Joined: 19-Jun-2005 Posts: 1714
From: Melbourne, Australia
@COBRA
Quote:
Simple: compare the feature list of the release in 2004 with the feature list outlined in the contract, and there you go.
Indeed. Still not completed. Ouch!
*If* you want to try to reduce "completed" to something as simple-minded as that, *then* you'll have to be rather simple-minded about it, too. No "Oh, well, you know, Matrox did not work out, so we had Radeon drivers instead", no "Ah, yes, JIT --- you know, our interpreting emulator was plenty fast", no "Really, there were no programs using 3D anyway, so why should we have provided a 3D API?".
Was everything done that was listed in the contract --- no. Simple as that.
Quote:
At the end of 2006 when AI paid additional amounts, they owed a lot of money to Hyperion for the arctic work.
You keep saying this. Did you read that Arctic contract? It's all about "pay first, then we work. No pay, no work!". And if you read the McBill interview, it says something along the lines "we paid additional tens of thousands of dollars for the Arctic port". What indication do you have that *any* work was done on the Arctic stuff that was not paid for in advance? I have read every document submitted to the court, and I certainly have seen neither side mention anything about that....
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA
Quote:
COBRA wrote: @Tigger
Quote:
Q: what proof do you have that the software was completed in 2004
Simple: compare the feature list of the release in 2004 with the feature list outlined in the contract, and there you go. Noone can argue that it was not completed. Everything else you stated is irrelevant.
I think I can argue succesfully that the December 2006 release doesnt have the entire feature list outlined in the contract, so I'm not sure Hyperion should argue they were feature complete in December of 2004. -Tig
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.