@Tigger

You should probably say that Itec and Hyperion committed fraud if you continue to repeat this phrase. I don't see how you can single out one company if there were two parites in this contract.

Kirka

@umisef

Quote:

Well, are you saying that they indeed had this revelation between November 3rd and November 7th, 2001?

What's so unbelievable about that? It wouldn't take more than half a day to evaluate such a source code and decide whether it's suitable or not.

@Tigger

Quote:

When did Hyperion inform you about the contract for sale back to Itec of the OS, dated April 24, 2003?

None of your business.

@stew

Quote:

When did Hyperion inform you that that they were done and developers could start to collect their money owed them? That is something that is truely bothering me about the Hyperion revision of events, and I am glad we have someone in the know to clear this up.

I don't have a contract with Hyperion which triggers anything based on release date. As far as the other developers are concerned, if they feel that Hyperion breached their contract by not paying adequately, there's nothing stopping them from starting a lawsuit against Hyperion in the EU. However it appears that instead several OS4 developers started a lawsuit in the EU against Amiga Inc.

@kirka

Quote:

kirka wrote: @Tigger You should probably say that Itec and Hyperion committed fraud if you continue to repeat this phrase. I don't see how you can single out one company if there were two parites in this contract. Kirka

Very easy. Hyperions claim is that they cannot deliver the OS to Itec (because Eyetech and AI(w) didnt agree to a transfer), nothing in the 2003 contract says that Hyperion will sell the OS if there partners agree, it says give them money (which Itec has done) and they will deliver, which they have not done. If Itec cannot get the code from Hyperion then Hyperion has defrauded them by taking money and not delivering the product, and in fact the company has spent other money on this effort based on getting the OS, so Hyperion has committed fraud. Technically Hyperion may be defrauding Eyetech because they attempted to sell the OS without there permission and in fact took money and signed a contract to that effect. What do you think Itec has done that is fraud? They signed a contract, they provided money, they have received nothing, I cant imagine how you think they have committed fraud.
-Tig

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

@COBRA

Quote:

Quote: Well, are you saying that they indeed had this revelation between November 3rd and November 7th, 2001? What's so unbelievable about that?

I did not ask whether you considered it believable. I asked whether you, "COBRA", are saying that Hyperion examined the WarpOS source code between November 3rd and 7th 2001, decided it was unsuitable, and that thus they needed to write their very own kernel.

You can choose to answer that question, or you can choose to bluster and waffle about being an OS4 dev, and me not knowing what's going on, and not being there --- but only one of those choices has any chance of supporting your argument.

Quote:

It wouldn't take more than half a day to evaluate such a source code and decide whether it's suitable or not.

I would disagree here, but why bother? Maybe Hyperion's arrogance is indeed that great.

If Hyperion had the source code to WarpOS prior to November 3rd, they should have done that evaluation before signing the contract that said OS4 would be based on WarpOS, right?

If Hyperion did not acquire the source to WarpOS until after November 7th, then the decision to drop what they contracted for in favour of their very own kernel was not triggered by code review.

Which leaves a 4 day window for acquiring the source and examining it. The source to WarpOS, that is. Now, we *do* remember who controls the WarpOS sources, right? We *do* remember what those very people were making most of their money with in November 2001, right? And we *do* remember who was the main author of that, right? So maybe, just maybe, you migt not want to be *too* quick to dismiss me as "not having been there"....

@COBRA

Quote:

However it appears that instead several OS4 developers started a lawsuit in the EU against Amiga Inc.

Fascinating. I wonder what such a lawsuit would be based on. Because OS4 subcontractors have contracts with Hyperion, not Amiga Inc....

@umisef

Quote:

I did not ask whether you considered it believable. I asked whether you, "COBRA", are saying that Hyperion examined the WarpOS source code between November 3rd and 7th 2001, decided it was unsuitable, and that thus they needed to write their very own kernel.

Since I was not the one doing the source code evaluation and making these decisions at the time, I'd rather not make claims for others when it comes to exact dates. What I have said is that the WarpOS source code was found to be unsuitable after the contract was drafted and I stand by that. But of course it really does not matter what anyone who is/was involved in the development says does it, since you know it much better than them anyway.

Quote:

I would disagree here, but why bother? Maybe Hyperion's arrogance is indeed that great.

I know that the usual work pace in Australia is quite a bit more relaxed than in Europe, so that might explain your overestimation of such a source code evaluation. Keep in mind that we're only talking about the source code of a kernel, and where I work (Siemens PSE) we evaluate much bigger projects and not taking more than a couple of days to do it. It does not take that long to recognise whether a piece of source code is easily maintainable/portable/expandable, or if it's full of hardcoded stuff and is a total mess. Unfortunately we get a lot of such code from older projects for "takeover" and we often end up having to do complete rewrites of components.

@umisef

Quote:

Fascinating. I wonder what such a lawsuit would be based on. Because OS4 subcontractors have contracts with Hyperion, not Amiga Inc...

However Amiga Inc's lawsuit in the US against Hyperion is demanding all source code, not recognising the individual rights of the developers to (at least some of) that code. In other words the Amiga Inc lawsuit threatens the individual rights of (at least some) OS4 developers.

@COBRA

Quote:

However Amiga Inc's lawsuit in the US against Hyperion is demanding all source code, not recognising the individual rights of the developers to (at least some of) that code. In other words the Amiga Inc lawsuit threatens the individual rights of (at least some) OS4 developers.

I dont see how this can work. Amiga Inc contracted Hyperion to port OS, Hyperion contracted developers to work on it. If there is problem with source code I dont see how developers could sue anyone else than Hyperion.

Do you know any example cases in the EU?

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@COBRA

Quote:

However Amiga Inc's lawsuit in the US against Hyperion is demanding all source code, not recognising the individual rights of the developers t

I think you will find that Amiga Inc's lawsuit does demand what Hyperion has contractually committed to delivering, from Hyperion. How (and whether) Hyperion can satisfy that demand, if it is granted as relief, is really up to Hyperion. It is quite likely that they cannot, and that thus the whole thing (assuming the relief is granted) would just go into another round.

You will also find that Amiga Inc is suing Hyperion, only Hyperion, and nobody else. but Hyperion Thus, any relief/sanctions would be limited to Hyperion, and nobody else.


That would be one fine lawsuit int the EU: "Evil Amiga Inc wants to take our rights away! Punish them!" --- "Uhm, they *want to*, or they *do*?" --- "Well, they would, if they could, but they can't" --- "So where's the problem?" --- "These other guys, who we actually have contract with, and who we like, might decide to break those contracts and pass the rights, which they don't have, to the guys we don't like, whom we don't have contracts with, and whom we are suing!" --- "Get out of my courtroom and stop wasting my time!"

@COBRA

Quote:

I know that the usual work pace in Australia is quite a bit more relaxed than in Europe, so that might explain your overestimation of such a source code evaluation

Well, let's put this into perspective --- yes, one can certainly see in 4 days whether a piece of code is well written, or an unmaintainable mess.

However, that wasn't the question that needed to be answered. The question that needed answering was one of what would lead to results by, or at least close to, the agreed-upon deadline. I.e. what would be the best effort to ensure on-time delivery.

As is now bleedingly obvious (and as should have been just as bleedingly obvious back then to anyone who has the slightest clue, and/or understands what a critical path analysis is all about) is that writing a whole new lernel to base things on was a *guaranteed* way to miss the deadline, by years (especially if your designated kernel writers list as their main qualification for doing so that they sat through a university subject on OS design, which they never expected to be useful...). Whereas using the existing and working kernel, which was bloody well designed to be hardware independent (warpHW.library, anyone?) might not have appealed to the aesthetic sense of the developers, and it might not have been The New Way Into A Better World --- but it was what was agreed upon, and it could hardly have taken any longer, now could it?

So when it comes to deciding the question "which is the lesser of two evils", it almost certainly would have paid to spend more than a couple of days on looking through the WarpOS code. Heck, one typically needs longer than that to get into the mindset of the original programmer, and until one has achieved that, the question of "how har would it be to work with this stuff" really cannot be answered in a meaningful sense.

Quote:

where I work (Siemens PSE)

Ah, I remember the relaxed times when I worked at Siemens. It was described by the employees as "a giant bank with a small electronics business attached to it".

@Tigger

Did Itec present themselves as having Amiga (W) rights or some unrelated company?

Kirka

@itix

If sombody starts a lawsuit in the US which claims your rights by doing so (through another company), you can certainly sue them for it somewhere else and request a judgement which protects those rights you have, which means that in case the outcome of the US lawsuit demands those sources (through another company) you don't have to turn them over since you have a declaratory judgement in the EU which says the opposite.

@umisef

I just have one question: have you seen the WarpOS sources yourself? You must have, since you seem to be very convinced that using it would have produced the desired results and much quicker than the solution that was chosen.

Quote:

Ah, I remember the relaxed times when I worked at Siemens. It was described by the employees as "a giant bank with a small electronics business attached to it".

If you had relaxed times at Siemens, I envy you Where I work 11-hour workdays is normal everyday stuff. In which part of the world did you develop for Siemens? I should ask myself to be transferred there

@COBRA

Quote:

Where I work 11-hour workdays is normal everyday stuff.

Does this include time spent on the forums discussing with Tigger and umisef?

@hatschi

[quote
@thread

Document 58 has been filed yesterday (27-07-07) by CABLE, LANGENBACH, KINERK & BAUER, LLP:

"STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR AMIGA, INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF AMIGA, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.[/quote]

now cometh the white flag ?

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

@kirka

Quote:

kirka wrote: @Tigger Did Itec present themselves as having Amiga (W) rights or some unrelated company?

This is the problem kirka, nothing in the 2003 contract says that the contract isnt valid if they are not the successor, thats a big problem for Hyperion, in fact Hyperion has yet to make a valid point why Itec should not have the code at this point. Hyperion claims that Itec is not the successor of the rights, but whether they are or not, isnt important as far as the 2003 contract and the lawsuit involving it (which is the subject here, despite everyone bringing up KMOS and Ai(D) etc). Itec has a very simple contract with Hyperion signed in 2003, they have paid Hyperion, Hyperion needs to give them the code as called out in the 2001 contract, or lose this case badly in New York.
-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: now cometh the white flag ?

Oh I dont think Evert and Ben are smart enough to give up.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Oh I dont think Evert and Ben are smart enough to give up. -Tig

Thats how many great victories have been won.


PS: Kinsel has introduced evidence of fraud into this suit in a subtle way.
Pdf no 55 page 4.lines 5-12

Last edited by Spectre660 on 29-Jul-2007 at 10:23 PM.

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