@dirigent

Hyperion are responsible for the marketing of OS4.0. They could call the release whatever they wanted. The first release had the tools for developers included and it was the first release outside the circle of developers and beta testers.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 23-May-2007 at 10:18 AM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660

Quote:

Hyperion are responsible for the marketing of OS4.0. They could call the release whatever they wanted. The first release had the tools for developers included and it was the first release outside the circle of developers and beta testers.

So how should AI know that time is running as of "now"? And how should they perform the "substantial upgrade" within 6 months if they - allegedly - didn't even receive the un-updated version??

Last edited by dirigent on 23-May-2007 at 10:22 AM.

@dirigent

Quote:

So how should AI know that time is running as of "now"? And how should they perform the "substantial upgrade" within 6 months if they - allegedly - didn't even receive the un-updated version??

I would presume from when the original contracted feature list was complete.
That would have been sometime in 2005 after several OS4 updates from Hyperion, looking at the '18 months of discussions' stated by both sides, that would tie up with Hyperions submission of events.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@dirigent

Since the naming is not discussed in the contract, what counts is the definition of "OS 4.0" as described in the contract, together with the feature set. If Amiga failed to notice that the OS released to customers back in 2004 already had the feature set outlined in the contract it just shows their ignorance/incompetence of the whole OS4 affair IMHO. Although they didn't have to know anyway, because the buy-in contract was already signed before the first prerelease, all they had to do was to pay any outstanding debts (e.g. the $5k for the MESA port to DE), then pay the $25k.

Quote:

How would they do that if OS4 had not been "delivered" to them before?

They obviously couldn't. What the contract says is, Amiga can buy-in the software if they want to continue development of it themselves, but they must release a new version with substantial improvements within 6 months, else the rights to OS4 will rest with Hyperion. By this Hyperion wanted to ensure that Amiga cannot just do the "buy-in" and then abandon OS4.

@COBRA

Thanks, I would agree with that. Now let's have a final vote and settle the case. :)

@dirigent

Quote:

So how should AI know that time is running as of "now"? And how should they perform the "substantial upgrade" within 6 months if they - allegedly - didn't even receive the un-updated version??

Agreement clause 2.04 re Records and Inspection re royalties for Amiga one version of OS4.0.
If royalties were paid by Eyetech and or Hyperion then it would indicate OS 4.0 was in the
hands of consumers.

Outside of this and in the way things happened there is no provision in the Agreement.
It is up to Amiga Inc to find out themselves from Hyperion how things are progressing.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 23-May-2007 at 11:07 AM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 23-May-2007 at 10:42 AM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

So, now, where is Mr Tigger when we need him?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

I agree. We need him to explain what this everything means.

@mlehto

Quote:

I agree. We need him to explain what this everything means.

He would have to describe it as "Custer's last Stand"

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660
Quote:

The fact that there were no terms about how much was to be paid for the work or method of calculating payment was suspicious. Look at how it was done in the real contract.

Maybe I should have worded it better: at least one of the two parties involved seems to be showing a fake document/contract.

I'm currently more inclined to believe it's the AInc's one, since it's not signed.

Anyway, let's see what happens next, I'm curious to read AInc's reply to the IMHO reasonable (but not necessarily legally stronger, hey I'm not a lawyer ) arguments.

@thread

Things are quite entertaining at the moment. One question though. At release of OS4 wasn't Hyperion supposed to pay third party contributors? I saw no documentation of this, to me this is a biggie. Anybody out there receive their payment? Remember the judge will have to make his ruling based on credibility as obviously someone in this case is playing loose with the truth. AInc's past will certainly hurt them in this case.

Sorry one other question:
If Hyperion thought Ainc went insolvent and Hyperion owned the OS , why would they enter into further agreements with Kmos/Itec ? Didn't Ben post that IF AInc went insolvent that Hyperion would retain possesion of OS4 after the time period that they now state Ainc was already insolvent?

Seems there are alot of holes in both Iron Clad cases to me!

Last edited by stew on 23-May-2007 at 11:56 AM.

@stew

As far as I know most 3rd party developers have a royalty-based contract, which means they get paid a certain amount for each copy of the OS sold, rather than a fixed sum when the OS is released. I doubt that the release date of the OS could be decided based on such contracts. Also the fact that Hyperion claim to have invested over $1.1M implies they paid money to people. But even if Hyperion failed to pay certain developers their money, that is to be resolved between Hyperion and the developer at a European court of law, since the contracts are under EU/Belgian law.

Last edited by COBRA on 23-May-2007 at 11:47 AM.

@Thread

Thanks to every one who's been spending so much time keeping up with all os this and then trying to keep the rest of us up-to date. It's been tough enough keeping up with this thread, let alone all those court docs.

I still have much more to read of the newest docs from Hyperion. But wow, they are coming out swinging with very good rebutles to Amiga Inc's claims.

Quote:

Hyperion wanted to ensure that Amiga cannot just do the "buy-in" and then abandon OS4.

On which Hyperion would receive very high marks from me. I havn't read that part any where yet. Is that item with in the newest filings by Hyperion? If so, I should reach it in the next day or two.

Plaz

@Plaz

Quote:

On which Hyperion would receive very high marks from me. I havn't read that part any where yet. Is that item with in the newest filings by Hyperion?

No, it is outlined in the original 2001 contract, which was also included (mostly) in the Fleecy Moss Declaration, but is also included in full in one of the latest Hyperion documents.

@Turrican3

The Arctic Agreement may force Amiga Inc's lawyers to bale out.

It has KMOS accepting Hyperions rights to OS 4.0.

Hare today McEwan tomorrow.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660

True. The unsigned seems to be a really early version of that contract.

However, the signed contract states that all payment has to be upfront. So no debt can possibly result from it.

@COBRA

I seem to remember that Olaf posted he was supposed to get his payment within 60 or 90 days of release. Can't remember the amount he had stated. Would be interesting to know if he received his payment and the date on the check or transfer.

@stew

Would be interesting to know, but is not relevant in determining the release date of the OS, if it turns out that Hyperion did not pay a particular developer when the OS was released, it simply means Hyperion did not honour their contract with that developer, rather than meaning the OS wasn't released at that time.

@Ketzer

No Money so far outstanding on the Arctic port. the old $5000 + $25,000 buyback money came up to $30,0000 less $22,250 still left the 7,750 balance re buyback.
All these figures were mentioned on Amiga Inc's Lawyer letter to Hyperion.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

Quote:

stew wrote: @thread Things are quite entertaining at the moment. One question though. At release of OS4 wasn't Hyperion supposed to pay third party contributors? I saw no documentation of this, to me this is a biggie. Anybody out there receive their payment? Remember the judge will have to make his ruling based on credibility as obviously someone in this case is playing loose with the truth. AInc's past will certainly hurt them in this case.

The documents that hyperion submitted show that atleast ...
S. Rupprecht should receive 1250¤ no later than 45 days after release of OS 4.0
D. Würkner should receive 2500¤ no later than 30 days after release of OS 4.0

Quote:

Sorry one other question: If Hyperion thought Ainc went insolvent and Hyperion owned the OS , why would they enter into further agreements with Kmos/Itec ? Didn't Ben post that IF AInc went insolvent that Hyperion would retain possesion of OS4 after the time period that they now state Ainc was already insolvent? Seems there are alot of holes in both Iron Clad cases to me!

Hyperion accepted that Amiga D is enititled to the buyback explicitly on April 24, 2003 in a contract and implicitly by accepting money under the buyback clause (be it enough or not). However hyperion assume that eyetech would also have to agree to the transfer and didnt. Remember that Amiga tried to execute buyback already in 2003 before any release of OS4.

By that Hyperion basically accepted that ...
... Amiga D is the successor to Amiga WA.
... is entitled to the buyback clause.
... Hyperion does not have the rights granted by the "bankruptcy" clause or is willing to give these rights up.

Still they went ahead, added new features and eventually released several versions.