@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Didn't they receive an OS4 CD back then - as mentioned a few postings ago? For me this is evidence enough that they were informed about the release and shipping of OS4 - and maybe this evidence is even sufficiant for the judge. They didnt receive a CD, and the software shipped did not meet the requirements of Annex I.

Can we agree on the phrasing "They received a copy of OS4 back then."?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: To be fair we should mention that the relevant hardware didn't meet the requirements of the 2001 contract, either. Which isnt Aminos problem, if Hyperion was upset about the hardware they need to take it up with there partner, Eyetech.

Of course this is AInc's problem - they partnered with Eyetech for the hardware as well as they partnered with Hyperion for the software.

So why are they just complaining Hyperion's OS4.0 doesn't meet the reqirements of the 2001 Agreement, if Eyetechs hardware doesn't meet these requirements either?

Or - asked the other way round - why should Hyperion be punished for not complying with the 2001 Agreement, while Eyetech can come off without for not complying with the 2001 Agreement?

If you think a "press release" can be sold as a contract/agreement to US courts, then why should it not be possible to sell them the theory that some fraud is going on on AInc's side and that they have no moral rights to win the case(s)?


Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Quote: What "2004 date" are you referring to? Why do you think Hyperion had to pay the devs 60 days after this mysterious date? Hyperion now claims the OS was completed in 2004, thats the 2004 date I am referring to,

Well, I got my copy of OS 4.0 classic in December 2007 - so I can't really comment on it's completelyness in 2004, as I didn't have access to the 2004 versions.

All I can say that it appearently was developed enough to run on an A1.

I cannot tell you if it undershot, met or overshot the requirements of the 2001 Agreement.

I know that the version I have overshoots the requirements of the 2001 Agreement.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: several of the contracts we have seen with the developers

I have seen none of them up to now - sorry.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: several of the contracts we have seen with the developers say that Hyperion will pay them large sums 30 or 60 days from the completion of OS4, those people are on record as not being paid.

Errrrmmmmm - "are on record as not being paid" since when?
I assume you mean not being paid since 2004.

Of what date is the latest update you know on this status?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: So Hyperion claiming they were done enough that the 6 months started, but no done enough they had to pay people for completion of the OS, is a little strange,

Yeah, maybe - but is "the developers not being paid" subject to the proceedings latterly?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: especially since they decided not to inform Amino that they were done enough for the 6 monts to start.

Could you please point me to a legally binding document that requires Hyperion "to inform Amino that they were done enough for the 6 monts to start"?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Where in which contract/agreement is it stated that they had to "announce they were done" - given that they obviously sent an OS4 CD to Amiga and given that it was in the news of all Amiga related media? Well first of all they didnt send an OS4 cd,

Lets say they sent a copy of OS4.0...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: and common sense says they need to inform the other party that they 6 months had begun,

Sorry - but common sense tells me otherwise.

Common sense tells me that it would be idiotic in a capitalistic business world to inform an competitor that he is waiving his rights - that would be quite close to commercial suicide...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ..., dont you think they should ask for the missing money?

No.
They only have the right to ask for the missing money in case they had already handed over the good(s).

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Quote: With regard to the "six month period" I'd say that it's as well solely AInc's own responsibility to keep track of things and to act timely. It certainly can't be Hyperions responsibility in the case at hand to remind AInc to complete their payments to avoid the "six month period" elapsing and (AInc) so loosing their rights to whatever - it's a business aftere all and not a Kindergarten... This is such a wrong comment, I'm not sure how to respond. By your line of reasoning, Hyperion can claim that 6 months was over as of May 3, 2002

Then you must somehow have misunderstood me - I never wrote that Hyperion could claim that the 6 months were over as of May 3, 2002.

Not sure why you think that...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: and that Itec didnt pay on time.

Did they?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: You apparently dont believe they actually have to be done,

I believe they actually have to be done and that the complete amount of money must be paid before any handover could take place (provided no other obstacles do exist).

Quote:

Tigger wrote: You apparently dont believe they ... have to inform anyone that they were done...

As I repeatedly stated:
No.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: We've shown that the software was not to Annex I level in 2004,

...rather it exceeded it, AFAIK.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: they didnt ship in Dec of 2004...

They didn't ship to me in Dec of 2004, but to the A1 owners, AFAIK.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: they did that in Dec of 2006,

Yeah, when AInc had woken up and noticed they possibly waived their rights while they were fast asleep (or while were too busy disguiding themselves to avoid paying their debts)...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: but they didnt do that in Dec of 2004.

Because they were in no way obliged to it.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: They didnt pay the contractors as if they were done,

If their contractors felt this way, they would rise appropriate claims at a court responsible for them.

The Hyperion contractors being paid or not is not subject to this case - so your point being?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: they didnt start working on 4.1 then,

I can very well remember the Friedens stating here on this very forum that the things they implemented in OS 4.0 so far would be the things of v4.1 and partly even of
v4.2 - so your point being?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: they didnt tell AI that the 6 month countdown had started, and really they should have.

Why should they?
Where does what agreement/contract/law require them to do so?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: If someone doesnt pay us on time, we charge them interest, by your line of thinking I can appearently start charging them interest the day the contract is signed because you dont think I need to send them a bill or actually finish the work before I start charging interest.

This shows that you're really not very good at reading my thoughts...

Last edited by Dandy on 19-Feb-2008 at 10:08 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:

Dandy wrote: Can we agree on the phrasing "They received a copy of OS4 back then."?

No, because as far as we have been shown they never received a copy, I dont know how many ways I have to say that.


Quote:

Of course this is AInc's problem - they partnered with Eyetech for the hardware as well as they partnered with Hyperion for the software.

First of all, depending on which version you believe, either Eyetech picked Hyperion or Hyperion picked Eyetech, either way the AmigaOne partners picked themselves, in addition, Eyetech paid there royalties which is all Amiga was worried about with regard to them and the 2001 contract.

Quote:

So why are they just complaining Hyperion's OS4.0 doesn't meet the reqirements of the 2001 Agreement, if Eyetechs hardware doesn't meet these requirements either?

Again, they got the hadware done long before the software and they paid the royalites in question to both Hyperion and AI also they bailed out Hyperion (as did Itec) why should AI be upset with them?

Quote:

Or - asked the other way round - why should Hyperion be punished for not complying with the 2001 Agreement, while Eyetech can come off without for not complying with the 2001 Agreement?

Hyperion is being sued for not delivering on time, for illegally using trademarks and for not delivering a product they paid for, Eyetech paid on time 1000's of dollars, its a totally different situation.


Quote:

If you think a "press release" can be sold as a contract/agreement to US courts, then why should it not be possible to sell them the theory that some fraud is going on on AInc's side and that they have no moral rights to win the case(s)?

Unlike you, I dont believe in moral rights in a court of law. A joint press release by definition is an agreement, how much strength it will have in a court of law has yet to be seen.

Quote:

Well, I got my copy of OS 4.0 classic in December 2007 - so I can't really comment on it's completelyness in 2004, as I didn't have access to the 2004 versions. All I can say that it appearently was developed enough to run on an A1. I cannot tell you if it undershot, met or overshot the requirements of the 2001 Agreement. I know that the version I have overshoots the requirements of the 2001 Agreement.

In many ways it overshoots the requirements, in some ways it still undershoots the requirements, but we know they paid the $25K before your version came out, so using your version (or even the Dec 2006 version) hurts not helps Hyperions case.

Quote:

I have seen none of them up to now - sorry.

Well then you need to either look at the court documents or stop arguing points you know nothing about.

Quote:

Errrrmmmmm - "are on record as not being paid" since when? I assume you mean not being paid since 2004. Of what date is the latest update you know on this status?

Olaf was paid nothing from when he signed the contract in Oct of 2001 until sometime in early 2006 when he was paid 2500 Euros (less then 10% of what was owed him from the one contract we've seen, and aparently there is more then one) , thats part of the court documents.

Quote:

Yeah, maybe - but is "the developers not being paid" subject to the proceedings latterly?

Hyperion needs to prove that the OS was done, everyone knew the OS was done and they acted in a manner that the OS was done. The developers not being paid their "its done" fees hurts the 3rd part substantially.

Quote:

Quote: Tigger wrote: especially since they decided not to inform Amino that they were done enough for the 6 monts to start. Could you please point me to a legally binding document that requires Hyperion "to inform Amino that they were done enough for the 6 monts to start"?

If you want a race to start, you need to tell someone to go. You are saying they dont have to tell them when the 6 months started and that they should just accept 6 months later that it was too late. The anarchy that would cause in the world boggles the mind if applied to every case.

Quote:

Lets say they sent a copy of OS4.0...

Why do you keep saying that when the purponderance of evidence says otherwise?


Quote:

Sorry - but common sense tells me otherwise. Common sense tells me that it would be idiotic in a capitalistic business world to inform an competitor that he is waiving his rights - that would be quite close to commercial suicide...

Are they partners as you called them above, or competitors as you are calling them now. The capitalistic system couldnt function in the world you envision that you dont have to notify people when 30 day or 60 day or 6 month countdowns start.

Quote:

Quote: Tigger wrote: ..., dont you think they should ask for the missing money? No. They only have the right to ask for the missing money in case they had already handed over the good(s).

Given that theory, then Itec should be getting interest on the money they have provided and not acquired the asset for, which would exceed the $250 long before the Dec 2004 new Hyperion we were done then deadline, which would mean AI did in fact pay in full.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Quote: [quote] This is such a wrong comment, I'm not sure how to respond. By your line of reasoning, Hyperion can claim that 6 months was over as of May 3, 2002 Then you must somehow have misunderstood me - I never wrote that Hyperion could claim that the 6 months were over as of May 3, 2002. Not sure why you think that...

Because you think that Hyperion can claim anytime as the start of the 6 months and that Amino should just know they were done then and the 6 months timetable was started.


Quote:

I believe they actually have to be done and that the complete amount of money must be paid before any handover could take place (provided no other obstacles do exist).

And you apparently believe its ok to send receipts for the incorrect amount to cover up a shortage in payment.

Quote:

...rather it exceeded it, AFAIK.

Not even close, why would you say that. Version for Cyberstorm not being available would be a big issue in proving what you are saying.

Quote:

Yeah, when AInc had woken up and noticed they possibly waived their rights while they were fast asleep (or while were too busy disguiding themselves to avoid paying their debts)...

Yeah, I'm sure AInc was just sitting around going, man we got to avoid paying Hyperion that $250.

Quote:

If their contractors felt this way, they would rise appropriate claims at a court responsible for them. The Hyperion contractors being paid or not is not subject to this case - so your point being?

It goes to whether Hyperion truly acted as if the OS was done in 2004 or not, they did not, which is going to hurt there case on this point.

Quote:

I can very well remember the Friedens stating here on this very forum that the things they implemented in OS 4.0 so far would be the things of v4.1 and partly even of v4.2 - so your point being?

Which just helps prove KMOS's case. Because Hyperion needs to pay royalties for 4.1 and 4.2 etc, so instead they just kept working on 4.0 so they didnt have to pay KMOS a dime.

Quote:

Why should they? Where does what agreement/contract/law require them to do so?

Law 101. Do you think I can send a backdated receipt that implies you have paid me in full for your house, then start forclosure proceedings because you actually owe me 1% of the money and take your house away all without telling you about it?
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Of course this is AInc's problem - they partnered with Eyetech for the hardware as well as they partnered with Hyperion for the software. So why are they just complaining Hyperion's OS4.0 doesn't meet the reqirements of the 2001 Agreement, if Eyetechs hardware doesn't meet these requirements either? Or - asked the other way round - why should Hyperion be punished for not complying with the 2001 Agreement, while Eyetech can come off without for not complying with the 2001 Agreement?

While Ainc may have grounds to sue Eyetech, noone can force them do so.
"Everybody does it", "They did it first" etc. may work in a kindergarden-disput, but they make an awfull defense in a court of law.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Tigger
I _believe_ AI did indeed receive media for OS4 at some point - they did have a pair of A1s go to them, via 'Mr Hardware,' circa 2004. I believe somewhere in the Garry H IRC interview, he said as much, and may have done the irc interview from an A1. My memory may be off on some of this, but they did receive a pair of A1s, also presumably with OS4.

Not that I think this is a huge item of significance in the court cases, but I do believe they've received the A1s.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@Tigger

Quote:

That problem is with this contract, nothing else. There are no reprecussions for someone doing something that the contract doesnt allow. If I deliver software late to Boeing, we get a penalty, its in the contract. There are cancellation penalties, etc. There is no such think with this contract, thats the problem. You dont like how this contract is going, you cancel it, thats basically the only option, thats a poor contract, but its the one the three amigos signed.

While I agree that the contract is far from ideal, it does define the rules of termination, see Article IV. - Termination, which for example states that "This Agreement shall continue indefinitely, unless terminated as provided herein". So you can't just terminate it without a reason, just because "you're not happy with the way it's going" as you imply. It also contains a clause which says it cannot be subcontracted/assigned without the written consent of all parties as Judge Martinez also pointed out when he denied AD's request for pleriminary injunction.

Quote:

They arent changing the story very much

So you admit they're chaning their story.

@COBRA

Quote:

While I agree that the contract is far from ideal, it does define the rules of termination, see Article IV. - Termination, which for example states that "This Agreement shall continue indefinitely, unless terminated as provided herein". So you can't just terminate it without a reason, just because "you're not happy with the way it's going" as you imply. It also contains a clause which says it cannot be subcontracted/assigned without the written consent of all parties as Judge Martinez also pointed out when he denied AD's request for pleriminary injunction.

Which hurts Hyperions case much more then AI's. AI wants to contract to be cancelled, thats the only "penalty" phase there is, so if AI is punished, they win. Hyperion needs for the contract to not be cancelled (though they have yet to argue that case very strongly), AI listed a bunch of reasons for cancelling the contract, HYPERION DIDNT OBJECT TO THEM, and now the contract is cancelled and they are trying to argue that KMOS cant do that, despite for years basically telling us they did have the ability.


Quote:

Quote: They arent changing the story very much So you admit they're chaning their story.

The only part I think is a little fuzzy is I think they rather strongly implied that Itec bought the contact from AI before they bought the OS from Hyperion, I cant really see where they actually said that however, and really it doesnt matter. Hyperion has to deliver the OS they sold to Itec, after that, this pretty much falls apart.
-Tig

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

@wegster

Quote:

wegster wrote: @Tigger I _believe_ AI did indeed receive media for OS4 at some point - they did have a pair of A1s go to them, via 'Mr Hardware,' circa 2004. I believe somewhere in the Garry H IRC interview, he said as much, and may have done the irc interview from an A1. My memory may be off on some of this, but they did receive a pair of A1s, also presumably with OS4.

If they bought a couple of A1s, that doesnt change the fact that HYPERION didnt send them a CD with OS 4, in fact in 2005 the letter between McEwen and Evert is pretty clear that they have not shipped them a CD yet.

Quote:

Not that I think this is a huge item of significance in the court cases, but I do believe they've received the A1s.

It has no significance, until Hyperion was telling people publically they were done (ie Dec 2006) or they told AI formally they were done (ie never) the judge isnt going to find that the 6 months had started.
-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: @wegster If they bought a couple of A1s, that doesnt change the fact that HYPERION didnt send them a CD with OS 4, in fact in 2005 the letter between McEwen and Evert is pretty clear that they have not shipped them a CD yet.

Why should it have been bought?
AMIGA, Eyetech and Hyperion were partners!
If Eyetech give A1 with OS4 to AMIGA Inc.,
then Hyperion give OS4 to amiga, not?

Last edited by AliveMOon on 19-Feb-2008 at 09:46 PM.
Last edited by AliveMOon on 19-Feb-2008 at 09:44 PM.
Last edited by AliveMOon on 19-Feb-2008 at 09:41 PM.
Last edited by AliveMOon on 19-Feb-2008 at 09:25 PM.

_________________
My first prototype game.
Current work on this!

Things I want to buy:
An accelerator card for my A2000

@AliveMOon

Quote:

AliveMOon wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @wegster If they bought a couple of A1s, that doesnt change the fact that HYPERION didnt send them a CD with OS 4, in fact in 2005 the letter between McEwen and Evert is pretty clear that they have not shipped them a CD yet. Why should it have been bought?

Gentlemen said they got them from Mr Hardware, thats a US dealer, I'm fairly sure a US dealer didnt give them away for free.

Quote:

AMIGA, Eyetech and Hyperion not accidental a team were, we say it Eyetech single AmigaOne, then the one on him OS4 Hyperion got it though? I would be curious, used it once altogether this it OS4, knows it this to be useful? Than AMIGA Inc. his first man. All was not in a picture according to me in a case in this manner it was missed from everything.

I'm sorry the rest of this doesnt read well enough for me to respond.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

If they bought a couple of A1s, that doesnt change the fact that HYPERION didnt send them a CD with OS 4, in fact in 2005 the letter between McEwen and Evert is pretty clear that they have not shipped them a CD yet.

KMOS was using OS4 in March of 2005. Are you saying they pirated it?
(sorry, could not resist that one)

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: KMOS was using OS4 in March of 2005. Are you saying they pirated it? (sorry, could not resist that one)

If you dont understand the difference between KMOS buying an Amigaone from Mr Hardware in 2005 (if that really even happened) which may have came with an OS 4 CD and Hyperion sending KMOS a CD, I cant help explain it to you.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Gentlemen said they got them from Mr Hardware, thats a US dealer, I'm fairly sure a US dealer didnt give them away for free.

Enough reasonable solutions, presumably cheaper and faster from a neighbourhood dealer to have bought than on post to send, not?

Quote:

I'm sorry the rest of this doesnt read well enough for me to respond.

I'm sorry!
Why they did not arrange it, the sellings, in USA?
The all amiga.com a web department store!

Where do they have the low end high machine?
First begin packing Minimig into joystick :)
After AA2 porting to Minimig!

Last edited by AliveMOon on 19-Feb-2008 at 10:31 PM.

_________________
My first prototype game.
Current work on this!

Things I want to buy:
An accelerator card for my A2000

@Tigger

Quote:

If you dont understand the difference between KMOS buying an Amigaone from Mr Hardware in 2005 (if that really even happened) which may have came with an OS 4 CD and Hyperion sending KMOS a CD, I cant help explain it to you.

2 AmigaOne XEs were prepared for KMOS at that time.
Initial work was done by Mr. Hardware.
Additional work, iirc, was done by Kurt Grach, who may have shipped them.
Garry said he was running OS4 on not just the Amigaones, but also on another device in March, 2005.
Sounds to me like multiple sources would have to be checked to determine what was sent, by whom, and/or on whose behalf.

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: 2 AmigaOne XEs were prepared for KMOS at that time. Initial work was done by Mr. Hardware. Additional work, iirc, was done by Kurt Grach, who may have shipped them. Garry said he was running OS4 on not just the Amigaones, but also on another device in March, 2005. Sounds to me like multiple sources would have to be checked to determine what was sent, by whom, and/or on whose behalf.

Yes Garry was running OS 4 on the Arctic PDA device after KMOS paid for the port, thats well documented.
-Tig

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

@COBRA

Quote:

If it worked like that, there wouldn't be a point in drafting contracts, if a party could just sell your contract to another company without following the rules set out in it, and that new owner could cancel it just like that (e.g. you just said they could have cancelled it even without honoring the rules of cancelleation), why would people bother to draft contracts anyway?

Haven't you ever had a mortgage where your contract was sold to another company? This sort of thing goes on all the time.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @number6 Quote: number6 wrote: KMOS was using OS4 in March of 2005. Are you saying they pirated it? (sorry, could not resist that one) If you dont understand the difference between KMOS buying an Amigaone from Mr Hardware in 2005 (if that really even happened) which may have came with an OS 4 CD and Hyperion sending KMOS a CD, I cant help explain it to you. -Tig

Sorry, I'm really not clear if AInc purchased them, or if it was simply 'sent from the partners.' It may have been either - my limited understand of the story is that 'AIncs A1s were sent in a batch of A1s to Mr Hardware.' I have no idea if they were purchased by AI, or simply distributed through Mr Hardware, presumably as built systems (they were sent to USA/Mr Hardware as mobos only + OS4). They were, AFAIK, delivered.

Whether or not these were purchased from AI or simply 'given to AI by the partners'( Eyetech/Hyperion) I don't know.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@Dandy

Quote:

Where in which contract/agreement is it stated that they had to "announce they were done" - given that they obviously sent an OS4 CD to Amiga and given that it was in the news of all Amiga related media?

Well, can we agree that publicly announcing that you are not done prevents the clock from being started?

@Tigger

Quote:

Which hurts Hyperions case much more then AI's. AI wants to contract to be cancelled, thats the only "penalty" phase there is, so if AI is punished, they win. Hyperion needs for the contract to not be cancelled (though they have yet to argue that case very strongly), AI listed a bunch of reasons for cancelling the contract, HYPERION DIDNT OBJECT TO THEM, and now the contract is cancelled and they are trying to argue that KMOS cant do that, despite for years basically telling us they did have the ability.

Currently the biggest problem AD have is that they can't show that they have any rights under the contract as it's stated by Martinez and if they don't have rights under the contract their cancellation is not valid either. They're trying to solve this by coming up with a new story saying the contract was abandoned several years ago so that they don't have to show that they have rights under the contract. The problem is that it's perfectly clear they considered the 2001 contract to be valid in 2006 because they cancelled it and this is proven by the court documents they themselves submitted in the beginning so it's obvious they're making things up as they go and I don't really know how they plan to explain these things to the judge.

Quote:

The only part I think is a little fuzzy is I think they rather strongly implied that Itec bought the contact from AI before they bought the OS from Hyperion, I cant really see where they actually said that however, and really it doesnt matter. Hyperion has to deliver the OS they sold to Itec, after that, this pretty much falls apart.

I think that the Itec case is pretty much the only hope AInc have at the moment, and is the most threatening to Hyperion. You have to ask yourself the question though that if the venue provisions of the 2001 agreement are not to be used for the 2003 Itec contract (which is why Itec was not joined in Washington), then what gives the NY court jurisdiction over Hyperion?

Last edited by COBRA on 20-Feb-2008 at 08:31 AM.

@jorkany

Quote:

Haven't you ever had a mortgage where your contract was sold to another company? This sort of thing goes on all the time.

I fail to see how a mortgage contract relates to a sw development agreement involving trademark/IP licenses and a clause which says specifically that the above cannot be done.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Can we agree on the phrasing "They received a copy of OS4 back then."? No, because as far as we have been shown they never received a copy, I dont know how many ways I have to say that.

Calm down, you don't have to say that anymore, as I found evidence in the court docs that show this simply is not true:

PDF #35, p. 5, l 6:

"* Finally, on the face of the disk for OS 4.0 developer pre-release,
Hyperion again states, "Amiga OS 4.0 © 2004 Hyperion Entertainment,
developed under license from KMOS, Inc...". A true and correct copy of face
of the developer pre-release disk for OS 4.0 is attached hereto as
Exhibit E.

_________________
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)