@ChrisH

If I was writing some software for a company I would probably have the decency to tell that I had finished it, especially if they lose their rights to that software after 6 months.

Quote:

3.01 Amiga may, at any time but no later than six (6) months after the completion of OS4.0

Hyperion never announced publicly (or I suspect privately) that they had completed OS4.0. If work was completed on OS4.0 at that time then subsequent versions should have been labeled OS4.1,4.2 etc, not OS4.0 developer pre-release update x.

Hyperion wouldn't want to do that because for any standalone version of OS4, apart from 4.0, they have to pay a royalty fee to Amiga Inc.

Quote:

2.03 Royalties (A) Standalone version. Other than for OS 4.0 for which no royalties shall be due by Hyperion, Hyperion shall pay Amiga a royalty of 20 USD for each standalone version of any subsequent versions of OS 4 developed by Hyperion in pursuant to this Agreement.

_________________
Currently planning to upgrade my Amstrad CPC

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Strange things do happen by accident. I bet that 250.00 was not paid. All the Amiga Camp have do is show another wire for 250.00 or more before November 2006 and the initial 25,000 for the buyback is met without the "Outstanding Invoices" issue. It would have the effect of moving a certain time line to November 2006.

It may not have been paid, but since Hyperion sent a receipt for 22,500 to Itec, and we have another for 2500 for Bill McEwen, it wont really matter.
-Tig

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

@umisef

The buyback clause (3.01) uses the phrase "after the completion"
The timeline (2.02) uses the phrase "ready for release".


Its hard to be taken seriously in Amigaland if you are not famous or "infamous".

I don't think that the judge will grant Amiga Inc Prelimanary Injunctive relief
based on the evidence thus far presented.

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

@Tigger

Carton claims the that Invoice/Receipt amount was a mistake and that it should have been for 22,500 instead of 25,0000.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Fleecy on the OS 3.1,3.5 and 3.9 Sources claims that Hyperion knew that they would not come from Amiga Washington. then he goes on to declare that OS 4.0 is a port of 3.1 . That not what the Agreement spells out.

Are you sure?

Quote:

3.02 Amiga shall provide Hyperion with all necessary Source Code and documentation to allow Hyperion to carry out its contractual obligations under this Agreement.

Were they ever actually promised the sources to 3.5/3.9?

Definitions from the agreement:

Quote:

"Amiga OS Source Code" means the Source Code of the Classic Amiga OS including but not limited to the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9;

Read 3.02 again, it says necessary "Source Code", not necessary "Amiga OS Source Code".

Another definition from the agreement:

Quote:

"Source Code" means software when written in a form or language understandable to humans, generally in a higher level computer language, and further including embedded comments in the English language."

So they were never promised the Source code to 3.5/3.9, the source to be 3.1 would be suffice to carry out their contractual obligations I would say which they had already arrange to get from Olaf Barthel.

_________________
Currently planning to upgrade my Amstrad CPC

@Skunkfish

The contract (clause 3.02) states "Amiga shall provide Hyperion with all neccessay Source code and documentation"

having to have a contract and pay a third party for it not part of the agreement.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Carton claims the that Invoice/Receipt amount was a mistake and that it should have been for 22,500 instead of 25,0000.

Actually, he claims it should have been $22,250 instead of $22,500 ($20,000 from Itec plus $2,250/$2,500 from Tachyon).

However, they *did* receipt $22,500, so while they may have a claim for the missing $250 to be paid now or soon, I would be extremely surprised if any judge would consider the payment incomplete for the sake of deadlines --- after all, Hyperion had created the very paperwork which allowed Amiga to ascertain, to their own satisfaction, that the money had been paid in full. Regardless, we are talking about a 1% shortfall --- if you look at the various contracts, you'll find that anything up to a 5% shortfall is generally considered insignificant enough to still put the cost of an audit on the "cheated" party. Trying to claim ownership of an asset worth (according to Hyperion) more than a million bucks over a 1% shortfall would seem just a tad unjustified....


Regarding the "completed" vs "ready for release" --- "completion" is used both in 3.01 and 2.06, the two clauses dealing with buyback deadlines. "ready for release" refers to the March 1st, 2002 date in the "best efforts" clause. That clause is entirely unrelated to buyback, and while AI contends that Hyperion violated it, it really does not matter whether they missed the agreed timeline by 2.5 years or 4.5 years, given that the intended project duration was 0.33 years.

@Spectre660

Hyperion wanted Olaf's reworked version of the OS3.1 sources. If they had asked Amiga Inc for the original version of the sources then Amiga Inc would have provided them (I presume).

But Hyperion admitted that there was no point in redoing a lot of the same work that Olaf had already done.

_________________
Currently planning to upgrade my Amstrad CPC

@all

I just read the new documents on the case is it just me or is there some new docs
posted relating to the April 30 discovery or did I just miss them in the first go around.
Because they contained far more information than I thought AI had presented so far.

The recent Emails seem to put AI in a better light than I previously thought.
Of course they are meant to be that way.

@tigger
BTW I WAS RIGHT. The recent papers submitted by AI support my statements that
Hyperion approached AI after H&P bailed out. and disputes your claims
Quote:

Not true at all, much like the bidding on 3.5, the lowest bid was taken, not the only offer.

Nowhere in the statements submitted did Amiga Inc. Claim any such
thing.

You have an issue with the Frieden brother's maybe jealousy who knows.
Your issues with then are obviously not what you have stated because your arguments
don't match the facts. Plus your story keeps changing.

I also severely doubt your claims of BCPL experience. C has more in common with
pascal than it does with BCPL. The K&R team took programing ideas from BCPL. Not
the syntax nor the data types. Many of the key components of C don't even exist in
BCPL.

yea I know dead issue but you brought it up

You seemed to have skipped my point on MOS it took just as long for MOS to get to the
PEG as it took for OS4 to get to the A1. MOS has some great programmers and it took
awhile and the issue of 3.1 sources is debatable.

Kgrac

@Skunkfish

what they said is they tried to get the sources from Amiga who could not get them from Barthel who had not been paid so would not release them without money.

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

@umisef

I think that I see where we all have an issue with the world "release"

is it release the source code to Amiga Inc ?
or are we thinking release the object code to consumers ?

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

@kgrach

Quote:

The recent Emails seem to put AI in a better light than I previously thought.

Just wait for the reply from Hyperion. Reminds me of watching people watch tennis. Back and forth the twisting heads go....

Quite sad for those with a stake in all this. Will any deserving people get any money?

@stew

I like the tennis analogy.
My problem is I really like the AmigaOS
Each version gets faster and better. I know some people don't like 3.9 ( but that is
mainly a political issue of people who have moved on to another Amiga like OS) but 3.9
was better and faster than any version that proceeded it. AmigaOS4.0 is better still. It
really fly's and has so many nice features. So I do care that it is an AmigaOS not like an
AmigaOS. No I am not hung up on the name but the way the system works. It is an Ami
gaOS everything works like it should and the way I expect it to. Plus it is faster than the
previous versions like all versions of AOS that proceeded it.
Yes I am an Amiga Fan boy
Not an Amiga Inc fan boy, but an Amiga fan boy I just love this OS.

Which is why this court case bothers me so.
Nothing makes sense anymore.
We are now being held hostage for reasons that we don't know.

Worst of all the vultures have come out. Those mean spirited people who like to sow
hatred and discontent. Rather than doing something positive for the community, they
puff themselves up and get on thier soapboxes. They make up all sorts of lies,half truths
and spout thier propaganda..

Family squabbles hurt the most becuase we all know the weak spots.

So for now on, I am excusing myself from these kinds of threads and will stick only to
answering threads of people who need help.

Kgrac

@kgrach

Us too kgrach, we love Amiga OS and feel it is a great operating system experiance.

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 28-May-2007 at 05:13 AM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

Let's say for the fun of it (not far from the truth) that both sides violated the agreement many times over. So the contract is Moot. Then what?

Hyperion, without that contract has nothing to sell. AI owns the IP and any code used from any original sources will fall to them, or at minimum will be a product they cannot sell. If by some freak chance they get to keep most of the code legally ( ? ) and can make a sellable product they will not get to use the Amiga Name. Hyperion OS ? ? ?

The TEA Leaves speak:

If AI has immediate plans for the OS, but due to this court battle taking to long they miss their window of opportunity for this year (X-Mas being the big event period) , then this will turn into a M$ style court battle (endless dragout/He with the $$$ wins all by attrition) until someone is out of business. (I think AI has bigger guns in that department - "investors" but I could be wrong)

Unfortunately this is what I see happening because one or both are not in the spirit for any agreement. Whatever happens, if it doesn't end quickly, its going to bloody . . .

Oh, just a thought on ownership:

All AI has to do to show they are the owners of the IP / OS etc. is have Gateway summoned to testify in court as to who owns it. If Gateway states that through all the changes, the bills were still being paid by each consecutive owner then AI will win without breaking a sweat - however the opposite could work for Hyperion. We all know AI isn't known for paying their bills . . .


Just a little food for thought. . . . Quote:

kgrach wrote: @stew I like the tennis analogy. My problem is I really like the AmigaOS Each version gets faster and better. I know some people don't like 3.9 ( but that is mainly a political issue of people who have moved on to another Amiga like OS) but 3.9 was better and faster than any version that proceeded it. AmigaOS4.0 is better still. It really fly's and has so many nice features. So I do care that it is an AmigaOS not like an AmigaOS. No I am not hung up on the name but the way the system works. It is an Ami gaOS everything works like it should and the way I expect it to. Plus it is faster than the previous versions like all versions of AOS that proceeded it. Yes I am an Amiga Fan boy Not an Amiga Inc fan boy, but an Amiga fan boy I just love this OS. Which is why this court case bothers me so. Nothing makes sense anymore. We are now being held hostage for reasons that we don't know. Worst of all the vultures have come out. Those mean spirited people who like to sow hatred and discontent. Rather than doing something positive for the community, they puff themselves up and get on thier soapboxes. They make up all sorts of lies,half truths and spout thier propaganda.. Family squabbles hurt the most becuase we all know the weak spots. So for now on, I am excusing myself from these kinds of threads and will stick only to answering threads of people who need help. Kgrac

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@kgrach

Quote:

AmigaOS4.0 is better still. It really fly's and has so many nice features. So I do care that it is an AmigaOS not like an AmigaOS. No I am not hung up on the name but the way the system works. It is an Ami gaOS everything works like it should and the way I expect it to. Plus it is faster than the previous versions like all versions of AOS that proceeded it. Yes I am an Amiga Fan boy. I just love this OS.

Me too.

_________________
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

@DiscreetFX

Now that you know that the parties involved claim that OS4 is worth well over a million dollars, are you still planning on making a bid for it?

@umisef

Quote:

So we pretty much know that the BCPL was all gone by 1994. Of course, its legacy lingers in the form of BPTR type pointers --- but as far as anyone here can tell, no BCPL code remained as of 1994.

Ahem, BCPL was not "gone" in the sense that no BCPL lived in dos.library.
As the part you quote explains, by 1994 the BCPL parts were still in dos.library, but as "resourced" ASM files.

That's right, it's "just" a monstrous amount of assembly lines which were the output of the BCPL compiler.
This makes it even more difficult to port to C than a plain BCPL source.
Have you ever seen the ASM output of the BCPL compiler ?

@Thread

Can we stop with all the personal insults EVERYONE?This thread is too interesing for it to get locked after it becomes a troll fest.

Hyperion were responsible for the contract, not any sub-contractors they employed. Any blame at the slow development cycle can be directed at them. Attacks on the subcontractors seem to be based on third party conversation anyway.

Considering nobody else stepped up to do the job, however long it took is immaterial since without their efforts there would be ZERO development on the OS.

Or perhaps all you great coders out there would be willing to work for peanuts for six years? No? Well STFU then!

If you really must continue this personal slander then take it to private or I'll come round your houses and kick you guys in the NUTS!

OK, back to the thread...

_________________
"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

@AV

Quote:

AV wrote: @umisef Quote: So we pretty much know that the BCPL was all gone by 1994. Of course, its legacy lingers in the form of BPTR type pointers --- but as far as anyone here can tell, no BCPL code remained as of 1994. Ahem, BCPL was not "gone" in the sense that no BCPL lived in dos.library. As the part you quote explains, by 1994 the BCPL parts were still in dos.library, but as "resourced" ASM files. That's right, it's "just" a monstrous amount of assembly lines which were the output of the BCPL compiler. This makes it even more difficult to port to C than a plain BCPL source. Have you ever seen the ASM output of the BCPL compiler ?

Some unqualified comment by somebody who's had a look at the stuff a while ago: the dos.library of old was built on top of portions of the TripOS kernel. We have what basically amounts to the file system API layer, but not the rest of TripOS in AmigaOS. These portions of TripOS were ported to the Amiga. They would consist of a platform independent layer written in BCPL and platform specific "glue code" that would make TripOS run (back in the day, this was how it was done: Unix was ported in exactly the same manner to various platforms). In the dos.library of old there is additional glue code which hooks up the TripOS kernel with the exec.library API functions.

So, what's in the OS 2.x/3.x dos.library? As far as I know no traces of the BCPL code remain. Randell Jesup replaced the BCPL TripOS kernel portions with 'C' language implementations which did the same job, and more. The platform specific glue code that made the TripOS portions work remained in part, which was necessary because a lot of BCPL code out there interfaced to dos.library using the BCPL API. What you had there was something of an emulation layer.

As for the remaining BCPL code in OS 2.x/3.x in general, I believe some of it must have been translated into 'C' through some kind of automated process. Some of the code I've seen looks very much like the BCPL code it is related to. But that doesn't prove anything. It could have been an old-fashioned "eyeballs & brains" translation. Anyway, the only known bit of compiled BCPL code in OS 2.x/3.x was (drum roll) the "L:aux-handler" file. Everything else was 'C' and assembly language.

And, just in case, if you get suspicious because there's somewhat inefficient code in the 68k operating system that must have been generated by a compiler, you might be able to explain that not by some "BCPL to 68k assembly language" translation process run amuck, but an old Lattice 'C' compiler version.