@pavlor

Quote:

Their license is comprehensive

That is their claim, having read the settlement agreement, I don't see ANYTHING that grants them license to "modify any AmigaOS version they want ".
Only to use 3.1 source code to create new versions of AmigaOS.

I'm not even sure releasing variants of 3.1 is covered by the license, but they are stepping on Cloanto's toes and doing it anyway.

Quote:

Picasso96 is only RTG solution useable for new classic GFX driver development.

That claim is so out there its ridiculous.

RTG existed before P96, it can be created without P96, and if the IP holders make it difficult to obtain or work with...

Since its a rather unoriginal work, writing an alternative RTG solution that is "useable" is certainly an option.

Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 01:32 PM.

@iggy

Quote:

having read the settlement agreement,

Read again - page 3, article 1 (b).

Quote:

it can be created without P96

Sure and OS5 will be better than MacOS X...

@iggy

Doing 68k RTG without P96 would require:

a) port/use great portions of AROS
b) writing something from scratch
c) getting the driver SDK for CGX

b) is unrealistic, a) would end up in another 68k-AROS distro and c) is a big unknown

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@pavlor

Like I said, they don't have the right to alter "any" variant of AOS, as 3.5 and 3.9 were developed by outside contractors.

Further, how well any agreement with Amiga Inc would stand up in court is questionable.

There does not appear to be a transfer of IP rights included in the first Amiga Inc. trademark purchase, and the trail through KMOS to the second Amiga Inc. is highly dubious.

Read what you will into an agreement (not a court ruling, a contractual agreement) created by a lawyer and signed by a less knowledgeable party under duress.

Its all so much nonsense, that serve solely to backup up Ben Hermans' claim to IP acquired from someone that didn't actually own it.

The sole remaining original licensee of AmigaOS was Cloanto, and as such THEY should have the full rights to AmigaOS as Bill didn't actual own them to sell in the first place.

So...to pose a question, if I make an agreement to buy your house from someone that doesn't own it, even though they've created a corporation named "YourHouse", AND I and the selling party both agree I own your house...do I?

Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 02:01 PM.

@Kronos

OR...

c) they just convince Frank to license CybergraphX.

Which isn't very likely to occur, because like other MorphOS developers, he's been burned by this community before (while producing good stuff for them).

Look, its all a moot point since Jens claims that they will preserve access to P96.
And I'm not so jaded that I'll question that statement out of hand.

But, if MorphOS and OS4 contain RTG without P96, what makes that essential to OS3.X?

@iggy

Quote:

they don't have the right to alter "any" variant of AOS, as 3.5 and 3.9 were developed by outside contractors.

Where do you think got Hyperion most of 3.5/3.9 parts for OS4 project?

Quote:

Further, how well any agreement with Amiga Inc would stand up in court is questionable.

Funny... it was you, who referenced this agreement as limitation for Hyperion. Now when it is obvious you were wrong, you are inventing other hindrances.

Quote:

The sole remaining original licensee of AmigaOS was Cloanto, and as such THEY should have the full rights to AmigaOS

Wrong. They can´t inherit ownership by such license. If Amiga (Washington) never had rights in question, then these rest by previous valid owner. Some people voiced concerns even about Commodore-Escom IP transfer, but nobody used courts to prove this claim with consequences for current AmigaOS.

Note 2009 Settlement Agreement was signed by all "Amiga parties" (Amiga Washington, Amiga Delaware and Itec).

@iggy

Quote:

But, if MorphOS and OS4 contain RTG without P96, what makes that essential to OS3.X?

Lack of resources to build new RTG system? Picasso96 is available, its driver model is known (via UAEGFX), why reinvent the Wheel?

@iggy

Quote:

iggy wrote: @Kronos OR... c) they just convince Frank to license CybergraphX.

Any specific reason you had for rewording my c)

Quote:

But, if MorphOS and OS4 contain RTG without P96, what makes that essential to OS3.X?

I'd bet that P96 has been merged into graphics.library under OS4 just as CGX has in MorphOS.

As for 68k, sure one could go quite a long way with stuff like Vampire/Natami/NameOfTheDay or plain UAE allowing FullHD 24 bitplane modes with minor patching (chunky would be bit harder), but thats not an option as long as we are talking OS3 running on real HW.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@pavlor

Quote:

Note 2009 Settlement Agreement was signed by all "Amiga parties" (Amiga Washington, Amiga Delaware and Itec).

Glad you brought that up, since you can't be a party to an agreement once you've been legally dissolved as an entity. And the same party signing for multiple companies AFTER the these bogus transfers have occurred and one of the parties no longer even exists?
I live in Delaware, where Amiga Inc is incorporated, and even by OUR lax corporate standards, the maneuvers of these companies are of questionable legitimacy.

Quote:

If Amiga (Washington) never had rights in question, then these rest by previous valid owner.

HEY! I think we're actually getting to the root of my point there. Correct! Bill didn't buy the rights to OS3.X (or pretty much anything else covered by a patent or copyright), he bought the rights to the trademark Amiga. And I'm not even going to touch the Escom deal.

As to P96, I think I said that (that there was no point in worrying about it, since it appears that it will remain available).

To close on AInc, Hyperion (and even Cloanto) and the hot mess that is the current legal status of AmigaOS, I'm not really interested in legal agreements amongst untrustworthy entities.

And since I don't rely on any of them, its not an issue for me.

Should the assets ever be acquired by someone I feel I COULD trust, like Trevor Dickinson, then I'd have a lot less of a problem with the entire situation.

In its current state, financially benefiting Ben Hermans....

Oh, and as to legal status, since Hyperion does not wholly own OS4 (with parts being licensed, and some components owned by the Frieden brothers), Ben's business acumen is rather questionable.

He's a slick lawyer, but a pretty lousy entrepreneur.

@ Kronos

Sorry for restating your one option, young man.
They think we're really outsiders on this one anyway.
Even though legacy is just that, it has nothing to do with AInc., Hyperion, Jens or any other scavenger.

Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:23 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:16 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:14 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:13 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:12 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:10 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 05:01 PM.

@iggy

Quote:

I'm not really interested in legal agreements amongst untrustworthy entities.

Well, nobody disputes Hyperion´s claims, so provisions of the Settlement Agreement are valid - at least until court says otherwise.

Quote:

And the same party signing for multiple companies AFTER the these bogus transfers have occurred and one of the parties no longer even exists?

If I remember correctly, Amiga Washington was not dissolved back then yet. All "companies" signed separately by their representatives (well representative).

Quote:

Bill didn't buy the rights to OS3.X

Then why he was not sued to oblivion by lawyers of Gateway2000 when he marketed OS3.9?

@thread

Given the information from Jens about bringing Hyperion into this purchase, I was wondering if anyone has seen any announcement from Hyperion in that regard. Just curious.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@pavlor

Quote:

Well, nobody disputes Hyperion´s claims, so provisions of the Settlement Agreement are valid - at least until court says otherwise.

Wrong, plenty of people would dispute this claim, AND the court NEVER ruled on it, it was a settlement.
Simply stated, a business agreement, a contract.
And one that serves the purposes of the parties that created it (to strengthen arguments for a legal claim to ownership).
It in no way reflects a legal decision.

And you're right when you say representative, NOT representatives.
Which, in legal terms is highly questionable, as is backdating documents.

Finally, Gateway never gave a rat's ass about the Amiga, but they DID retain the IP.
Why is anybody's guess as the utility of the patents was certainly becoming dated.

But we DO know why they didn't hesitate to dump Amiga, they were threatened by Microsoft, whom they relied on for the OS for essentially ALL of their products.

Come to think of it, Microsoft doesn't have the cleanest hands either when it comes to business.

Seems to be a tradition in operating system vending, selling products you don't really own the rights to.

Who am I to question tradition? I'm biased anyway since I just find Ben Hermans personally repellent.

@number6

Quote:

Given the information from Jens about bringing Hyperion into this purchase...

Jens has always had hang ups about obtaining "proper" licensing.
It hasn't stopped him from proposing building Amiga 1200s that can't be legally called Amigas.

We have a seriously convoluted group of issues related to the ownership of the trademarks and IP in our legacy systems.

I'm not trying to convince you, Pavlor, or anyone else that I have a clear idea of what is going on here, just that I've been paying attention.
And we are they ones that are on the losing end of this crap.

Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 07:33 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 15-Apr-2017 at 07:32 PM.

@iggy

Quote:

Wrong, plenty of people would dispute this claim

They may try... bold words, no deeds.

Quote:

they were threatened by Microsoft

I don´t think Gateway developed anything Microsoft should fear.

Quote:

I'm biased anyway since I just find Ben Hermans personally repellent.

I admire his undisputed success - takeover of the OS4 project from Amiga.Inc. If MorphOS team was as clever as he, OS4 would be their project and MorphOS (well, called AmigaOS 4) in sustainable market position.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @iggy Quote: they were threatened by Microsoft I don´t think Gateway developed anything Microsoft should fear.

That never stopped MS (of that time).

So yes an OEM even thinking bout offering anything that might compete with Win/DOS would lose special pricing.

That is what killed OS/2 and to some lesser extent BeOS's 3rd attempt to fame.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@iggy

Quote:

Well, obviously Phase5 licensed it , but I guess you mean licensed to another party for further development. I don't know, and I don't want to offer an opinion on something Frank should answer himself. Plus, he is actually only one of two authors on the original package (and I don't know much about V5).

Just curious - perhaps P5 had exclusive rights.

@pavlor

Quote:

I admire his undisputed success

And I admire your undiluted mania Pavlor.

Yes, OS4 is a raging success, since the delay in releasing it and the high cost of entry has driven all but a remarkably tiny number of people elsewhere.

BUT, considering the dilution of the value of the Amiga name, yes OS4 is very aptly named.

Outside of its use in emulation (which is a pretty painful way to go), I can't think of too many real successes.

And those that have occurred, like Han de Ruiter's work, have occurred outside of Hyperion.

Hermans is very lucky that Trevor stepped in to manufacture hardware, otherwise they'd have nothing to run the OS on.

So rage on fanboy, I see not point in disputing what you say anymore than I'd waste breath arguing with a Trump supporter.

In the meanwhile, this thread is about P96, right?
Maybe we should stop wasting everyone's time on issues that won't get resolved.

@iggy

Quote:

And I admire your undiluted mania Pavlor.

Thanks!

I think you misunderstood what I had in mind: Get OS4 contract and agree to be paid only 20000 USD, then sell it as your own property and finally force rights owner to give you all you want... perfect. Now imagine MorphOS Team in place of Hyperion - they were first party contacted by Amiga.Inc back in 2001...

@pavlor

Actually (thinking about it....), hmm, maybe pulling the rug out from under Bill's feet wasn't such a bad thing.
After all, Bill had no faith in the OS outside of Amiga Inc's Amiga Anywhere concept.
And while I'll admit Amiga Anywhere wasn't completely fruity, considering the success of Java, it held little appeal for us.

In any case, I don't want to see anything untoward occur to OS4 (or any future variants), as the fact that NG has not only survived, but prospered and produced three separate OS' still sometimes amazes me. And the variations, comparisons, and competition still drive us.

SO, let's bury the disagreement. Its all based on old news anyway. And things DO have a way of working out in the long run. Not always ideally, but frequently better than they might have.

So, like I said, let Hyperion have P96.
MorphOS has CGX.
And AROS, as usual, has a functional clone.

Since I still use OS3.X, and MorphOS, and am likely to have a copy of OS4.1 in the near future, I shouldn't complain.

Now if someone could get Bill to cough up the rights to the Amiga trademark...

@iggy

Quote:

Now if someone could get Bill to cough up the rights to the Amiga trademark...

I'm afraid he's desperate enough to sell the trademark to the highest bidder, whether they have any Amiga relation or not.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@pavlor

Gee, I hate to join in one of these pointless arguments, but let me correct just one thing. You said:
Quote:

Where do you think got Hyperion most of 3.5/3.9 parts for OS4 project?

Hyperion has hardly any of the code from OS 3.5/3.9 - only a few parts that were written by some of the developers who worked for H&P before they joined Hyperion. The majority of it was held by H&P and not released to anyone.

Any remnants of 3.5/3.9 code we have from those days are not available to other developers and have not been used by anyone. Even if we wanted to use any of it, it would all have to be rewritten, so there is no point.

Last edited by tonyw on 16-Apr-2017 at 08:08 AM.

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php