Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
25 crawler(s) on-line.
 155 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 DiscreetFX

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 DiscreetFX:  2 mins ago
 Hypex:  11 mins ago
 AndreasM:  11 mins ago
 kolla:  20 mins ago
 Gunnar:  32 mins ago
 saimo:  1 hr 21 mins ago
 amigakit:  1 hr 39 mins ago
 OldFart:  1 hr 39 mins ago
 _ThEcRoW:  1 hr 59 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  2 hrs 26 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 22 Feb 2008)
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Next Page )
PosterThread
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 5:17:45
#781 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote:
@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?



According to Olaf he would have been better off working at McDonalds then working on OS4, I'm not sure Hyperion has put a whole lot into OS4 either, I'm not sure we can account for them actually paying out anywhere near the 55K Euros they got for Royalties from Eyetech, plus the $40K they got from the Itec deal, plus the money from the Arctic deal, plus the money they borrowed from Alan. Hyperion likely has taken in more money then they have put out to the developers, unless you think that they built up huge debts to the Friedens, AV and Olaf while paying everyone else lots of money. So AI has put $60K or more into the effort and got nothing and Hyperion has taken in a over 150K or os and not delivered anything they promised to the people that gave them the money and not paid the developers the money they were promised.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 5:25:30
#782 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote:
@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.


Once Evert (aka Hyperion) is out of the way, the developers can make deals for the 4.0 code with Amiga and we can have one owner, at that point I expect we will get a new owner. If Hyperion wins, that doesnt happen, we have no change from what we have had for the last 4 years, no or underpowered hardware and the genius of Bevert telling us nonsensical stories about embedded uses for AmigaOne. KMOS aka AI owns the primary trademarks, this court case isnt going to change that, they own the 3.1 code and IP, this court case isnt going to change that, so Hyperion doesnt really have a good winning solution here.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 8:01:35
#783 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote:
@Tigger

Only a judge can decide that, not you.



Not true at all. Its a basic tenet of contract law that the written part of a contract out weighs any "understanding" between parties. The 2001 contract says that once cancelled Hyperion loses there rights under the contract, you dont need to be a judge to understand thats what it means.
...



Of course this is true.
He was talking about "deciding" - not "understanding".

So he is right and you're not.


Or do you want to claim you have the same powers as a judge?
Or do you want to say that it doesn't need a judge to give a judgment?

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Chip 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 8:14:15
#784 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 4-Mar-2005
Posts: 574
From: Budapest, Hungary

@Tigger



Sometimes expectations are not matching with the reality. And repeating these expectations will not help to make them real either...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
damocles 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 11:05:25
#785 ]
Super Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2007
Posts: 1719
From: Unknown

@Chip

Quote:
Sometimes expectations are not matching with the reality. And repeating these expectations will not help to make them real either...


So what do you expect to happen between AI-DE vs Hyperion, Itec vs Hyperion, and Hyperion vs AI-WA?

_________________
Dammy

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 11:26:37
#786 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@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.



I'm afraid that this time you are the one that is leaving factual grounds:

Quote:

Olaf/Hyperion CVS Agreement:

AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
---------------------------------------

This agreement (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of this 10 day of October 2001, by and between Olaf Barthel (hereafter: "Developer"), Gneisenaustr. 43, D-31275 Lehrte, Germany and HYPERION ENTERTAINMENT VOF (hereafter: Hyperion), a Belgian corporation with its administrative seat at Brouwersstr. 1B, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

RECITALS
--------

WHEREAS Amiga Inc. has contracted with Hyperion to develop the next release of its classic Amiga Operating system for PPC systems;

WHEREAS Developer has (in his capacity as a contractor for Amiga Technologies G.m.b.H.) over a period of 3 years reworked/cleaned up the source code of Amiga OS 3.1 (including but not limited to cutting down the number of compilers and assemblers required to produce a complete build, rewriting sections of assembly code into C and integrating the end result into a CVS);

WHEREAS this effort took approximately 750 hours of work;

WHEREAS Developer was promised compensation for this work by the previous and the current Amiga Inc. management which has until now not materialized;



Quote:

Tigger wrote:

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.



Well, this is what the contract REALLY says with regard to this:

Quote:

Olaf/Hyperion CVS Agreement:

ARTICLE II.
OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER

2.01 CVS access. For the duration of the Amiga OS 4.0 project, Developer hereby grants Hyperion and its contractors unrestricted, complete and permanent access to the CVS containing the reworked Amiga OS 3.1 Source-Code for the purpose of developing further updates of the classic Amiga OS including but not limited to Amiga OS 4.0. Hyperion and its contractors may request that the Work and the content of the CVS is made available to Hyperion on a physical medium of Hyperions choice once the payment pursuant to article 3.01 hereof has been made in full.

2.02 Ownership. Ownership of this work is transferred to Hyperion.



In 2.01 there is just talk about "CVS access" for Hyperion.
2.02 says that ownership of this Work is transferred to Hyperion.

But 2.02 does not say WHEN "ownership of this Work is transferred to Hyperion".
It only says "For the duration of the Amiga OS 4.0 project" and "once the payment pursuant to article 3.01 hereof has been made in full".

As I neither see "the Amiga OS 4.0 project" finished, nor "the payment pursuant to article 3.01 hereof has been made in full", logic tells me that Olaf currently still must be the legal owner of the reworked OS 3.1 Sources on the CVS and Hypewrion currently just has access to it.

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

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.



While I agree with you that the intention was/is to sell the sources to Hyperion in the end, I think you'll agree that this deal still is not completed - and as long as its not completed the sources are legally not sold up to now (best in the process of being sold) and so still must be Olaf's property.

The contract does not say what would have to happen if AInc NOW decided to pay Olaf, before the deal with Hyperion is completed and Hyperion really own the reworked 3.1 CVS sources.

Would - in this case - Hyperion still be oblieged to pay Olaf or not?

In case they still had to pay Olaf for access to the CVS Olaf would get money from both - AInc and Hyperion.

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

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.



When was Olaf working on OS 4.0 - was he an OS 4 Developer?
Must have missed that...

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

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,




Hmmmmm - I just tried it again - I put my ear on the court docs and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -heard nothing.


Joke aside - I really don't know what you're referring to...

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

privately I've heard from others,



What did you "hear" from whom?

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

its not speculation what Olaf and the Friedens said



I never said Olaf or the Friedens were speculating...

Quote:

Tigger wrote:

or that the Friedens and AV are suing Hyperion and AI.



I don't know what/who "AV" (Audio-Video?) is, but the Friedens are asking for a legally binding declaration on who currently owns their part of the work on OS 4.0 - they, Hyperion or AInc, according to "Rogue" a few posts ago.


_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 11:37:02
#787 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@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?



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



The question is "WHO" paid and "WHEN"...

Quote:

samface wrote:

3. By the terms of the contract, KMOS has NO obligation to ...



Which contract are you talking about?

[/quote]

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:01:07
#788 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote:
@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...

No, now you are putting words in my mouth...or are you trying to put something else in there now?

Also, I don't have the contract details, but what makes you think selling work derivative of 3.1 was exclusively sold to Hyperion? I don't see why KMOS couldn't buy it as well and do a 3.1->5.0 port...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:03:43
#789 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote:
@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 . . .

If that's the case then why did they ask for source code in their deposition?
Hyperion have said that all source code lies with developers or until they sell enough copies of OS4 to cover their costs and pay developers for their source.

So it seems to me that KMOS is indeed after the developer's source code and doesn't feel the need to pay more than $25,000 no matter the cost to Hyperion.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:06:07
#790 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote:
@Lou

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.

A pre-release is a working copy, no?
Infact in the console business, developers are given finished devkits with working units prior to the public getting consumer versions.
This pre-release is still a functional OS.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:09:10
#791 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@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

Interstingly enough, we have had developers on this board who stated they had OS4 running on a CS prior to the A1 release. An OS can be completed, but not released to the public. Infact the contract doesn't define "completed" as released to the public for sales.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:13:15
#792 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@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

Actually, I haven't seen much of the NY ITEC case and this thread concerns KMOS yet you keep bringing that one up. Also, where did DC come from? I thought it was in Washington STATE...

Now per what you quoted, once again, the WA judge declare ITEC as not necessary to the case at hand, that is what the judge decided. So your defenses using points to be made in the ITEC case for this thread are useless. This was another attempt at you see-sawing cases to make a point.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:17:14
#793 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@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[/quote]
rotflmao

"top 5 posters", good one. I'm sure if a moderator did a quick SQL query, you would clearly be #1. Like you, I post from work, but I don't have your lofty goals in mind. As for yelling, could you point to where I typed complete sentences in all caps? I have typed individual word in a sentence here and there for emphasis so that they don't get misread. I think you are getting frustrated now as you are now lowering yourself to quasi-insults now.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
samface 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:18:10
#794 ]
Super Member
Joined: 10-Apr-2003
Posts: 1161
From: Norrköping, Sweden

@Dandy

Quote:
The question is "WHO" paid and "WHEN"...


Not so much when Hyperion themselves acknowledged the amounts they recieved, from whom and what it was far. They even sent an invoice to confirm it as payment pursuant to the buyback clause, for crying out loud.

Considering their own close to 6-year delay for delivering on their contractual obligations, I *really* don't think they are in a position to whine about 1% of the payment coming in a bit late due to a clerical error that they were just as much the cause for. This issue was corrected well beyond the missing $250 as soon as it was discovered despite that the interest for the $24,750 that they recieved before AmigaOS4 was complete should've been more than enough and really is a non-issue for all practical purposes.

Quote:
Quote:
3. By the terms of the contract, KMOS has NO obligation to ...


Which contract are you talking about?


Make your pick, my point is just as valid for any of them.

Last edited by samface on 04-Mar-2008 at 12:24 PM.

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

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

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:21:39
#795 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote:
@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.

Great, we agree to disagree.

As for the party, having to pay for a flight from Massachussets to Texas would be a pain, so it would be a monetary loss for me. ;)

Quote:

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


In the words of the great Cuba Gooding Jr., "Show me the money!"

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
samface 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:22:37
#796 ]
Super Member
Joined: 10-Apr-2003
Posts: 1161
From: Norrköping, Sweden

@Lou

Your claim that Tigger would be making more posts is irrelevant. He's not the one preaching we should stop speculating and let the courts decide, YOU are. Hence why he asked YOU to practice what YOU preach rather than what he preach. So, are you going to practice what you preach or not?

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

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

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:40:07
#797 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote:
@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]

They get the source code to which Hyperion "is abled to secure" which considering sales around 2000 units and only $24,750 amounts to almost nothing with regards to source code. Go re-read the contract.

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:

Quote:

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.

Correct, you can go pay another mechanic for the extra work required. However, the extra work will be required if you ever hope to get your tires changed and balanced.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

I just told you I made it up. As I've stated before: you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Conversations with you are difficult to say the least and ours isn't the only one where I've seen you misunderstand things and that's perhaps why some may say you are a nitpicker...

Quote:
Quote:

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.

That much I can plainly see - that you don't understand some important things people write. Look up the expression "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".
You expect Hyperion to develop 4.0 in a few months without proper source code to 3.5, 3.9 + Boing Bags.
You state that because 4.0 exists, the sources to earlier versions are not required.
You gave some flawed logic theory something like: if C exists without B so A didn't need B after all.

Yet you fail to realize that if OS4 exists, then KMOS can make it's successor without the source to OS4 just as Hyperion made a successor OS to 3.X without sources to 3.5/3.9 etc... So apply your own logic to KMOS for releasing a successor to OS 4.

Quote:

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.

No, it's not a question. However, Olaf sold derivative work to Hyperion. Why isn't KMOS suing Olaf? At the very least, you would think KMOS could be consistent.

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.
That's funny, this whole thread consists of people repeating themselves...

Quote:

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...

No, I state my opion, proclaim it useless, just as yours is. I don't ask to be replied to. Infact, please don't. I'm, for the most part, speaking when spoken to. If we can all agreed that our opionions don't matter , then just don't reply. You won't change mine, nor will I change yours. Infact, you told me about 2 pages ago that you wouldn't reply to me anymore, yet you continue to. Now I see how much your word is worth...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
samface 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:50:53
#798 ]
Super Member
Joined: 10-Apr-2003
Posts: 1161
From: Norrköping, Sweden

@Lou

Quote:
I don't see why KMOS couldn't buy it as well and do a 3.1->5.0 port...


*ring* ... *ring* ... *ring* ...

Hi, it's me! Remember that car I lend you a few years ago? You know, where I agreed that you could borrow it and use it for your taxi business for 6 months and that in return you'd replace my old tires? I've been kind enough to not hold a grudge for the long over due but I really want it back now. What? You couldn't find the tires I asked you to put on so instead of simply asking me where they were, you decided to not just get another set of tires but also modify it into a limousine? Just give me my car, ok? What? You want me to pay for those limousine modifications? The h*** I will! Stop fussing about and give me my car back already! What? Becasue you couldn't afford paying for the modifications, you signed over the ownership of the car to your mechanic!?!?! That's it, I'm calling my lawyer. See you in court!

*click*

Last edited by samface on 04-Mar-2008 at 12:52 PM.

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

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

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:52:40
#799 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote:
@Lou

Your claim that Tigger would be making more posts is irrelevant. He's not the one preaching we should stop speculating and let the courts decide, YOU are. Hence why he asked YOU to practice what YOU preach rather than what he preach. So, are you going to practice what you preach or not?

Once again, you reply to me to continue a useless discussion.

I was replying to Tigger and he to me. Practice what you preached in post #662.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Mar-2008 12:56:47
#800 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
I don't see why KMOS couldn't buy it as well and do a 3.1->5.0 port...


*ring* ... *ring* ... *ring* ...

Hi, it's me! Remember that car I lend you a few years ago? You know, where I agreed that you could borrow it and use it for your taxi business for 6 months and that in return you'd replace my old tires? I've been kind enough to not hold a grudge for the long over due but I really want it back now. What? You couldn't find the tires I asked you to put on so instead of simply asking me where they were, you decided to not just get another set of tires but also modify it into a limousine? Just give me my car, ok? What? You want me to pay for those limousine modifications? The h*** I will! Stop fussing about and give me my car back already! What? Becasue you couldn't afford paying for the modifications, you signed over the ownership of the car to your mechanic!?!?! That's it, I'm calling my lawyer. See you in court!

*click*

That is not a proper reply to what you quoted.
Nothing is stopping KMOS from developing and releasing a successor to OS4.
Nothing.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle