Poster | Thread |
Tigger
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 22-Jan-2008 14:29:46
| | [ #101 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @CodeSmith
Quote:
CodeSmith wrote: @Tigger
Quote:
You bought software that Hyperion likely doesnt have a license to sell, did you say "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight" while you did it? |
Wait a minute - did you just call every single OS4 owner a pirate?
|
Only the people who bought the Classic OS. Of course in all honesty anyone who has 3.5(?) is probably pirating AREXX as Bill (Hawes) opinion on its legality is pretty well known. -Tig
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 22-Jan-2008 14:32:10
| | [ #102 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @Dandy
Quote:
Dandy wrote:
That's quiete easy: The judge decides in their favour... |
I was looking more for a basis for the judge to find in there favor. The signed the contract, they got the money, they didnt deliver. The entire reason they dont think they have to give the code is based on Itec being part of the 2001 contract, and one federal judge has found that not to be true already at least with regard to jurisdiction and venue. -Tig
Last edited by Tigger on 22-Jan-2008 at 03:38 PM.
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 22-Jan-2008 14:43:00
| | [ #103 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @COBRA
Quote:
COBRA wrote: @Tigger
Quote:
No, software development (which they own) does not mean object code and object code only. |
Well I know you like to add things to contracts which are not there but that doesn't change the fact that when you sign a contract and define in a clause what will be delivered to you, you will get just that, nothing more. |
Which is really funny for the guy who doesnt think Hyperion should give Itec the OS after being paid to say. And I'm sorry you keep going to what they should have given them, I'm talking about what they own. It says they own the software development in the contract, thats alot more then a piece of object code they can use for demonstration purposes. -Tig
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Kronos
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 22-Jan-2008 14:46:26
| | [ #104 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 8-Mar-2003 Posts: 2553
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Dandy
Quote:
I understand very well that if after June 1, 2002, no sales report arrived at AInc, their alarm bell should have rung and they should have become active - so in my book it's solely AIncs fault that OS4 is that late - they had it in their own hands to accelerate things...
|
How ?
Well except from sueing Hyperion right in 2002 that is _________________ - We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet - blame Canada |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 22-Jan-2008 15:35:24
| | [ #105 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @Dandy
Quote:
Dandy wrote:
In the contract I read they have that license - so your point being?
|
That would be the contract cancelled in December of 2006.
Quote:
I understand very well that if after June 1, 2002, no sales report arrived at AInc, their alarm bell should have rung and they should have become active - so in my book it's solely AIncs fault that OS4 is that late - they had it in their own hands to accelerate things...
|
You seem to be implying that AI didnt know that Hyperion was late with the software, the knew it every month, those silly Ask Fleecy things this site used to post was full of the software is coming soon. What exactly should AI have done to accelerate things?
Quote:
Quote:
Tigger wrote:
And AI has been asking for the software for years as we have seen from the court documents.
|
Haven't seen it there - could you please point me to?
|
Sure, there are several but here is one from 2 years ago:
Document 35 Attachment 5, Exhibit Q. Its from September of 2005. There are earlier ones if you prefer, now if you want to look at whats really going on with the developers while you are in there, scroll up to Exhibit L and see where Olaf says that as of May 20, 2006 he's been paid a total of 2500 Euros for all his work on OS 4, and that he would have been better off working at McDonalds for a few months then working on OS 4 for the last few years and that sole sum of money was paid in 2006 after some serious negotiations on his part.
Quote:
Wouldn't you agree that such a secured right only makes sense, if you execute it in case no money arrives?
And if - as you stated - Hyperion waived their claimes by waiting too long, its only fair to say Ainc waived their rights as well by the same reason. |
No, because if Hyperion isnt selling anything (and they werent) then inspecting there records to see if the royalties are correct is ludicrous. You understand that Hyperion HAS NEVER PAID ROYALTIES TO Amiga Inc, nor are any due, so paying an accountant to spend hours looking through there records to say there right they owe you 0, is silly. -Tig
Last edited by Tigger on 22-Jan-2008 at 09:32 PM.
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
COBRA
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 7:02:57
| | [ #106 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 26-Apr-2004 Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
And I'm sorry you keep going to what they should have given them, I'm talking about what they own. It says they own the software development in the contract, thats alot more then a piece of object code they can use for demonstration purposes. |
Well, the contract was signed in 2005. We are here now, in 2008, and so far KMOS/AD did not say they have the right to any piece of source code or IP based on the Arctic contract. Also, the fact that AD presented some other contract (maybe fake, maybe an older draft) proves that the real arctic contract does not help them get any code/IP from Hyperion, otherwise they would have provided the real. We only have you and umisef thinking that this contract gives them any code/IP, and even if KMOS would decide to try to get anything based on that contract they couldn't now because of the laches you keep mentioning. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Helge
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 7:55:42
| | [ #107 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2006 Posts: 689
From: Norway | | |
|
| @All
I am shocked to see that this trial case with AI vs Hyperion is still ongoing. More they keep this trial up, more they violate the community and the Amiga..
What's the problem? Port AmigaOS 4 to x86. It's so simple, and everybody will be happy! This should have been done long ago. I want a modern AmigaOS running on x86 hardware, simply replacing Windows..!
_________________ Helge K. Leaving the Amiga in favour of a PC.. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
abalaban
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 8:02:57
| | [ #108 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 1-Oct-2004 Posts: 1114
From: France | | |
|
| @Helge
...Instead of dreaming for x86 AmigaOS someday... Use AROS today if all you want is using an AmigaOS like on x86. _________________ AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it ! Now dreaming AOS 4.2... Thank you to all devs involved for this great job ! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Helge
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 8:54:20
| | [ #109 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2006 Posts: 689
From: Norway | | |
|
| @abalaban
It might be a dream, but this dream is the most realistic one that can become true, if done in the right way.. _________________ Helge K. Leaving the Amiga in favour of a PC.. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
abalaban
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 10:21:28
| | [ #110 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 1-Oct-2004 Posts: 1114
From: France | | |
|
| @Helge
I don't criticize you I just wanted to point you that an AmigaOS-like is *already* running on x86, so if it's what you want, why waiting for an, hypothetical (very unlikely), port of "official" AmigaOS to this platform ? You have it *now* ! _________________ AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it ! Now dreaming AOS 4.2... Thank you to all devs involved for this great job ! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Varthall
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 12:19:26
| | [ #111 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 17-Feb-2004 Posts: 1559
From: Up Rough | | |
|
| @Helge
Quote:
Helge wrote: @All What's the problem? Port AmigaOS 4 to x86. It's so simple, and everybody will be happy!
|
Not me, thanks.
Varthall_________________ AmigaOne XE - AmigaOS 4.1 - Freescale 7457 1GHz - 1GB ram |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
The_Editor
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 12:30:52
| | [ #112 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 7-Mar-2003 Posts: 7629
From: 192.168.0.02 ..Pederburgh .. Iceni | | |
|
| @Helge
Here ya go
Job sorted !! _________________ ****************************************** I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it
****************************************** |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 13:08:07
| | [ #113 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @COBRA
Quote:
COBRA wrote:
Well, the contract was signed in 2005. We are here now, in 2008, and so far KMOS/AD did not say they have the right to any piece of source code or IP based on the Arctic contract. Also, the fact that AD presented some other contract (maybe fake, maybe an older draft) proves that the real arctic contract does not help them get any code/IP from Hyperion, otherwise they would have provided the real. We only have you and umisef thinking that this contract gives them any code/IP, and even if KMOS would decide to try to get anything based on that contract they couldn't now because of the laches you keep mentioning. |
First of all the contract was signed in 2004 (not 2005), and KMOS has been saying they want all of the OS4 code per the 2001 contract for years so why exactly do you think they should be asking for the additional code you wrote for us (and we paid for) as part of the 2004 contract when theoretically they should be getting it with the 2001 code if they dont already have it. For all we know they actually have the 2004 code, that still makes umisefs point correct, its something they own, thats what we were talking about. As for why they sent an earlier version of the contract, I suggested before Hyperion put the signed copy up that they were fishing for the signed contract, they got it and a bunch more, none of which helped Hyperion. As for your comment about Umisef and I being the only one that believes it. The contract says they own the software development that they paid for (its pretty much a standard work for hire contract), why exactly do you think that the code/IP isnt part of that deal? Also laches help KMOS here not hurt them, do you understand laches? You seem to like to throw it out as a savior for Hyperion at times when it would hurt them the most. -Tig
Last edited by Tigger on 23-Jan-2008 at 01:25 PM.
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
damocles
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 13:27:13
| | [ #114 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 22-Dec-2007 Posts: 1719
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @abalaban
Quote:
...Instead of dreaming for x86 AmigaOS someday... Use AROS today if all you want is using an AmigaOS like on x86. |
Just don't forget PPC very soon and soon. Plus faint hopes for 68K and ARM sometime this year.
Dammy_________________ Dammy |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 13:32:23
| | [ #115 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @Tigger
I've done my share of contract work and "source code" is not included in the "work" unless explicitly stated. When it is, I also charge more since there is a possibility they will hire someone else to do future "work" on the project. In my last contract, I only supplied a working installation.
They paid for the labor and own the end result. The labor is the "work". Any tooling (using manufactuing terms to represent source code) is still owned by the people who do the work. Just as KMOS did not supply the workstations that the work was done on, they don't own the source that was written on the workstations unless that was specified in the contract. In addition to this, the "work" was not done on KMOS' property.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
COBRA
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 14:24:35
| | [ #116 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 26-Apr-2004 Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
As for why they sent an earlier version of the contract, I suggested before Hyperion put the signed copy up that they were fishing for the signed contract, they got it and a bunch more, none of which helped Hyperion. |
First of all why wouldn't they have the contract themselves if they signed it? Why would they have to "fish" for it? Also, if it helps their case, why is it not included, or even referenced in their amended complaint? And lastly, if they needed that document, why couldn't they simply ask for it as part of discovery?
Quote:
As for your comment about Umisef and I being the only one that believes it. The contract says they own the software development that they paid for (its pretty much a standard work for hire contract), why exactly do you think that the code/IP isnt part of that deal? |
Because the definition of "Work" in the contract does not include source code/IP, and there is no legal definition of it which would include it. And also the fact that under "Delivery" it clearly states they're getting object code, that clarifies it once and for all. You know you really surprise me sometimes, you say you work in the high-tech field, you're involved with contracts all the time, and then you make some really stupid claims like "Work" in a contract automatically includes "Source code and IP" without it being written there. Incredible... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tigger
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 14:26:18
| | [ #117 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Lou wrote: @Tigger
I've done my share of contract work and "source code" is not included in the "work" unless explicitly stated. When it is, I also charge more since there is a possibility they will hire someone else to do future "work" on the project. In my last contract, I only supplied a working installation.
|
The argument isnt really about source code though Cobra keeps slanting it that way, and we often keep the source code of our clients software as well (for several reasons including what you listed), but answer me this, if a rival of your customer wanted the same software on the same or similar hardware, would you just hand them the executable the first customer paid you to develop and charge them the same price as the first customer?
Quote:
They paid for the labor and own the end result. |
The original argument is about ownership, someone asked what did AI own, I made a list, Umisef added "the Work" (which is defined in the Arctic contract) done on the Arctic software. Cobra believes "the Work" is executable only, even if I were to agree they dont "get" the source code, I cant agree they dont own the work done on it that they paid for. -Tig _________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
elatour
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 14:36:40
| | [ #118 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 18-Jan-2005 Posts: 936
From: Toronto, Canada | | |
|
| @Helge
Quote:
I am shocked to see that this trial case with AI vs Hyperion is still ongoing. |
I'm not. The minute I heard that the lawyers were involved, I knew it would be 1-2 years minimum...and that was before all the other additional lawsuits were filed. Many people back then, including Rogue, thought that it would be sorted out by Spring '07 and that things would be on sale on new hardware by the Summer '07, which I thought was not very realistic.
Quote:
What's the problem? Port AmigaOS 4 to x86. It's so simple, and everybody will be happy! This should have been done long ago. |
As obvious as this might sound to you - and most sane minds around here - Hyperion and the Frieden brothers have been against this from the very beginning, claiming that it would not be possible or too time consuming at any rate. This discussion has been going on for several years, always with the same conclusion. Although, to a large extent one of the arguments for this by many was to have access to lower cost hardware, the main argument for x86 for many others as well as for myself, was always to avoid beeing in the mess that we're currently in. Licensing arguements aside, Hyperion has never agreed with this logic...to their and our peril, IMHO.
To quote a wise man, "{AOS4} was our last hope...No, there is another...{AROS}." - OB1
Last edited by elatour on 23-Jan-2008 at 02:42 PM.
_________________ When swimming with sharks, make sure to bring lots of band-aids... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
COBRA
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 16:02:03
| | [ #119 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 26-Apr-2004 Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand | | |
|
| @Tigger
Quote:
The original argument is about ownership, someone asked what did AI own, I made a list, Umisef added "the Work" (which is defined in the Arctic contract) done on the Arctic software. Cobra believes "the Work" is executable only, even if I were to agree they dont "get" the source code, I cant agree they dont own the work done on it that they paid for. |
They own the work done, which is the end result, e.g. object code. They definitely don't own the tools and resources they used to make it, nor any trade secrets, or patents on technology they may have that allowed them to do your work. Just like a builder doesn't have to hand over the tools and machinery he used or created to allow a house to be built. The house ends up with the owner, but he can build another house for someone else, using the same materials, same tools, even one which looks identical, and the owners of the houses certainly won't be able to get their hands on any trade secrets/patents in the builder's possession that he used to build his houses. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
umisef
| |
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 17 Jan 2008) Posted on 23-Jan-2008 16:08:37
| | [ #120 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 19-Jun-2005 Posts: 1714
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @COBRA
Quote:
And also the fact that under "Delivery" it clearly states they're getting object code, that clarifies it once and for all. |
Actually, it refers to "an Object Code version of the Work". If the object code *was* the work, that would be silly. The contract also says that Hyperion shall have the Friedens "carry out the Work". You don't carry out object code, you carry out software development (which is OK, "the Work" is defined as software development).
If one owns certain "software development" which has been "carried out", one most certainly owns the IP that was created by said development. Who *else* would own that IP?
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|