@fairlanefastback & billt

I really think the conversation is turning now towards the "why". Give him a chance to absorb all of this. It is apparent he is attempting to gather some facts about past deals and has not previously read every thread on AW concerning these deals.
From my post #799:

Tigger
Quote:

What I have been trying to say with my comments is that it makes no sense for AI to find a new home for Hyperion to sell the OS to when Hyperion was supposed to deliver the OS to AI for AI to start selling.

His point here is that it "makes no sense", not that it did not happen.

My reply:

Quote:

Yes. I kinda' gathered your thrust here, and was just checking when I posted back with the question: ok. But again then...why were they negotiating over terms and conditions with AHT in good? faith at this time?

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: So it makes sense to become enemies whit every one they worked whit?

It seems thats how Hyperion works, so maybe AI learned it from them. Again, why should AI help a company that is over 2 years late delivering a product they purchased from them?
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: Bah! You made me check my links...more recent recap (of many): start with post #242

All I get from this, reading from post #242 to the end is that AHT said AI made an unreasonable request for the license and so it fell apart. They dont say what the request was in this topic, so I have no idea whether it was a reasonable request or not. Lets be honest here the Friedens think its perfectly reasonable for someone to pay them 20K for a port to there board. The fact thats more expensive then Green Hills, QNX, Windriver all of which are much more mature OSs, doesnt make it unreasonable in there mind, it does make it unreasonable however in the mind of most people thinking about using there OS.

Quote:

Bit more about the PDA, since that too was obviously one on the list falling in the same time period of 2004. Sure sounds like both AI and Hyperion were on the same page:

You understand that KMOS paid Hyperion for the OS to be ported to the PDA, thats the entire scope of the infamous Arctic platform that we have the 2 contracts for, that was a product that KMOS (ie AI(D)) was going to sell with OS 4.0 on it.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 06-Aug-2007 at 08:53 PM.

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @fairlanefastback & billt I really think the conversation is turning now towards the "why". Give him a chance to absorb all of this. It is apparent he is attempting to gather some facts about past deals and has not previously read every thread on AW concerning these deals. From my post #799: #6

I have to disagree, this is in the court docs, the ones that Tigger posts more than anyone else about and points to sections of them all the time. Its been previously suggested that Hyperion should have deemed Amiga in breach at the time and pursued the matter before doing any work. That I can see as a valid point to make to an extent. "Hey you decided to pay out of pocket to Olaf and proceed, tough on you". I think its not nice, but its a constructive arguement. But to instead go "oh yes it was formerly given to Hyperion" when you know the point being made was that it never came from AI. Its one thing to say its too late for Hyperion to argue that point anymore, its another to mischaracterize the Hyperion-Olaf side deal as Amiga honoring their contract responsibilities.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: You are trying to characterize the purchase from Olaf as something Amiga was involved in. As it has been told Amiga could not produce *any* Amiga source code, of *any* kind for *any* version. It was contractually required they produce source code for 3.1, 3.5, and 3.9. They represented they had such code when they did not at all.

They were involved in it, Hyperion included the letter where AI's CTO told Olaf it was Ok to sell his modifications to Hyperion. Thats AI being involved is it not?


Quote:

I know you are detail oriented enough for it to be nearly impossible that you missed this or misunderstood this.

I didnt miss or misrepresent this. Fleecy had the 3.1 source code, Fleecy's version takes 4 extra compilers and has lots of extra assembly code. Hyperion bought the code from Olaf to save them time, they planned on doing it from the beginning, look at the comments by Ben about Olaf having it all ready to go in CVS the day after the contract is signed. Look at the comments in Annex I about Olaf being the buildmaster for OS 4.0 and other comments from that time. Hyperion bought the code from Olaf to help out there effort and get his help in the project, if Olaf didnt exist or hadnt wanted to help, AI could have provided the code.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 06-Aug-2007 at 09:01 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

All I get from this, reading from post #242 to the end is

Start with page 8.
I was pointing at only his brief summary of sorts.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback They were involved in it, Hyperion included the letter where AI's CTO told Olaf it was Ok to sell his modifications to Hyperion. Thats AI being involved is it not?

Thats not them providing the code formally to Hyperion. Its not them providing any code to Hyperion.

Quote:

I didnt miss or misrepresent this. Fleecy had the 3.1 source code, Fleecy's version takes 4 extra compilers and has lots of extra assembly code. Hyperion bought the code from Olaf to save them time, they planned on doing it from the beginning, look at the comments by Ben about Olaf having it all ready to go in CVS the day after the contract is signed. Look at the comments in Annex I about Olaf being the buildmaster for OS 4.0 and other comments from that time. Hyperion bought the code from Olaf to help out there effort and get his help in the project, if Olaf didnt exist or hadnt wanted to help, AI could have provided the code. -Tig

If Fleecy had the source code why was it not handed over? Let alone the fact that the contract called for 3.5 and 3.9 source as well (also not handed over we are told). The point is that your assertion that Amiga formally handed over code to Hyperion is false. Even if they "could have provided the (3.1) code" thats not them doing it. You like to point out what the obligations of Hyperion are in contracts, well its a two way street. And again, lets not forget the required 3.5 and 3.9 sources, did they also have those and withhold them too? Regardless of whether they had them, did not have them, whatever, they did not *provide* them and thats what they needed to do as per the contract.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 06-Aug-2007 at 09:34 PM.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

What I have been trying to say with my comments is that it makes no sense for AI to find a new home for Hyperion to sell the OS to when Hyperion was supposed to deliver the OS to AI for AI to start selling.

The contract gave Hyperion the right to sell it, not AInc, and then for AInc to receive royalties only from sales of 4.1,4.2,4.3 etc. AInc does not have any rights to sell OS4.

Maybe, just maybe, this is what the legal case is really about, since I presume AInc revenue stream has dried up with the demise of TAO.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@Swoop

Quote:

Swoop wrote: The contract gave Hyperion the right to sell it, not AInc, and then for AInc to receive royalties only from sales of 4.1,4.2,4.3 etc. AInc does not have any rights to sell OS4. Maybe, just maybe, this is what the legal case is really about, since I presume AInc revenue stream has dried up with the demise of TAO.

No Swoop, after the buyback, its AI that would make the money from the OS, thats what the Itec deal is about and which this topic is about.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Perhaps this is more what you are looking for:

Senex:
Quote:

Thanks to GaryC and Kronos for their statements, which I had considered sufficient for not having to reply here myself as well. But before more accusations like the above arise here, once again: Yes, we were interested in licensing the name and OS4, yes we were ready to pay for it, yes we came to agreements with the respective parties - but right when the only thing left had just been to sign and transfer the money, surprisingly Mr. McEwen stepped in with sudden demands and restrictions which, to put it nicely, had not been economically acceptable for us - so that we finally listened to our advisors like PWC, who had been strongly suggesting to establish our own brand instead before already. Thus we stay Linux for now and bring in AROS step by step as it's development goes ahead; i.e. in the mid-term future "just" as a Linux-hosted extra so far, for some additional and optional basic home-computer functionality.

Which should tell you why he posted this in the Kent thread:
Senex:
Quote:

So there are last minute demands/restrictions suddenly brought up by AI, possibly leading to the contract being canceled? Wouldn't surprise me if this issue has been raised intentionally as an "exit strategy".

Need I add he is not alone in his assumptions?

Hmm..lessee now. How did Rogue and Entilzha react to the AHT announcement by Senex after people argued about how posters in the thread would not be privy to details in the same way as Senex:

gary_c
Quote:

I don't see any cause of the negotiations breaking down other than Bill McEwen's last-minute demands that were unacceptable.

EntilZha:
Quote:

That's exactly what I mean.

Rogue:
Quote:

You don't get the point, do you? It says "Mr. McEwen". It does not say "Amiga Inc".

Hope this offers all a "clue"

#6

Last edited by number6 on 06-Aug-2007 at 10:12 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Thats not them providing the code formally to Hyperion. Its not them providing any code to Hyperion.

Lous point is that because AI didnt provide the code to Hyperion, Hyperion owns the IP. Lous point is wrong legally, do you agree or disagree?

Quote:

[quote] If Fleecy had the source code why was it not handed over?

Because Olafs version is superior.

Quote:

Let alone the fact that the contract called for 3.5 and 3.9 source as well (also not handed over we are told). The point is that your assertion that Amiga formally handed over code to Hyperion is false. Even if they "could have provided the (3.1) code" thats not them doing it.

First of all the entire source thing is a non-issue after April 24, 2003. At that point Hyperion agreed to sell the OS to Itec for $25K. They should have increased the price to cover Olafs costs and other costs of acquiring OS pieces, but they didnt, they signed the 2003 contract (which is the subject of this thread) and they got paid $25K, and they didnt deliver. Unless you honestly want to argue (as Lou does) that Olaf giving the code to Hyperion means Hyperion owns the Amiga OS IP, this is really a non-issue, and even if Hyperion owned the IP, they still have to deliver it to Itec PER THE 2003 CONTRACT which is the subject of this thread.

Quote:

You like to point out what the obligations of Hyperion are in contracts, well its a two way street. And again, lets not forget the required 3.5 and 3.9 sources, did they also have those and withhold them too? Regardless of whether they had them, did not have them, whatever, they did not *provide* them and thats what they needed to do as per the contract.

Again, nothing in the 2003 contract between Itec and Hyperion involves the source code. If Hyperion had issues with the way AI(W) did business with them (not supplying code, having to talk to Fleecy, etc) then they needed to address that in the 2003 contract when they sold the OS, not selling the OS there and then over 4 years later still havent delivered it and not willing to give it to them. Thats the subject here, the Itec-Hyperion contract. You guys like to go on and on about how AI are the bad guys, where were you all in 2003 and 2004 when we actually could have done something about that, marching behind MikeB and calling me and TBone and everyone else FUDmasters, etc because we said AI was kicked out of there offices, and had lost lawsuits, etc. Now you think those things are important.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Swoop Quote: Swoop wrote: The contract gave Hyperion the right to sell it, not AInc, and then for AInc to receive royalties only from sales of 4.1,4.2,4.3 etc. AInc does not have any rights to sell OS4. Maybe, just maybe, this is what the legal case is really about, since I presume AInc revenue stream has dried up with the demise of TAO. No Swoop, after the buyback, its AI that would make the money from the OS, thats what the Itec deal is about and which this topic is about. -Tig

Then why are you talking about source code hand-overs (or the lack thereof) from Amiga to Hyperion if you really are so concerned about others staying on-topic? Your whole Itec contract arguement is that its a simple contract not linked to anything prior (despite a 2001 contract reference) and that thats the beauty of it being a slam dunk in NY State, because all the prior mess is not something that can be considered as per you.

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Lous point is that because AI didnt provide the code to Hyperion, Hyperion owns the IP. Lous point is wrong legally, do you agree or disagree?

Don't try your shifting game again. I'm not playing. You said Amiga delivered it, you've backed off on that now that I pointed out otherwise. Thats the truth I am concerned about. If you want to tell him he is wrong on that point legally why not argue to that end, why try to shortcut to win by making up that Amiga delivered the code to Hyperion is my point.

Quote:

Because Olafs version is superior.

Thats nice. Too bad the contract requires them to do so. And besides that there is certainly no harm in having both source copies, whether one is superior or not. If you have a contract requirement that you can meet you do it, its as simple as that and you expect nothing less from Hyperion and if you were fair-minded you'd expect the same from Amiga.

Quote:

First of all the entire source thing is a non-issue after April 24, 2003. At that point Hyperion agreed to sell the OS to Itec for $25K

Goes to my earlier point, you have reminded a number of people to stay on-topic but stray when it suits you and your straying this time promoted a falsehood. Now that thats pointed out you don't want to talk about it, big surprise! lol

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Quote: Lous point is that because AI didnt provide the code to Hyperion, Hyperion owns the IP. Lous point is wrong legally, do you agree or disagree? Don't try your shifting game again. I'm not playing.

Your also not answering, you know Lou is wrong, but if you can argue with me, you'll dance with devil.

Quote:

You said Amiga delivered it,

They did deliver it, if AI had not authorized Olaf to have the code, I assure you Olaf would not have given the code to Ben. You might want to argue that it was delivered indirectly, etc, but the code got to Hyperion only because AI said it was OK. Next you'll be arguing that if a fedex guy brought the CD, Olaf didnt deliver the code either it was Jimmy the Fedex guy.

Quote:

If you have a contract requirement that you can meet you do it, its as simple as that and you expect nothing less from Hyperion and if you were fair-minded you'd expect the same from Amiga.

I expect the same from AI, the issue is that once Hyperion signed the contract with Itec (unfortunately for them) they gave up the right to be reimbursed for those additional costs, as I have been pointing out for months.

Quote:

Goes to my earlier point, you have reminded a number of people to stay on-topic but stray when it suits you and your straying this time promoted a falsehood. Now that thats pointed out you don't want to talk about it, big surprise! lol

Just because I am tired of the constant silly statements that Hyperion owns the Amiga IP. Do you honestly believe that? Do you believe that because Olaf and not AI sent the CD to Hyperion that Hyperion owns the code now? I realize Lou believes that, but hopefully he is the last one. I mean if someone sends me the code for XP, do you think I can just start selling an x86 OS called Doors after I finish recompiling it? If not, why do you think Olaf sending the code gives Hyperion that right?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Your also not answering, you know Lou is wrong, but if you can argue with me, you'll dance with devil.

You want to draw me into the different topic to make it less obvious you tried to take a shortcut in your arguement with Lou. I'd rather it be starkly clear what you did there thank you very much.

I'm also amused by your smugness BTW. I think that just re-inforces the point its about winning an argument to you, not about fairly debating it, let alone you perhaps learning something along the way yourself.


Quote:

They did deliver it, if AI had not authorized Olaf to have the code, I assure you Olaf would not have given the code to Ben. You might want to argue that it was delivered indirectly, etc, but the code got to Hyperion only because AI said it was OK. Next you'll be arguing that if a fedex guy brought the CD, Olaf didnt deliver the code either it was Jimmy the Fedex guy.

Sorry, nice try. But if Amiga was the one delivering the code then the contract would have been with Amiga and Olaf with Amiga paying Olaf and then providing to Hyperion. Where Hyperion would not have been or needed to have been privy to any contract deals between Amiga and Olaf. Instead we have Amiga not being able to provide the code, Hyperion goes to Olaf (because they need it from somewhere since Amiga did not meet their obligation), Olaf saying it will cost you especially since AI owes me money. Then a seperate contract is drawn up between Hyperion and Olaf to secure the code, the code Amiga had not secured themselves. Too bad they represented that they had it to deliver, and also that they had 3.5 and 3.9. If Hyperion had to negotiate with Olaf and promise money to him for it thats not Amiga delivering it (let alone delivering it for free) as per the contract. And again 3.5 and 3.9 were not delivered as well, try twisting that one.

Quote:

Just because I am tired of the constant silly statements that Hyperion owns the Amiga IP.

Why don't you give the condecending bit a little vacation? Would it kill you? You may be a brilliant guy, working on the Osprey, porting AROS to EFIKA (thank you) but you are on a internet forum with people of various backgrounds from various countries with varying communication skills in English. Even if you are more often right than many, or hell even most, your condecending attitude should not be necessary if you really believe you are that brilliant of a debator now should it?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 06-Aug-2007 at 10:37 PM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Your prior response to me was about the court case and postings in this thread.
That's not what my post concerned in the slightest.
The question was posed about whether negotiations for new hardware (in the cases I cited) were going on during the period of time in question.
I posted examples of those projects existing during that time period for his perusal.
Nothing more.
I'm not interested in the legal debating here.
Sorry if my post was not clear.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Tigger

I would agree that AI might have been involved in the transfer of source code, but there is now way you can stretch or twist it into AI providing 3.1, 3.5, and 3.9.

Kirka

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: You want to draw me into the different topic to make it less obvious you tried to take a shortcut in your arguement with Lou. I'd rather it be starkly clear what you did there thank you very much.

No FLFB, Lou was wrong, your arguement is that despite Lou being wrong about the same thing for the 4 or 5 time on this thread again, I should have written another complete response about it. Sorry, I wasnt so inclined.

Quote:

Sorry, nice try. But if Amiga was the one delivering the code then the contract would have been with Amiga and Olaf with Amiga paying Olaf and then providing to Hyperion.

It was Hyperions choice to use Olaf and his cleaned up code without compensation for such from AI. As for 3.5 and 3.9, what code of that do you believe was necessary for the work in question.

Quote:

Why don't you give the condecending bit a little vacation?

You first.

Quote:

Even if you are more often right than many, or hell even most, your condecending attitude should not be necessary if you really believe you are that brilliant of a debator now should it?

If you dont like it, really go to the next message. It would not hurt my feelings at all. And I'm sorry but saying I am tired of the silly statements about Hyperion owning the AI IP is not really condecending, its a statement of fact. How many times do they people that actually do software who are posting on this thread have to explain it before it stops being a topic of discusssion?
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

No FLFB, Lou was wrong, your arguement is that despite Lou being wrong about the same thing for the 4 or 5 time on this thread again, I should have written another complete response about it. Sorry, I wasnt so inclined.

So to counter your belief he is wrong on a legal point you promote a falsehood. Interesting choice. Odd from you since you talk of wanting people to come at you straight on any points you present. Should not Lou get the same courtesy?

Quote:

It was Hyperions choice to use Olaf and his cleaned up code without compensation for such from AI. As for 3.5 and 3.9, what code of that do you believe was necessary for the work in question.

You do nothing here but prove my point. Which is that you don't hold Amiga and Hyperion to the same standards when it comes to contract terms. For Amiga its ok they didn't provide the code even though required by the contract they signed. In that instance you want to shift to some software design discussion saying in essence its ok to break contract terms if it was not somehow functionally necessary (3.5 and 3.9). Thats something to discuss while drawing up the contract, not after. The parties involved at the time certainly felt providing 3.5 and 3.9 code was necessary for some reason, thats why it was spelled out in the contract. Your analysis of why that might have been a silly portion of the contract is really not material.

As for 3.1 specifically even if Hyperion chose to get a variant from Olaf as you argue (which does not appear to be the reason they had to go to Olaf) why would they do that without looking at the version of 3.1 source you claim Fleecy had but did not hand over? Hyperion getting a 3.1 variant from Olaf does not remove Amiga's obligation to hand over the 3.1 code they said they had and promised to hand over.

Quote:

You first.

LOL.

Quote:

How many times do they people that actually do software who are posting on this thread have to explain it before it stops being a topic of discusssion?

It seems to me the main thing keeping these threads going Tigger is you. Why argue minutiae if its all the slam dunk you say it is for either case? Dosen't an "I told ya so" cover things if it turns out as you say? The problem is you seem to feed on this and like to argue for the sake of it. It fills some need for you I suppose. Oh well. To your point since you've been so ineffectual in stopping these "silly" posts by your own admission perhaps if you wish to continue but actually truly want a different result maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that another strategy is required.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 06-Aug-2007 at 11:31 PM.

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

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Hyperion has spent 7 years and received nothing that can compensate for the work that has been done on AmigaOS4.

No, they have not. We are coming close to 6 years since the start of the project now, not seven.

And given the results, one may be tempted to assume that there were extended periods during those six years when "Hyperion" (or rather, the subcontractors who actually do the mostly unpaid work) were busy doing things that put food on the table, and the heating going. Because the whole project certainly does not look like about 180 man-years worth of programming, nor do the Frieden parts look like 12 man-years of full-time work.

And lust but not least, Hyperion (this time it *is* the company) received around 60,000 Euros (seeing as it sold "more or less 1,000" cpies of OS4, mostly at the price of 59 Euros excl VAT). Hyperion is likely to also have taken a cut off the thousand-dollar-a-day Arctic contract before passing things on to the subcontractors (i.e. the Friedens). And then there was that aerospace contract for OS4-sourced technology. Not to mention around $40,000 from Itec and KMOS.

On the other hand, Hyperion (the company) has done very little. Worse, there is rather little evidence that Hyperion, the company, has actually spent any significant amount of money on this project. We pretty much know that the Friedens haven't been paid their phantasy price (and thus retain their IP ownership); Given their importance to Hyperion, it is likely that they were indeed paid the 10 Euro per OS4 binary, though. Also, it is likely that Olaf was actually paid before releasing the OS3.1 sources (judging by Olaf's email which essentially said "Oi! You Amiga Inc lot! You haven't paid me, so no, I am not handing over these sources to anyone!"). Add a few flights for staff and subcontractors, and the cost for the fancy pressing/packaging of the original pre-release, and you may be somewhere around 30,000 Euro. But that's about it for documented actual expenses for Hyperion, the company.

Scary as it may sound, poor little Hyperion might very well have made a profit on the OS4 project so far.