@COBRA

Quote:

the only valid argument you have is Hyperion not properly notifying Amiga of completion

So are we at least in agreement that various items listed as "essential" or "important" were missing from Pre-Release update 2?

Because according to Evert Carton's declaration, "Hyperion released the first version of Amiga OS 4.0 to the AmigaOne owners in May of 2004. [...] The first version of AmigaOS 4.0 included all functionality which was listed in Annex I [...] as 'essential'".
He then goes on to say "On December 27 2004, another update of AmigaOS 4.0 was released which contained all features described in Annex I as 'essential' or 'important'".

Note that both times, he uses the word "released". So are you now saying that he was lying about these things? Or maybe just misinformed?

When Hans-Joerg writes "Warp3D, a 3D API for Radeon and Voodoo cards was available with the December 2004 release", when in fact it was not --- was he lying, or was he just misinformed? When he also ignored to even talk about Warp3D drivers for the Permedia2 and the Virge, was he just being modest, or maybe just a bit evasive? When he claims that support for some (now outdated, and hard-to-get) ATI cards is sufficient substitute for dropping the contractually-agreed-upon Matrox support, do you take his word as gospel? Or have you ever compared the video DAC quality of a G550 against that of a run-of-the-mill Radeon? Because if you have, and you actually like to work productively on a VGA-attached large monitor, you would not agree...

When Hans-Joerg acknowledges that OpenGL support was not only not done, but was in fact "not feasible", and unilaterally substitutes miniGL, a vastly inferior replacement, yet concludes later "In my professional opinion, AmigaOS 4.0, according to the specifications, design goals and task list put forward in Annex I of the original agreement, was finalized by December of 2004. All essential features, all important features [...] were present in December 2004" --- was he lying, confused, or misinformed?

When Hans-Joerg writes "As can be seen from the first full page of Annex I to Exhibit A, we had determined that a straight port of Exec to the PowerPC architecture was impossible", while that first page actually mentions "Port Exec to PPC" and "PPC port of Exec", yet never says anything about the rewrite he claims they had already decided on --- is that a sign of old age, or wishful thinking, or just plain silliness?



So no, those declarations are not about some things which may or may not have been in some state of "completedness" on some internal beta tester list; These declarations were about RELEASES. Evert goes on to say that evidence of the completeness can be found in the ars review, which was of a PRE-RELEASE UPDATE, not some internal test-level software.

Yet even if the declarations *were* about "completing" things internally --- are you now suggesting that Hyperion not only did not need to inform Amiga Inc about completing things, but in fact did not even need to put the completed things anywhere where Amiga Inc could possibly notice them being completed? Are you, in fact, suggesting that AI should have guessed that someone, somewhere might have had something completed?
And even *if* you believe all that, then you *still* have to explain how Amiga Inc paying various amounts in 2003 is somehow too late for a December 2004 "completion". Amiga Inc certainly elected to pay the price, and get the software. There might have been some irregularities on both sides regarding the actual payments, but the fact that they elected to do it was crystal-clear to both parties.

Oh, and given these quotes from the declarations, which talk about RELEASING stuff --- why weren't the third party developers paid?