get off my property that I paid for. Enjoy the money that I sent to you that was in the contract and don't bother selling any more homes based on mine, your license is now revoked.

Quote:

Look at this another way, let's say I'm a home-owner (which I am). I hire a contractor, we come to an agreement with an estimate. However it goes over budget as the material I supplied (or was supposed to), I didn't. So the contractor has other jobs lined up and had to purchase his own materials. That contractor has every right to do what he did. He did the work, a judge would determine his compensation and I would lose in court and have to pay.

The proper thing is to come to an agreement of the cost over runs. Home owner wants more stuff, price goes up. What the builder is not allowed to do is go on his marry way and pad the house that is outside of the contract. Typically you will sign an agreement to cover cost over runs that you agree to. You don't agree to it, your not going to get shafted by being forced to accept something you never bargained for. This way it protects the consumer from a builder agreeing to build a spec house and then demanding payment for the 6000 sq ft house monster he decided to build anyways.

Last edited by damocles on 28-Feb-2008 at 06:25 PM.

_________________
Dammy

this thread wins the price for most boring thread ever at amigaworld.

_________________
AOS4 Betatester, Peg2, G4@1ghz, Radeon 9250 256mb, 1gb RAM.

http://www.asciiarena.com
http://www.uprough.net

@spotUP

Indeed. Well, this one or any other loooooong thread about this boring law suit.

_________________
AmigaOne-XE G3 OS 4.
A4000 PPC
A1200 PPC

@Lou

Quote:

Now you can not buy the house and I'll own it and sell it as I wish or you can pay up.

The entire example with housebuilding and contractors is a really bad one, a contractor that builds a house without getting paid will ofcourse not own the house, thats just silly.

If a contractor would do something extra without informing about it he wouldn't get paid. In sweden this would be something we call "ÄTA" and is used specifically for extra work you perform that should be paid outside of the contract terms.

_________________
AMiGA

@Step

Quote:

Step wrote: @Lou Quote: Now you can not buy the house and I'll own it and sell it as I wish or you can pay up. The entire example with housebuilding and contractors is a really bad one, a contractor that builds a house without getting paid will ofcourse not own the house, thats just silly. If a contractor would do something extra without informing about it he wouldn't get paid. In sweden this would be something we call "ÄTA" and is used specifically for extra work you perform that should be paid outside of the contract terms.

Uhm, you (and Dammy) missed the fact that it's a modular home built off-site and has to be delivered. So I have no property to be kicked off of.

Everyone also misses the fact that OS4 was Hyperion's to make, market and profit from and the Amiga can only buyback it's development of future versions...if they can make such a thing, with or without source code...within 6 months, otherwise, Hyperion can continue to make future versions but pay a roalty on them for use of the trademarks. As KMOS has no other business plan (LOL @ AA2), they decided they wanted all the money to be made from OS4, not just a roalty for something they had no hand in making and invested no money into to begin with.