@Spectre660

Quote:

Who has rights to OS 3.9 ?

Quote:

"The Agreement" clauses 4.01 & 4.04

Please explain ?

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

@Tigger

I am certainly unqualified to judge the brothers ability at writing code, but the code monkey term is best left as a poor private joke. However, I would never have blamed AInc for delaying the release of OS4 because they would not grant a hardware license, when we didn't need the license because they went insolvent and we were defaulted all rights to OS4.
It certainly seems there is some revisionism going on. Perhaps by all parties involved. I wonder if BM could be found guilty of perjury by the judge if he compares the testimony he gave in the Peck case with the new one?
Seems alot is being made of BM conceeding ExecSG to the twins via email. Can a CEO give away company IP without consent of shareholders?

@Spectre660

This begs the question: Why would Hyperion sign a contract with KMOS if they thought the deal between AInc and ITEC was invalid?

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: This is the order that things occurred. Quote: 1) April 23, 2003 - Itec buys Classic Amiga OS, including the contract Hyperion's lawyer has attempted to cloud the validity of this contract transfer and thus later transfers.. To counter this AMIGA INC will have to produce a document signed by AMIGA Washington,Hyperion and Eyetech explicitly agreeing to the transfer of Amiga interests to ITEC.

They dont need anything with AI and Hyperions signature on it for this. Hyperion is only close to a valid arguement if Eyetech objects to the sale, because Hyperion has agreed to it by signing the agreement of April 24th. As I pointed out earlier, AI has two avenues to address this, even if Hyperion get Eyetech to come forward and object to the transfer from AI to Itec.

Quote:

if this purchase/transfer can be proven to be invalid then all that follows becomes null and void . does not matter who signed what or said what after.

By signing the April 24th document, they are agreeing to the transfer or they are illegally selling something to Itec which has no rights to it. I dont think they can push the issue really hard. Illegal tranfer of IP, is a pretty big offence, and they have admitted they took at least partial payment.
-Tig

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

@Tomppeli

in 4.01
Amiga inc give a warranty that they own all IP and copyright to the previous versions and all third parties have assigned all rights to Amiga.

in 4.04 both parties are to give notice of any claims asserted that may have an effect on the rights granted under the agreement.

the non hand over of 3.5 and 3.9 source code by Amiga inc would appear to be a dispute with H&P over the OS 3.9 ownership and rights

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

Quote:

stew wrote: @Tigger I am certainly unqualified to judge the brothers ability at writing code, but the code monkey term is best left as a poor private joke.

First of all I didnt bring up the code monkey comment someone else did, saying that you couldnt get code monkeys for 90k Euros a year. I think that inaccurate, I just said that at Gateway 2000 show people thought of the twins as Code monkeys, its just gone on from there.

Quote:

However, I would never have blamed AInc for delaying the release of OS4 because they would not grant a hardware license, when we didn't need the license because they went insolvent and we were defaulted all rights to OS4. It certainly seems there is some revisionism going on. Perhaps by all parties involved.

Yeah, and remember, OS4 was released in December of 2004, is also part of the new history.

Quote:

I wonder if BM could be found guilty of perjury by the judge if he compares the testimony he gave in the Peck case with the new one? Seems alot is being made of BM conceeding ExecSG to the twins via email. Can a CEO give away company IP without consent of shareholders?

BM cant give away IP, though I agree with his comments on the OS. The issue is this
Exec-SG is co owned by the Friedens and AI, it contains IP from the original Exec, and because Hyperion hasnt paid for it, it contains IP created by the brothers. The issue is that Hyperions contract with the Friedens in conjunction with the 2001 contract means AI is owed the Exec and Hyperion needs to buy it back and give it to them if the 25K buyback is considered to have been completed. Thats why I asked earlier who side was Rogue on. He just got himself 6 figures minimum and Hyperion ends up with nothing.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660

I understood that 4.01 a little bit differently. But my English skills are not perfect and I'm not a lawyer. So you say A.inc infringed the copyrights of Haage&Partner with this agreement with AmigaOne partners. So Haage&Partner can sue A.inc if they want to.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

@Tomppeli

Quote:

So you say A.inc infringed the copyrights of Haage&Partner with this agreement with AmigaOne partners. So Haage&Partner can sue A.inc if they want to.

If a third party offered to sell Coca Cola's I.P. to Pepsi they'd be in the sh!t.

@Tigger

Quote:

5) September 2003 - Ben Hermans makes several comments about the OS and the deposition on Moobunny and ann.lu (probably here as well)

Both moobunny and ann.lu, because they had no registration system at that time, had a spate of posts by people falsely claiming to be Ben Hermans and other "celebrities". There's really no way to tell that it was Ben saying that.

@Tomppeli

It means that Amiga Inc could not deliver all source code and documentation to Hyperion as agreed in the contract.
this would be the first breach of the terms of the contract.
and it would have been on the part of Amiga INC.
Hyperions laywer tries to bring this up by the Olaf Barthel references to the OS 3.1 source codes and unpaid fees to him.

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

@Tigger

The civil law is a funny thing. you will find that if something is deemed to be null and void events after that point are void also but have no effect. it is as if they never happened.

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

@CodeSmith

Ben Hermans had a specific IP at the time, if I remember correctly, and it was not a proxy. People even spotted anonymous posts by him on ANN.lu, like the infamous "Hobby OS by hobby developers" post.

_________________

@stew

The Kmos deal transfers no rights from the Hyperion version of the contract. only turns over object code to a demo and pays good money to boot.

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

@Skunkfish

Quote:

Skunkfish wrote: The problem is that the target hardware also includes the PPC accelerator boards from Phase 5 and DCE. For OS4 to be released for the target-hardware surely a release for these boards IS necessary. Therefore even at this point OS4 is STILL not released as-of the terms of the agreement, and Amiga Inc could still employ the buy-back option now if they hadn't already (if the contract was still in place).

Thanks, an interesting interpretation of that clause (I would have thought that it would have said "all" target-hardware though for your implication to be unavoidable). By Amiga Inc. lately adding Ack hardware as target-hardware have they effectively assured that this condition won't ever occur or is that not an addition approved by the AmigaOne partners?

Any substance to the fact that these hardware are no longer "developed and marketed" so it is no longer possible to ever meet this condition?

Nathan

@CodeSmith

Quote:

Both moobunny and ann.lu, because they had no registration system at that time,

Uh, ann.lu introduced "trusted users" in March 2003. If you go and check Ben's September 2003 comments, you will find that he had, indeed, logged in.

@NathanH

remember that the Amiga One as defined when the contract was signed was a board that was to
be attached to a A1200 Motherboard an A4000 motherboard in an Eyetech Tower.

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

@CodeSmith
Quote:

Both moobunny and ann.lu, because they had no registration system at that time, had a spate of posts by people falsely claiming to be Ben Hermans and other "celebrities". There's really no way to tell that it was Ben saying that.

What difference does it make if someone is registered or not? Who am I, for example? Remember also that Ted Danson signed up at AO about a year ago - was that really him or not?

Besides, with Ben H., someone who has been so wrong so many times about so many things, what difference does it really make if it was him or not?

Last edited by jorkany on 25-May-2007 at 01:43 AM.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

@AMiGR, umisef

If one can definitely say it was Ben, then good. Remember though, that for a few weeks the impersonation had gotten way out of hand.

@CodeSmith

Quote:

@the guys discussing insolvency or lack thereof I have a question: if Bill McEwen used "we're flat broke" as an excuse to not pay Bolton Peck and the others, why can't Hyperion use that exact same excuse to say "we own OS4 now according to clause [blah] of the contract"?

I guess my post aren't very interesting and are being skipped. Especially the part where I point out....

Quote:

Bankruptcy is determined by a legal proceeding where such matters as ownership, responsibility, creditors, payments .... are determined by the courts.

Amiga Inc. W was never declared insolvent by a bankruptcy court.

Simply stating "We're broke" isn't the same as being legally bankrupt in the US. The creditors must sue to force a broke company in to bankruptcy. Then it is truely bankrupt. Again in the US, bankrupt isn't equal to insolvent. Since the contract is bound by US law Hyperion may not be able to claim ownership based on admission of insolvency. Next, normally for Hyperion to benifit from a bankrupcy settlement, they would have to be one of the creditors sueing Amiga Inc in to backruptcy for lack of payment. I don't see such a charge of non-payment of dedts being made by Hyperion. I would have to think that when Amiga Inc. agreed to 2.07, that they knew it would be a big loophole for them, or maybe they really didn't know either. The judge is really going to have a headache over this one for sure.

Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 25-May-2007 at 01:52 AM.
Last edited by Plaz on 25-May-2007 at 01:51 AM.

@jorkany

If there's a registration system there will be moderators, and if someone had "squatted" on BenH's name, I'm sure he would have complained and the perpetrator would have been kicked out.

Quote:

What difference does it make if someone is registered or not? Who am I, for example? Remember also that Ted Danson signed up at AO about a year ago - was that really him or not?

You can't possibly be that naive. Ted Danson is an actor, not one of the major players in the amiga or computer scene. His opinions weigh about as much as yours or mine. Remember a few weeks ago when someone calling themselves Carl Sassenrath signed up? he sure got a lot more attention than Ted Danson did. Some names are worth a lot more than others, depending on context.

Quote:

Besides, with Ben H., someone who has been so wrong so many times about so many things, what difference does it really make if it was him or not?

That's not the point - imagine that I went to some site you haven't signed up to yet and started posting as "jorkany". I bet that regardless of how right or wrong you've been in the past about things, you would not be too pleased to see someone posting as you.