@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: No. I don't know where you from - but in that part of the world where I live only a judge can make legally binding statements/decisions. I've from the United States, and here (like in your country) a well executed contract is a legally binding decision and it costs lots less. -Tig

forgive me since i know precious little about legalities(especially this case.

but if you signed a contract giving you ownership of your code(until paid in full) and the company you work for gets involved in a court case that threatens to overturn your contract. this company(since in legal limbo) cannot guarantee your contract won't be lost. wouldn't it be prudent to get assurances from the other company and failing that take both to court to solidify the pre-existing contract?

if what i said is the truth hyperion may want to but are unable to assure the devs will not get the shaft. as a result the devs want the courts to prevent their loss regardless of the lawsuit outcome.

Last edited by jkirk on 07-Mar-2008 at 12:49 PM.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@jkirk

Quote:

jkirk wrote: forgive me since i know precious little about legalities(especially this case. but if you signed a contract giving you ownership of your code(until paid in full) and the company you work for gets involved in a court case that threatens to overturn your contract. this company(since in legal limbo) cannot guarantee your contract won't be lost. wouldn't it be prudent to get assurances from the other company and failing that take both to court to solidify the pre-existing contract? if what i said is the truth hyperion may want to but are unable to assure the devs will not get the shaft. as a result the devs want the courts to prevent their loss regardless of the lawsuit outcome.

If the issue is AI and AI only, then only AI needs to be part of the lawsuit, they dont need to sue Hyperion over it, thats the issue. If Hyperion agrees with the developers, Hyperion could even be on the side of the developers and it could be the Developers and Hyperion vs AI, since neither is the case, there either is a conflict between the developers and Hyperion or the developers have filed a truly stupid lawsuit, take your pick.
-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: @Dandy ... Well you know Dandy, if you didnt make it so easy. If you werent arguing that the Friedens werent suing Hyperion or thats the only way for the Friedens to get this handled, you wouldnt look so silly, and I honestly dont think it has anything to do with a language barrrier.

Hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm - already my Grandmother tought me that actually being silly is much worse than just looking silly...

As I repeatedly said:
In the end - when the judge made his decision - we will be sure who of us was right and who was not.
Until then:


Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Yeah - they could as well have asked the next clochard. Maybe they were fed up with so called "signed documents" that later get disregarded by the other party and want an binding statement from a court of law... Which implies that they don't think Hyperion is trust worthy? ...

To me it does not matter what it implies (-> conspiracy theory) - to me it matters what the developers publically state in this regard. And Rogues statement a few posts above clearly said they think Hyperion is trustworthy:

"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."


Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: And this is where your conspiracy theory begins... They went to court instead of signing a piece of paper, they spend over a 1000 Euros instead of getting Hyperion to sign a piece of paper that would have done the same thing,

Yeah - but isn't that what they already have?
Don't they have "a signed piece of paper" with Hyperion?
Didn't Hyperion have "a signed piece of paper" with AInc?

And what did it help?

Despite having your "signed piece of paper" Hyperion is at court now with AInc...

I can fully understand that the devs didn't see it as sufficiant to sign annother piece of paper with Hyperion - given Hyperions legal dispute with AInc over their "signed piece of paper"...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: that would imply that either the Friedens and AV are dumber then rocks or that they couldnt get HERMANS HYPERION LEGEND to agree to sign the paper in question so its not a conspiracy theory, its common sense.

Following implications most likely leads to "conspiracy theories" - I prefer to rely on what the devs publically steted.

Last edited by Dandy on 18-Mar-2008 at 01:55 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 08-Mar-2008 at 06:07 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Yeah - but isn't that what they already have? Don't they have "a signed a piece of paper" with Hyperion?

That should tell you how much those developers value Hyperion's contract and legal knowledge.

_________________
Dammy

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Dandy Quote: I don't know where you from - but in that part of the world where I live only a judge can make legally binding statements/decisions. But supposedly nobody is asking for a *decision*. Supposedly Hyperion and the developers are in perfect agreement.

According to H.J. Frieden they actually are - but Hyperion and the ordering party - AInc - are not...

Quote:

umisef wrote: Agreements can be made legally binding simply by writing them down on paper and signing them. ...

[sarcasm]

Exactly.
That's precisely why a judge at court now has to decide who acted legally and who not.

[/sarcasm]

EDIT:
"sarcasm"-tags added

Last edited by Dandy on 08-Mar-2008 at 06:14 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Dandy Quote: I'd rather assume that OS 4.0 was sent to the duplication plant to produce working copies for the A1 customers (=consumers)... Working copies which came in nifty little envelopes that had "Developer Pre-Release" written all over them, containing CDs which had the same thing written on them.

Sorry - but as I don't own an A1 I didn't get the CD - and so my posting was solely based on what I found in the court docs (hint: just like the judges decision will most likely be)...

Quote:

umisef wrote: But if you have any doubts, look at later announcements about "developer pre-release CDs arriving at the dealers", "Developer Pre-Release CDs reaching users" and then for a few years about updates for the developer pre-release.

That's what I don't understand either:
Why did they still call it "Developer Pre-Release" after it went gold?
Was it just carelessness like with the "bookkeeping issue" on both sides?
Or were there other reasons?

Maybe we'll know it when the trial is over...

_________________
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)

@flipper

Quote:

When is the next court date and what will be acted on next by the Honorable Judge Ricardo S Martinez?

Nothing interesting for us is planned for today (Friday). I'll ask him for the next weeks.
(Or you can check judge Ricardo S. Martinez's calendar online from time to time )

No new documents on Justia.com (last so far is #101); nothing new yet on the US PTO regarding the trademarks battle (maybe around mid-March ?).

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Sorry - but as I don't own an A1 I didn't get the CD - and so my posting was solely based on what I found in the court docs (hint: just like the judges decision will most likely be)...

So you looked at document 35 Exhibit E then right? And notice the CD and envelope both with developer Pre-Release stamped on them? I bet you are right, I'll bet the judge will look at that as part of making his decision.

Quote:

That's what I don't understand either: Why did they still call it "Developer Pre-Release" after it went gold? Was it just carelessness like with the "bookkeeping issue" on both sides? Or were there other reasons?

The called it a developer pre-release because it still was a pre-release (we will call that theory 1) or because saying OS 4 was released would trigger all those payment issues after 30 days (we will call that theory 2). I dont know which one is true, but neither one helps their case.
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: According to H.J. Frieden they actually are - but Hyperion and the ordering party - AInc - are not...

Again, if they are in perfect agreement, Hyperion doesnt have to be part of the case, they especially dont have to be part of the defense.

Quote:

Exactly. That's precisely why a judge at court now has to decide who acted legally and who not.

You understand this comment is in direct opposition to your previous comment that said you had to have a judge to make legally binding document.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

If the issue is AI and AI only, then only AI needs to be part of the lawsuit, they dont need to sue Hyperion over it, thats the issue. If Hyperion agrees with the developers, Hyperion could even be on the side of the developers and it could be the Developers and Hyperion vs AI, since neither is the case, there either is a conflict between the developers and Hyperion or the developers have filed a truly stupid lawsuit, take your pick.

actually i have heard(not exactly related but i believe similar situation) of cases when an employee is hurt on the job. due to the policies in place the company could not give compensation outright so they advise the person to sue them to get compensated. it may be that hyperion wants to give this assurance but can't. since hyperion is who the dev has a contract with they have to sue hyperion to get the assurance. also since ainc is suing hyperion ainc must be included since any ruling between the dev and hyperion wouldn't stick if aic's lawsuit succeeds.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: No new documents on Justia.com (last so far is #101); nothing new yet on the US PTO regarding the trademarks battle (maybe around mid-March ?).

Actually AI's response to the Dec 7, 2007 Hyperion document (which is what makes up most of the 99 & 100) is up on the USPTO site now, its dated January 16, 2008.
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

And what did it help?

OK, beyond all the hysteria --- can anyone point to any instance where anyone other than Hyperion and the developers has acted as if there was a possibility of Amiga Inc being handed ExecSG or SLB source code while such source code had not been paid for?

Amiga has asked a court to compel Hyperion to deliver on their contractual obligations. Yes, these contractual obligations include source code where available. And yes, whether the source code which "only" needs to be paid for is available to Hyperion is certainly up for debate. But the debate would certainly not be "Does the fact that Hyperion could own the source code mean that they can hand it over to Amiga Inc without first paying for it", but rather "Does the fact that they *could* own it, and that they are required to secure the most wide-ranging rights, mean that they are required to pay up for the source code in order to be able to pass it on to Amiga".

The idea that a judge in the US, presiding over a case between two parties, will as part of his ruling somehow decide to remove ownership of intellectual property from an unrelated third party, ownership which has been acknowledged by both parties involved in the case (and yes, Amiga has acknowledged that Hyperion does not own those sources --- it's part of their beeping complaint, for crying out loud!), is utterly ridiculous.
The idea that having a Belgian judge say "yes, the terms of the contract mean what everybody agrees they mean" would make such a ridiculous scenario any less likely to happen is also ridiculous.

Last edited by umisef on 08-Mar-2008 at 03:50 AM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Sorry - but as I don't own an A1 I didn't get the CD - and so my posting was solely based on what I found in the court docs (hint: just like the judges decision will most likely be)...

Docket 35, exhibit E.

One would hope that, unlike you, the person who actually decides this thing will be familiar with the evidence presented.

Quote:

Why did they still call it "Developer Pre-Release" after it went gold?

Because what went "gold" was the pre-release. The pre-release is what was stamped onto CDs and sent to A1 owners. The stamping is (conceptually) done from a gold master, which needs to be produced at (conceptually) great cost. Thus the decision to "go gold" means "no more changes possible, this is what it will be shipped like" --- where "it" in this case is the developer pre-release.

@Dandy

Quote:

That's what I don't understand either: Why did they still call it "Developer Pre-Release" after it went gold? Was it just carelessness like with the "bookkeeping issue" on both sides? Or were there other reasons?:

Sorry been away from amigaland for ages, but was the a-one board not a prerelease dev board anyway? would it not make sense to be a dev prerelease software?

_________________
Nitrous

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy ... So you looked at document 35 Exhibit E then right? And notice the CD and envelope both with developer Pre-Release stamped on them? ...

No - not up to now.
But I will - after replying to the postings...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: The called it a developer pre-release because it still was a pre-release ...

Then why issued they a press release on their website that says their developer pre-release "went gold"?

I mean - if its still a developer pre-release - then why tell the public it went gold, if nothing changed?

Last edited by Dandy on 08-Mar-2008 at 08:10 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: According to H.J. Frieden they actually are - but Hyperion and the ordering party - AInc - are not... Again, if they are in perfect agreement, Hyperion doesnt have to be part of the case, they especially dont have to be part of the defense.

So you are - aside from US- and German law - an expert for Belgian law as well?


Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Exactly. That's precisely why a judge at court now has to decide who acted legally and who not. You understand this comment is in direct opposition to your previous comment that said you had to have a judge to make legally binding document.

You are right - I forgot the "sarcasm" tags - edited the posting and added them...

_________________
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: Sorry - but as I don't own an A1 I didn't get the CD - and so my posting was solely based on what I found in the court docs (hint: just like the judges decision will most likely be)... Docket 35, exhibit E. One would hope that, unlike you, the person who actually decides this thing will be familiar with the evidence presented.

I'm fully aware of me being a sysadmin and application programmer - not an lawyer or even a judge.

So I guess its just natural that "the person who actually decides this thing" (= the judge) "will be" much more "familiar with the evidence presented" than I ever could be.

I have job to work on and a life to live (wife, 3 daughters and 1 grandson) - and this simply doesn't leave enough time to memorise all the court docs concerning the legal proceedings regarding the Amiga platform (=my hobby).

Quote:

umisef wrote: Quote: Why did they still call it "Developer Pre-Release" after it went gold? Because what went "gold" was the pre-release. The pre-release is what was stamped onto CDs and sent to A1 owners. The stamping is (conceptually) done from a gold master, which needs to be produced at (conceptually) great cost. Thus the decision to "go gold" means "no more changes possible, this is what it will be shipped like" --- where "it" in this case is the developer pre-release.

Good explanation.
There's just one hitch with it - why is it necessary to produce an "Developer Pre-Release CD" for the developers who developed the fuc*ing thing?

I mean - the developers developed what is on that CD - they have the sources, they can compile running copies from that and burn them on CDs as much as they like - so why the hell do you think it is necessary to produce an CD for them "at (conceptually) great cost"?

To me that makes no sense at all.

It would make sense if the devs said: "O.K. - we're done so far. The work can go gold now, a "Master CD" can be produced and consequently be sent to the processing laboratory for the "mass production" and then get publically released."

Such are my thoughts when I read "Developer Pre-Release goes gold" - I would never ever get the strange idea that this "golden Developer Pre-Release CD" is just produced for the developers who developed the stuff and have it anyway.

Last edited by Dandy on 08-Mar-2008 at 08:07 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Good explanation.There's just one hitch with it - why is it necessary to produce an "Developer Pre-Release CD" for the developers who developed the fuc*ing thing?

The Developer Pre-Release CD where not for the developers for OS4, it was for all the people who had bought the A1 and wanted to port programs to OS4.

Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

Quote:

I have job to work on and a life to live (wife, 3 daughters and 1 grandson) - and this simply doesn't leave enough time to memorise all the court docs concerning the legal proceedings regarding the Amiga platform (=my hobby).

So what, so has others but they take their time read facts before make comments and try to twist everything.

And plz, stop swearing.

(Sorry for my bad english)

_________________
AmigaOne G4 800Mhz, A1200TPPC 040/33 240Mhz, 2 A2000, A600,A600HD
A500,A500+ and so on.....AmigaOS4.1....1500-2000 games!?
And yeap, it's my dog...16 years old in 2015

@Dandy

Quote:

There's just one hitch with it - why is it necessary to produce an "Developer Pre-Release CD" for the developers who developed the fuc*ing thing?

I think you are missing a point, third party developers are often supplied with early versions to adapt their own projects or get a headstart on developing new games/programs.

The developer pre-release was just that, an early version for developers that wasn't part of the OS developments. It's a good thing if the OS actually has some software ready when it's time to start selling it to the public.

_________________
AMiGA

@Jacken

Quote:

Jacken wrote: @Dandy Quote: Good explanation.There's just one hitch with it - why is it necessary to produce an "Developer Pre-Release CD" for the developers who developed the fuc*ing thing? The Developer Pre-Release CD where not for the developers for OS4, it was for all the people who had bought the A1 and wanted to port programs to OS4. Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

That's what I also thought when I read "Developer Pre-Release goes gold" - but Tigger, Umisef and others came to different conclusions...

Quote:

Jacken wrote: Quote: I have job to work on and a life to live (wife, 3 daughters and 1 grandson) - and this simply doesn't leave enough time to memorise all the court docs concerning the legal proceedings regarding the Amiga platform (=my hobby). So what, so has others but they take their time read facts before make comments and try to twist everything.

Boy, I also have read most of the docs - but not all - especially not all attachments.
If others have more time for it - fine - I don't.

Can you please be a little bit more specific with your accusation I would "twist everything"?
(As I'm not aware that I'm twisting things at all...)

Quote:

Jacken wrote: And plz, stop swearing.

Absolutely no idea why you think I swore anywhere.
Can you please point me to where I swore something (an oath, e.g.)?
Can it be possible you took me for someone else?

_________________
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)