one step forward and two steps back thats how its done in amiga land!!

_________________
I was a ZX Spectrum owner....

@Lou

Quote:

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'.

Why do you think that?
If Amiga are entitled to the code, then its all the code derived from the Amiga OS sources, nothing less. Hyperion only has rights received by the contract, if they now claim they have done something not included in the contract, they are open to another lawsuit right there. Why should Hyperion even have a "just the port" version? The features of ExecSG are clearly mandatory as are many other things named in the contract, including that OS4.0 runs on Cyberstorm cards on the classic (does it do that by now?).

@Lou

Who said anything about donate?

If they loose, they will not be in a position to dictate terms. The jury will most likely decide the level of work they will turn over. Lets say that release 2 was all they get by the term of the contract. In theory, you could sue for every update since as being 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 and ask for the royalties.

But they have doodly-squat if their contract is terminated. What they have, they cannot sell if they loose.

They (Hyperion) decided to go down a slippery slope from day one. I hope they can pull off a miracle or they will be falling on their own sword, aka suicide.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @Lou Who said anything about donate? If they loose, they will not be in a position to dictate terms. The jury will most likely decide the level of work they will turn over. Lets say that release 2 was all they get by the term of the contract. In theory, you could sue for every update since as being 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 and ask for the royalties. But they have doodly-squat if their contract is terminated. What they have, they cannot sell if they loose. They (Hyperion) decided to go down a slippery slope from day one. I hope they can pull off a miracle or they will be falling on their own sword, aka suicide.

Like I said, what incentive do they have for giving {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} any more than what is contractually obligated? Now they(Hyperion) don't have to pay developers for "derived" work as it was planned for 4.1 (etc...) and will never be used in an "official" version delivered to {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} per the contract. However, those developers are free to sell their work to {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} if their contract with Hyperion doesn't forbid it.

@Ketzer
you wrote:
Quote:

Why do you think that? If Amiga are entitled to the code, then its all the code derived from the Amiga OS sources, nothing less. Hyperion only has rights received by the contract, if they now claim they have done something not included in the contract, they are open to another lawsuit right there. Why should Hyperion even have a "just the port" version? The features of ExecSG are clearly mandatory as are many other things named in the contract, including that OS4.0 runs on Cyberstorm cards on the classic (does it do that by now?).

No. They are entitled to a PPC port of Exec. The mandatory things don't add up to much more than porting 3.1/3.5/3.9 to "target hardware". Also enhancements were planned for 4.1 but came out as "updates" and are derived work from contracted developers that don't have to be included in an "official" version delivered to {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} unless they are willing to pay those developers themselves.

As I said before: an {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} win is an {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} loss.

Last edited by Lou on 17-Jul-2007 at 02:30 PM.

@pixie

Quote:

If Hyperion didn't told in the past it was completed why was AInc trying to do the buy in/back clause then?

Didn't I answer that question of yours on the bunny?

According to Amiga's original complaint, Hyperion said "hey, guys, we are not yet finished, but we are about to go broke, and that would be bad for everyone. So how about you pay us now, and we'll deliver when we are done?" in 2003 (see paragraph 24 of the McEwen declaration).

And once again --- nobody anywhere claims that OS4 was even remotely completed by the time the initial payments were made.

@umisef

.Quote:

According to Amiga's original complaint, Hyperion said "hey, guys, we are not yet finished, but we are about to go broke, and that would be bad for everyone. So how about you pay us now, and we'll deliver when we are done?" in 2003 (see paragraph 24 of the McEwen declaration). And once again --- nobody anywhere claims that OS4 was even remotely completed by the time the initial payments were made

Would the letter from Amiga (D)'s lawyers in Nov 2006 DEMANDING the source code etc indicate that they felt that OS4.0 was done by Nov 2006 ?

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

@Plaz

Quote:

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

The exec portions of both of these products were clean roomed and neither team had the original source code, so they are fine.

Quote:

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.

Oh they arent going to get all the code, they are going to bankrupt Hyperion, because according to the contract between Hyperion and the Friedens, Itec should get the code for Exec-SG for example. For that to happen, Hyperion has to write a really big check. Same with several others, any contract that Hyperion has the right to get the source code, they will need to write a check and get it, and I am pretty sure that will bankrupt them.
-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: @umisef Would the letter from Amiga (D)'s lawyers in Nov 2006 DEMANDING the source code etc indicate that they felt that OS4.0 was done by Nov 2006 ?

No, because they claim not once but twice in that same letter that its not done, look at page 2 they are denoted by a) and b).
-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 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.

As far as the court is concerned, it doesnt matter whether they cashed the check or not. Itec tried to pay before June 26, 2007, if the software is ruled to have been completed on December 26, 2006 as Hyperion announced, they received enough money for the OS to be sent to Itec. If the check had bounced it would have strengthened Hyperions case, if they had cashed it, it would have made no difference, because either its too late (as they claim) and they need to pay AI back all that money or its not too late (and they should have kept the check).

Quote:

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.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about now. The only bill we know about for sure is the Mesa DE $5K bill. As for why I mention the $7200 and $8850, thats because according to the court documents they were sums asked for in 2006 by Hyperion to complete the $25K purchase of the OS, so of course I am going to bring them up. If the OS was completed in December of 2004 to Annex I standards, and the buyout time was done sometime in June of 2005, then why in August and October of 2006 was Hyperion asking for more money to complete the buyout? Do you understand thats a problem for there case if over a year after the buyout period has elapsed they still are saying that AI owes more money on it and please send a check of xxxx dollars to get the OS? Instead Hyperion should have written a check for $24750 or something like that, sent it to AI(D) and said you are too late to buyout the OS.
-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: @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?

Because Hyperion was broke according to the court documents and Hyperion hasnt said that isnt true. The OS definitely wasnt done in April and May of 2003, surely you arent trying to claim that now, they hadnt shipped the first version yet.
-Tig

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

@Ketzer

Quote:

If Amiga are entitled to the code, then its all the code derived from the Amiga OS sources, nothing less.

Which isn't perhaps as much as you or many think of... MUI, TCP, PICASSO, just to name a few which can have no chance on earth to be named derivate, unless all that run is, that way it would be a bigger virus then yet GPL is ...

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

@pixie

AHI

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

@Tigger

Quote:

No, because they claim not once but twice in that same letter that its not done, look at page 2 they are denoted by a) and b).

So they were demanding the source code to an incomplete OS4.0 ?

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: [quote] I'm not sure what you are arguing about now. The only bill we know about for sure is the Mesa DE $5K bill. As for why I mention the $7200 and $8850, thats because according to the court documents they were sums asked for in 2006 by Hyperion to complete the $25K purchase of the OS, so of course I am going to bring them up. If the OS was completed in December of 2004 to Annex I standards, and the buyout time was done sometime in June of 2005, then why in August and October of 2006 was Hyperion asking for more money to complete the buyout? Do you understand thats a problem for there case if over a year after the buyout period has elapsed they still are saying that AI owes more money on it and please send a check of xxxx dollars to get the OS? Instead Hyperion should have written a check for $24750 or something like that, sent it to AI(D) and said you are too late to buyout the OS. -Tig

Per the contract, payments were applied to all other outstanding invoices BEFORE being applied towards the buy-in. This includes the ARTIC contract despite the fact that it came later. So {insert bogus company claiming to be Amiga here} had to pay in full for the Artic contract before the buy-in was complete. This is because at the time, Hyperion believed ITEC and KMOS to be legitimate successors to Amiga Inc.(W).

Since you like to use terms such as "neither party disputes this" allow me to and let's get pack to an unpaid $250 for the buy-in.

No money will move hands until this dispute is over. Hence - accepting the money from the (risen from the grave) ITEC company would only complicate matters further no matter how you look at it. Hyperion admitted to being sent the check but is heavy-handily disputing the fact as to whether ITEC has any rights to OS4 as well as KMOS/AInc.(D). Both can't have rights to it, if either at all at this point. Hyperion will not be further accused of anything else and that's why they filed the motion to bring ITEC into this lawsuit.

I have a question. Is Eyetech in business at all today?

@Ketzer

Quote:

Why do you think that? If Amiga are entitled to the code, then it’s all the code derived from the Amiga OS sources, nothing less.

They are entitled all source code prior to AmigaOS4.0, every byte of code from AmigaOS1.0 to AmigaOS3.9, if they can prove that own they own that, because Hyperion where forced to subcontract many developer to obtain parts of OS3.5 / 3.9 code that was not transferred from H&P to Amiga Inc in the past, Hyperion does not own that code, but developers of OS3.9/OS3.5 do or H&P do own that code.

So many modules whit in AmigaOS4.0 might not be legal transferred, is in not owned by Hyperion and never delivered from Amiga Inc.

For example Reaction might not be transferred because it not derived code base on what Amiga Inc delivered, because Amiga Inc did not provided the source code as stated in the contract.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

The exec portions of both of these products were clean roomed and neither team had the original source code, so they are fine.

Thanks for clearing that up. But is there any problem if these teams had/have copies of the RKMs?

Quote:

Oh they arent going to get all the code, they are going to bankrupt Hyperion, because according to the contract between Hyperion and the Friedens

It's clear that's what they're after now. Most of us are wonding what the problem is with Hyperion setting a price, Amiga Inc paying it, Hyperion paying the contractors, handing over the goods, and we all move along. Every one's bouncing the court filings back and forth, but it really all comes down to personal conflics, deceipt and/or greed. I'd like to know those details to better understand. But I know that's probably never going to happen.

Plaz

@Plaz

Greed is the root of the matter.

Let's look back.
This original contract was supposed to guarrantee the lively hood of the Amiga platform in the event that Amiga Inc. went out of business...which they did.

The reason the contract clause regarding approval of all parties involved was there was to prevent a company like ITEC from taking over. Eyetech and Hyperion should have been offered Amiga Inc.'s business when it ran into money problems. The 1st secured creditor issue that resulted in ITEC getting AInc.'s asset and no debts should never have happened. Amiga Inc. should have sold themselves to a mutual venture between Hyperion and Eyetech as they were the only 2 companies that were really supporting the platform's future. This would have paid there outstanding debts and Bill McEwan could/should have left the Amiga scene forever.

Amiga Inc. (W) never cared about the Amiga OS, just the DE.
ITEC never cared about the Amiga OS, just the DE.
KMOS was started as a puppet company to deal with the Amiga OS and separate itself from the DE so as not to corrupt the AmigaAnywhere brand.

Nobody cared about the Amiga OS except Hyperion and Eyetech...
UNTIL
the DE/AmigaAnywhere flopped and TAO folded.

Now all of a sudden, the only way to get that contract enforced is to hire Bill McEwan and have him lie and say that it's the same company and that they were always interested. Without Bill McEwan's testimony, KMOS/AInc.(D) never had a chance at anything. Bill claims he was owed money by AInc.(W)...I wonder how much money it took from Penti to convince him to commit perjury...

So here we are...

Last edited by Lou on 17-Jul-2007 at 05:30 PM.

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @Ketzer Quote: If Amiga are entitled to the code, then its all the code derived from the Amiga OS sources, nothing less. Which isn't perhaps as much as you or many think of... MUI, TCP, PICASSO, just to name a few which can have no chance on earth to be named derivate, unless all that run is, that way it would be a bigger virus then yet GPL is ...

Oh there is lots of stuff that isnt derivative of AI's IP, Exec-SG just isnt a piece of that. But if Hyperion as part of there contract gets source code for a price (as we've seen in all 3 contracts presented so far) then AI's gets that code and all the rights that Hyperion has to it, thats what the 2001 contract says. The fact that Hyperion owes the Frieden brothers lots of money doesnt mean that Hyperoin doesnt have to pay that amount and give the source to AI as part of the 2001 agreement, it just means Hyperion is fiscally stupid.
-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 Quote: No, because they claim not once but twice in that same letter that its not done, look at page 2 they are denoted by a) and b). So they were demanding the source code to an incomplete OS4.0 ?

Absolutely, and its not the first time, we have them asking for it in at least one of the other emails between Evert and either Garry or Bill. Somewhere at 4.5 years late, you have to start thinking, lets take what they have and pay someone to finish it for us.
-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: @Ketzer For example Reaction might not be transferred because it not derived code base on what Amiga Inc delivered, because Amiga Inc did not provided the source code as stated in the contract.

Actually isnt the Reaction contract part of the court documents? If so, AI's get it as part of the buyback, because according to the contract Hyperion gets the source once they have paid a some of money, that means that AI gets it as part of the buyback.
-Tig

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