@hatschi

Quote:

hatschi wrote: @thread Now these documents might proove to be interesting... "54 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Declaration 55 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Declaration 56 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Memorandum 57 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Certificate of Service" Didn't have much time to read them, ...

You can't provide the links yet, can you?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

No. I know e.g. for sure (decision of the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany), that if I rent a flat here in Germany and the contract explicitely says that I have to renovate the rooms in a certain timely order, this contract is illegal. Such a contract is illegal as well, if it e.g. states that the hirer is not allowed to have a washing machine in his flat, but only in the cellar. And it had been ruled out by the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany, that such an illegal contract cannot be enforced by any party.

Errrm. Sorry, but you seem to be confused.
If the contract were illegal, you had no right to live in the house you rented. Only the clause you mentioned is illegal and cannot be enforced due to specific laws that forbid such clauses. This however, does in no way relate to the contract between Itec and Hyperion.

@Ketzer

Quote:

Ketzer wrote: @Dandy Quote: No. I know e.g. for sure (decision of the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany), that if I rent a flat here in Germany and the contract explicitely says that I have to renovate the rooms in a certain timely order, this contract is illegal. Such a contract is illegal as well, if it e.g. states that the hirer is not allowed to have a washing machine in his flat, but only in the cellar. And it had been ruled out by the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany, that such an illegal contract cannot be enforced by any party. Errrm. Sorry, but you seem to be confused. If the contract were illegal, you had no right to live in the house you rented. Only the clause you mentioned is illegal and cannot be enforced due to specific laws that forbid such clauses. This however, does in no way relate to the contract between Itec and Hyperion.

At least in the news on German TV they said that the Federal Court of Justice here in Germany had decided that the whole contract is illegal if it has such clauses in it (as I consider our TV news to be reliable in this regard, I didn't bother to read the original court decision) and that an illegal contact cannot be enforced.

Last edited by Dandy on 24-Jul-2007 at 11:24 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

You can't provide the links yet, can you?

No, I can't since a subscription to ECF/PACER is required to access these documents (8 cent per page).
I expect them to be available on Justia by tomorrow.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @Tigger [quote] Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] Lou wrote: Oh, a licensing deal is far removed from the Amiga situation huh? The wheels of the bus go round and round... With regards to the Friedens and ExecSG is surely does. If you have a point make it Lou, but using a lawsuit that hasnt been decided and which is about licensing as proof of who is going to own IP (ie the ExecSG issue) is really weak. -Tig

Alot of what Silicon Knights is saying here about the Unreal 3.0 engine is what the Friedens have said about the Exec ASM source code. Not only do they want their licensing money back, but they intend to prove that their own engine, that began life and just an enhancement to Epic's IP is now there own and all the original IP was gradually phased out...and this is in a US court, not an international one that KMOS/ITEC would attempt to use against the Friedens. So much for the "clean room" method.

This also opens the door for Hyperion to recover all their costs incurred in developing OS4 even if they never release it. Amiga Inc.(W) never delivered ALL the necessary source code for them to do a proper port of OS3.9 to the target hardware.

It seems it was Amiga Inc. (W) who entered into an illegal contract promising to deliver source code and IP that they didn't own. So now we have both ITEC and KMOS claiming to be successor companies. Well, then they both owe Hyperion a heap of money as is claimed in their counter-claims with respect to damages incurred in the form of development costs.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger [quote] Tigger wrote: Today it is your opinion that it was illegal for them to sell (while it remains to be seen if the court will share your point of view).

You didnt pay attention. There are two possibilities. #1 and #2 (#1 is legal, #2 is illegal), Hyperion is arguing that #1 didnt occur, so they are in fact arguing that they broke the law. The originally argued that Itec wasnt the successor, if that is true, then Hyperion has committed fraud against Itec and will be subject to the penalites as such.

Quote:

It would not be legal here in Germany to consciously sell something that is not your own without the permission of the legal owner. Something like this would be fraud here. BUT: If someone sells me a stolen car and I have no chance to see that I've been frauded and I sell this stolen car later on, then I acted in "good faith" and can't be punished for that.

Yes, Hyperion sold something to Itec and in good faith they sold it to KMOS, whose in trouble, thats right Hyperion, glad we are back to being on the same page. The only company in trouble if Itec is not the successor is Hyperion.
-Tig

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

@hatschi

Quote:

Dandy wrote: You can't provide the links yet, can you? No, I can't since a subscription to ECF/PACER is required to access these documents (8 cent per page). I expect them to be available on Justia by tomorrow.

They are now:

http://news.justia.com/cases/amigahyperion/370498/

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Alot of what Silicon Knights is saying here about the Unreal 3.0 engine is what the Friedens have said about the Exec ASM source code. Not only do they want their licensing money back, but they intend to prove that their own engine, that began life and just an enhancement to Epic's IP is now there own and all the original IP was gradually phased out...and this is in a US court, not an international one that KMOS/ITEC would attempt to use against the Friedens. So much for the "clean room" method.

First of all Lou clean room is the only way to be sure, but the unreal engine and exec have almost nothing to do with each other. The Friedens got the exec thats in the 3.1 ROM. Thats what they needed, everyone (including even them) knew it was 68K assembly, they did a port to PPC, the IP for the new item is coowned by the owner of the 68K assembly and the Freidens. You keep arguing this, but this is really simple IP law, I and several others on this thread deal with it at our jobs on a daily basis. And understand this is also just a lawsuit, if Silicon Knights win this case and get what they want arguing that its case law that supports your position might be slightly correct, but people file cases like this all the time, it wont end up with SK owning Unreal 3.0 IP anymore then the AI case will.

Quote:

It seems it was Amiga Inc. (W) who entered into an illegal contract promising to deliver source code and IP that they didn't own.

First of all, as I said earlier Hyperion should have cancelled the contract or got mitigating payments to offset those costs, they didnt and once they signed the 2003 contract it didnt matter anymore. And what AI did wasnt Illegal, its different then what Hyperion claims they have done in selling to Itec.
-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 Now these documents might proove to be interesting... "54 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Declaration 55 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Declaration 56 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Memorandum 57 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2007 Certificate of Service" Didn't have much time to read them, but this part of document 56 (filed by Hyperion) looked quite interesting: "AMIGA DELAWARE IS NOT THE REGISTRANT OF THE RELEVANT TRADEMARKS 1. The US PTO Has Not Recognized the Assignment of Amiga Washington’s Trademark Rights to Amiga Delaware (...) 2. The US PTO Has Issued a Final Refusal to Register Five Trademark Applications Filed by Amiga Delaware"

Well whoever wins in the end I must say this Kinsel guy earns his pay. A Final Refusal on the trademarks to Amiga Delaware seems to tremendously hurt their case. And them trying to work stuff in the background with the trademarks as late as last month seems to indicate IMO that they knew they were in trouble in this area.

Quote:

While Hyperion is not privy to the thought processes of the US PTO, perhaps its hesitancy relates to the fact that one "corrected assignment" has Amiga, Inc., a Washington corporation confirming on June 26th 2007, that it had conducted that corrected assignment, even though that corporation had ceased to exist on September 30, 2004

Quote:

In sum, as of the writing of this brief, Amiga Delaware appears to be the official registrant for no Amiga trademarks.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jul-2007 at 08:45 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jul-2007 at 08:44 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jul-2007 at 08:20 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jul-2007 at 08:16 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

yeah Kinsel so far has been brilliant

_________________
#amiga.org @ irc.synirc.net

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] First of all Lou clean room is the only way to be sure, but the unreal engine and exec have almost nothing to do with each other. The Friedens got the exec thats in the 3.1 ROM.

Heck, I can pull exec from the 3.1 ROM. Exec lacked alot of functionality to be used as a modern kernal on any PPC platform. Unreal 3.0 lacked alot of functionality to be used with any console. Functionality that didn't exist had to be made. 68K ASM doesn't translate into PPC ASM in a 1-1 ratio. If anything, I would say the Friedens have a stronger claim. Infact, didn't they buy some cleaned-up code from Olsen? The key word there was "buy". So if it was bought from him, what does AInc.(W) have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote:

Thats what they needed, everyone (including even them) knew it was 68K assembly, they did a port to PPC, the IP for the new item is coowned by the owner of the 68K assembly and the Freidens.

Only you are claiming co-ownership. The Friedens claim otherwise.

Quote:

First of all, as I said earlier Hyperion should have cancelled the contract or got mitigating payments to offset those costs, they didnt and once they signed the 2003 contract it didnt matter anymore. And what AI did wasnt Illegal, its different then what Hyperion claims they have done in selling to Itec. -Tig

You put words in their mouth. I only saw claims of deception with regards to succession.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] If anything, I would say the Friedens have a stronger claim. Infact, didn't they buy some cleaned-up code from Olsen? The key word there was "buy". So if it was bought from him, what does AInc.(W) have to do with the price of tea in China? No in fact since they have admitted they looked at the code, they IP is tainted and they are not exclusive owners of Exec-SGs IP, thats a fact. As for what they bought, Hyperion bought cleaned up code Olaf did based on at that time Gateways IP. He cleaned up the number of compilers needed to build the code among other things. Quote: Thats what they needed, everyone (including even them) knew it was 68K assembly, they did a port to PPC, the IP for the new item is coowned by the owner of the 68K assembly and the Freidens. Only you are claiming co-ownership. The Friedens claim otherwise.

No actually every software professional who has commented on Exec-SG in this thread has said the exact same thing. The code is tainted, the IP is coowned by AI and the Friedens, those who have looked at the Friedens contract realize that do to its wording, the source of it needs to be delivered to AI as part of the buyback.



Quote:

You put words in their mouth. I only saw claims of deception with regards to succession.

No, they said the succession didnt happen because Eyetech didnt approve it. If the succession didnt occur, then it was illegal for Hyperion to try and sell the OS to Itec per the 2003 contract.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

but they intend to prove that their own engine, that began life and just an enhancement to Epic's IP is now there own and all the original IP was gradually phased out...and this is in a US court, not an international one that KMOS/ITEC would attempt to use against the Friedens. So much for the "clean room" method.

Yep, and the operative word being "intend". Hasn't happened yet.

Although I strongly doubt that they have any intention of doing so, anyway. It's a shoot-for-the-stars request, just like Hyperion asking the court to award them complete ownership of anything that was passed from Itec to KMOS, because AI(W) may have done dodgy things. Or like Hyperion now claiming ownership of AmigaOS and Amiga trademarks, pkus successor/assignee status for AI(W).

You never know, you might get a judge high on crack cocain. Other than that, none of those are ever gonna happen.

But say --- those here who now say "look, that's just like ExecSG, so there!", will you guys change your tune when Silicon Knights get told off for being ridiculous regarding such sole-ownership claims, and to just get on with it? Or will you then agree that, oh well, maybe it really *is* just like ExecSG?

@hatschi

Wow!! Go Hyperion!!!

I think they came out shooting with this stuff! Watch out Amiga Inc.!!

_________________
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

Well, considering it looks like Amiga Delaware own no trademarks, my bet's on the Friedens' ownership of ExecSG and Exec is just part of the public domain now.

Oh, and Silicon Knights have alot of other developers who feel the same way about Epic's Unreal Engine 3.0... It seems the engine was just a nice set of heads and intake and you need to supply the small block to bolt it all onto.

@Lou

Quote:

Well, considering it looks like Amiga Delaware own no trademarks, my bet's on the Friedens' ownership of ExecSG and Exec is just part of the public domain now.

Uh, is that because you believe something which is not trademarked is also not copyrighted?

If so, you are sadly mistaken....

@Tigger

Quote:

No actually every software professional who has commented on Exec-SG in this thread has said the exact same thing. The code is tainted, the IP is coowned by AI and the Friedens, those who have looked at the Friedens contract realize that do to its wording, the source of it needs to be delivered to AI as part of the buyback.

Yeah like people here know what they are talking about. Let's face facts here. Even though we see court documents we know jack #### about what is going on.

What's strange is the length of this thread.

_________________
AmigaOne-XE G3 OS 4.
A4000 PPC
A1200 PPC

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: Well, considering it looks like Amiga Delaware own no trademarks, my bet's on the Friedens' ownership of ExecSG and Exec is just part of the public domain now. Uh, is that because you believe something which is not trademarked is also not copyrighted? If so, you are sadly mistaken....

I'll have to look up coyright laws but Commodore went down a long time ago and I don't think Copyrights move from the original assignee.

I think it's time you start putting on your happy face. KMOS is a sham, or as a user on .org said, they should be called Scamiga, Inc.

Going back to Exec vs. ExecSG, their is no patent on pre-emptive multi-tasking kernals. The technology is known and implimented the same across different platforms. The pessimism needs to stop and personally I think we all need to stop and just wait and see.

And the next move is . . .

ITEC exercises First Creditor and security items are returned to ITEC because of AI.D's mishandling.

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Lou

Quote:

I don't think Copyrights move from the original assignee.

Think again.