@Lou

Quote:

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

What part of what I said do you think the judge isnt going to agree with. Go print out Hyperions counterclaims, cross out everyone that makes no sense when Itec wins in New York or KMOS wins in DC (technically Alexandria), theres not alot left is there? Thats my point, what do you think the judge disagrees with there?
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

I understand what you are saying here. I really do.

Good, I didn't waste my breath.

Quote:

Just wondering, when was actual A1 hardware given to developers?

I don't remember that date tbh. I do remember Linux being run on the early bird A1s for many months prior to OS4 being released. Hyperion could have easily gotten 3.1 ported, perhaps gotten Roadshow ready, and released that with the early bird special A1's release date.

_________________
Dammy

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @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?[/quote]


I am practicing what I preach Lou, you are the one going running around saying its silly for everyone to keep posting as you work to try and keep yourself in the top 5 posters on the thread. If you think everyone should stfu, then set an example and do it, stop yelling about it every few days when its obvious to everyone but you on this thread that you arent going to stop posting on it.
-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 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.

Again Lou I disagree, in fact after AI win in Washington, I'm throwing a huge ding dong the witch is gone party at my house and everyone on AW.net is invited. So see Hyperion ceasing to exist will benefit everyone on this board.

Quote:

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.

All the rights owned by Hyperion will be sent to AI, will money have to change hands to get the source code from some of the developers, but at Bill McEwen and William Kinsel both already pointed out, AI has already offered $2M to do that now and Hyperion wasnt willing to take the offer.
-Tig

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

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @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.

We have seen $8M go into KMOS in recent years, thats more then Hyperion has dreamed of during that time.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

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.

I'm certainly not disputing anything here, but I am curious as to how the work that Olaf did on the 3.1 sources came into his ownership.

BTW what is the current situation?

2 more weeks?

2 more years?

2 more centuries?

look answer of question 4?

This is very annoying.

_________________
I´m back in 2023 on Classic Amiga with my A1200/Blizzard1230IB@50Mhz, 32MB RAM, AmigaOS3.2 and ROMs, Indivision AGA MK3, Author of Amiga-Flipclock (OS4)

@Tigger

Quote:

We have seen $8M go into KMOS in recent years, thats more then Hyperion has dreamed of during that time.

That has nothing to do with my comment, which is about OS4.
How much have they put into OS4 during that time?

#6

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

@damocles

Quote:

[quote]Just wondering, when was actual A1 hardware given to developers? I don't remember that date tbh.

IIRC it was around April 2002 when it first reached core developers. At that time it wasn't of much use to anyone used to such frivolities as local storage and a display.

I think the first end user boards were shipped before the end of 2002 SE (and maybe XE G3), with the G4 models arriving around April 2003.

@fingus

If this settles before fall you still won't have anything to buy
when christmas 2008 comes. I would guess 1 year from now and things
could start to be interesting again.

This is all (c) my predictions

_________________
AmigaOS or MorphOS on x86 would sell orders of magnitude more than the current,
hardware-intensive solutions. And they'd go faster.-- D.Haynie

@Lou

Quote:

so this summer...unless a settlement is reached...

This summer it is then.

Just waiting for the end of this.

_________________
Sam

@Rob

Quote:

Rob wrote: @Tigger Quote: 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. I'm certainly not disputing anything here, but I am curious as to how the work that Olaf did on the 3.1 sources came into his ownership.

AT = Amiga Technologies, which was Escom's Amiga division who Olaf worked for. Olaf gathered up everything up and make copies of Commodores backup tapes, etc. So he had a complete 3.1 build and eventually on either his own time, or unpaid time from AT, he made a much cleaned up version of 3.1 that required fewer compilers and had much less assembly code. He believed that since he hadnt been paid for that work, he should be recompensed if someone wanted to use it for a next version of the OS (I personally agree). He also made copies of the original 3.1 sources available on tape to first Gateway and eventually Amino, reserving the right to the the superior version to someone willing to pay him for his work, that company was Hyperion, though they as of 2006 had paid him less then 10% of the money owed and of course had paid it very late.
-Tig

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

@Kronos

Quote:

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.

Dou you have a link to that please.

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

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @samface Quote: samface wrote: @Lou 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.

Your point is moot for the simple reason that the payment for invoking the buy back clause, wether it may be in part or in full, is not an amount reflecting the worth of the source code to begin with. The AmigaOS4 source code is no doubt a derivative work of the original AmigaOS source codes for which Hyperion only has a license to develop and market, not own. So in every meaning of the word, Amiga Inc. already owns the AmigaOS4 source code. It's just a matter about who gets to continue developing and marketing it rather than who gets to own it and for THAT, Amiga Inc. has payed Hyperion well above $25,000.

Quote:

Quote: 2. Hyperion has been not just offered but also payed alot more than $24,750. Here we go again...

Look, I know you think that the clerical error matters much for the case but it really doesn't. If you really want to lay this issue to rest, stop repeating the $24,750 amount. I will continue pointing out that they have recived more than $24,750 for as long as you leave this fact absent in your arguments.

Quote:

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.

The h*ll I will. If there is anything preventing the mechanic from doing the job for the amount we agreed upon, he should notify me and ask me if it's OK first. He has obsolutely no right what so ever to charge me for jobs performed outside the scope of the agreement without my prior given consent, PERIOD. No, I don't care what frikkin' argument you're going to come up with next, PERIOD. There is nothing further to discuss.

Quote:

Quote: 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

So where did you get the idea of AmigaOS4.5 from then? Why did you not suggest, let's say, 4.1? C'mon, you remember their announced plans of going from 4-0->4.2->4-5 and then to 5.0 just as well as I do. You just skipped AmigaOS4.2 because you know Hyperion put just about everything in what was planned for 4.2 in 4.0.

Quote:

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.

I have no idea what kind of point you in your head think you are making here but I'm sure it's just as full of fallacies as all of your other arguments.

Quote:

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

Because Hyperion has failed to secure certain parts of the AmigaOS4 sources from their contractors, allowing their contractors to grab Amiga Inc.'s IP. Like I said, there is no question as to wether the AmigaOS4 is a derivative work based on the original AmigaOS source code or not. Given a scenario of where Hyperion's license would be terminated and their contractors refuse to share the work they've made on AmigaOS4, those sources would be rendered useless for all practical purposes since making any kind of use of it would require Amiga Inc.'s permission.

Quote:

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?

Please do not make these kind of strawman arguments by taking my statements out of context. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again.

Quote:

This whole thread is a circular argument. It's useless. WE change nothing. Only the judge decides.

Yet here you are, arguing vividly like you actually could change the outcome. Well, what do you know...

Last edited by samface on 03-Mar-2008 at 09:57 PM.

_________________
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:

So see Hyperion ceasing to exist will benefit everyone on this board.

Exacly how do you see that playing out? I just can't see it working out any differently with or without Hyperion, given past examples. Not unless they are trying to bring all the IP into one bundle so they can sell it off to some one who has a clue.

Plaz

@Lou

Quote:

Umisef, if my aunt had a ####, she'd be my uncle.

So *that's* what you want Amiga to puy Olaf for? His ####?

Nobody is speaking for Olaf. Well, you are. You are saying Amiga should pay him. You however ignore that the thing you apparently want them to pay for has been sold by Olaf to someone else...

@Hans

Quote:

Possibly, or maybe we just don't need the tar and gzip utilities. Unarc decpomresses them fine via the xpk library (or xfdlib or whatever it's called).

But when you ship the binaries to GNU tar and gzip, you gotta make available the sources, too. The SDK *does* include those binaries. It also seems to have been the intention to actually include the sources to all the GPL'ed stuff. So presumably missing the tar and gzip sources was an oversight.

@Dandy

Quote:

If not, I'd say he'd filed an appropriate claim at court...

Oh, look, he *has* filed a claim at court, asking the court to make a declarative judgement that he owns the source code rights, rather than Hyperion --- whom he accused of having acted as if they owned those rights, in that very claim.

The only reason Hyperion doesn't own those rights is because they haven't paid in full. If they had paid in full, they would own the rights.

Quote:

Hmmmm - I see the situation as follows: AInc once ordered Olaf to rework the 3.1 sources.

There is your first mistake....

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.

Ah, yes. Which is why, as part of the contract, he has SOLD his work to Hyperion, right?
Because it's all about access fees....

Quote:

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

Your book, unfortunately, is a novel, rather than a documentary or a biography.

Quote:

All I know is the contract between Hyperion and Olaf

And you seem to ignore parts of that, even.

Quote:

shall be the owner of all intellectual property rights in the Software

Which brings us all the way back to the definition of "The Software", the bracketing of "Source" in that definition, and so on. Been there, done that. Given the facts that everybody involved was well aware of at the time, "The Software" is unlikely to encompass anything but binaries for 3.5/3.9/boing bags. I.e. the definition is likely to have been intended as "The software is (sources to 3.1), 3.5, 3.9, boing bags" rather than "The software is sources to (3.1, 3.5, 3.9, boing bags)". The English language is ambiguous, and having your English contract drafted by a Belgian legal clerk probably doesn't help....

Quote:

Up to now I didn't hear any of the devs complaining

No, they are not complaining --- they are *suing* for the right to take their toys and walk away...

@Lou

Quote:

KMOS/ITEC can win and Hyperion will cease to exist. That will not benefit anyone.

That may very well not be true. It entirely depends on what plans Amiga Inc has for its future...

(Oh, and in the grand old tradition of AWN --- of course, someone would benefit. No, not really, but when has that ever stopped the conspiracy theories)

@Rob

Quote:

I'm certainly not disputing anything here, but I am curious as to how the work that Olaf did on the 3.1 sources came into his ownership.

The same way any work one does on anything becomes one's own --- by default. If I paint your house, then that work (the act of painting) is owned by me.

What wouldn't happen is that I somehow own your house, anymore than Olaf ever owned the 3.1 sources he started from.

Olaf co-owned the improved sources (for the improvements were his). And unlike in the case of me painting your house, being a co-owner of a compound thing does not stop the owner of the original thing (the 3.1 sources) from enjoying the full benefit of exclusive ownership of that original thing. Nor does it stop Olaf from selling his part of co-ownership of the compound thing to someone else.

Of course, having sold his co-ownership of the improved sources to Hyperion, Olaf would still be guilty of copyright violation if he actually delivered the compound of the original 3.1 and his improvements to Hyperion --- unless, that is, the owner of the original had given permission to do so. Which they did. Which makes the whole "But AI never delivered the sources" nonsense doubly stupid.

Oh, and as for the "But AI had to deliver the sources, getting them from Olaf isn't good enough" camp --- read the 5th recital in Olaf's contract. Hyperion did not want the original 3.1 sources (which by implication were termed "unusable"). They wanted Olaf's version.

Last edited by umisef on 04-Mar-2008 at 01:19 AM.
Last edited by umisef on 04-Mar-2008 at 01:14 AM.