@Dandy

Quote:

Sorry that I have to contradict you here, but the disaster already existed before Hyperion entered the stage.

I'd say pure mismanagement on the part of AI was definently there from the start of OS4 disaster. What got the OS4 disaster on the front burner was the orginal contract between AI and Amiga One Partners, it went straight to hell from there. It shouldn't have taken more then six months to port 3.1 port, but five years? I'm watching Dr. Schulz porting AROS to SAM440, it's not taking him six months and there is a heck of alot more to do then what Hyperion was contracted out to do. And Dr. Schulz is doing it in his spare time!

What your glossing over is what Hyperion was suppost to be doing, looking out for their developers. Did they? Not from where I'm sitting, they were negligent in their (now just Evert) duty to look out for their developers. IMO, they took advantage of the developers by not paying them nor securing funding to pay them regardless of the situation of A1s and AI were.

_________________
Dammy

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code? The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger. Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too. Of course since Hyperion is supposed to be delivering the code under the 2003 contract which hasnt been cancelled, your arguement falls apart there doesnt it? -Tig

That contract isn't the subject of this (Amiga vs. Hyperion VOF) case.
Infact, not much has happend on the ITEC case and all that is happening here about it is just idle speculation, ofcourse that's what's going on about the Amiga vs. Hyperion VOF case as well. I believe April 1st is a relevant date with regards to that (ITEC vs. Hyperion VOF) case. If all this mixing and matching were allowed, the judge would have joined the cases as Hyperion's lawyer requested. If lawyers can't do it, why should you?

@-Sam-

expect a trial about 15 months from the original court submissions from KMOS...so this summer...unless a settlement is reached...

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: Sorry that I have to contradict you here, but the disaster already existed before Hyperion entered the stage. I'd say pure mismanagement on the part of AI was definently there from the start of OS4 disaster. What got the OS4 disaster on the front burner was the orginal contract between AI and Amiga One Partners, it went straight to hell from there. It shouldn't have taken more then six months to port 3.1 port, but five years? I'm watching Dr. Schulz porting AROS to SAM440, it's not taking him six months and there is a heck of alot more to do then what Hyperion was contracted out to do. And Dr. Schulz is doing it in his spare time! What your glossing over is what Hyperion was suppost to be doing, looking out for their developers. Did they? Not from where I'm sitting, they were negligent in their (now just Evert) duty to look out for their developers. IMO, they took advantage of the developers by not paying them nor securing funding to pay them regardless of the situation of A1s and AI were.

I understand what you are saying here. I really do.
Just wondering, when was actual A1 hardware given to developers?

@Jupp3

Quote:

Hyperion was contracted for only 4.0.

Hyperion has said otherwise, and...
As with -so- many times before, the nagging word of Garry Hare and KMOS show otherwise.

Quote:

2. Does Hyperion (I refer to AmigaOne Partners) have the right to extend OS 4.0 to say 4.1? Yes they do. In fact, for you conspiracy theorists, that is the wrong question. Disclosing details of exactly what this means is confidential. Bottom line - they do have that right and I hope this comment doesn't violate our NDA.

#6

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: That contract isn't the subject of this (Amiga vs. Hyperion VOF) case. Infact, not much has happend on the ITEC case and all that is happening here about it is just idle speculation, ofcourse that's what's going on about the Amiga vs. Hyperion VOF case as well. I believe April 1st is a relevant date with regards to that (ITEC vs. Hyperion VOF) case. If all this mixing and matching were allowed, the judge would have joined the cases as Hyperion's lawyer requested. If lawyers can't do it, why should you?

You want to argue about whether Hyperion got paid a full $25K, till you look silly becase they have been paid lots more then that, then you switch to the Itec contract isnt part of this case, which is a funny tact to take, because both AI and Hyperion think the contract is part of the case. In fact they have both included as part of the case before Hyperion tried to join Itec to the case, and once Itec wins in New York and KMOS/AI wins in DC, the washington case will be mostly over and we wont even have had the first day of the trial.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: I understand what you are saying here. I really do. Just wondering, when was actual A1 hardware given to developers?

Over a year before the now claimed done date of Dec 2004.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Everybody should stfu and just wait and see.

Practice what you preach.
-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: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: I understand what you are saying here. I really do. Just wondering, when was actual A1 hardware given to developers? Over a year before the now claimed done date of Dec 2004. -Tig

So basically they were only 6 months late and not 6 years. Oh ok.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Hmmmm - I see the situation as follows: AInc once ordered Olaf to rework the 3.1 sources. Olaf did as assigned and never got paid - I take he's still waiting for this money.

Not true at all. Olaf while working for AT had access to 3.1, as an exercise he worked on cleaning up that code and reducing the number of compilers needed, that effort took about 750 hours, Olaf has been wanting someone to pay him to use that code since the AT days. AInc never had Olaf do the work or promised to pay him for the work.

Quote:

Then Hyperion contracted him for access to those reworked sources. As he hasn't been paid by AInc up to now he asked them for a fee for the access.

No, the contract between Olaf and Hyperion is to BUY the reworked 3.1 code, there is no doubt thats what th contract says.

Quote:

In my book these are two eintirely different incidents - and so Olaf is entitled to get money from AInc AND Hyperion...

Well your book is incorrect. Reading Olafs contract (doc 26, exhibit 4) makes that perfectly clear, Olaf is selling his rework to Hyperion, Hyperion is the only one who could owe him money for it after the contract is signed.

Quote:

All I know is the contract between Hyperion and Olaf - I don't know if they made a different agreement on the method of payment in the meantime to cover a possible delay in payments.

As far as the court is concerned, unless it shows up it doesnt exist and so far all we have is Olafs contract and Olafs email that says he wasnt paid anything until 2006 and then only 2500 Euros, he said he would have been better off working at McDonalds then working on OS 4 as it would have paid more that surely would suggest there isnt a contract that says its ok for them to pay him late.

Quote:

Up to now I didn't hear any of the devs complaining - so I'd say that's pure speculation on your side...

We've heard in the court documents from the Friedens, AV and Olaf that things arent quite as rosy as you are spinning it, privately I've heard from others, its not speculation what Olaf and the Friedens said or that the Friedens and AV are suing Hyperion and AI.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @samface The contract clearly states that Hyperion was to exercise best efforts to secure the sources...and with $24,750, you don't get much source code, yet KMOS thinks you get it all. Is that so hard to understand?

1. Hyperion are not offering sources equivalent to a worth of $24,750, they are offering NO sources at all.

2. Hyperion has been not just offered but also payed alot more than $24,750.

3. By the terms of the contract, KMOS has NO obligation to pay for ANY of Hyperion's development costs, especially not if it's from developments that goes beyond Hyperion's obligations. If I turn in my car for replacing the tires, I'm not going to pay anything beyond the cost of replacing the tires no matter if the car mechanic decides to replace the entire engine. Is THAT so hard to understand?

Quote:

because rather than waste 15 months on a lawsuit, they could have released 4.5 or 5.0 "in 6 months" and carried on with their business... But actually they have no business and are trying to make an i.p. grab from the developers and laying waste to Hyperion in the process.

Ok, let's try follow your logic here...

You are saying that they could have released AmigaOS4.5 *without* the AmigaOS4 sources within 6 months but since they have no business they are trying to "grab" the IP they licensed to Hyperion from the developers?

Where to begin? Well, here goes...

1. AmigaOS4.2 was (still is?) the planned successor to AmigaOS4.0, not 4.5.

2. Hyperion developed, implemented and exploited features planned for the successors to AmigaOS4.0, stealing possible developments and sales that Amiga Inc. has had the rights for since AmigaOS4 was supposed to be finished and delivered with sources to Amiga Inc.

3. Hyperion spent 6 years instead of their contractual obligation to deliver within 6 months on developing AmigaOS4.0, how could Amiga Inc. possibly catch up AND surpass these developments in just 6 months? If it was OK for Hyperion to spend 6 years due to the lack of access to necessary source code, shouldn't Amiga Inc. be allowed the same timeframe?

4. Amiga Inc. never transfered any IP to Hyperion nor their contractors. It always was and still is just a license. Even if the court rules Amiga Inc. was insolvent, still just a license. To try revoking a license due to a dispute related to the license agreement is hardly something I would refer to as an IP grab.

Quote:

Quote: What part of "at the sole expense of Hyperion" is so hard to understand? It was Hyperion's choice wether to undertake this project or not, nobody forced them. If any contractual obligation of Amiga Inc. was obstructing them of fulfilling their part of the deal, they should have done something about it then rather than just keep accumulating undertakings beyond their obligations of the contract. It seems that I cannot repeat this often enough; any damages as a result of Hyperion's undertakings beyond their obligations of the contract was self-inflicted. Hence there is no reason for Hyperion to expect that Amiga Inc. to pay for those damages. We can continue to play the finger pointing game about who damaged who if you'd like. Let's keep it simple, I'll point at Amino/ITEC/KMOS, you point at Hyperion. Mmmkay?

Quote:

Quote: [quote]So I expect KMOS to release OS4.5(or 5.0) in late May of this year, or else, Hyperions can continue to develop the OS4.X line... No, since Amiga Inc. are not waiving their rights to the sources of AmigaOS4, Hyperion will have to honor their obligations first.

No, but they are still contracted to produce a better version, or else Hyperion resumes all development, marketing and sales of future versions.[/quote]

In order to invoke the clause where Amiga Inc. would be obligated to release a successor to AmigaOS4.0 within 6 months, Hyperion would have to acknowledge the buyback clause as fulfilled and grant Amiga Inc. access to the AmigaOS4.0 source code. By the terms of the contract, you cannot invoke one without fulfilling the other. Now please drop this silly circular argument.

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

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

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: That contract isn't the subject of this (Amiga vs. Hyperion VOF) case. Infact, not much has happend on the ITEC case and all that is happening here about it is just idle speculation, ofcourse that's what's going on about the Amiga vs. Hyperion VOF case as well. I believe April 1st is a relevant date with regards to that (ITEC vs. Hyperion VOF) case. If all this mixing and matching were allowed, the judge would have joined the cases as Hyperion's lawyer requested. If lawyers can't do it, why should you? You want to argue about whether Hyperion got paid a full $25K, till you look silly becase they have been paid lots more then that, then you switch to the Itec contract isnt part of this case, which is a funny tact to take, because both AI and Hyperion think the contract is part of the case. In fact they have both included as part of the case before Hyperion tried to join Itec to the case, and once Itec wins in New York and KMOS/AI wins in DC, the washington case will be mostly over and we wont even have had the first day of the trial. -Tig

CLearly the judge didn't think that and that's what matters.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Everybody should stfu and just wait and see. Practice what you preach. -Tig

I'm sure you'd be next in line behind me to do so...right?

@Lou

You keep say it does not matter what we think but only what the judge thinks. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this going to a jury trial if there is not a settlement? In that case what the judge thinks won't be as imporatant. What will be the desciding factor is what normal people with no love hate for either Ainc or Hyperion and don't know OS4 from windows thinks. They won't be programers that and will not understand how something that was supposed to take 6 mo took 5 years. They won't understand the developer cd suddenly being the released version after the fact. They won't understand why someone continued to work on something, they could loose the right to distribute and might have to sell for 25,000, for so long the costs rocket into the millions.

How will the "evidence" look to them is what is important. The two sides posture to look like they have the stronger case to force a settlement out of the other side. Most of it is a pack of half truths, including what the supporters of each side state.

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @samface The contract clearly states that Hyperion was to exercise best efforts to secure the sources...and with $24,750, you don't get much source code, yet KMOS thinks you get it all. Is that so hard to understand? 1. Hyperion are not offering sources equivalent to a worth of $24,750, they are offering NO sources at all.

Which for $24,750, is my point.

Quote:

2. Hyperion has been not just offered but also payed alot more than $24,750.

Here we go again...

Quote:

3. By the terms of the contract, KMOS has NO obligation to pay for ANY of Hyperion's development costs, especially not if it's from developments that goes beyond Hyperion's obligations. If I turn in my car for replacing the tires, I'm not going to pay anything beyond the cost of replacing the tires no matter if the car mechanic decides to replace the entire engine. Is THAT so hard to understand?

If your lug nuts are frozen/rusted on and they spend an additional 2 hours because of these unforseen circumstances, yes, you will pay more for replacing your tires.

Quote:

Quote: because rather than waste 15 months on a lawsuit, they could have released 4.5 or 5.0 "in 6 months" and carried on with their business... But actually they have no business and are trying to make an i.p. grab from the developers and laying waste to Hyperion in the process. Ok, let's try follow your logic here... You are saying that they could have released AmigaOS4.5 *without* the AmigaOS4 sources within 6 months but since they have no business they are trying to "grab" the IP they licensed to Hyperion from the developers? Where to begin? Well, here goes... 1. AmigaOS4.2 was (still is?) the planned successor to AmigaOS4.0, not 4.5.

uhm, I was using 4.5/5.0 an artibrary successor stand-in name, to my knowledge, nothing has been formally named as a successor to anything other than 4.0 to 3.X

Quote:

2. Hyperion developed, implemented and exploited features planned for the successors to AmigaOS4.0, stealing possible developments and sales that Amiga Inc. has had the rights for since AmigaOS4 was supposed to be finished and delivered with sources to Amiga Inc. 3. Hyperion spent 6 years instead of their contractual obligation to deliver within 6 months on developing AmigaOS4.0, how could Amiga Inc. possibly catch up AND surpass these developments in just 6 months? If it was OK for Hyperion to spend 6 years due to the lack of access to necessary source code, shouldn't Amiga Inc. be allowed the same timeframe?

So now we are back to the what's good for the goose IS good for the gander. Good, we are making progress now. I suppose Amiga would have the same difficulties that Hyperion had since no new A1 hardware would justify such an endeavor. They should really settle out of court...

Quote:

4. Amiga Inc. never transfered any IP to Hyperion nor their contractors. It always was and still is just a license. Even if the court rules Amiga Inc. was insolvent, still just a license. To try revoking a license due to a dispute related to the license agreement is hardly something I would refer to as an IP grab.

If an IP grab isn't what they are after, then why does the Belgian case exist?

Quote:

By the terms of the contract, you cannot invoke one without fulfilling the other. Now please drop this silly circular argument.

LOL! Why are the terms you feel Hyperion violated any more important than the terms Eyetech and Amino violated?
This whole thread is a circular argument. It's useless. WE change nothing. Only the judge decides.

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @Lou You keep say it does not matter what we think but only what the judge thinks. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this going to a jury trial if there is not a settlement? In that case what the judge thinks won't be as imporatant. What will be the desciding factor is what normal people with no love hate for either Ainc or Hyperion and don't know OS4 from windows thinks. They won't be programers that and will not understand how something that was supposed to take 6 mo took 5 years. They won't understand the developer cd suddenly being the released version after the fact. They won't understand why someone continued to work on something, they could loose the right to distribute and might have to sell for 25,000, for so long the costs rocket into the millions. How will the "evidence" look to them is what is important. The two sides posture to look like they have the stronger case to force a settlement out of the other side. Most of it is a pack of half truths, including what the supporters of each side state.

I agree that it is a no-win situation because I don't see an American court stealing the rights of foreign developers. I have stated before that I feel that regardless if KMOS/ITEC win their cases, they still lose. That's why I feel they should just settle and put real money on the table and end this fiasco once and for all. KMOS/ITEC can win and Hyperion will cease to exist. That will not benefit anyone.

The developers possess the source code. Money talks and nothing KMOS/ITEC do to Hyperion will change that if a proper judgement is reached in Belgium.

@Lou

If AI wins they will not get the developer's source code. Hyperion will loose what code they have (if any), any other related materials and the contracts with the developers. The developers will get paid if AI wants the code.

No court is going to force a turn over of code that hasn't been paid for . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wolfe

Quote:

The developers will get paid if AI wants the code.

Hmm..another thing would come into play here though, in that instance.
The ability to pay.
I do not, nor have I ever seen, evidence to show that as a possibility.

#6

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] Lou wrote: I understand what you are saying here. I really do. Just wondering, when was actual A1 hardware given to developers? Over a year before the now claimed done date of Dec 2004. -Tig

So basically they were only 6 months late and not 6 years. Oh ok.[/quote]

But the contract never said anything bout MAI's Terons, it said a whole lot about Cyberstorms and Brainstormer (aka Escena-A1). The last on never materilized , obvious even before the contract was signed, the former has only been catered long after any deadline went of.

"We couldn't to the CS-port (in the contarct), co we didn't have a Teron (not in the contact)" sounds a bit weird doesn't it.

But then, all of it is pointless as Hyperion DID receive some boards in 2002 (the 2003 date probraly relates to the A1-SE-Dev-pre-sale scheme), and all non-core work wasn't done on A1s till much later (actually large parts happend on 68k and even atleast on Amithlon machine at that time).

On top of that it was Hyperion themself that quite strongly stressed that "Pre-Release" was NOT a real release in the sense of the contract that had signed.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: So basically they were only 6 months late and not 6 years. Oh ok.

Which part of over a year did you not understand? And since they didnt finish the classic system until Nov 2007, its kinda hard for you to make your argument.
-Tig

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