@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... 4) McEwen letter to Evert requesting the source code 5) Olafs email to McEwen (about not being paid) ... The Contract with Hyperion wouldn give them access, Annex I doesnt mention Eyetech or AI at all, they are not present in the Annex, yet you think when annex I says parties, it means them, not all the people (parties) actually listed in Annex I and the ones who actually need access to the CVS. -Tig

Perhaps that's because the only CVS a truck driver cares about or understands is the one around the corner where he picks up his meds from?

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Dandy Quote: Where does it say that it's exclusively for the development team? It doesn't. However, you chose to ignore Olaf's email, which made it pretty damn clear he wasn't giving Amiga anything unless he got paid. Which he didn't (get paid, that is). So the balance of likelihood is strongly in favour of AI(W) *not* having access.

No, I didn't ignore it.

But on the other hand I dont know how this CVS is set up.
I could imagine that it is set up in a way that might allow AInc access to everything except that directory/those directories where the sources are stored.

This way they might have (had) access to the reports on how the project is progressing.

But as you point out, it might as well have been completely different.

I'm expressively not trying to convince you that they actually had access, I'm just trying to point out that to me it is not so clear as for others here that they didn't have access, as we don't know for sure which of both possibilities has been closer to reality.

I can see no proof for either way up to now - and as long I can see no proof for one way I accept that both could be possible.

Quote:

umisef wrote: Quote: Where does it say that the ostensible IP owner (AInc(W)) is expressively not allowed to access it to check the progress of the work? That would be IP co-owner, right?

Agreed...

Quote:

umisef wrote: Because Olaf's work is owned by Olaf until and unless sold to someone else (which it was, see clause 2.02 of Olaf's contract). And Amiga had not paid for Olaf's work, and Olaf made it very clear that they weren't getting access to it until they did. Which they didn't. Hence, it is reasonable to believe "no access".

AFAIR it is referring to "access to the source code"

Quote:

umisef wrote: Quote: Exhibit 4 of PDF #26 is a contract between Hyperion and Olaf - how do you think they could enjoin AInc(W) from accessing it with that? Well, the CVS contains (a) original OS 3.1 sources --- owned by AI, licensed to Hyperion, and Olaf's access presumably legalised at last by being a Hyperion contractor. AI are known to have had a copy of this. (b) Olaf's 3.1 work. Owned by Olaf (until sold to Hyperion). Not licensed or owned by Amiga or anyone else outside of Hyperion and Olaf. (c) Various 4.0 work. Owned by the various developers, until/unless legally sold to Hyperion, then owned by Hyperion. Not owned or licensed by Amiga, or anyone other than the respective developers and Hyperion.

So I would assume that they had at least access to the unmodified OS 3.1 sources and maybe to progress reports.

Quote:

umisef wrote: In short --- there is no reason why Amiga *would* have access.

Because of the unmodified OS 3.1 sources, possibly?

Quote:

umisef wrote: At least not until Hyperion (who *do* have a reason to have access, and in fact have a contract granting them that access) sold all title and interest in OS4 to someone else. But Hyperion taking the money, yet not actually transferring the interest (such as the access to the CVS) to the buyer, was pretty much the bone of contention spelled out in McBill's email on the matter; Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the access was not transferred, because McBill complained about the lack of source access. And yes, *OF COURSE* Hyperion could make an agreement with Olaf which not only says "The work you have done is now Hyperion's" (as the actual contract does), but also "and thus, you shall not make it, or any other IP of ours or our contractors which we store in the CVS, available to any outsider, such as for example Amiga Inc". In fact, Article V,b(I), while boilerplate, pretty much says that exact thing.

Yes - but I think you will agree that it could as well be possible that they might have had limited access as I described above.

It certainly is not such a big thing in the Non-Amiga-World to grant access to some folders (sharing of folders) while preventing access to others - just a few mouseclicks...

_________________
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 ... No piece of evidence shows they have access, lots of evidence implies they dont ...

Hmmmm - to my best knowledge and understanding of the English language an "evidence" prooves something.

If it's just implying then - it cannot be evidence - just indication.

_________________
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

Hmmmm - to my best knowledge and understanding of the English language an "evidence" prooves something.

Hm.. Not really I think..

Let's say I have a gun here on the table.

I pick it up without gloves and put it back on the table.

Someone else picks it up with gloves on and shoots/kills somebody with it.

All evidence who killed with that gun then points to me, but it doesn't proof I did it. (I will have a hell of a time tho..)

(Simplified example, and perhaps a bad one)

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

@Seer

I'm really sorry Dandy is trying to frame you like that Seer
-Tig

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

Any chance that someone could provide an up-to-date summary of "the situation" for those of use who haven't been following this on a daily basis? Or perhaps someone has already done this recently, and all I need is a link. Thanks.

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

@bison

One side is right, the other side disagrees but neither side seems to know which is which while the lawyers are adding to the bill.

That about sums it up.

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

@bison

Quote:

Any chance that someone could provide an up-to-date summary of "the situation" for those of use who haven't been following this on a daily basis? Or perhaps someone has already done this recently, and all I need is a link. Thanks.

Until this gets a solid jury trial date, I don't see anything ending in the near future. Just more paperwork being thrown about.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

Until this gets a solid jury trial date, I don't see anything ending in the near future. Just more paperwork being thrown about.

Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them !!!

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Tigger

Quote:

So all 5 Trademarks that Hyperion is arguing about are based on other Trademarks, lets look at those 3. [ #1401045, #2319266, #2369059 ]

Seeing AInc.'s response in Doc #101, you (we) missed this one:

Quote:

Registration No. 2,802,748 for the AMIGA trademark, issued July 18, 2000, covers computer software used to facilitate development of software applications that can run on multiple platforms and other electronic devices; operating system software for personal computers and other electronic devices.

@Tigger

Quote:

Bad news for the boy from Belgium.

I can't tell for sure, from the many claims coming from both sides, which ones are obviously right and which ones are obviously wrong (you know, IANAL); but I admit it seems to be going more difficult than expected for Hyperion to be granted the Amiga trademarks. (Maybe we haven't seen all of the cards yet ?)

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 25-Feb-2008 at 09:02 PM.

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: @Tigger Quote: So all 5 Trademarks that Hyperion is arguing about are based on other Trademarks, lets look at those 3. [ #1401045, #2319266, #2369059 ] Seeing AInc.'s response in Doc #101, you (we) missed this one: Quote: Registration No. 2,802,748 for the AMIGA trademark, issued July 18, 2000, covers computer software used to facilitate development of software applications that can run on multiple platforms and other electronic devices; operating system software for personal computers and other electronic devices.

Its a derivation of the 2nd two of the list, if you notice from the bottom of the page at the USPTO.
-Tig

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

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: I can't tell for sure, from the many claims coming from both sides, which ones are obviously right and which ones are obviously wrong (you know, IANAL); but I admit it seems to be going more difficult than expected for Hyperion to be granted the Amiga trademarks. (Maybe we haven't seen all of the cards yet ?)

If they have more cards, they needed to throw them out by now. The judge is likely to throw out the counterclaims, if he does that, wait look at this is really too late after that occurs. As AI has quite clearly pointed out, there is no mechanism that gets Hyperion owning the Trademarks, they might have a license to use them if 2.07 is enforced, but they dont have ownership of them, and they don't have grounds to block derivative trademarks based on there license. In fact trying to poach or block the trademark is probably grounds to cancel the contract as well. Even if the USPTO were to find for Hyperion, that still wouldnt give them the trademark, it would mean noone could have it, not that it would be Hyperions.
-Tig

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

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: In short --- there is no reason why Amiga *would* have access. Because of the unmodified OS 3.1 sources, possibly?

But they already have that at HQ. So what would be the point of giving them access to it again (even if it were technically possible), from a place much less convenient than their local copy.

Quote:

It certainly is not such a big thing in the Non-Amiga-World to grant access to some folders (sharing of folders) while preventing access to others - just a few mouseclicks...

Considering that Olaf's work was on the very same files which made up the unmodified OS3.1 sources, you'd have to restrict access to a particular *Version*. I am not sure whether CVS can do that --- but again, what would be the point, even if it could?

@Dandy

Quote:

I'm expressively not trying to convince you that they actually had access,

Is that why you wrote, some 150+ posts back:

Quote:

Furthermore they had access to Olaf Barthel's CVS, as he stated in the court docs...

and then, when Tigger pointed out that this was in fact not stated in the court docs, flippantly replied

Quote:

Don't be a pettifogger! The relevant part was not "who said it at what opportunuty" - it rather was that it was said at all.

(i.e. you maintained that "it was said at all").

Which I then called you on, asking

Quote:

can you point at any statement from anyone which indicates that Amiga, any Amiga, ever had access to the OS4 CVS?

at which point you pulled out Appendix I, proudly quoting the "all involved parties access at all times" line and stating

Quote:

This is what I call a clear indication...

Unfortunately for you, Appendix I does not involve Amiga Inc at all, and the parties involved are distinct from Amiga Inc. Which was pointed out to you.
At which point you switched into the "poor persecuted me" role, claiming that all you ever wanted to uphold was the reasonable doubt:

Quote:

That's completely right - it just indicates that they might have had access - just like Umisef asked - no more, no less.

And this continued, with you more and more taking the "prove that they didn't, or admit I was right to doubt" position, leading all the way to what's quoted at the top of this post.


What scares me is that I suspect you actually believed it when you wrote "I'm expressively not trying to convince you that they actually had access"; That I suspect you actually made yourself forget how this started by you not even trying to convince anyone of it, but more, by simply stating it as fact; That I suspect you actually think Tigger and I have been unreasonably maintaining a "they certainly did not have access" in opposition to your oh-so-moderate-and-reasonable right-from-the-start "there is always doubt" position.

Thus, I recommend you re-read the last 200 posts, and then come back, apologise and end this particular subthread.

Last edited by umisef on 26-Feb-2008 at 12:17 AM.

@Daemon


Those are my same wishes exactly.
Thanks for expressing how us long time Amigans feel.I want new up to date hardware that runs OS4.
Thanks once again.

@Dandy

Evidence is always proof of something, but to avoid the fallacies of Composition and Confusing Cause and Effect, one must remain focused on what it actually proves. Most oftenly, evidence presented in a court of law only proves certain circumstances that are common to the proposed scenario of events rather than what actually happened. As with Seer's example, while his fingerprints on the gun proves that he touched the gun, it doesn't prove that he commited the murder.

Edit: It is however a rather strong indication that he did. So, while evidence is proof of one thing, it is not uncommon to be used as an indication of another.

Last edited by samface on 26-Feb-2008 at 03:03 PM.

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

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

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

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: at which point you pulled out Appendix I, proudly quoting the "all involved parties access at all times" line and stating

Yes, it's interesting how some people can quote one line and damn the other side by it but then other lines such as "Amiga Inc. shall provide ..." are cast off as meaningless because some people assume Olaf was an Amiga Inc. employee, which he was not...

IIRC, Olaf worked for Amiga Technologies in Europe, which is not the same company as Amino - at all. "Given permission" or not, Olaf != AmigaInc.

So here we have:
- one party that delivered hardware (albeit the incorrect hardware)
- one party that didn't deliver all the money or original source code
- and one party that delivered an OS, despite having buggy hardware and having to go above and beyond the call of duty to get useable source code, oh but it's called "late" and that makes them 10000000000000% in violation of the term "best efforts"

...now, who is the judge supposed to side with?

Last edited by Lou on 26-Feb-2008 at 12:28 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 26-Feb-2008 at 12:27 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, it's interesting how some people can quote one line and damn the other side by it but then other lines such as "Amiga Inc. shall provide ..." are cast off as meaningless because some people assume Olaf was an Amiga Inc. employee, which he was not...

Who did Evert/Ben have a contract with prior to signing the contract with AI? Was it Olaf?

Quote:

IIRC, Olaf worked for Amiga Technologies in Europe, which is not the same company as Amino - at all. "Given permission" or not, Olaf != AmigaInc.

What's your point? Evert/Ben had reasonable cause to void the contract and not do the work?

Quote:

So here we have: - one party that delivered hardware (albeit the incorrect hardware)

And they are not apart of any law suit, correct?

Quote:

- one party that didn't deliver all the money or original source code

Yet they have a reciept stating paid in full, guess they did pay afterall. I mean if I didn't get fully paid, I wouldn't sign a statement stating, "Paid In Full", would you? Even worse, there are no letters of demand from Evert. Some how, I'm not shedding any tears on this one.


Quote:

- and one party that delivered an OS, despite having buggy hardware and having to go above and beyond the call of duty to get useable source code, oh but it's called "late" and that makes them 10000000000000% in violation of the term "best efforts"

Since they are a contractor, you got it. All their options are to either request mediation or drop the contract and walk away. They did neither. So your right, Evert is Aren't you glad we have come to a common conclusion on this matter?

_________________
Dammy

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Yes, it's interesting how some people can quote one line and damn the other side by it but then other lines such as "Amiga Inc. shall provide ..." are cast off as meaningless because some people assume Olaf was an Amiga Inc. employee, which he was not...

I've seen noone here imply Olaf was an employee of Amiga Inc (Amino), everyone has completely understood he was an independent contractor who worked a deal with Hyperion. A deal before the Nov 3, 2001 deal, a deal he didnt receive any money for until 2006 and a deal that had Ben Hermans saying in early Nov 2001 that he had everything he needed to carry out the OS 4.0 effort. We all understand that AI didnt provide any source code, we also know from Olaf that they actually had source code however and could have provided it if that had been desired by Hyperion.

Quote:

So here we have: - one party that delivered hardware (albeit the incorrect hardware)

Quote:

- one party that didn't deliver all the money or original source code

In my book 40K is greater then 25K, so I think you should say they delivered too much money, and Ben Hermans publically said he didnt need the code from AI, so complaining that AI didnt give it to them after that is a little silly dont you think? Especially since we know that had the 3.1 code as Olaf was kind enough to point out.

Quote:

- and one party that delivered an OS, despite having buggy hardware and having to go above and beyond the call of duty to get useable source code, oh but it's called "late" and that makes them 10000000000000% in violation of the term "best efforts"

Yeah I agree Hyperion has been for a long time, but really cant agree with the rest, work was supposed to begin immediately on the Cyberstorm systems, in fact in Jan and Feb of 2002 according to Ben Hermans the OS was getting close to being done, they had negotiated a bunch of the contracts (including Olafs) before they signed the contract with AI, but instead the OS doesnt show up in 2002, its not for sale in 2003, instead in 2004 the first pre-release is shipped to people who have had boards for 6 months or more waiting for it. Years later we still dont have all the features that were promised in Annex I.

Quote:

...now, who is the judge supposed to side with?

AI wants to cancel the contract, there is lots of reasons for them to do it as they have shown (there are reasons for Hyperion to cancel it, they just dont want that to happen), the judge will let it happen, AI may well be owed all the money for the classic 4.0 currently being sold, plus penalties, etc.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 26-Feb-2008 at 01:25 PM.

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