@Plaz

Quote:

So far they are only on the defensive to the Ami/Itec suits.

Uhm, counterclaims? Asking for ownership of everything Amiga(W) ever owned to be assigned to them by the judge?

That's an interesting definition of "defensive".

@Lou

Quote:

Besides, we have Bill McEwan telling the Friedens that he knows they own ExecSG and that he has no rights to it's IP.

No, what we really have is McBill saying that the Friedens own their work on ExecSG, and that Amiga has no rights to the IP created through that work.
What we do *not* have him saying is that all the IP which makes up ExecSG is owned by the Friedens, or was created through their work.

What we do however have is Ben Hermans himself stating that "there is even some original Exec code in ExecSG" (quoted from memory), and naming it, too (I believe it was related to AVL trees).

What we also have is a 2004 contract, uncontested and apparently fulfilled by both sides, for adapting ExecSG (and whatever else needs adapting, but ExecSG was the biggie) to the Arctic platform. That contract spells out quite clearly that all work done on that is owned by Amiga.

So in order for ExecSG to be "clean", one would have to believe that (a) every last bit of Exec-derived code had been rewritten, from scratch, in a non-derivative manner, and that (b) none of the changes made for the Arctic port, nor any derivatives of such changes, are contained in today's ExecSG.

Given the burden of proof in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities", proving that ExecSG is tainted (never mind the rest of the OS) should be a walk in the park.

@umisef

Quote:

Uhm, counterclaims? Asking for ownership of everything Amiga(W) ever owned to be assigned to them by the judge? That's an interesting definition of "defensive".

Basically... from the perspective of who's listed as the Plantiff and who's listed as the Defendant in these cases. Counter claims I suppose turn it into an offensive defense.

Also I don't pretend to know squat about law technicals, but from what I read counter-claims are submitted by... the defendant. So that's why I labled as I did.

Plaz

-Tig@Tigger

Quote:

At casinos, we call people like you marks, because they are sure they will win a high percentage of the time.

This mark is holding what little money he has to buy a nice new computer running oS4.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 13-Jul-2007 at 06:36 PM.

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

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: Besides, we have Bill McEwan telling the Friedens that he knows they own ExecSG and that he has no rights to it's IP. No, what we really have is McBill saying that the Friedens own their work on ExecSG, and that Amiga has no rights to the IP created through that work. What we do *not* have him saying is that all the IP which makes up ExecSG is owned by the Friedens, or was created through their work. What we do however have is Ben Hermans himself stating that "there is even some original Exec code in ExecSG" (quoted from memory), and naming it, too (I believe it was related to AVL trees). What we also have is a 2004 contract, uncontested and apparently fulfilled by both sides, for adapting ExecSG (and whatever else needs adapting, but ExecSG was the biggie) to the Arctic platform. That contract spells out quite clearly that all work done on that is owned by Amiga. So in order for ExecSG to be "clean", one would have to believe that (a) every last bit of Exec-derived code had been rewritten, from scratch, in a non-derivative manner, and that (b) none of the changes made for the Arctic port, nor any derivatives of such changes, are contained in today's ExecSG. Given the burden of proof in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities", proving that ExecSG is tainted (never mind the rest of the OS) should be a walk in the park.

For that matter you could say any other pre-emptive multi-tasking OS is violating Amigas OS since it is similar.

Get a jury trial.
Show the jury the 3.1 68k code.
Show the jury the PPC asm code.
Case closed.

Someone tell GM to stop making cars because Ford made a Model T back in 1908.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @umisef Get a jury trial. Show the jury the 3.1 68k code. Show the jury the PPC asm code. Case closed. Someone tell GM to stop making cars because Ford made a Model T back in 1908.

Hyperion has admitted it a derivative work, its based on AI's IP. Its tainted, period. Since the time they admitted it was tainted they have not clean roomed complete replacements, so its still tainted. This is really simple law. By your definition, I could take the Windows XP x86 code, convert it to PPC and sell a complete PPC windows platform all based on the source code I got from someone who didnt own it. And then should be allowed to sell it as long as I call it Floors or Portals or something like that? Do you honestly believe that?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

It is going to be ripped apart component for component, just useless object code is returned back to Amiga Inc, just like H&P did, or specified as optional anyway.

or

They dig up olds CVS version that is closed to date the contracted should have finished, Amiga Inc / ITec get what they paying for 2 years or so development, not 7 years accumulated.

Hyperion will replace the missing components easily because they know how the system works in and out, and some of the components might outdate anyway, will be replaced in OS4.1, like workbench, intuition and so on.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Jul-2007 at 08:59 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Jul-2007 at 08:53 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Jul-2007 at 08:51 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Jul-2007 at 08:47 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@umisef

Quote:

@Plaz Quote: So far they are only on the defensive to the Ami/Itec suits. Uhm, counterclaims? Asking for ownership of everything Amiga(W) ever owned to be assigned to them by the judge? That's an interesting definition of "defensive".

Sometimes the best defence is an offence.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Wow, you're making Hyperion look real honest and upstanding . . . NOT . .

Note: You should do some studies on how NY has done business in the past as pertaining to a court of law, judgements and property. The Judge (properly petitioned) can order said properties (which are mobile ie.. placed in a suitcase " code, binaries and contracts for same " ) to be brought to the court for verification and safe keeping pending the outcome of the trial. . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @Tigger Hyperion will replace the missing components easily because they know how the system works in and out, and some of the components might outdate anyway, will be replaced in OS4.1, like workbench, intuition and so on.

Realize thats a fairly tall order because they have to clean room every replacement and at least switch up developers though even that might not get them through, which would mean instead they have to hire a whole new team to write all the replacements.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

If it works 100% like Windows with no enhancements - that's wrong.

However, in ExecSG, we have memory protection and a completely different memory allocation system. As far as launching processes and pre-emptive multi-tasking, what OS doesn't do that these days that it's unique to OS3.1? They could have ended up with the same code there by looking at any free OS' source code and derived their own and achieved the same thing. As far as API syntax, clearly that's not an issue as we have AROS and MorphOS maintaining that kind of compatibility.

If all the functions of Exec are a matter of public record, who's stopping anyone from making a functional equivalent? Didn't Draco? Does that mean the source code is the exact same - no - but in some cases it will be by sheer chance as there are practical ways to do coding and 2 different people assigned a function to write may very well write it the same way without looking at each other's code. That's not stealing. That's just 2 people doing things in a practical way as they were thought. Computer Science doesn't differ from country to country.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger If all the functions of Exec are a matter of public record, who's stopping anyone from making a functional equivalent? Didn't Draco? Does that mean the source code is the exact same - no - but in some cases it will be by sheer chance as there are practical ways to do coding and 2 different people assigned a function to write may very well write it the same way without looking at each other's code. That's not stealing. That's just 2 people doing things in a practical way as they were thought. Computer Science doesn't differ from country to country.

Did the Deaco people have a look see at the "original sources"? Looks like the big deal everyone made of the "original sources" may come back to bite Hyperion.

@Lou

Quote:

For that matter you could say any other pre-emptive multi-tasking OS is violating Amigas OS since it is similar.

"Similar" is not a problem. "Derived" is.

"Similar" is covered by patents, and nobody has patents on a multitasking OS.

"Derived" is covered by copyright, and *someone* surely has the copyright on OS3.x, and while there may be disagreement who that someone is, it's quite clear it's not Hyperion.

Think of OS 3.x as this photo:

(On flickr).

Similar is this:

(Also on flickr)

Derived is this:



The "similar" picture is a separate photo of the same bird, taken at a different time and, for all anyone knows, by a different person. The "derived" picture was obtained by starting with the original, replacing most of the pixels with something else, and doing quite atrocious things to most of the remaining pixels. And because of the "start with the original" part, it is a derivative work of the original.

@umisef

Quote:

is a separate photo of the same bird,

I know things can get ugly around here some times, but there's no need to flip us the bird. (Especially that derivitive one, man that's brutal)

Plaz

@Lou

Quote:

we have Bill McEwan telling the Friedens that he knows they own ExecSG

Now I'm wondering here if we can all accept this as truth, not so much that Bill acknowledges it but that the Friedens do own execsg, then could someone explain to me what it is that Hyperion owns if anything at all.

Since they do not seem to have any "paid" working software employees and it looks like all contractors have the rights to their own work, so what exactly does Hyperion own?

As far as OS4 goes it would seem that the only thing they own of any worth is the contract they got from Amiga Inc. to develope, market and sell the OS, and that they got for absolutely nothing!

I'm sure you could argue what exactly the meaning "best efforts" entails, with regards to securing already written software, but to pay someone to write new code for a specific goal and not to make any claim to it sounds a bit on the wild side to me, but hey IANAL right?

_________________
Fixed A1G4XE 7455 RX933PC with fried CPU
Sapphire Radeon 9100 128mb
ESI Juli@ 24bit 192kHz Envy24HT
Sil 680 Ultra Ata 133 E-ide
SeaGate Barracuda 120gb 8mb cache

@umisef

Give me an analogy and give me the bird too . . .

Oh how roooood . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Steff

Quote:

and that they got for absolutely nothing!

I disagree, they got paid . . . upwards of $ 40k

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Spectre660

Quote:

if I can quote Myself "The Dilema of ITEC's law suit is that until the courts rule that their sale of OS 4 rights to KMOS is Invalid then it is assumed that they sold the rights to KMOS. They have thus at this time have no right to sue Hyperion."

Makes sense, I'm still not clear that Itec has ever actually bought "OS 4" in the first place. The 2003 contract looks bogus to me.


Tigger you know about these things. It's clearly missing 2 or the 3 partners signtures from the 2001 contract. How can that be?


I mean looking at the 2003 document their are 2 signatures missing from the 3 original 2001 partners.

Amiga Inc. and Eyetch are no where to be found on the 2003 document???


In 2001, 3 companies made a contract and signed it.

Amiga Inc, - Signed and witnessed by Fleecy Moss

Hyperion - Signed and witnessed by Ben Hermans

and

Eyetech - Signed and witenessed by Alan Redhouse.


Now in 2003 we have Hyperion ALL by themselves trying to sell OS 4 to "Itec LLC".

Amiga Inc, - No signature or witness ???

Eyetech - No signature or witness ???

Hyperion - Signed by Ben Hermans


Now reading the 2001 contract I don't see anything in there that makes it sound like Hyperion can, on there own and for any reason, just go sell Amiga OS 4 to any company just because they want to. Which it appears they did to Itec.

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@umisef

Can i use it as my new avatar?

_________________
ikir

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

Makes sense, I'm still not clear that Itec has ever actually bought "OS 4" in the first place. The 2003 contract looks bogus to me.

This could be why there is a Law firm Partner at work trying to keep ITEC from being joined as a counterclaim defendant.
If they are joined then the discover process will result in ITEC having to produce the documents relating to all Amiga (W)/ITEC dealings.
Amiga (D) seem reluctant in producing these, even in advancing their own case.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 14-Jul-2007 at 12:55 PM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 14-Jul-2007 at 12:54 PM.

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