@fairlanefastback who said Quote:

Its also surprising that they [Amiga Inc] would not have better protected their copies of the proper documents, both from a perspective of completeness and from the perspective of actually valid versions. Without those to refer back to when necessary you are running your business from memory whenever related issues arise.

I wonder if Amiga Inc lost a lot of documentation, when they couldn't get back into their offices, because they hadn't paid the rent? You know, when their office stuff was famously auctioned! Anybody got a date on when that happened?

_________________

@ChrisH

Good point. I remember there were a few filing cabinets in that auction.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@ChrisH

I was wondering about that too:

http://www.murphyauctions.net/amiga.html

In other order of things, why is McEwen willing so hard to buy ExecSG to Friedens, or contract them as developers? The e-mail he says so is dated Feb/2007, and in previous announcements -when contract with Hyperion was terminated- he already stated he had OS5 on the works for two years or so, made by an internal team.... WTF?

Regarding the Arctic agreement, was it fulfilled? Was any demo delivered? Was it paid? I ask because it's a big amount of money, as AInc. agrees to pay 1.000$ per 8 hours work day. You all can read the proposed time for each component, I can count over 30 days for the highest assumption and that's without counting a couple of components with no proposed time.

Saluditos,

Ferrán.

_________________
Amiga user since 1988
AOS4 Betatester
Member of ATO Spain
A1 Cfg
OS4 SCR
A1200

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Third, Eyetech was brought into the deal by Hyperion, they picked them, they made them there hardware partner, and AmigaOnes were available until April or May of 2005, (after that the boards that appeared have a more interesting pedigree). ...

Hmmmm - according to this post here ( post #180) , Alan Redhouse from Eyetech has a different remembrance of how he/Eyetech got involved:

Alan Redhouse:
"...
In September 2000, Fleecy [Moss] came over - he doesn't live very far from
where we are based. We had a few beers and a chat and the AmigaOne seemed a
good idea and [we discussed] what could we do, would we like to help and all
the rest of it. So, in principle, I said yes, we'd like to help but
clearly we need to put some things down on paper as to what needs doing,
who is going to do it etc. Then a few days later Bill [McEwen] announced
it at the Australia show - dare I say like a typical American marketeer.
..."

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Jupp3

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: Quote: Even if it isn't, 2.08 goes on saying that unless Amiga releases a "substantially new version" within six months after OS 4.0 was completed by Hyperion, the development is considered halted. Can AmigaDE / Amiga Anywhere, or any later release of it be considered a "substantially new version of AmigaOS"?

No - I don't think so.

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: That's certainly what Amiga Inc. has been marketing it as, especially in the past. It definitely is substantially different, and it also is "Amiga"

But I'd say as it cannot run any of the applications the prior versions could run flawlessly, one can hardly call it a "substantially new version of AmigaOS".

Especially if you take into account that (to my knowledge) no Amiga hardware exists to run it on - it doesn't run on any classic Amiga, nor on any AmigaOne.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Thats the funny part, the more different it is, eg doesnt run old software, the more "substantially new" it is. If it did just run old software it would not be "substantially new".

But anyway, thats not really important for this case.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... As I said above, not at all, especially since the entire sell the rights to Itec and sell the OS back to AI was all negotiated at the same time. ...

Hmmmmm - at this point I seem to loose oversight:

AInc sold the OS to ITEC.
You say ITEC sold the OS back to AInc (1), but my remembrance is that ITEC was bought out (together with the AmigaOS) by KMOS, who later renamed themselves to "AInc. (2)"


The contract between AInc (1) and Hyperion says AInc (1) has the right to buy back the OS.
But instead to buy it back they sold it to ITEC and ITEC was bought by KMOS, who later renamed themselves to AInc (2).

So for me the question arises:

How can AInc (2) claim to have the right "to buy back" something that never belonged to them, as AInc (1) sold it long ago?

And if AInc (1) sold it to AInc (2) by making the "ITEC-detour" - why for heavens sake do they believe they have to buy something back from Hyperion, if they already own it?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Yet if its ambiguous by your own admission

Uhm, the phrase i used was "rather unambiguous". Which means I am pretty damn sure what "transferring" and "acquiring" means.

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

There is nothing showing full payment for the buy-in/buy-back before August 2003. Bill says they were insolvent by August 2003 as I read it:

But whether "they" (Amiga Inc Washington) were insolvent by August 2003 does not matter, because on April 23rd, 2003, Itec became "their" successor with respect to the contract. And I have yet to see anyone claim that Itec ever went insolvent.


And yeah, it's likely that AI(W) might have had liabilities in excess of their cash reserves previously. However, "likely" is not going to get anyone a perpetual, royalty-free exclusive license. And proving it is pretty much impossible --- especially if for 4 years, you have acted as if there was no insolvency.

@Sneaky

Quote:

Sneaky wrote: ... BTW anyone here who knows the difference between "there" and "their"? I know one who doesn't ...

Well, I as a non-native English speaker know the difference - in contrary to many native English speakers.


That makes it hard for me as a non-native English speaker to read the postings from those who don't know or care - and quite a lot of my rare time is wasted by that...


Not a very nice move...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@COBRA

Quote:

They cannot do that because that page is referenced from one of the pages they did include.

Welcome to the real world. Broken links are the norm, not the exception. You should see the shareholders' agreement for my current employer --- you'd run screaming.

And honestly --- even if you insist that there must have been an Annex II page in the contract which was signed and initialled... it was obviously not *this* page, because *this* page was not initialled by anyone other than Ben.
If AI were as concerned about broken links as you are, they could simply state that yes, indeed, there was an Annex II, but that they had no knowledge of this particular version of it, that they never saw this version, and that the version they did see did not list any of the Friedens.

Of course, they are more likely to argue that listing Hyperion as a subcontractor was daft, and that thus obviously assuming the list of people grouped under that listing were not considered subcontractors.


The only lesson is that people should get their paperwork in order, or later everyone will suffer. It's bad enough with properly drafted and signed documents, but without them, it's just a mess.

@umisef

I'll leave you to speculate as much as you want, I'll just wait for Amiga's response, it'll be interesting

@umisef

Quote:

And proving it is pretty much impossible --- especially if for 4 years, you have acted as if there was no insolvency.

It doesn't matter that much what we think is fair or not. You are arguing that Hyperion cannot use this since this by all means, they should have known. Well, in reality Amiga Inc is trying to use the letter of the law to win over Hyperion. I'd say it is only fair if Hyperion was given the right to use the same means to fight back. NO MATTER if we think it is fair or not who wins.

rgds,
Stefan

@Yabba

No, hes arguing that wether Amiga (old) was insolvent in August 2003 is irrelevant when the contract was transferred to Itec before that. Proving that Amiga (old) was insolvent in March would be a different thing but is probably impossible after four years. But even IF they were insolvent before the transfer happened, it is claimed that the clause in event of insolvency is illegal anyway following US law (which I dont know about).

Hyperions defense basically says ...

they already have the rights because Amiga (old) was insolvent. See above.

Amiga (new) failed to execute the buyback because Amiga (new) failed to pay enough money in time. A supporting claim is that OS4 was finished in December 2004. This will have to be decided by the court once more communication between the parties has been revealed.

Edit: Forgot the third claim that the transfer of the contract to the new Amiga was illegal/not completed. Yet they accepted Amiga(new) as Amiga(old)s successor on many ocassions, not the least of which accepting money from them.

Last edited by Ketzer on 24-May-2007 at 11:17 AM.

@Ketzer

One other twist. If Amiga went insolvent wouldn't any assets have to be sold to pay off creditors? We all know there were/are a few from that time period. If I am not mistaken they would have rights to compensation superceding the agreement with Hyperion. Any experts on US bankrupcy law out there? There is a progression of creditors as to the distribution of assets. I know that as I invested in a company that went under, and investors are at the bottom.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Spectre660 ... First of all Hyperion never claimed it was released, in fact they claimed the contrary until AI cancelled the contract and then tried to backdate everything. In addition, AI bought back the OS before Hyperion shipped the first version, so it doesnt explain why Hyperion didnt ship AI what they bought from them. -Tig

Hehe - this is what happens if the company (Amiga) does not buy one of their "own" machines!

Had they bought an AmigaOne from Eyetech, they now had at least the CD with the OS!

Then they just had to try to get the sources now...


Fun aside:
I still have a screenshot from an attempt some time ago to access AmigaInc's website with an original Amiga - it has the message that you need at least IntrernetExplorer v xyz to display the page properly...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@all

Something that everybody seems to forget is that it seems AInc never had the full rights over AOS even before they went into agremant with Hyperion, so how could they own all of OS4 after the buyback-buyin is beyond me.

Of course if we assume that the buy-in was ever done in a proper way.

_________________
You can crack anything with your head, even the head itself.
--------------------------------
...proud AOS user since 1993
--------------------------------

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... This is what the contract says: 2.02 Hyperion shall use best efforts to ensure that Amiga OS 4.0 is ready for release before March 1, 2002. ...

Hmmmmm - but the contract does NOT say what has to happen (consequences, penalties) if Hyperion fails to have OS4 ready for release before March 1, 2002 - or does it?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

Quote:

stew wrote: @Ketzer One other twist. If Amiga went insolvent wouldn't any assets have to be sold to pay off creditors? We all know there were/are a few from that time period. If I am not mistaken they would have rights to compensation superceding the agreement with Hyperion. Any experts on US bankrupcy law out there? There is a progression of creditors as to the distribution of assets. I know that as I invested in a company that went under, and investors are at the bottom.

Itec was, as far as I remember a primary secured creditor or what they call it in the USA. Anyway, it would only be important *if* Amiga where actually deemed insolvent by court in April 2003, which they, as far as we all know, werent.

@Teddy

Amiga provide rights to Hyperion. What Amiga doesnt own, Amiga cannot provide. Whatever Hyperion adds, they must use "best effort" to secure "widest possible" rights. However, under no circumstances Hyperion may pollute Amigas IP and restrict the original owners rights. Which raises the execsg ownership question. Where of course not the friedens would be at fault, but hyperion.