@AMiGR

Quote:

Not really, I would say that it'd even *help* their cause, as it'd show that they were ports that were never released because it'd be a breach of contract. It shows that no party proceeded without a licence from Amiga Inc.

if all parties were thinking rationally i would agree with this but considering the current situation i would say that ain't the case. especially when bill used a messaging log as proof that hyperion was operating behind their back.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@AMiGR

Quote:

as it'd show that they were ports that were never released because it'd be a breach of contract.

Actually, the port being created while incorporating Amiga Inc's IP is a breach of someone's contract; AI provided Hyperion with their IP for a specific, reasonably well defined purpose, and if it ends up being used by third parties for a different purpose, someone has done something wrong --- either the developer, who has overstepped the bounds their contract with Hyperion imposed, or Hyperion, for failing to impose such bounds in the contract.

The whole "If it is not released, it does not count" thing, while intuitively sensible, does not really hold water. It merely reduces the attributable damages, it does not, however, change the fact that a contract was breached.