@Plaz who said Quote:

If you're looking at assembly code, your're looking at the source. If you only have the binary and you're really, really good at machine language on the platform you're woking with, it's practically like looking at the source. If you aren't a ML guru, then there are utilities that will easily translate binary back to the assembly source. So I'd guess that Hyperion&company read the assem and/or binary well enough to say if it was useful or not. I don't think you can get around the clean room problem if you've "reversed" the binary well enough to read it. Tig and Umisef should be able to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

I can do that for them . You are correct, "reverse engineering" the binary is basically the same as reading the source code itself - you know how it was implemented. That knowledge legally tarnishes anything you write. So even a "complete re-implementation from scratch" makes no difference - if you know how the original was implemented, then your new version is legally assumed to use that knowledge.

The ONLY way to get out of this problem is to have two groups of people: The first group reverse-engineers the thing, and then writes a specification that contains no implementation details. The second group receives this specification, withOUT speaking to the first group, and then creates their re-implementation solely based upon that. This was how the first IBM PC was cloned by other companies, and how everyone does it today. This is what is meant by a "clean room implementation".

@Lou who said Quote:

For that matter, I could re-assemble Exec (68k) and port it to PPC. This is my point from before of why ExecSG is owned by the Friedens. They looked, called it junk and did a complete re-write AND enhanced it.

You are completely missing the point. The law cares NOTHING for how useful the original was, nor how much you extended it. All the law cares is whether you saw how the original worked. If you did then the law ALWAYS assumes that you used that knowledge in writing the new version, whether or not you actually did so.

Last edited by ChrisH on 16-Jul-2007 at 05:18 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: ??? Well, it was a hypothetical comment based on was Spectre660 was saying. How could they "have paid on time" no matter when the OS was done "IF" they never even came up with the full amount? That doesn't even make sense. I'm sure my credit card company won't charge me a late charge if I make part of my monthly payment! Yeah right! This is the payments we know about : 1) McEwen wires $2500 2) Tachyon wires $2250 which was supposed to be $2500 3) Itec wires $20,000 KMOS asks for the code, Hyperion says they owe $7200 more so 4) KMOS wires $7200 KMOS asks for the code again, Hyperion says they owe $8850 more so 5) KMOS wires $8850 Hyperion claims in court that money from Tachyon, McEwen, KMOS doesnt count towards the 25K, that was for other things (despite KMOS having also paid lots of money for the Arctic contract as well). 6) Itec sends a check for $25,000 to Hyperion that Hyperion doesnt cash before 6 months from the Hyperion "It's done" claim. So the money has been paid, the money was paid too late is the current claim, but its interesting that Hyperion has its lawyers asking for the money, and then 8 months after it was paid say that money was way too late, in fact it was a year too late when asked you to send it to us according to our new timeline, thats why its not going to work, if you ask someone to pay a bill and they promptly pay it, saying they were a year too late and there is nothing they can do isnt going to work in a courtroom. -Tig

We know the first 2 or 3 payments went to money owed Hyperion for work on the DE, so please stop saying that was for the OS. Hence payments 4 & 5 were requested.

Also, if they gave KMOS their Artic port, doesn't that mean the OS was done and handed over?

@ChrisH

Quote:

ChrisH wrote: @Plaz who said Quote: If you're looking at assembly code, your're looking at the source. If you only have the binary and you're really, really good at machine language on the platform you're woking with, it's practically like looking at the source. If you aren't a ML guru, then there are utilities that will easily translate binary back to the assembly source. So I'd guess that Hyperion&company read the assem and/or binary well enough to say if it was useful or not. I don't think you can get around the clean room problem if you've "reversed" the binary well enough to read it. Tig and Umisef should be able to correct me on that if I'm wrong. I can do that for them . You are correct, "reverse engineering" the binary is basically the same as reading the source code itself - you know how it was implemented. That knowledge legally tarnishes anything you write. So even a "complete re-implementation from scratch" makes no difference - if you know how the original was implemented, then your new version is legally assumed to use that knowledge. The ONLY way to get out of this problem is to have two groups of people: The first group reverse-engineers the thing, and then writes a specification that contains no implementation details. The second group receives this specification, withOUT speaking to the first group, and then creates their re-implementation solely based upon that. This was how the first IBM PC was cloned by other companies, and how everyone does it today. This is what is meant by a "clean room implementation". @Lou who said Quote: For that matter, I could re-assemble Exec (68k) and port it to PPC. This is my point from before of why ExecSG is owned by the Friedens. They looked, called it junk and did a complete re-write AND enhanced it. You are completely missing the point. The law cares NOTHING for how useful the original was, nor how much you extended it. All the law cares is whether you saw how the original worked. If you did then the law ALWAYS assumes that you used that knowledge in writing the new version, whether or not you actually did so.

And you are missing my point that you just proved it could easily be done as has been done with MorphOS and AROS...

Amiga contracted for a direct port of Exec. ExecSG is not a direct port. What Amiga (whoever) will win is a direct port and not what is currently ExecSG. Like I've said before - even if they win, they lose. Amiga/ITEC/KMOS will not get all the improvements that Hyperion has made subsequent to Dec 2004. It's a losing effort and Hyperion's contracters will be free to develop a new and better platform or simply switch to an existing one in order to make money from their work.

An Amiga win is an Amiga loss.

Last edited by Lou on 16-Jul-2007 at 05:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger We know the first 2 or 3 payments went to money owed Hyperion for work on the DE, so please stop saying that was for the OS. Hence payments 4 & 5 were requested.

Actually since Hyperion wrote a receipt for $22500 for the buyback to Itec, they were only apparently counting McEwens money as part of the $5K DE payment for Mesa for DE (and should have written the receipt for 22,250), thats at least the first explanation they gave. We then have $7200 paid to them and $8850, and then of course another 25K last month.

Quote:

Also, if they gave KMOS their Artic port, doesn't that mean the OS was done and handed over?

No because they didnt deliver the source or object files and maybe didnt deliver the rights to the code (per 2.06). In addition, the Arctic port was a seperate contract with KMOS (which would have been illegal for them to do unless KMOS was a successor), but thats another story.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @ChrisH And you are missing my point that you just proved it could easily be done as has been done with MorphOS and AROS...

No you are still missing the point. Once the Friedens read the Exec code, then the Friedens cannot write a clean room Amigalike exec without being in violation of AI's IP. Thats what we keep telling you. Its why everyone here with experience in these matters knows exec-sg will not survive a court test.

Quote:

Amiga contracted for a direct port of Exec. ExecSG is not a direct port. What Amiga (whoever) will win is a direct port and not what is currently ExecSG. Like I've said before - even if they win, they lose. Amiga/ITEC/KMOS will not get all the improvements that Hyperion has made subsequent to Dec 2004. It's a losing effort and Hyperion's contracters will be free to develop a new and better platform or simply switch to an existing one in order to make money from their work.

They cant use tainted code (which exec-sg is) without a license from AI. Most of the "improvements" of exec-sg are listed in Annex I, they are part of the contract and I'm sorry but noone can look at the list of items in Annex I and look at the OS's state in Dec 2004 and say they were all done. Frankly they arent all done now.
-Tig

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

@hatschi

Quote:

hatschi wrote: @thread Another day, another court document... Document (53) filed by Hyperion/Kinsel is available on PACER now: "HYPERION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO JOIN ITEC, LLC AS A COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT" (9 pages)

*update*

Document 53 is now available on Justia:

Link (pdf)

@hatschi

I think they will succeeded and this good news, now there only one court case not two, hopefully this will speed up process and we can move on. the sooner this can be done, the fast new hardware can come on the market, I hope.

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

@umisef

Quote:

Wow, that's a nice one. Who can spot the sleight of hand? It's beautifully done, I gotta say :)

PDF 53:Page 4 lines 17-20

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

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @hatschi I think they will succeeded and this good news, now there only one court case not two, hopefully this will speed up process and we can move on. the sooner this can be done, the fast new hardware can come on the market, I hope.

First of all I dont think it likely this will succeed. Secondly, the case in NY is likely to speed up not slow down our final result.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660 & @umisef

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @umisef Quote: Wow, that's a nice one. Who can spot the sleight of hand? It's beautifully done, I gotta say :) PDF 53:Page 4 lines 17-20

I wouldn't call that sleight of hand. Some people refused to see all the implications that occurred when ITEC foolishly sent Hyperion a $25,000.00 check.

And some people are just in denial...

Both ITEC and KMOS can't own the OS4 contract and Hyperion think neither should at all. The worst Hyperion will have to do is return $24,750.00 - but to whom...

@Tigger

You crack me up

How can tow separate case take less time?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

We then have $7200 paid to them and $8850, and then of course another 25K last month.

Where on earth Hyperion got those last 25k? AFAIK they had returned it, and about 3 years after their work been seen as complete from A (W) but never paid up in full.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Lou

Quote:

have to do is return $24,750.00 - but to whom...

Was not most of that coming from Itec account I’m quite shore they can fine the account number?

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

@hatschi

Quote:

hatschi wrote: @hatschi Quote: hatschi wrote: @thread Another day, another court document... Document (53) filed by Hyperion/Kinsel is available on PACER now: "HYPERION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO JOIN ITEC, LLC AS A COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT" (9 pages) *update* Document 53 is now available on Justia: Link (pdf)

OH.... MY.... GOD!!!!

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Spectre660 & @umisef I wouldn't call that sleight of hand. Some people refused to see all the implications that occurred when ITEC foolishly sent Hyperion a $25,000.00 check. And some people are just in denial... Both ITEC and KMOS can't own the OS4 contract and Hyperion think neither should at all. The worst Hyperion will have to do is return $24,750.00 - but to whom...

Itec isn't claiming they own the contract, they claim they sold it and the OS to KMOS, Hyperion is the one claiming Itec owns the contract, Itec is just being sure they dont lose the contract due to missing money. The check was a great idea, what Hyperion did with it was fairly stupid.
-Tig

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

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @Tigger You crack me up How can tow separate case take less time?

The New York case will likely be over way before the Federal case in Washington. (Itec in fact points that out in the briefings on the case). If Itec wins the case, they get the code and transfer it to KMOS and Hyperion and AI(D) will likely come up with some settlement over the licensing issue. If Itec loses the case in New York, then there chance to win in Washington is very bad and again the two sides will likely work a settlement out. So the two separate cases will take less time then the federal case going all the way through a trial, unless the federal case gets to court soon, and I'm not sure thats likely at all.
-Tig

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

@Tigger
They don't lose the contract? Who are they? At most they could regain the contract... one check 3 years late? What a great idea...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie
Quote:

pixie wrote: Where on earth Hyperion got those last 25k? AFAIK they had returned it, and about 3 years after their work been seen as complete from A (W) but never paid up in full.

First of all, even they dont claim the work was complete 3 years ago. They are claiming December 2004 at this point, but of course we have letters where Evert said he couldnt send the code because it wasnt done yet, which is interesting since that was after December 2004. The Last 25K is the check from Itec that Hyperion sent back uncashed. As far as a court is concerned thats an earnst effort to pay the fee before the 6 months is over, thats why Hyperion should have cashed it and kept the money, first of all it may have bounced and if it did, the 6 months would have elapsed and they would have gotten to keep the OS after sending back the $24750 if thats actually the amount paid, I'm guessing the number is more like $41K with the 7200 and 8850 payment in 2006. Even if it didnt bounce, they would have another 25K to pay there lawyers with, and it doesnt hurt there case anymore then not cashing it but admitting that they got it before June 26, 2007.
-Tig

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Tigger They don't lose the contract? Who are they? At most they could regain the contract... one check 3 years late? What a great idea...

First of all, AI(w) (or its successor) have 6 months after the completion of the OS to pay the 25K, per the 2001 contract. Since the "It's done" posting about the OS on December 26, 2006 it surely hasnt been 3 years, in fact it hadnt been 6 months when Hyperion decided to not cash a new 25K check from Itec. I dont think anything can cause them to lose the contract. According to the depostitions, Hyperion has never told AI-ITec-KMOS-AI that they are done, if thats true, the judge is liable to say any date that Hyperion presents is backdating of the event. I mean its not like they were posting we are done on the website, etc. The first It's done message we got was in December of 2006, after the contract was cancelled for them taking too long (among other things), they cant show that they paid there contractors the fees due 90 days after completion or 180 days after completion, but you want the judge to say they've been done since December 2004, though they didnt tell AI, there customers or there contractors that was the case?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Why oh why is Amiga trying to actually say that they already payed 25000 like say, eons ago!? They fail to prove that they had payed the full amount, still what they had proven was that they agreed with being complete for about what, eons ago?

Why hadn't they payed developers? In which it relates to this case? Far more is Bolton Peck related as he's already won has a case against Amiga W. It would be at most a case of hyperion developers against hyperion don't you think?

Last edited by pixie on 16-Jul-2007 at 10:40 PM.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga