@ikir

Just in case you were serious (which I don't think you were, but hey, one never knows) --- sure, knock yourself out :)

(edit: Whoops --- "reply" means reply to thread, rather than to poster. My bad, this was meant to be a PM)

Last edited by umisef on 14-Jul-2007 at 01:39 PM.

Quote:

Lou wrote: @stew + Tigger The 2003 ITEC contract says it upholds the terms of the original contract. Hence, Hyperion can terminate based on breaches.

Actually No. Though they may (and thats a big may) be able to get the contract thrown out for a new breach. Trying to throw out the 2003 contract based on breaches of the 2001 contract that occurred before the April 24, 2003 contract was signed won't work at all.
-Tig

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

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger If it works 100% like Windows with no enhancements - that's wrong.

You didnt quote anything here so I dont know what you think is wrong.

Quote:

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? If all the functions of Exec are a matter of public record, who's stopping anyone from making a functional equivalent?

Noone stops them from making a functional equivalent, (there are several out there). What you cannot do, is look at the original source (which the friedens did), write the equivalent or enhanced version of same (which they did) and then claim the code is completely your IP, its not, its tainted by the source code IP they looked at. As I said to untaint the IP, at least everyone would have to switch up (everyone who ever looked at the Exec couldnt write ExecSG replacement, etc) and we all know that has not happened and even that might not survive a court fight over it. A real solution would be to hire a complete new team to replace every piece of the OS that was possibly tainted with a clean room solution, thats going to cost more then what Hyperion claims to already have spent on the OS.

Quote:

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.

No, Draco ran the original OS.
-Tig

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

This argument (like all the others) is going round in circles, but Tigger is actually right about ExecSG: The Freiden's can't claim *any* OS4 component isn't based upon OS3 source code, because they've seen that OS3 source code. Unless proven otherwise (which is very hard if not impossible), the law will assume that information about the implementation of OS3 was used in creating OS4.

There is this thing called a "clean room implementation", and neither ExecSG nor OS4 is that.

Oh, and IANAL. So (like Tigger) you can take what I say with a pinch of salt - but in this case I've read enough to be fairly sure about what I said.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@ChrisH

Quote:

ChrisH wrote: This argument (like all the others) is going round in circles, but Tigger is actually right about ExecSG: The Freiden's can't claim *any* OS4 component isn't based upon OS3 source code, because they've seen that OS3 source code. Unless proven otherwise (which is very hard if not impossible), the law will assume that information about the implementation of OS3 was used in creating OS4. There is this thing called a "clean room implementation", and neither ExecSG nor OS4 is that. Oh, and IANAL. So (like Tigger) you can take what I say with a pinch of salt - but in this case I've read enough to be fairly sure about what I said.

I thought it was mentioned that the OS3 exec was either in 68k assembler, was just a binary, so they didn't actually see the original source.

_________________
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."

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Noone stops them from making a functional equivalent, (there are several out there). What you cannot do, is look at the original source (which the friedens did), write the equivalent or enhanced version of same (which they did) and then claim the code is completely your IP, its not, its tainted by the source code IP they looked at. As I said to untaint the IP, at least everyone would have to switch up (everyone who ever looked at the Exec couldnt write ExecSG replacement, etc) and we all know that has not happened and even that might not survive a court fight over it. A real solution would be to hire a complete new team to replace every piece of the OS that was possibly tainted with a clean room solution, thats going to cost more then what Hyperion claims to already have spent on the OS.

I'm pretty sure Rogue has said in the archives of this forum that - yes they looked at the original sources and that they were useless and had to do a complete re-write.

Quote:

No, Draco ran the original OS. -Tig

I know the Draco was somehow different. Perhaps they burned their own Kickstart that uses no Amiga IP like some users on Amiga.org have done... Once you have that, you can purchase 3.1 and install it on any 68k platform as long as you have proper device libraries to match your hardware...

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Spectre660 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.

Both companies submitted the document, so its not bogus, they both agree they signed it, they both agree that is the document.

Quote:

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

First of if Itec has purchased the contract (by acquiring it via secured creditor status, outright purchase, trade whatever) then they do no need AI(W) approval for the transfer, AI(w) is a non issue in the 2003 contract. Now on to Eyetech, first of all in reality Eyetech needs to step forward to stop the contract signed by there fellow AmigaOne partner (Hyperion), Hyperion cant use this contract may violate rights of Eyetech as a reason to not carry out the contract, unless they want to be found guilty of carrying out fraud on Itec, now if Eyetech actually steps forward and makes that case, then we have a little big different issue. In addition, there are two other points that work towards Eyetech not having anything to do with the 2003 contract. First of all the section that the 2003 contract is implementing never mentions Eyetech. It has items that say what Hyperion is to do and what AI(W) (replaced by Itec) is to do, Eyetech has no part in this transfer and it would not be unusual for it to be decided that their approval is not necessary. In addition, the section that requires the approval of the other parties actual is a two party section of the contract, between AI(w) and the AmigaOne partners, its probably pretty easy for Itec to claim that they believed Hyperions signature was approval for the AmigaOne partners.

Quote:

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.

The problem with that is, that would mean Hyperion committed fraud, and would be liable for all costs, plus penalties (3X costs is an often used number) arising from this fraud and if it gets out of civil court, there could be jail time for Ben for example. Thats why arguing that Itec isnt a successor isnt a clever plan for Hyperion. Especially with all the evidence that they treated them as such (like the letter from Ben about KMOS to Itec).
-Tig

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

IMO

Hyperion, after stating that AI.D was not the rightful owner should have taken the money from ITEC (they have a contract with ITEC). Set up a meeting for the transfer of property in accordance with the contract and stated the following (or words to this effect). Offer the code for what was contracted (say up to release 3 including release 3 3rd party binaries. Offered to supply code and binaries to final for no extra fees but for a new contract allowing them to sell the OS on hardware of their choosing, especially in light of Eyetech being out of the game. Understanding that any hardware manufacturer wanting to use the Amiga Brand must get a contract / license from them.

AI.D cancelled the contract so Hyperion (if the cancellation holds in the future) can't sell anything. A new agreement with ITEC giving such authority opens the door for Hyperion to make some money off the OS and push on. The lawsuit with AI.D is rendered MUTE. AI.D must now persue ITEC, but since they are one ine the same on many levels, that wouldn't happen either.

We get OS 4, Yah, I know, maybe in a better world, different universe or space time place . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: I'm pretty sure Rogue has said in the archives of this forum that - yes they looked at the original sources and that they were useless and had to do a complete re-write.

Understand that very statement above "yes we looked at the sources" makes it impossible for Rogue and his brother to write Exec-SG and not have it tainted by AI's IP. Thats what you guys keep missing. Its that simple. It doesnt matter if Rogue and company says they code didnt help us, etc. They looked, they wrote, its tainted, period.


Quote:

I know the Draco was somehow different. Perhaps they burned their own Kickstart that uses no Amiga IP like some users on Amiga.org have done... Once you have that, you can purchase 3.1 and install it on any 68k platform as long as you have proper device libraries to match your hardware...

Draco had no custom chips except the CIAs, so it had replacement for the graphics and audio librarys to point to new ones which drove the new hardware. I'm real familiar with Draco, DB32 and of course the Flyer, because of the work I did directly for those companies or to tweak software to work directly with there hardware. In addition, I dont believe there is a kickstart that doesnt use any Amiga IP. Thats one of the AROS projects thats been pitched but it hasnt been completed (or maybe even started) at this point. What people on amiga.org are doing are taking 3.1 rom images, replacing the old libraries with new ones and burning new roms, these definitely contain Amiga IP, though its probably legal as long as you keep the rom you pulled the image from.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

First of if Itec has purchased the contract (by acquiring it via secured creditor status, outright purchase, trade whatever) then they do no need AI(W) approval for the transfer, AI(w) is a non issue in the 2003 contract.

If this is the case then Hyperion's Legal team do not know what they are doing.
However they seem to be doing a fine job so far.
All Amiga (D) needed to do was file a motion with the paperwork from ITEC as an exhibit and save the cost of the New York lawsuit which is just another case of Penti throwing away money.

You must admit that it looks as if there is an attempt to keep the Amiga(W)/ITEC documents under wraps. Producing them in the Washington lawsuit early would take the steam out of Hyperion very quickly.

-"The Mark"
PS: Penti seems to be a Mark too

Last edited by Spectre660 on 14-Jul-2007 at 09:12 PM.
Last edited by Spectre660 on 14-Jul-2007 at 09:12 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

I'm real familiar with Draco, DB32 and of course the Flyer, because of the work I did directly for those companies or to tweak software to work directly with there hardware.

Macrosystems, eh?
With Jorge in Germany or Eric/Noahjis in the U.S.?

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Tigger

Quote:

What people on amiga.org are doing are taking 3.1 rom images, replacing the old libraries with new ones and burning new roms, these definitely contain Amiga IP, though its probably legal as long as you keep the rom you pulled the image from. -Tig

Umisef would be the best person to tell you if it is legal or not.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger If this is the case then Hyperion's Legal team do not know what they are doing. However they seem to be doing a fine job so far. All Amiga (D) needed to do was file a motion with the paperwork from ITEC as an exhibit and save the cost of the New York lawsuit which is just another case of Penti throwing away money.

First of all Hyperions legal time as said lots of things they know they arent going to get, the one keeps talking about is all the trademarks. You have agreed they arent going to get those, that doesnt mean they dont know what they are doing (though I disagree about the fine job they are doing comment) it means they are asking for everything under the sun and hoping the judge lets them keep the beach chair when its all over.

Penti is only throwing his money away if he loses the case, if he wins the case, Hyperion pays the fees. And every fee Hyperion doesnt pay is a tax write off.
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @Tigger Quote: I'm real familiar with Draco, DB32 and of course the Flyer, because of the work I did directly for those companies or to tweak software to work directly with there hardware. Macrosystems, eh? With Jorge in Germany or Eric/Noahjis in the U.S.?

Since the Draco stuff involved Bohus and Kermit I'm sure the gentlemen living by Wrigley. For some reason I think Dan Ablan was involved there as well whose also in Chicago, but I may be thinking of the later Casablanca stuff when Kermit and I met with them at NAB about moving the Millenium content to Casablanca and I was supposed to write a version of CWipe to convert to Casablanca DVE format from Toaster 4.x DVE format.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Umisef would be the best person to tell you if it is legal or not.

Your missing the point, where I'm not sure its legal is burning a second ROM into a chip. Bernd is using an image like UAE does or superkickstart amiga does, or mapromed amiga for that matter. At least some of the people on Amiga.org were talking about physically burnning hardware roms, which gets you into a little different place, when they were talking about selling those roms, that became illegal. I dont think Bernd has any experience hacking up amiga rom images and burning new chips, he can feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Chances are we all knew the same people back then.
The old "videotec list server" ring a bell?
Pity so much info was lost.

Sorry for off-topic, just having a good ole' days moment.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Thread

Just what is is that Itec are supposed to have bought, though? We're all discussing this as if they'd actually signed a contract that transferred ownership of OS4 to them, but what if the contract was really about giving Itec the rights to USE os4. That is, what if the contract merely made them distributors of the OS, and not owners and Itec are merely pretending it gave them full ownership?

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator

@Tigger

Missing Points is a fine art.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

First of all Hyperions legal time as said lots of things they know they arent going to get, the one keeps talking about is all the trademarks. You have agreed they arent going to get those, that doesnt mean they dont know what they are doing (though I disagree about the fine job they are doing comment) it means they are asking for everything under the sun and hoping the judge lets them keep the beach chair when its all over.

I think that Hyperion have found the weak point in Penti's Chain.

How long does discovery take ?.
Time to get the show on the road.
Let the trial Begin.
(Sound of trumpets)

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Penti is only throwing his money away if he loses the case, if he wins the case, Hyperion pays the fees. And every fee Hyperion doesnt pay is a tax write off. -Tig

A client of mine who is lawyer (QC) once gave me an interesting insight into the mind of the very rich.

He expressed fustration at the fact that a client and close friend of his, a US Billionare,a very shrewd man,could not accept simple reality when it would have resulted in an outcome that went against his plans.

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