@Lou

pdf 52:Page 2 Lines 17-23 and page 3 Lines 1-22
"You should rule them Out Mr Ref"

Last edited by Spectre660 on 16-Jul-2007 at 11:18 PM.

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

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @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?

First of all because Eyetech's invoices would seem to make like they did. McEwen gave $2500, Hyperion invoiced Itec+Tachyon as 22,500, so that would be paid in full. Now it turned out that Itec+Tachyon is really 22,250 but I can see from the receipts how you would think the money has been paid. In addition, in August 2006 when Hyperion said you still owe us $7200 for the buyback or in October 2006 when Hyperion said you still owe us $8850 on the buyback, neither of those sound like coming from someone who believes that the time limit is over. And when did anyone at AI-Itec-KMOS-AI say the OS was complete? When did Hyperion say it was complete?

Quote:

Why hadn't they payed developers? In which it relates to this case?

It relates to the completion date. The contracts provided by Hyperion say that sums are going to be paid 45 days after completion of OS 4 and 90 days after the completion of OS 4.0. If Hyperion had paid these people back in 2005, that would lend some credence to there OS was done in December of 2004. However since they didnt get paid, Hyperion didnt announce the completion of the OS to the community and didnt announce the completion of the OS to AI(or its successors) its hard to take the OS was done in December of 2004 very seriously.

Quote:

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?

Boltens case has nothing to do with Itecs lawsuit. The date of the completion of the OS has everything to do with the NY case, and Hyperion not paying the developers there OS completion fees points to the December 2004 date being an example of backdating, not an actual completion date.
-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: @Lou pdf 52:Page 2 Lines 17-23 and page 3 Lines 1-22 "You should rule them Out Mr Ref"

Won't happen. That leaves way too much open for an appeal.
-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 all because Eyetech's invoices would seem to make like they did. McEwen gave $2500, Hyperion invoiced Itec+Tachyon as 22,500, so that would be paid in full. Now it turned out that Itec+Tachyon is really 22,250 but I can see from the receipts how you would think the money has been paid. In addition, in August 2006 when Hyperion said you still owe us $7200 for the buyback or in October 2006 when Hyperion said you still owe us $8850 on the buyback, neither of those sound like coming from someone who believes that the time limit is over. And when did anyone at AI-Itec-KMOS-AI say the OS was complete? When did Hyperion say it was complete?

I must had dreamed when understood that those invoices were from Amiga Inc trying to prove they already had done the buy back... or at least they they were presented as such. Now tell me, after all what were these payments for and why were they brought by Amiga?

Quote:

Hyperion not paying the developers there OS completion fees points to the December 2004

Proofs nothing, at most it is another case against Hyperion.

Last edited by pixie on 17-Jul-2007 at 12:28 AM.

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

@ChrisH

Quote:

"reverse engineering"

Thanks for elaborating.

Plaz

@Lou

Quote:

I wouldn't call that sleight of hand.

You missed it, then. As I said, it's a beautiful piece of work; And it is quite possible that Hyperion was already building up to it when they drafted what we know as docket39. I *was* wondering about the rather inconsistent naming scheme when reading it, but put it down to "hey, they are lawyers, not programmers, so they might not have as strong a need to keep their names consistent".

Quote:

PDF 53:Page 4 lines 17-20

That is indeed where it happens. Masterfully done.

I am torn between being appalled by such deceit, and wanting it to succeed out of sheer admiration of its execution. Like 20 years ago, when I converted money from German marks into Polish slzoty (sp?) illegally on the street, knowing full well that people who offer to do so will sometimes try to cheat you and knowing full well even at least some of their methods, so watching like a hawk --- and yet walking away with what turned out to be 10% of the money I should have received. Yes, I got cheated --- but I was also allowed to witness a dazzling feat of what, if legal, we would call close up magic. As far as I am concerned, the guy earned every Pfennig he walked away with, and I held no grudge even then...

Last edited by umisef on 17-Jul-2007 at 01:33 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

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

I don't think that legitimizes ExecSG. Instead it suggestsMOS and Aros could be next on the Amiga Inc hit list.

Quote:

Amiga contracted for a direct port of Exec. ExecSG is not a direct port.

That's like saying MS contracted me to port Word to PPC. I looked at the code, didn't like it, wrote PlazWord instead improving what I didn't like about the Word code, called it my own, then told MS to bugger off... I can't see that argument holding up well.

Quote:

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

Here we do agree no matter how the other legals play out. It would suprise me if Amiga Inc managed to win AND get all the other parties to hand over their code.

Plaz

@Plaz
Quote:

I don't think that legitimizes ExecSG. Instead it suggestsMOS and Aros could be next on the Amiga Inc hit list.

I know we should look at the past tounderstand present, and yes, Amiga has done pretty stupid thing in the past, but I would assume they would have to do lots more before actually doing it, then again, they never cease to surprise...

Quote:

That's like saying MS contracted me to port Word to PPC. I looked at the code, didn't like it, wrote PlazWord instead improving what I didn't like about the Word code, called it my own, then told MS to bugger off... I can't see that argument holding up well.

I know it might seem far fetched, but had you signed any contract forbidden you from writing another Word processor? If not how could they stop you? You're not going to sell Word(whatever the next version might be name) now will you? You would be selling plazword, a product without the broad acceptance word has...

Last edited by pixie on 17-Jul-2007 at 01:50 AM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

The worst Hyperion will have to do is return $24,750.00 - but to whom...

Maybe they should carve it up in to $50 coupons and send them back one at a time.

Plaz

@pixie

Quote:

I know we should look at the past tounderstand present, and yes, Amiga has done pretty stupid thing in the past, but I would assume they would have to do lots more before actually doing it, then again, they never cease to surprise...

Are MOS and Aros safe even if Amiga Inc looses and Hyperion gains OS4?

Quote:

If not how could they stop you?

You're right back to the part where I wrote my code base on priveleged knowlege of their code. It's not "clean room". But perhaps if it could be shown that "plazword" is a superior and evolved next gen app written from scratch as opposed to just enhancements to the original, I can see where you MIGHT have a chance of beating a court challenge. Still the clean room argument is a heavy burden to cast off.

Plaz

@Lou

Quote:

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.

A) If Ai wins they will get everything to the present IMO.

B) AI wanted to hire those contractor's didn't they? Approach them?

C) If the code isn't clean, they will get sued the minute they put it out. You know thats true, because everyone is already sueing everyone . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Lou

Quote:

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...

I disagree. ITEC has an obligation to KMOS/AI.D in accordance with business conducted between them. If ITEC gets whats been paid for, its going to go to AI.D anyway, just validating AI.D's position.

As far as the worse thing that can happen to Hyperion at this point is far worse than that. At a minimum (IMO) they will be required to hand over what they have been contracted for. Remember, no official notification has been delivered of the OS's completion. The contract has been cancelled (but stayed for the moment by the Judge until this case is resolved ). If the OS was never finished, then a timeframe for payback isn't over yet. That will be for a JURY to decide.

IMO, even though I would like Hyperion to be involved in the future of the OS, I believe that when this is said and done - Hyperion will be toast!

The burdon of proof, because AI.W is gone, is too up-hill of a battle requiring Hyperion to prove, not ITEC, that the transfer was not legitamate. So maybe Hyperion wins against AI.D, but will loose vs ITEC . . HARD . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

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

Simple, The NY case will be about the 2003 contract primarily, and only portions of the 2001 will even get admitted to the case. Hyperion will prove AI.W transfer to ITEC was not legal. Failing to do that, they will have to complete the contract signed. And possibly pay damages.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@pixie

Quote:

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.

You have proof of that? Hyperion told AI.W it was finished and AI.W said ok! Proof ? ? ?

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wolfe

I was talking on the check ITEC sent. Yes there's proof of it. If Hyperion didn't told in the past it was completed why was AInc trying to do the buy in/back clause then?

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

@Plaz

Quote:

Are MOS and Aros safe even if Amiga Inc looses and Hyperion gains OS4?

Whether they lose, win nor tie, but specially if Amiga Inc loses, unless AI have some kind of a loser addiction, that way it will go for the biggest number of loses...

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

@umisef
As I haven't been reading all the documents in minute detail, you'll have to excuse me if I fail to see the logical fallacy in Hyperion's argument. It seems to me that it was Amiga Inc that shot themselves in the foot - it's their fault for admitting something that is surely true anyway.

P.S. Doesn't anyone here speak British English?!? You know it's spelt "cheque" not "check"

Last edited by ChrisH on 17-Jul-2007 at 10:14 AM.
Last edited by ChrisH on 17-Jul-2007 at 10:13 AM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @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

Why should they cash a check from a contract that KMOS terminated that is in dispute anyway? That's self-incrimination if you ask me.

Also you keep ignoring past bills that AInc. had which both parties have agreed existed. To keep throwing more than $24,750.00 on the table is to your discredit. Then you wonder why no one believe much of what you say as much as it may sound like a reasonable possibility. Mixing half-truth's is one way to get people to believe you but others see through it.

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: I wouldn't call that sleight of hand. You missed it, then. As I said, it's a beautiful piece of work; And it is quite possible that Hyperion was already building up to it when they drafted what we know as docket39. I *was* wondering about the rather inconsistent naming scheme when reading it, but put it down to "hey, they are lawyers, not programmers, so they might not have as strong a need to keep their names consistent".

Well if I missed it, let's not point it out for ITEC/KMOS' lawyers...as Tigger likes to.

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: @pixie Quote: If not how could they stop you? You're right back to the part where I wrote my code base on priveleged knowlege of their code. It's not "clean room". But perhaps if it could be shown that "plazword" is a superior and evolved next gen app written from scratch as opposed to just enhancements to the original, I can see where you MIGHT have a chance of beating a court challenge. Still the clean room argument is a heavy burden to cast off. Plaz

It's like I alluded to before: OS 3.1 is a 1957 Corvette and OS 4 is a 2007 C6. Yes, they are both Corvettes, but are miles apart.

@Wolfe
No they will not get any enhancements, just what was "mandatory" via the contract. Why would Hyperion, donate extra code? Use common sense please. Even if {insert bogus company of choice here} wins, all they get is a 3.1 port because that's all the original {bogus company}AInc.(W) provided them with...and they can have fun with that. They went on to develop enhancements, on there own, because {insert bogus company of choice here} was clearly in no position to develop a new recipe for scrambled eggs, let alone any future OS'.