@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @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.

YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation.

The only thing that matter is the contract.

Quote:

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.

Your logic is correct in that 40K is greater than 25K. You ignore prior invoices and they fact that both parties agreed that they were short. Bad bookkeeping on both sides doesn't make the issue favor either party except that Amiga Inc. admits they were short. Throw the 40K number around all you want, it's useless.

Quote:

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. .. 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

Years later KMOS thinks they can cancel a contract that they admit aren't a party to, that they agreed to honor but didn't fulfill the obligations that they agreed to honor.
In attempting to damage Hyperion, now Hyperion makes counterclaims. So now Hyperions has officially stated their side. Until KMOS tried to damage Hyperion, there was no great need for this.

We know these contract problems have been going on since as late as early 2004. This lawsuit is about Hyperion not giving into Amiga's ridiculous demands when negotiating a new contract.

It's been a 2+ year wait & see.
Evert has a day job, as do the developers, so they could have waited the longest. KMOS can only bleed for so long and Penti finally got frustrated.

I don't blame him, but I don't see him as having intimate knowledge of all of Amino/KMOS's dealings, otherwise he probably would have resolved this with cold, hard cash a long time ago. Perhaps this lawsuit will be a reality-slap.

@Lou

Quote:

YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation. The only thing that matter is the contract.

Which means what to you, Lou?

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @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?

I made a post about this sometime back. I am sick of regurgitating posts.

As for the rest of your post, refer to the one above this one.

Hearsay and speculation will not be entered as evidence in court.
Here's how it will go down:
-judge determines who owns the contract
-judge defines who is a party to the contract
-judge determines the rights granted by the contract
-judge determines who fulfilled their obligations
-judge makes a decision

Now the key word there is "judge". It's not: Lou, Tigger, Dammy, umisef, Dandy, etc...
Good day.

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation. The only thing that matter is the contract. Which means what to you, Lou?

LOL, look in the mirror.
What does OS4 dying mean to you? It means AROS bounties suddenly go through the roof.
I actually have no vested interest either way. I make my living as a VB.Net programmer. I am looking at this logically.

I will tell you that I spent my $100 on that useless Party Pack though...and that does #### me off. Yes, I know that KMOS is not legally oblidged to give me a copy of OS4, but do I feel they are morally oblidged to do so? Yes. And I know you will tell me that that will only happen when they own it...I'd much rather just get my money back at this point and throw it to an AROS-on-Wii bounty.

Last edited by Lou on 26-Feb-2008 at 02:20 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Years later KMOS thinks they can cancel a contract that they admit aren't a party to, that they agreed to honor but didn't fulfill the obligations that they agreed to honor.

Except your forgetting KMOS wasn't there for the initial contract so wether Hyperion got AOS source code from AI-WA or Olaf is not relevant. Had Hyperion cancelled the project with AI-WA because of the lack of AOS source code, now that would be relevant. Hyperion is a contractor to Amiga Inc (orginally AI-WA now AI-DE), they have two options, either go to mediation on a solution or drop the contract and walk away. They did neither so now Evert has painted himself into the corner and is whining about it as he owes probably in the seven figures to the Devs. I find it rather interesting that you are more then willing to give a pass on this level of incompetence by Evert/Ben.

_________________
Dammy

@Lou

Quote:

@damocles Quote: damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation. The only thing that matter is the contract. Which means what to you, Lou? LOL, look in the mirror. What does OS4 dying mean to you? It means AROS bounties suddenly go through the roof. I actually have no vested interest either way. I make my living as a VB.Net programmer. I am looking at this logically. I will tell you that I spent my $100 on that useless Party Pack though...and that does #### me off. Yes, I know that KMOS is not legally oblidged to give me a copy of OS4, but do I feel they are morally oblidged to do so? Yes. And I know you will tell me that that will only happen when they own it...I'd much rather just get my money back at this point and throw it to an AROS-on-Wii bounty.

That's fine and dandy, but your reply is not answering my question. What does it mean to you that AI-WA did not give the source code to Hyperion?

As far as AI is concerned, do a google of me using the "Billed and Fleeced" label on Moo for the past, oh, six or seven years. I have zero love for those people and I was more then likely flamed on AWN for my views of AI over the many years. The only thing I can remotely see of interest maybe AA2 although they have botched everything they have touched.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: @damocles Quote: damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation. The only thing that matter is the contract. Which means what to you, Lou? LOL, look in the mirror. What does OS4 dying mean to you? It means AROS bounties suddenly go through the roof. I actually have no vested interest either way. I make my living as a VB.Net programmer. I am looking at this logically. I will tell you that I spent my $100 on that useless Party Pack though...and that does #### me off. Yes, I know that KMOS is not legally oblidged to give me a copy of OS4, but do I feel they are morally oblidged to do so? Yes. And I know you will tell me that that will only happen when they own it...I'd much rather just get my money back at this point and throw it to an AROS-on-Wii bounty. That's fine and dandy, but your reply is not answering my question. What does it mean to you that AI-WA did not give the source code to Hyperion? As far as AI is concerned, do a google of me using the "Billed and Fleeced" label on Moo for the past, oh, six or seven years. I have zero love for those people and I was more then likely flamed on AWN for my views of AI over the many years. The only thing I can remotely see of interest maybe AA2 although they have botched everything they have touched.

Your original question wasn't very clear.
As to an answer, it means that one party did not meet their obligations and that their would-be successor is trying to acquire something without living up to it's end of the deal that it agreed to honor.

Let me re-iterate that what WE think mean nothing and what the judge thinks means everything.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation. The only thing that matter is the contract.

No, I have implied that Ben's interview in a magazine, and subsequent inaction in requesting the source and/or cancelling the contract makes it a non-issue at this time due to laches, I am correct on that matter. The only evidence I have used that is not part of the court record is Ben's interview above, everything else is an exhibit in the Amiga vs Hyperion court case, so is legally part of the case.

Quote:

Your logic is correct in that 40K is greater than 25K. You ignore prior invoices and they fact that both parties agreed that they were short. Bad bookkeeping on both sides doesn't make the issue favor either party except that Amiga Inc. admits they were short. Throw the 40K number around all you want, it's useless.

AI doesnt admit they were short, they admit they didnt pay $25K in 2003, they have been adamant since the very first document that they at this point have paid over $40K towards the $25K purchase price. Bad bookkeeping (ie a receipt for the wrong amount) hurts Hyperions case, and simple interest would account for the missing $250, of course we have another over $15K in payments in 2006, and another $25K check in 2007, so they didnt pay us really isnt a good argument.


Quote:

I don't blame him, but I don't see him as having intimate knowledge of all of Amino/KMOS's dealings, otherwise he probably would have resolved this with cold, hard cash a long time ago. Perhaps this lawsuit will be a reality-slap.

Oh its going to be a reality slap, but not for Kouri or KMOS. Then the developers will start negotiating with someone who actually could pay them and hopefully it will go forward from there.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 26-Feb-2008 at 04:33 PM.

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

@Lou

I am looking for point at which to jump back in to the debate. .

how about the Implications of pdf no 81 Page 3. Lines 26-27 to page 4 lines 1-6. ?

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Your original question wasn't very clear. As to an answer, it means that one party did not meet their obligations and that their would-be successor is trying to acquire something without living up to it's end of the deal that it agreed to honor.

Both parties missed parts of there obligations, the problem is that KMOS is cancelling the contract over that (as Hyperion could have done) and that means that Hyperion cant use there Trademarks, copyrights etc. In addition, Itec is asking for there contract to be inforced in New York, we have ample proof that they have received over $25K in payments, they in fact were sent a $25K check in 2007 over the arguement of whether they had been paid or not, and still they dont have the software. It will be very hard for Itec to lose there case in New York, and once they win, the domino effect will be pretty severe for Hyperion.

Quote:

Let me re-iterate that what WE think mean nothing and what the judge thinks means everything.

What the law says matters, the judge is going to decide the winner by using the law, the law favors KMOS on virutally all points, and it favors Itec even more in New York.
-Tig

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Lou I am looking for point at which to jump back in to the debate. . how about the Implications of pdf no 81 Page 3. Lines 26-27 to page 4 lines 1-6. ?

You're kidding right? Referencing page #s is good as part of a discussion, but:
1. You didn't state ANY opinion on it either way. What do you think the implications ARE then?
2. You didn't summarize nor paste any of the content from referenced pages.

*shrug* Were I actually involved in this convo, I'd likely just ignore the post in entirety..

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Lou I am looking for point at which to jump back in to the debate. . how about the Implications of pdf no 81 Page 3. Lines 26-27 to page 4 lines 1-6. ?

Discussed already alot. I have even pointed out the agreement. Hyperion recent straw grabbing is actually more interesting, the first trial result now is going to be the Trademark case, after that loss there and in New York the entire Washington case is pretty much a wash (both of them). I really would love to be a fly on the wall during the current arbitration between Amino and Hyperion.
-Tig

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

@wegster


What I was wondering was if OS4.0 was not done in early 2004 and the 2001 agreement was abandoned, what was the time frame in the new 2004 arrangement to complete it by ??

Last edited by Spectre660 on 26-Feb-2008 at 05:19 PM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation.

Of course Amiga Inc. had to fulfill their end of the deal, what part are you saying Amiga Inc. didn't fulfill? You're not repeating the already debunked argument that they didn't deliver the neccessary source code, are you? Hyperion got the neccessary source code, period. Otherwise AmigaOS4 would have never come to exist, now would it? With this in mind, it would be impossible for Amiga Inc. to comply with their obligation to provide "the neccessary source code" any more than they did.

That Hyperion got it from Olaf and without Amiga Inc.'s help is irrelevant. A party of an agreement can't make the other party in violation of the agreement by fulfilling the other party's obligations themselves. Otherwise one could make use of it to frame the other party, now couldn't you?

Quote:

The only thing that matter is the contract.

Yet you don't refrain from speaking about moral obligations. Oh well...

Quote:

Quote: 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. Your logic is correct in that 40K is greater than 25K. You ignore prior invoices and they fact that both parties agreed that they were short. Bad bookkeeping on both sides doesn't make the issue favor either party except that Amiga Inc. admits they were short. Throw the 40K number around all you want, it's useless.

This argument has also been thrown about enough. Bottom line is, either Hyperion owe Amiga Inc. the source code Amiga Inc. payed for or they owe the money they recieved including interest. The payment was made years ago and if they didn't accept it as payment for AmigaOS4, they shouldn't have kept the money. They can't have the cookie and eat it at the same time.

The clerical error causing the missing 1% of the payment that they agreed upon is a non-issue. If Hyperion didn't accept it as a full payment because of the missing 1% they should have made Amiga Inc. aware of it so they would atleast have a chance to remedy the clerical error and then give Amiga Inc. their money back in case Amiga Inc. would still fail to pay the full amount in due time. No such course of action was taken. Instead, they simply kept the money and even acknowledged to Amiga Inc. that they had recieved the payment in full. That makes the clerical error just as much theirs.

So, it has become clear by their own acknowledment of the payment that they knew very well who made the payments and what the payments was for. To keep the money through this whole time while at the same time withholding what the payment was for is sure to be considered dubious by the court to say the least.

Quote:

Years later KMOS thinks they can cancel a contract that they admit aren't a party to, that they agreed to honor but didn't fulfill the obligations that they agreed to honor.

Well, in a given situation of where they are not a party to the contract, it's quite hard to impose any terms of it on them. Simple logic, really.

As a non-party to the agreement, KMOS ability to cancel the contract depends on wether they are succeeding owners of the related intellectual properties with the same rights as the original owners or not. This means that Hyperion must show that the ownership of the related intellectual properties would somehow not been legally transfered to KMOS in addition to showing that they've fulfilled their obligations in order to prevent the contract from being canceled.

Quote:

In attempting to damage Hyperion, now Hyperion makes counterclaims. So now Hyperions has officially stated their side. Until KMOS tried to damage Hyperion, there was no great need for this.

KMOS doesn't want to damage Hyperion, they just want what they think is legally theirs.

Quote:

We know these contract problems have been going on since as late as early 2004. This lawsuit is about Hyperion not giving into Amiga's ridiculous demands when negotiating a new contract.

And their "ridicoulus demands" you are refering to would be?

Quote:

It's been a 2+ year wait & see. Evert has a day job, as do the developers, so they could have waited the longest. KMOS can only bleed for so long and Penti finally got frustrated. I don't blame him, but I don't see him as having intimate knowledge of all of Amino/KMOS's dealings, otherwise he probably would have resolved this with cold, hard cash a long time ago. Perhaps this lawsuit will be a reality-slap.

From the documents that has been presented to the court and still as of today uncontested by Hyperion, we learn that Amiga Inc. was willing to give $2 million for AmigaOS4. Now it seems more likely that they won't get a dime more than that $40K which probably won't cover their legal fees. If the Frieden brothers win their lawsuit against Hyperion too, they'll find themselves in a really big soup of problems. Agreed, that's quite a reality slap.

Last edited by samface on 26-Feb-2008 at 05:37 PM.
Last edited by samface on 26-Feb-2008 at 05:21 PM.
Last edited by samface on 26-Feb-2008 at 05:20 PM.

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

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

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @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?

Actually:

- one party that delivered hardware (albeit the incorrect and defective hardware and denied the hardware being defective

- one party that didn't deliver all the money or original source code didn't pay rent or employees or honor contracts with other companies and generally lied to the customer base

- and one party that delivered an OS wait they still have not delivered oh you mean they delivered to A1 owners but I am sure the contract speaks of delivering to AInc (even mentions best efforts to secure.... of course you know all this)

So they all are a bunch of scoundrels and I still think Hyperion's actions show them to have benn trying for an ip grab for a long time. The developers suing BOTH AInc and Hyperion may not share your high view of Hyperion. They still have not paid those that were supposed to be paid at the finish of OS4. Either Hyperion is AInc type crooked or OS4 is not finished. Your choice

@stew

Who are the devloper that are suing Hyperion?

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

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @Tigger YOU have greatly implied that Hyperion getting the source from Olaf means Amiga Inc. didn't have to fulfill their end of the deal. Infact, alot of your "evidence" are from "forum posts" which are not legally binding and haven't been introduced as evidence to the case because the judge would consider them hersay and speculation. Of course Amiga Inc. had to fulfill their end of the deal, what part are you saying Amiga Inc. didn't fulfill? You're not repeating the already debunked argument that they didn't deliver the neccessary source code, are you? Hyperion got the neccessary source code, period. Otherwise AmigaOS4 would have never come to exist, now would it? With this in mind, it would be impossible for Amiga Inc. to comply with their obligation to provide "the neccessary source code" any more than they did. That Hyperion got it from Olaf and without Amiga Inc.'s help is irrelevant. A party of an agreement can't make the other party in violation of the agreement by fulfilling the other party's obligations themselves. Otherwise one could make use of it to frame the other party, now couldn't you?

So I sign a deal with you to shine my shoe... Someone else shines my shoe. So now you don't have to shine my shoe? No, we had a deal, now shine my shoe.

Quote:

Quote: The only thing that matter is the contract. Yet you don't refrain from speaking about moral obligations. Oh well...

Oh well indeed Mr. Nitpicker who blaringly makes an out of context statement.
Moral obligations are my own feelings when asked how it affects me, has nothing to do with the contract.

Quote:

This argument has also been thrown about enough. Bottom line is, either Hyperion owe Amiga Inc. the source code Amiga Inc. payed for or they owe the money they recieved including interest. The payment was made years ago and if they didn't accept it as payment for AmigaOS4, they shouldn't have kept the money. They can't have the cookie and eat it at the same time. The clerical error causing the missing 1% of the payment that they agreed upon is a non-issue. If Hyperion didn't accept it as a full payment because of the missing 1% they should have made Amiga Inc. aware of it so they would atleast have a chance to remedy the clerical error and then give Amiga Inc. their money back in case Amiga Inc. would still fail to pay the full amount in due time. No such course of action was taken. Instead, they simply kept the money and even acknowledged to Amiga Inc. that they had recieved the payment in full. That makes the clerical error just as much theirs. So, it has become clear by their own acknowledment of the payment that they knew very well who made the payments and what the payments was for. To keep the money through this whole time while at the same time withholding what the payment was for is sure to be considered dubious by the court to say the least.

I don't care what you think of a 1% underpayment. What matters is what the judge thinks of it.

Quote:

Quote: Years later KMOS thinks they can cancel a contract that they admit aren't a party to, that they agreed to honor but didn't fulfill the obligations that they agreed to honor. Well, in a given situation of where they are not a party to the contract, it's quite hard to impose any terms of it on them. Simple logic, really. As a non-party to the agreement, KMOS ability to cancel the contract depends on wether they are succeeding owners of the related intellectual properties with the same rights as the original owners or not. This means that Hyperion must show that the ownership of the related intellectual properties would somehow not been legally transfered to KMOS in addition to showing that they've fulfilled their obligations in order to prevent the contract from being canceled. Quote: In attempting to damage Hyperion, now Hyperion makes counterclaims. So now Hyperions has officially stated their side. Until KMOS tried to damage Hyperion, there was no great need for this. KMOS doesn't want to damage Hyperion, they just want what they think is legally theirs.

Rather than speculate, I am willing to just wait to hear what the judge decides.

Quote:

Quote: We know these contract problems have been going on since as late as early 2004. This lawsuit is about Hyperion not giving into Amiga's ridiculous demands when negotiating a new contract. And their "ridicoulus demands" you are refering to would be?

Oh, I don't know - paying $25,000 for an OS that cost them (per Hyperion's claims) over a million dollars to develop due to obligations not being met by both Amiga Inc. and Eyetech.

Quote:

It's been a 2+ year wait & see. Evert has a day job, as do the developers, so they could have waited the longest. KMOS can only bleed for so long and Penti finally got frustrated. I don't blame him, but I don't see him as having intimate knowledge of all of Amino/KMOS's dealings, otherwise he probably would have resolved this with cold, hard cash a long time ago. Perhaps this lawsuit will be a reality-slap.

Quote:

From the documents that has been presented to the court and still as of today uncontested by Hyperion, we learn that Amiga Inc. was willing to give $2 million for AmigaOS4. Now it seems more likely that they won't get a dime more than that $40K which probably won't cover their legal fees. If the Frieden brothers win their lawsuit against Hyperion too, they'll find themselves in a really big soup of problems. Agreed, that's quite a reality slap.

Again, I'm willing to wait and see. Saying in an email that you are offering $2,000,000 and having legal documents that specify "Upon receipt of $2,000,000..." are two entirely different matters, especially when that email comes from the fingers of Bill McEwen... :cough:Kent Center:cough:....

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @stew Who are the devloper that are suing Hyperion?

Propaganda.

The Friendens and another, name escapes me, are suing KMOS and Hyperion. This is simply to make sure that ExecSG and other parts of OS4 are not haphazzardly handed over to Amiga Inc. per this lawsuit as it represents their own individual work.

In otherwords, no payment by "somebody" or "anybody" = no sourcecode. Which is why even if KMOS wins this lawsuit, all they retain is their IP unless those developers get paid. This is why I said in another similar thread - an Amiga win is still and Amiga loss.

Here is the difference:
1) Amiga wins, OS4 will not be able to be ported to any other platform because they will not have the source code without coughing up a good deal of cash..which is what they historically have a problem with - coughing up cash.
2) If Hyperion wins, OS4 can get ported to other platforms and profits used to pay developers per their contracts with Hyperion. It's kinda tough to make money as a developer when your target market is limited to less than 3000 pieces of hardware.

Last edited by Lou on 26-Feb-2008 at 06:15 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

The Friendens and another, name escapes me, are suing KMOS and Hyperion.

His name is Andrea Vallinotto.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @NutsAboutAmiga Quote: NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @stew Who are the devloper that are suing Hyperion? Propaganda. The Friendens and another, name escapes me, are suing KMOS and Hyperion. This is simply to make sure that ExecSG and other parts of OS4 are not haphazzardly handed over to Amiga Inc. per this lawsuit as it represents their own individual work.

According to Rogue (here), they are not suing Hyperion at all.

IIRC, the three developers are asking for a declarative judgement that ExecSG, and other parts of the system belong to them, not Hyperion or Amiga Inc. It's a preemptive action that they could use in future, if necessary. Essentially, if Amiga Inc. come demanding the source, they can hold up a legal declaration that states that they are not entitled to it. That is not the same as suing for damages.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.