@gary_c

Quote:

Is this your own analysis, or do you accept this as true based on information from others?

I have too admit being somwhat distracted when I wrote that, trying to squeeze in between work assignments and phone calls. Did not notice until this morning, when I read the responses to my post. What I meant to say was, the definition of the AmigaOne in that old contract would be considered irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.

@SHADES

Quote:

Oh boy, that's utterly laughable.

Have to agree...

_________________
You know when you've been JackAttacked!

@Spectre660

Quote:

I love these old press releases

...and I love these old threads:

Link #1

Posted on 1-May-2005 12:52:11 by Bobsonsirjonny:
"I've heard a rumour that Amiga inc are not happy with Eyetech for releasing the uA1c - does anyone know anything about this?"
"Also - thinking about it, the whole KMOS situation is very fishy."
"Oh yeah - heard a rumour about a week ago that MAI are gonna be sued by some company over the Articia P or something."

Link #2

Posted on 3-May-2005 14:38:19 by Bobsonsirjonny:
"To elaborate on what I heard re the other rumours – if Amiga inc pull the plug on Eyetech (hurt them in any way so they leave, or go under or whatever) this will render OS4 without a hardware partner which in turn will hurt Hyperion and as a consequence allow Amiga inc to take OS4 by default. IMHO that’s immoral. If this is true it sucks. It makes Amiga inc worse than Gensi.. Indeed I know people who have been personally hurt by Amiga inc’s failure to pay them – but they won’t shout about it for fear it will hurt the “platform” – that’s just wrong. When it affects people that’s just wrong."

@hatschi

.... hmmmm

I think Hyperions case goes like this:

When Amiga Inc sold the Amiga OS rights to KMOS, which they clearly did in 2003 according to earlier post here. The Nov 2001 Agreement became completely invalid even though KMOS said they would honour it. They didn't say they were bound by it.

This was because it was written between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion. Not between KMOS and Hyperion.

It is possible that some new agreement made between KMOS and Hyperion exist which we don't know about. But I doubt that any reorganization/renaming of companies after selling AmigaOS would bring the contract back to validity again.

Look at these Agreement snippets:

Quote:

2.06. Amiga shall retain ownership of the software.

That's impossible since they sold it making the agreement invalid.

Quote:

2.07 In the event Amiga files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent.

They might have been insolvent for some time even though they never bankrupted. But maybe that's the same thing in US. Don't know.

Quote:

2.08 Contingency. In the event Amiga decides to halt development of the Classic OS for the Target Hardware, the Amiga One Partners are granted an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide right to license and develop, use, modify and market the Software and OS 4...

I think that you can say that Amiga Inc halted development the second they sold AmigaOS to KMOS.

Quote:

...Amiga shall be deemed to have halted development of the Classic Amiga OS in the event that no substantially new version of the Classic Amiga OS for the Target Hardware is released within 6 months after the completetion of OS 4.0 by Hyperion.

Well, here you got the reason to why there are talks of Amiga OS 5 from the current Amiga Inc. If the contract is valid, and if they don't release a new Amiga OS version before June 24th... well read 2.08 again. It would be to Amiga Inc's advantage if the trial where over before this date because when that date passes Hyperion can claim development have halted so they own OS 4.0.

Last edited by horizone on 11-May-2007 at 08:15 AM.

@JackAttack
I'm talking about your statements in general. Please read the second paragraph of my post again. What gives weight to statements (with no references) by an anonymous poster (with no credentials)?

-- gary_c

_________________
zukakakina.com - themes.tikiwiki.org

@gary_c

Quote:

More generally, you post confidently as someone who has knowledge of contract law and specific knowledge of the details of this dispute. Yet you don't cite any sources and no one (I guess) knows who you are and therefore what to infer about the validity of your statements, apart from any face value they might have.

A brief description might be in order. As a part of my work I write contracts for the company, regarding both supplier and customer relationships. I have regular meetings with our legal team and discuss these kinds of issues. Since I work for a software developer/supplier, ownership and legal rights to source code and finished products are high on the agenda. I have also taken part in court proceedings when we were sued by a supplier after not paying for services not performed in accordance with contract as well as given testimony in several lawsuits on behalf of customers, similar in form to the one Fleecy made in this case.

Although I do not have a legal degree, I think I can contribute with some no-nonsense observations, according to my own experiences. Many posters seem not to have any idea how these things work. Not properly referencing sources is simply due to not having the time.

_________________
You know when you've been JackAttacked!

@CodeSmith

Quote:

CodeSmith wrote: Then the trolls moved in and the animosity really got going. People in positions of authority made some really dumb remarks in public, and what used to be "those other guys" became "those arrogant gits". Most people got polarized, and what could have been a friendly rivalry like Amiga vs ST or C64 vs Speccy degenerated into a sea of petty hate. Fast forward to now, and I'm reminded of the old saying, "War does not determine who's right, but who's left". In this case, both sides took a huge beating and the amiga as a whole is a lot worse off because of it. I personally wish that whole time period hadn't happened, it diminished us all as people. I certainly cringe when I read some of the things I wrote, and I was one of the moderate ones.

Very well stated and thank you for your honesty, I agree with your statement 100%. I've made some silly posts myself in the past which are probably just a Google search away, we all did. We were played like pawns in chess by the companies involved and we happily went along witht he game, some more than others.

The only positive I see here in May 2007 is that the camps are almost completely gone. The community more or less is a community again, but still with no direction. For those of us left, what's left? AROS? Is there enough desire and passion to make something of AROS

_________________
Power Mac G4 "Quicksilver 2002"
800Mhz, 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 8500
MorphOS 2.7 (Registered)
$225 total spent!

Quote:

horizone wrote: I think Hyperions case goes like this: When Amiga Inc sold the Amiga OS rights to KMOS, which they clearly did in 2003 according to earlier post here. The Nov 2001 Agreement became completely invalid even though KMOS said they would honour it. They didn't say they were bound by it. This was because it was written between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion. Not between KMOS and Hyperion.

That wont work for a couple of reasons

1) Hyperion was well aware that the sale to Itec was occuring, notice the date of the sale of the OS to Itec, April 23, 2003 and the sale of OS back to Itec April 24, 2003. This was all worked out, you dont think that the April 24, 2003 contract was hammered out in less then 24 hours do you?

2) Hyperion signed the bill of sale with Itec, if they didnt believe the contract had indeed gone to Itec, they wouldnt have signed a bill of sale based on the OS contract with Itec.

Quote:

But maybe that's the same thing in US. Don't know.

Basically it is, AI has been neither.

Quote:

I think that you can say that Amiga Inc halted development the second they sold AmigaOS to KMOS.

The sold the OS to Itec and Itec immediately bought back the OS, which puts big holes in your theory.

Quote:

Well, here you got the reason to why there are talks of Amiga OS 5 from the current Amiga Inc. If the contract is valid, and if they don't release a new Amiga OS version before June 24th... well read 2.08 again. It would be to Amiga Inc's advantage if the trial where over before this date because when that date passes Hyperion can claim development have halted so they own OS 4.0.

Actually since the buyback has been implemented, the license cancelled and the code not delivered, 2.08 isnt going to be able to be used ever by Hyperion. Unless there is a new contract between the two companies.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

Quote:

I think the number of contractors actually may have been kept at a minimum, bearing in mind there was no funding for this project. How else get people to put the hours into the project when you cannot pay them? Saying something should be kept to a minimum is really stupid to put in a contract, unless you are the supplier and want to have it your way. Wasn't it Ben who drafted the contract?

Yes it was Ben who drafted the contract, the funding wasnt to be received until they started selling it (they received money from Eyetech for the OS4 supplied to the AmigaOnes) and AI had the option to buy back the OS (which they did in April of 2003).

Quote:

As I've stated before, the problem is ownership and not the number of contractors. The feature set in the contract should belong to AI, no matter who did the actual work. Anything in excess of the specification, like ExecSG, is a different matter.

The new PPC Exec is listed on page 14, 20 and 21 of the contract, its definitely not in excess of the specification. In addition, since both the Friedens and Ben have claimed its based on the 3.1 Exec they were provided source for, its not a clean room implementation, and thus tainted and only someone with a license from AI could distribute it.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

Quote:

Hyperion and ACube have every legal right to sell Os4 on SAM according to the documents presented.

Hyperion sold the OS in April of 2003, after that they dont have the right to sell to other hardware, then eventually for non-delivery, AI cancels the license, and because Hyperion didnt send a CD to AI with the code, they have a completely legitimate reason to cancel the license.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Troels

Quote:

Troels wrote: @takemehomegrandma Those definitions are old and could have changed just not making it to the old contract. The SE/XE boards could have been agreed upon in an email we haven't seen yet or just by some oral agreement. If Amiga Inc didn't have an agreement with Hyperion/Eyetech about these boards (not from Escena) they should have objected to them being sold instead of speaking positively about them in public. Amiga clearly accepted the fact these boards where sold and marketed as AmigaOne-SE and AmigaOne-XE. Suggesting very much that a written or oral contract have been made with Mr. Redhouse from Eyetech.

Guys really pay attention. AI is not saying in Paragraph 22 that they boards sold by Eyetech are not Amiga Ones, thats why Eyetech is not mentioned in paragraph 22. This continued rant is getting silly. Paragraph 22 is about Exhibit I, which is the Acube deal with Hyperion, it picks apart the deal with Acube, its about preventing Acube from selling ANY BOARD UNDER THE NAME AMIGAONE even if they are Teron boards that someone bought at an auction. AmigaOnes are boards with a license from AI, no board from ACUBE has such a license. Its also to show Hyperion doesnt have the right to grant Acube the powers that they imply they have in the agreement.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

Quote:

hatschi wrote: "If the document is to be served under the first paragraph above, the Central Authority may require the document to be written in, or translated into, the official language or one of the official languages of the State addressed."

First of all its says may, so it doesnt happen in all cases, and in actuality, I dont think it would have been upheld in this case, because according to a comment from Ben years ago, this contract between Hyperion and AI only exists in English and of course was written by world reknown legal expert Ben Hermans of Hyperion. But it doesnt matter because AI has provided the translation.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@hatschi

Quote:

..and I love these old threads:

Fan-popcorn-tastic!

Thank you very much for digging these out and presenting them for out edification!

@Tigger

Quote:

... its about preventing Acube from selling ANY BOARD UNDER THE NAME AMIGAONE even if they are Teron boards that someone bought at an auction.

Please do us and yourself finally a favor and take a look at the specs of your "Teron"Board/AmigaOne and the ACUBE Samantha Board and..

Oh! Yes! You're right! They're diffrent!!! So please stop presenting that as a fact to support your theories.

BTW, the fact that you kept repeating this as a "fact" does not shine a good light on your overall comprehension. Also supported by your replies being no argumentation anymore, but more and more a repeating of your statements presented as "truth" or better statements, you decide to be the truth and understandable only the way you understand and interpret them.

So please, find new arguments.

And don't say "It's all in the contract. It's clearly written under x.yx That's understandable only in one way and that is the way I understand it!" because it's not! Nearly everybody around here but you see's the obstacles, incosistencies and discrepancies in this whole affair!

@Tigger

Quote:

...But it doesnt matter because AI has provided the translation. -Tig

So where do you know that from, Mr. AmigaInc

@Sneaky

Quote:

Sneaky wrote: @Tigger Quote: ...But it doesnt matter because AI has provided the translation. -Tig So where do you know that from, Mr. AmigaInc

From Pacer, but you know that already, dont you Mr Hyperion.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

From Pacer, but you know that already, dont you Mr Hyperion. -Tig

Sorry, got no account. So I have to rely on kind souls to hint for news

And please, if you really insist on calling me Mr., call me MrCommunity as this is the party I really hope winning somehow, sometimes.

Edit: Oh, and I take back that MrAmigaInc. Perhaps MrDecided fits better

Last edited by Sneaky on 11-May-2007 at 04:37 PM.

@Tigger

Well Justia.com has something about a translation but its a translation of a Proof of Service FROM Dutch TO English.

Basically the translation appears to be for Amiga for services rendered in Belgium where a prcoess server served 13 English language documents to Hyperion.

So as I read it the process server wrote that he delivered 13 documents (in English) to Hyperion and a firm in NYC translated his Dutch reciept for services into English for Amiga and for the beneft of submittal of proof in English to the US court that more documents (in English) were delievered to Hyperion.

In what is available on Justia.com as of this writing I see nothing about what you are talking about. Maybe Pacer has newer info I suppose?

http://news.justia.com/cases/amigahyperion/370498/

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 11-May-2007 at 04:44 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@JackAttack

Quote:

I think I can contribute with some no-nonsense observations,

......and long may you continue, Sir.

When I read posts here, I tend to hear in my head the excited babble of Year 9 school pupils.

Then, every so often, one of your posts pops up, and the narrataive voice changes to that of David Dimbleby covering a very special occasion with all the cool and calm gravitas of a seasoned pro.

Many thanks!

@tigger

Quote:

The new PPC Exec is listed on page 14, 20 and 21 of the contract, its definitely not in excess of the specification. In addition, since both the Friedens and Ben have claimed its based on the 3.1 Exec they were provided source for, its not a clean room implementation, and thus tainted and only someone with a license from AI could distribute it.

as the old kernel was handed over in 68k assembler I really don't see how they could have used any of it?

so that leaves having used it as an influence for your current work but that can hardly be enough?

I mean how badly would SCO have raped IBM over their supposed code theft if intent and access was enough?

Does that argument really hold up? someone LESS biased will have to answer it before I accept the answer.

_________________
Yes I own an Amiga. A non-upgraded A500 that is unpacked once every 3 years.

If you are going to quote me, do so fully or not at all.
/Ins