@umisef

Quote:

I love this interpretation being parroted all the time. So, please explain why Hyperion are being SUED alongside Amiga? Suing someone is based on a DIFFERENCE of opinion; When you agree, you don't sue, you sign a memorandum of understanding.

According to Rogue, they are not suing Hyperion :

Quote:

NO, it is NOT true that we are suing Hyperion for non-payment. Got that? That is a rumor, and it is as false as a rumor can get. I don't know where you got that from, but say again, no developer is sueing Hyperion for non-payment, or damages of any kind.

@hatschi

Quote:

hatschi wrote: @samface samface wrote: Quote: Having your shoe shined doesn't prevent me from honouring my obligation to shine your shoe. Can I tattoo this on my forehead or is it copyrighted?

Actually, that was quite funny. I laughed out so loud when I read it last night that I woke up my 3 months old son. :D

As a gold member of the swedish politcal party "piratpartiet" (the pirate party), I can't say but there's an invisible "copyleft" to anything I do unless you intend to use it for anything commercial.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@smithy

Quote:

smithy wrote: @umisef Quote: I love this interpretation being parroted all the time. So, please explain why Hyperion are being SUED alongside Amiga? Suing someone is based on a DIFFERENCE of opinion; When you agree, you don't sue, you sign a memorandum of understanding. According to Rogue, they are not suing Hyperion : Quote: NO, it is NOT true that we are suing Hyperion for non-payment. Got that? That is a rumor, and it is as false as a rumor can get. I don't know where you got that from, but say again, no developer is sueing Hyperion for non-payment, or damages of any kind.

He's only opposing the notion that it would be for non-payment, not that they wouldn't be suing. The court documents that Amiga Inc.'s lawyers acquired from Belgium are not lying. It's a dispute related to ownership.

Correction: They are seeking declaratory judgement, as in a confirmation of their ownership. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Rogue and Entilzha.

Last edited by samface on 27-Feb-2008 at 10:19 AM.
Last edited by samface on 27-Feb-2008 at 10:18 AM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@Dandy

Quote:

Sorry, but I prefer to end it without re-reading the last 200 posts, as I'm simply lacking the time for it.

But you had the time to spread falsehoods. OK, I'll remember that.

Quote:

Apologise? What for? For having an own opinion?

For spreading falsehoods, and then getting all upset when you were corrected.

Quote:

You're overestimating your own importance, if you think I owe you an apology...

I am not the one you accused of being a "pettifogger"....

(I am merely the guy you trolled. You know, trolling --- start by making outrageous and stupidly wrong claim, wait for people to correct you, then take their correction and build straw men from them, and keep going on about how wrong those (fabricated-by-you) positions are, and how you only ever wanted people to keep an open mind (which is in direct contradiction to the opening salvo you fired).

Here, let me replay the conversation, only with a different subject:

A: NASA says the moon consists of cheese!
B: Uhm, no, NASA does not say that.
A: Who cares about who said it. The important thing is that someone has established the moon cosists of cheese.
B: If someone had established that, it would be important. However, nobody has. Can you provide any indication that the moon is made of cheese?
A: It's yellow! Just like cheese. That's what I call a clear indication...
B: Uh, so are postit notes. And yet, we know they are not made from cheese.
A: So, do you have any indication it's *not* made from cheese?
B: Actually, yeah --- NASA went there and brought back ROCKS
A: But don't you agree that NASA only looked at a small part, and that the rest of the moon might very well be cheese.
B: Not really --- the rest of the moon looks just like the parts where NASA landed; It has also been investigated with radar and other penetrating measures, and it looked like rock to all of them. Recently, a spacecraft was purposely crashed into it at high speed, and the impact looked like that of rock, and the ejecta had the absorption spectrum of rock.
A: Yeah, but we need to keep an open mind. That's all I've ever asked for. There might be cheese on the moon after all --- it's a big place, and maybe NASA even knows where it is, but won't tell.

Now, if you were 'B' in this conversation, would you think that 'A' had conducted a meaningful and useful discussion?

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @Lou The only way either will get the code is if they pay for it. This is more smoke and mirrors . . .

Yes, and I hope this lawsuit lifts all the smoke surrounding the shell game once and for all...

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @samface So I sign a deal with you to shine my shoe... Someone else shines my shoe. So now you don't have to shine my shoe? No, we had a deal, now shine my shoe. Bad example. Having your shoe shined doesn't prevent me from honouring my obligation to shine your shoe. Let's say we make a deal that I must cut your hair, then you have someone else shave it all completely off before I get a chance to, making it impossible for me to honour my part of the deal. Still think it's a valid reason to sue?

Yes, because my shoes will get dirty again just as my hair will grow and in a few weeks you can shave my head. Who really had the bad example?
The bottom line is - a deal is a deal.

Quote:

Quote: I don't care what you think of a 1% underpayment. What matters is what the judge thinks of it. You state your opinion, I reply to it, and then you respond by saying that you don't care about my opinion? Well tell me, why should we care about yours then?

As I recall, you replied to me when I wasn't replying to you. I never asked you what you thought of my opinion. However, when you address me as you did, I am almost obligated to let you know what I think of that.

Quote:

Quote: Rather than speculate, I am willing to just wait to hear what the judge decides. Fine, don't speculate then. But when you do, becasue I know you will do it anyway, don't be so surprised that others might respond to your speculations with their take on things. We all got the same right to express our opinions here.

My "speculation" is just a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims. Feel free to point out what I have "speculated".

Quote:

Quote: And their "ridicoulus demands" you are refering to would be? Quote: Oh, I don't know - paying $25,000 for an OS that cost them (per Hyperion's claims) over a million dollars to develop due to obligations not being met by both Amiga Inc. and Eyetech. No, they don't pay $25,000 for the OS. That's just a symbolic sum for whenever Amiga Inc. would decide to take development back in house. What Hyperion got was an exclusive royalty free license to develop, market, distribute and sell AmigaOS4. You think Amiga inc. should give them the profit from the sales AND pay for their development expenses? Not even Amiga Inc. are that stupid. Considering the buyback clause was the only string attached, it was a quite favorable deal for Hyperion. So no, their not getting just $25,000, which btw turned in to $40,000, they also got all the profit from AmigaOS4 sales. Furthermore, it was a deal drafted by Ben Hermans, at that time managing partner of Hyperion. They knew the terms of the agreement they wrote very well. They shouldn't have signed it if the terms were not acceptable. You don't draft the agreement yourself, sign it, and then complain about the terms. It's not how things work.

You are throwing useless numbers out there again. Specifically, $40,000. The only number you need to know is $24,750. Remind me - who is speculating again?

You are correct - Amino should have never signed a deal they couldn't honor when they said they would provide Hyperion with the sources to OS3.5 and OS3.9...

So let's get this staight about the contract...
Amiga can pay no less than $25,000.00 and get whatever sources Hyperion could secure with no additional money and has 6 months to release a substantionally better OS. Not only did they fail to pay $25,000.00 but I don't see OS5 being released in this decade. Oh, I'm wrong, they released OS5 at CES in January but had to call it AA2 because Microsoft would have had to spank them for being naughty boys. Yes, that "Invasion" demo looked much better than OSX...

Quote:

Quote: Again, I'm willing to wait and see. Saying in an email that you are offering $2,000,000 and having legal documents that specify "Upon receipt of $2,000,000..." are two entirely different matters, especially when that email comes from the fingers of Bill McEwen... :cough:Kent Center:cough:.... There are arrangements to be made that would ensure a safe exchange without anyone giving anything on credit. If such simple measures would have been taken, it would actually been in Hyperions favor in court now if Amiga Inc. would've failed to pay. So that's a poor argument, really. And please stop pretending to know everything with regards to the Kent Center. Amiga Inc. has their explanation for why the deal didn't go through, the City of Kent has theirs. Which is true is irrelevant since like I said, their credit rating is a non-issue and a failure of payment on Amiga Inc.'s behalf would've actually helped Hyperion's case.

LOL!
LOL!
LOL!
LOL!
LOL!
Can you read? In the court documents, Hyperion is citing $1,000,000 in expenses. So if $2,000,000 were real, don't you think Hyperion would have taken the money and run? It seems to me you argue for the sake of arguing and like others here - ignore certain facts that don't support your argument. The only party that has acted illogically is Amino/ITEC/KMOS. It seems their followers have adopted their train of thought...

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: The Friendens and another, name escapes me, are suing KMOS and Hyperion. This is simply to make sure that ExecSG and other parts of OS4 are not haphazzardly handed over to Amiga Inc. per this lawsuit as it represents their own individual work. I love this interpretation being parroted all the time. So, please explain why Hyperion are being SUED alongside Amiga? Suing someone is based on a DIFFERENCE of opinion; When you agree, you don't sue, you sign a memorandum of understanding.

To me "sued" is a broad term to mean there are court proceedings going on between parties. It has been clarified in this instance to be one to have a declatory decision made on ownership of IP within OS4. Once ownership of certain IP is declared, no other party can take it from them without a proper agreement.

This means that even if Hyperion loses, KMOS will still not have source-code without paying for it. Whether KMOS pays the developers or Hyperion pays the developers doesn't matter, however without this Belgian court proceeding, who do you think is more likely to pay developers if they have ownership of the OS - KMOS or Hyperion?
If you think it KMOS, especially since they don't have a contract with developers, I kindly ask you to put whatever it is you've been inhaling recently in an air-tight container and place that container within another container made of lead and p.m. me and I will give you my address so that you may ship it to me. I will pay the shipping costs and whatever fee you fee is appropriate, in advance (unlike AInc) for that substance, as it definitely sounds like it would be worth the money.

@GuruMeditation

Quote:

GuruMeditation wrote: Wow. When you think about the amount of energy which has been put into writing text sustaining one side.. and the amount of the energy reading that text.. and then, how to formulate a response. and then, how to respond to that.. I'm not sure if I should congratulate you all, or send my condolances. You've done the same thing for what, 6 months, debating, discussing, elaborating, going back and forth.. and what? it means nothing, until the judge says what the judge says. So, for the mathemathically challenged, how much of the planets resources have been COMPLETELY wasted, doing more or less nothing, during these months? Resources which could have been used *alot more* efficiently, mind you..

I, much like Tigger, reply from work. So we are getting paid to be here...lol.

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Dandy ... For spreading falsehoods, and then getting all upset ...

You may spread falsehoods like I'd be "getting all upset" als long as you like - it won't change my opinion.



EDIT:
Spelling...

Last edited by Dandy on 27-Feb-2008 at 01:13 PM.

_________________
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)

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: You are correct - Amino should have never signed a deal they couldn't honor when they said they would provide Hyperion with the sources to OS3.5 and OS3.9....

And Hyperion should have cancelled the contract and re-negotiated a new one but they didn't - so the source code issue is a no-go, and will have no real weight in this court case. - Hyperion acted illogically . . .

Quote:

Can you read? In the court documents, Hyperion is citing $1,000,000 in expenses. So if $2,000,000 were real, don't you think Hyperion would have taken the money and run?

Not if they are consistent with the way they have acted since the beginning . . . illogically

Quote:

It seems to me you argue for the sake of arguing and like others here - ignore certain facts that don't support your argument. The only party that has acted illogically is Amino/ITEC/KMOS. It seems their followers have adopted their train of thought...

Amino acted poorly, but Hyperion stuck with a bad contract . . .
Hyperion sold the OS to ITEC (in accordance with the 2003 contract)
KMOS may be full of it . . .

But HYPERION has definitely not acted illogically . . . .

I am for the OS, not Hyperion or AI in any form . . . But the more information gathered sheds much light on the Con-Man vs Con-Man theory . . .

Hurry up NY case . . . The sooner we discover if Hyperion did or did not sell the OS to ITEC the sooner this mess will be over. Free the OS from tyranny

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@Dandy

Quote:

it won't change my popinion.

So you still think that Olaf stated AI had access to the CVS? Or that someone stated that? Or that it is at all likely that AI had access to the CVS?

Those were your "facts". Are you recanting?

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @umisef ... If you think it KMOS, especially since they don't have a contract with developers, I kindly ask you to put whatever it is you've been inhaling recently in an air-tight container and place that container within another container made of lead and p.m. me and I will give you my address so that you may ship it to me. I will pay the shipping costs and whatever fee you fee is appropriate, in advance (unlike AInc) for that substance, as it definitely sounds like it would be worth the money.

_________________
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)

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @Lou Hyperion acted illogically ... Not if they are consistent with the way they have acted since the beginning...illogically ... But HYPERION has definitely not acted illogically ...

What now - "illogically" or "not ... illogically"?


EDIT:
emphasis added

Last edited by Dandy on 27-Feb-2008 at 01:34 PM.

_________________
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)

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Dandy Quote: it won't change my popinion. So you still think that Olaf stated AI had access to the CVS? Or that someone stated that? Or that it is at all likely that AI had access to the CVS? ...

Maybe it could help if you re-read the last 200 or so postings - what I think or not is all in there...

_________________
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)

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: You are correct - Amino should have never signed a deal they couldn't honor when they said they would provide Hyperion with the sources to OS3.5 and OS3.9.... And Hyperion should have cancelled the contract and re-negotiated a new one but they didn't - so the source code issue is a no-go, and will have no real weight in this court case. - Hyperion acted illogically . . .

So why didn't Amino ask for a new contract when they realized H&P weren't going to give up the sources? Instead, for Hyperion to still deliver an OS despite different and buggy hardware and no original sources (which probably contained documentation describing function and purpose, even if the source itself was out-date, would lead to reduced "new" development time) they contracted the original developers individually. That responsibility should have fallen in Amino's lap, not Hyperion's. Now Hyperion wants to be compensated for that and I don't blame them. They DID deliver an OS, what has Amino/KMOS delivered?

Quote:

Quote: Can you read? In the court documents, Hyperion is citing $1,000,000 in expenses. So if $2,000,000 were real, don't you think Hyperion would have taken the money and run? Not if they are consistent with the way they have acted since the beginning . . . illogically

Thanks for being unspecifically specific.

Quote:

Amino acted poorly, but Hyperion stuck with a bad contract . . . Hyperion sold the OS to ITEC (in accordance with the 2003 contract) KMOS may be full of it . . .

Amino feinted death. What other choice did Hyperion have? You can't sue someone who is dead. Since Amino's miraculous recovery from certain death - suprise, they got sued.

Quote:

But HYPERION has definitely not acted illogically . . . .

Once again, I appreciate the clarity you have provided in this instance.

Quote:

I am for the OS, not Hyperion or AI in any form . . . But the more information gathered sheds much light on the Con-Man vs Con-Man theory . . .

Robin Hood was considered a thief. Yes, he stole, but I liked him anyway.

Quote:

Hurry up NY case . . . The sooner we discover if Hyperion did or did not sell the OS to ITEC the sooner this mess will be over. Free the OS from tyranny

When I walk into a store to buy something. Nothing is stopping the store from returning my money and turning away my business. The fact that Hyperion has, up until now, kept the money is the issue. I don't see an OS changing hands there.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @samface Quote: samface wrote: @Lou Bad example. Having your shoe shined doesn't prevent me from honouring my obligation to shine your shoe. Let's say we make a deal that I must cut your hair, then you have someone else shave it all completely off before I get a chance to, making it impossible for me to honour my part of the deal. Still think it's a valid reason to sue? Yes, because my shoes will get dirty again just as my hair will grow and in a few weeks you can shave my head. Who really had the bad example? The bottom line is - a deal is a deal.

No, bottom line is that you can't fulfill the other party's obligations and then make use of that as a reason to seek compensation. Like, if the agreement we had would say that I had to give you a hair cut within 24hrs, you really think you can after 24hrs hold me liable for not fulfilling my part of the agreement when you shaved your head before I got a chance to cut it?

The discussion is ridiculous. Hyperion got the source code they needed and well within a reasonable time frame. There is nothing about the circumstances that Hyperion could use as an excuse for not honoring their part of the deal nor as a reason to seek compensation from Amiga Inc. THAT is the bottom line.

Quote:

Quote: You state your opinion, I reply to it, and then you respond by saying that you don't care about my opinion? Well tell me, why should we care about yours then? As I recall, you replied to me when I wasn't replying to you. I never asked you what you thought of my opinion. However, when you address me as you did, I am almost obligated to let you know what I think of that.

If your opinion was intended as a part of a private conversation... well, the fact that you are posting in a public forum might have confused me somewhat. For as long as you post here, be prepared that people might let you know what they think of it, regardless if you aim it at them in person or not.

Quote:

Quote: Fine, don't speculate then. But when you do, becasue I know you will do it anyway, don't be so surprised that others might respond to your speculations with their take on things. We all got the same right to express our opinions here. My "speculation" is just a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims. Feel free to point out what I have "speculated".

You speak of KMOS attempts to damage Hyperion, you speak of ridiculous demands, you say KMOS can only bleed for so long and "Penti finally got frustrated", you speak of Penti as not "having intimate knowledge of all of Amino/KMOS's dealings, otherwise he probably would have resolved this with cold, hard cash a long time ago", you speak of the lawsuit as a "reality slap" for Penti. This is far from facts and "a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims", IMO.

Quote:

Quote: No, they don't pay $25,000 for the OS. That's just a symbolic sum for whenever Amiga Inc. would decide to take development back in house. What Hyperion got was an exclusive royalty free license to develop, market, distribute and sell AmigaOS4. You think Amiga inc. should give them the profit from the sales AND pay for their development expenses? Not even Amiga Inc. are that stupid. Considering the buyback clause was the only string attached, it was a quite favorable deal for Hyperion. So no, their not getting just $25,000, which btw turned in to $40,000, they also got all the profit from AmigaOS4 sales. Furthermore, it was a deal drafted by Ben Hermans, at that time managing partner of Hyperion. They knew the terms of the agreement they wrote very well. They shouldn't have signed it if the terms were not acceptable. You don't draft the agreement yourself, sign it, and then complain about the terms. It's not how things work. You are throwing useless numbers out there again. Specifically, $40,000. The only number you need to know is $24,750. Remind me - who is speculating again?

Look, the receits are all in the court docs. Like I've tried to explain, the number is acutally NOT of importance. You really don't see how weak this is as an argument, do you?

Quote:

You are correct - Amino should have never signed a deal they couldn't honor when they said they would provide Hyperion with the sources to OS3.5 and OS3.9...

False. The contract says Amiga Inc. has to give them "neccessary source code". The mere existence of AmigaOS4 proves that they obvoiusly got the source codes they needed. Besides, even if this would be a valid argument, isn't this the very same argument Hyperion is using for why they are not able to provide Amiga Inc. with anything but object code for AmigaOS4, ie not having obtained the neccessary rights to it from third party contractors?

Quote:

So let's get this staight about the contract... Amiga can pay no less than $25,000.00 and get whatever sources Hyperion could secure with no additional money and has 6 months to release a substantionally better OS. Not only did they fail to pay $25,000.00 but I don't see OS5 being released in this decade. Oh, I'm wrong, they released OS5 at CES in January but had to call it AA2 because Microsoft would have had to spank them for being naughty boys. Yes, that "Invasion" demo looked much better than OSX...

1. Hyperion has exploited and made profit, free from royalties, on the improvements they have made. If they want payment from Amiga Inc. for making those improvements, they should also hand over any money made from the sales. I mean, given a scenario of where Amiga Inc. would pay for the development, Amiga Inc.. would also be legally entitled to any profit made from those developments. However, the contract clearly states that development would take place at the sole expense of Hyperion.

2. The six month time period where Amiga Inc. would have to release a new version of the AmigaOS would naturally not be started until Hyperion actually hands over the AmigaOS4 sources. So why don't they just hand over the sources and let their rights expire due to their inability to deliver a new version that you describe?

3. The once again repeated argument about a missing %1 of the $25,000 fee has already been debunked. They kept the money and acknowledged what it was for. They can't just many years late point at a clerical error of 1% and think that would void any and all of their obligations. Both KMOS and Itec have as soon as the clerical error was discovered, superseeded their payment obligations by quite a margin. Besides, the interest on the money they got would be enough to correct the missing sum alone. Can we *please* get past this?

4. The description of AA2 as AmigaOS5 has been officially corrected on Amiga Inc.'s website, AA2 and AmigaOS5 are two seperate products that are just API compatible. I guess that's why Bill McEwan is the CEO rather than a programmer.

Quote:

Quote: There are arrangements to be made that would ensure a safe exchange without anyone giving anything on credit. If such simple measures would have been taken, it would actually been in Hyperions favor in court now if Amiga Inc. would've failed to pay. So that's a poor argument, really. And please stop pretending to know everything with regards to the Kent Center. Amiga Inc. has their explanation for why the deal didn't go through, the City of Kent has theirs. Which is true is irrelevant since like I said, their credit rating is a non-issue and a failure of payment on Amiga Inc.'s behalf would've actually helped Hyperion's case. LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Can you read? In the court documents, Hyperion is citing $1,000,000 in expenses. So if $2,000,000 were real, don't you think Hyperion would have taken the money and run? It seems to me you argue for the sake of arguing and like others here - ignore certain facts that don't support your argument. The only party that has acted illogically is Amino/ITEC/KMOS.

Well, the thing is, I don't think Hyperion, like Evert Carton himself said, is in a position to give Amiga Inc. any source code at all. It doesn't matter if Amiga Inc. would give them millions and millions of dollars. So, it isn't about Amiga Inc.'s inability to pay or not to begin with. THAT is a theory which does actually support both sides in the ongoing litigation.

Quote:

It seems their followers have adopted their train of thought...

First you claim that you have "just a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims" and now you accuse me of adopting Amino/ITEC/KMOS' train of thought? LOL! Here, have a mirror.

Last edited by samface on 27-Feb-2008 at 01:55 PM.
Last edited by samface on 27-Feb-2008 at 01:54 PM.
Last edited by samface on 27-Feb-2008 at 01:48 PM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Hans Quote: A declaration that both the defendants (a.k.a. Hyperion and Amiga Inc.) have infringed on their rights as authors of the software by acting as if they are the owners of all intellectual property of the developed software. But of course accusing Hyperion of infringing on their rights is just a sign of good relations, right? It's all strategy, and Hyperion is completely hip with this...

Where did you get that from? I have no idea how good or bad the relationship between Hyperion and the Friedens and Mr Vallinotto is. The way things are going, it appears that they are workable. Given that they haven't actually sued them, and the legal fees they are asked to pay half of are under ¤1000, I'd say that this isn't particularly damaging.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@Hans

Quote:

Given that they haven't actually sued them, and the legal fees they are asked to pay half of are under ¤1000, I'd say that this isn't particularly damaging.

Not financially damaging, but it's going to hurt Evert in the courts as AI-DE can now use this as an example of Hyperion failing to live up to the contract(s) since they were suppost to prevent this from happening.

_________________
Dammy

Our relationship to Hyperion is unchanged since years, it's a good one and I don't see much reason to change that anytime soon.

I am not going to get drawn into any of these ridiculous discussions here, but I will say only the following:

The lawsuit that we have going is merely asking for a declaratory judgment on the copyright of our respective source codes. It does neither seek damages, nor payment, nor anything else of that kind. The lawsuit asks the involved parties for a clear statement of ownership/copyright which is legally binding. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, everybody trying to badmouth Hyperion using the lawsuit that we started, please stop it right there. There is no substance to it. We're not being misused or ill-treated or any such nonsense, and we are not asking for payment or damages.

To make this clear even to those that have difficulties understanding the above:

Lawsuit not asking damages. Lawsuit only confirming copyright.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding, either intentionally or otherwise. Thanks for reading.

EDIT: And BTW, Dammy, no this is not about any contractual dispute. Read what I wrote here, and you might understand. If not... well.. At least I tried.

Last edited by Rogue on 27-Feb-2008 at 02:52 PM.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

@Rogue

Quote:

Lawsuit not asking damages. Lawsuit only confirming copyright.

Read my lips --- lawsuits are not started between parties that agree on the subject matter. You know that as well as I do.