@number6

Quote:

Now go read the other 90% (evil grin)

Done - sorry, no english translation for now, enough time spent for today.

_________________
amiga-news.de

@Senex

Thank you. I realize that was a -lot- of work.

I do hope everyone appreciates the time you invested in this.

#6

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

@Mobileconnect

This reads like a typical deposition: a lot of incomplete and random thoughts, and no edits. It's hard.

Last edited by bison on 19-Jul-2021 at 01:44 AM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

The deposition made for an interesting read. The lawyer for Hyperion seemed ill prepared and tired. He admitted to only having 2 hours of sleep was calling people the wrong names and confusing which document he was reading. He objected to almost every question put to Evert by the "Amiga" lawyer and his own "questions" were often long rambling statements that didn't always seem to make sense. His main line of questioning seemed to be about the mental health of Evert at the time of the settlement agreement. Given the damning interpretation of the intentions of the settlement agreement as recalled by Evert I guess the only defence left to Ben Hermans is to call him "crazy" or vengeful.

The one thing that may go slightly in Hyperion's favour is the interest Evert had in using the "Software" (i.e. AmigaOS 3.1) as an embedded OS (without Amiga related trademarking) so he clearly thought they had licence rights in exploiting 3.1 beyond developing 4.0 but not using any Amiga branding.

IanP Quote:

IanP wrote: The deposition made for an interesting read. The lawyer for Hyperion seemed ill prepared and tired. He admitted to only having 2 hours of sleep was calling people the wrong names and confusing which document he was reading. He objected to almost every question put to Evert by the "Amiga" lawyer and his own "questions" were often long rambling statements that didn't always seem to make sense. His main line of questioning seemed to be about the mental health of Evert at the time of the settlement agreement. Given the damning interpretation of the intentions of the settlement agreement as recalled by Evert I guess the only defence left to Ben Hermans is to call him "crazy" or vengeful.

I thought the lawyer of the Amiga parties was often leading the witness and sometimes not building foundation leading to the objections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question

He was more likable and often sharper than the Hyperion lawyer but I wonder if he is more of a research lawyer than a trial lawyer.

IanP Quote:

The one thing that may go slightly in Hyperion's favour is the interest Evert had in using the "Software" (i.e. AmigaOS 3.1) as an embedded OS (without Amiga related trademarking) so he clearly thought they had licence rights in exploiting 3.1 beyond developing 4.0 but not using any Amiga branding.

I was under the impression the "Software" would be used with modifications so would be more like AmigaOS 4 than AmigaOS 3.1. I see a distinction between using AmigaOS 3.1 with a few bug fixes and minor enhancements vs major enhancements and many new modules which the 2009 Settlement Agreement was intended to allow regardless of name and architecture.

@matthey Evert admits to not being an Amiga expert and I've never looked at any of the Amiga OS source code so I can't say with any certainty but wasn't OS4 at that point mainly just an abstraction of OS3.1 to get it to run on PC chipsets rather than be tightly coupled to the Amiga custom hardware. The reality is that to run as an embedded OS it would be likely to need heavy customisation also. It was probably already to late to penetrate most embedded markets by late 2009 anyway.

I did some more research on Evert Carton believing he surrendered his Hyperion ownership and stock in 2011. Hyperion was converted from a Belgium VOF (commercial partnership) to a CVBA (cooperative with limited liability) in 2009.

https://business.gov.nl/starting-your-business/choosing-a-business-structure/cooperative/

The stock transaction rules are probably governed by the Articles of Association within the law. They would likely include buy-sell agreements and buy back clauses but I expect it would be unusual to have a stock surrender clause because it is so unusual. Even with a stock surrender clause, it is not easy to surrender stock and would likely require a signed contract surrendering and transferring the stock. A majority of voting shares in a "general meeting of members" may be able to compel a stockholder to sell without a stock surrender clause but it would likely require notification and fair market value payment to the shareholder being bought out. Ignoring notification and requests could result in surrender of stock depending on the wording of the Articles of Association. Articles of Association (Company Incorporation Act) should be public and available on request.

In the U.S., it is certainly not so simple to dispose of corporate stock. The following are Q&A with the answers coming from corporate/business lawyers.

Can a shareholder relinquish ownership of corporate shares without selling the shares?

Quote:

No, a shareholder cannot disassociate herself from a corporation (unlike members who can disassociate from an LLC, or partners who can disassociate from a general partnership). The corporation would need to redeem or repurchase her shares, or a third party would need to purchase them.

Quote:

Share ownership cannot just be relinquished. Share transfer would normally be governed by a shareholders agreement, an operating agreement, a buy-sell agreement or some other agreement. That agreement would contain a mechanism for share transfer, price, approval, etc.

Quote:

No. If the shares have been properly issued/purchased, they need to be bought back by the company or transferred to another shareholder or a third party for some consideration, typically at their current fair market value (FMV). Absent such a buy back or transfer, the 'relinquishing' shareholder will continue to own such shares..

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-shareholder-relinquish-ownership-of-corporat-2380741.html

My point is that it would be worth reading the Articles of Association to see if Evert retains ownership. It may even be possible for Evert and Timothy to take control of Hyperion from Ben if the Articles of Association were not followed correctly making later actions invalid. It likely would have required the combined shares of Ben and Timothy for the "general meeting of members" to do anything as a quorum of shareholders having more than half the shares. I would read the Articles and consult a Belgium corporate/business lawyer if it appears that the Articles were incorrectly followed.

Last edited by matthey on 19-Jul-2021 at 08:06 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 19-Jul-2021 at 04:13 PM.

IanP Quote:

Evert admits to not being an Amiga expert and I've never looked at any of the Amiga OS source code so I can't say with any certainty but wasn't OS4 at that point mainly just an abstraction of OS3.1 to get it to run on PC chipsets rather than be tightly coupled to the Amiga custom hardware.

There was already an AmigaOne X1000 prototype in 2009. How advanced was AmigaOS 4 at that point?

IanP Quote:

The reality is that to run as an embedded OS it would be likely to need heavy customisation also. It was probably already to late to penetrate most embedded markets by late 2009 anyway.

LG bought "Palm" WebOS from HP in 2013 and have used it in various embedded devices although not a smart refrigerator until 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebOS

Apple bought PA Semi in 2008 which was pretty much the last chance for PPC although PPC was used in high performance embedded systems like telecom and automotive for a while longer until ARM caught up in performance from below. ARM has better code density than PPC which saves cost with everything else being equal. NXP stopped trying to push PPC into embedded markets when they bought out Freescale and most of the consoles switched to x86-64 as power reductions allowed PPC be overtaken from the top too. The PPC demise was swift as it was attacked from both ends. I believe the AmigaOS could still be a marketable product for the huge embedded market if available on an architecture which is better for embedded although it would likely require improvements and customizations.

Last edited by matthey on 19-Jul-2021 at 07:56 AM.

@matthey

Exactly what kind ambedded decices would AmigaOS be suited for? I cannot think of any.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: IanP Quote: Evert admits to not being an Amiga expert and I've never looked at any of the Amiga OS source code so I can't say with any certainty but wasn't OS4 at that point mainly just an abstraction of OS3.1 to get it to run on PC chipsets rather than be tightly coupled to the Amiga custom hardware. There was already an AmigaOne X1000 prototype in 2009. How advanced was AmigaOS 4 at that point?

In 2009 the OS4.1 was newly released, and regarding the advancement level of it in context of this discussion, I’d say it remains largely the same today as it was then, with the most prominent changes (except minor updates and bugfixes) being added USB 2.0 support in 2011 and the OS4.1 Final Edition in 2014. The latter should really have been called 4.2 IMHO because of the substance level of the update, but “Final Edition” is probably more appropriate since it seems it really was the final edition. So in the context of this discussion, maturity of OS4 has not changed in many fundamental ways really since then, and the level of maturity IanP talks about sounds rather like what Amiga Inc originally commissioned Hyperion to do in 2001 (as described in the original contract); a few months of work to abstract key OS3 components away from 68k hardware.

Quote:

Apple bought PA Semi in 2008 which was pretty much the last chance for PPC

Yes the PPC remained in embedded systems for several years after Apple’s Intel-migration, but PPC for anything above embedded (including PA Semi) was death-sentenced in 2005 when Apple made the transition announcement. That’s probably why PA6T was left at an half-arsed state, far from expectations. It was supposed to potentially be the first 64-bit cpu for Apple PPC laptops. The reason to why Apple later bought PA Semi had absolutely nothing to do at all with PPC, all they ever wanted from that was PA Semi’s existing organization of highly skilled CPU engineers, like CPU architect Jim Keller, who had been senior at PA Semi during the PA6T and before that one of the people responsible for the Alpha, AMD's K7 and Opteron. This purchase/recruitment is most certainly what made Apple’s Cyclone micro architecture possible, which meant a huge paradigm shift for Apple’s ARM endeavor. Before the Cyclone architecture, Apple had simply been relying on ARM’s standard concept designs in their CPU’s like everyone else, but the Cyclone (first used in the A7 processor in iPhone 5S) brought true high-end Intel laptop performance to a battery powered passively cooled handheld, leaving the industry baffled. This marked the start of the long march towards the transition of using their own ARM designs in laptops and desktops that is now undergoing. And the circle is kind of closed!

@matthey

Note: Hyperion is registered in Belgium, not Holland, so the laws may be slightly different there, even though they are both EU

_________________
Fred Booth
========================================
A500, A600, A1200 c/w Mediator and 030
AmigaOne and OS4.1
Mac LCII, G4 Powermac running OSX + Amigakit and MorphOS 3.0
Dell Mini 10 Netbook running IcAros and AmigaForever+Amikit+AmigaSys
2006 Macb

@Jose

If you reread the settlement there was a stipulation for IF A. inc failed to renew or keep them healthy it was Hyperions job to first notify and then cure the issue.

_________________
Support AROS sponsor a developer.

"AROS is prolly illegal ~ Evert Carton" intentionally quoted out of context for dramatic effect

@Senex


Someone tried to back it but IIRC John took offense to that and thus took the page down.

_________________
Support AROS sponsor a developer.

"AROS is prolly illegal ~ Evert Carton" intentionally quoted out of context for dramatic effect

@kolla

Quote:

Exactly what kind ambedded decices would AmigaOS be suited for? I cannot think of any

Being an avid reader you likely know how this turned out but...
There was Todd Kleperis and Icontain...
You might recall the "rent to own" usage discussed back then.

Quote:

Amiga is leveraging technologies developed by IContain, Ltd. to launch a product line for the Rent to Own market.

Added: although the reference was to technology by Icontain, there was also general reference made to Amiga s/w. AmigaOS/AmigaDE was perhaps not to be incorporated. But we'll never know what the real plan was.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 19-Jul-2021 at 04:58 PM.

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

@TRIPOS

Sound like a wherry expensive way to get a few chip engineers.

I guess Apple like to change CPU’s so they drop support for old mac’s, to force ther loyal brainwashed customers to upgrade.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 19-Jul-2021 at 05:19 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 19-Jul-2021 at 04:59 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@number6

Quote:

Rent to Own market

I guess it’s another name for subscription service, pay higher fee per month, no down payment. Pray on people with good income, but lack of economic sense.

Quote:

AmigaDE

I guess Amiga Inc thinked about renting out snowman maker.

Quote:

AmigaOS

With AmigaOS large outdated library of software I’m sure its be hugely popular.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 19-Jul-2021 at 05:15 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 19-Jul-2021 at 05:13 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @TRIPOS Sound like a wherry expensive way to get a few chip engineers.

”The company employed a 150-person engineering team which included people who had previously worked on processors like Itanium, Opteron and UltraSPARC.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi

Not a few IMHO, and likely very competent. Seing how this helped develop the Cyclone architecture, which was undoubtly the start of Apple’s journey to “Apple Silicon” and being able to control their entire eco-system, I think it was a bargain!

kolla Quote:

Exactly what kind embedded devices would AmigaOS be suited for? I cannot think of any.

The AmigaOS could be used in many embedded devices requiring low resources and efficient performance with a flat memory model (usually no MMU).

TRIPOS Quote:

In 2009 the OS4.1 was newly released, and regarding the advancement level of it in context of this discussion, I’d say it remains largely the same today as it was then, with the most prominent changes (except minor updates and bugfixes) being added USB 2.0 support in 2011 and the OS4.1 Final Edition in 2014. The latter should really have been called 4.2 IMHO because of the substance level of the update, but “Final Edition” is probably more appropriate since it seems it really was the final edition. So in the context of this discussion, maturity of OS4 has not changed in many fundamental ways really since then, and the level of maturity IanP talks about sounds rather like what Amiga Inc originally commissioned Hyperion to do in 2001 (as described in the original contract); a few months of work to abstract key OS3 components away from 68k hardware.

Thanks. That is what I expected.

TRIPOS Quote:

Yes the PPC remained in embedded systems for several years after Apple’s Intel-migration, but PPC for anything above embedded (including PA Semi) was death-sentenced in 2005 when Apple made the transition announcement. That’s probably why PA6T was left at an half-arsed state, far from expectations. It was supposed to potentially be the first 64-bit cpu for Apple PPC laptops. The reason to why Apple later bought PA Semi had absolutely nothing to do at all with PPC, all they ever wanted from that was PA Semi’s existing organization of highly skilled CPU engineers, like CPU architect Jim Keller, who had been senior at PA Semi during the PA6T and before that one of the people responsible for the Alpha, AMD's K7 and Opteron. This purchase/recruitment is most certainly what made Apple’s Cyclone micro architecture possible, which meant a huge paradigm shift for Apple’s ARM endeavor. Before the Cyclone architecture, Apple had simply been relying on ARM’s standard concept designs in their CPU’s like everyone else, but the Cyclone (first used in the A7 processor in iPhone 5S) brought true high-end Intel laptop performance to a battery powered passively cooled handheld, leaving the industry baffled. This marked the start of the long march towards the transition of using their own ARM designs in laptops and desktops that is now undergoing. And the circle is kind of closed!

PA Semi deliberately decided to enter the embedded market first as the cost of entry is cheap and the market was very healthy. The PA6T was a good first processor with a design focus on power reduction instead of performance. Both the memory and I/O buses (north and south bridge) were integrated on chip increasing performance, reducing power and reducing cost. It used a modular crossbar bus internally for cache sharing and coherency which may have allowed it to scale to more cores easier. The PA6T was a good chip design for the high end embedded market and may have allowed scaling into the server marker with more cores which they had their eye on but it is a difficult market to break into. I agree that Apple bought them for the talent but I believe they were also impressed by the current low power PWRficient technology which they were interested in using in cell phones and portable devices.

OldAmigan Quote:

Note: Hyperion is registered in Belgium, not Holland, so the laws may be slightly different there, even though they are both EU

The Belgium and Dutch corporate structures look very similar but I expect there are differences too. Yes, Evert would want to see a Belgium business/corporate lawyer to inquire about his ownership in Hyperion. Simply renouncing all interest in Hyperion is likely not sufficient to lose ownership. A more official transfer contract is likely needed and may require a recipient and consideration. We don't know what actions he took to try to wash his hands of Hyperion or what the Articles of Association require but it may be worth investigating.

Last edited by matthey on 19-Jul-2021 at 05:32 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: kolla Quote: Exactly what kind embedded devices would AmigaOS be suited for? I cannot think of any. The AmigaOS could be used in many embedded devices requiring low resources and efficient performance with a flat memory model (usually no MMU).

Such as…?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

matthey Quote:

The AmigaOS could be used in many embedded devices requiring low resources and efficient performance with a flat memory model (usually no MMU).

kolla Quote:

Such as…?

Such as the majority of embedded devices.

Rob Landley Quote:

But we found that the current market opportunities are actually at the low end of the market because the volume of no MMU chips becomes absolutely insane. No MMU chips are to MMU chips a bit like bacterial cells are to mammal cells, there's a whole lot more of them in the eco system they're just invisible.

Why the J-core open processor is cool @10:02
https://youtu.be/dVD1Yws__v0?list=PLxde5XJWZRbTerLRlh0vp43scTA3cfKN8&t=602