@Darth_X

Quote:

Darth_X wrote: Quote: royleith wrote: AI took my $50 and gave me an unsolicited T-shirt and five years of empty and broken promises. I wish them an interesting and short life. And the community should have taken Amiga inc to court over that...!

We had a lawyer willing to do that, and I couldnt get a dozen people to sign up for a class action lawsuit about the coupons.

I love the newsletter its awesome!!!

I knew I probably wouldnt get anything for it, I just wanted to help Amiga!!!

And lots of even sillier things were sent and posted instead. Hyperion should just start a coupon scam now and I think they could sell several 100 very very easy.
-Tig

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

@Darth_X

Quote:

Darth_X wrote: If Amiga inc can find money for a $10 million sign on the side of an arena, money for lawyers... but no money to fly out to Hyperion's offices to view OS4 for themselves? Or even show up at Amiga trade shows where OS4 is being demoed?

Why do you think they should have gone to Hyperions offices to see OS4, and I know McEwen and Fleecy have both been to shows and seen OS 4 running, so I guess I want to know why they should have done the first, and tell you they have done the second.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Why do you think they should have gone to Hyperions offices to see OS4, and I know McEwen and Fleecy have both been to shows and seen OS 4 running

Shouldn't need to do even that.
They had 2 XEs.
Garry Hare did his irc interview on one of them.

#6

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

Hyperion will wiiin, hyperion will wiiiiin, hyperion will wiiiiiin :)

@Kicko

Quote:

Kicko wrote: Hyperion will wiiin, hyperion will wiiiiin, hyperion will wiiiiiin :)

:)

If you seriously think that, how do you think they are going to win the Itec case?
-Tig

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

@umisef

Quote:

In 2.05, it says "KMOS shall own the Work". The Definitions include "'Work' means the software development necessary in order for AmigaOS 4.0 to boot and operate on the Arctic for demonstration purposes as set out in Annex I hereof".

OK, you just sort of destroyed your own point. That clause clearly states that KMOS shall only get something "For demonstration purposes". Later on in the document it says:

2.01 Delivery. "Without prejudice to article 4.01 hereof, Hyperion shall deliver to KMOS an Object Code version of the Work upon first request by KMOS.

That's all KMOS gets from the contract, an object code version of AmigaOS4.0 booting on the Arctic device, which they may use only for demonstration purposes. Nowhere in the contract does it say that KMOS will get any IP or Source Code which arises from this work, and so not surprisingly, KMOS are not claiming any IP/Source Code based on the Arctic contract. In fact AInc's amended complaint no longer includes the Arctic contract, simply because it doesn't help them.

Last edited by COBRA on 21-Jan-2008 at 05:41 PM.

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: @umisef Quote: In 2.05, it says "KMOS shall own the Work". The Definitions include "'Work' means the software development necessary in order for AmigaOS 4.0 to boot and operate on the Arctic for demonstration purposes as set out in Annex I hereof". OK, you just sort of destroyed your own point. That clause clearly states that KMOS shall only get something "For demonstration purposes". Later on in the document it says: 2.01 Delivery. "Without prejudice to article 4.01 hereof, Hyperion shall deliver to KMOS an Object Code version of the Work upon first request by KMOS.

First of all 2.01 is earlier in the document then 2.05, secondly that isnt 2.01 that 2.04, and finally you section is called Delivery. Look at what section 2.05 is called

2.05 Ownership and Limited Use

I'm guessing 2.05 would be the one we should look at for who owns it, and it says quite clearly.

"Without prejudice to the rights of the third parties, KMOS shall own the Work upon payment in full of all invoices related to the Work."

from the definitions we have:

"Work" of "the Work" means the software development necessary in order to for OS 4.0 to boot and operate on the Arctic for demonstration purposes as set out in Annex I hereof.

Thats pretty clear. The rest of the section is just explaining that since Hyperion still owes the developers money (and they get royalties on each unit until paid in full) that they can only use this version of OS 4.0 code for demonstration. It doesnt take away there ownership rights as you seem to be implying. KMOS paid for the develoopment, KMOS owns what was written.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Stop thinking of Hyperion as this big company, its a 1 man VOF whose one man has to work elsewhere to make ends meet.

You seem to insist that Hyperion is a one man company, but from their website, it looks like Hyperion is: Evert Carton, Timothy De Groote, and James Sellman.

I wanted to compare with the composition of the actual Amiga Inc. (Delaware), but I cannot find that info anymore (I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere).

I also tried to get more accurate info about both companies from the administration databases, but without success (it's a hard job when you don't know where to search).

@Tigger

Quote:

I'm guessing 2.05 would be the one we should look at for who owns it

The question is not who owns "it", but rather what "it" is which is owned. Since the definition of "Work" does not include "Source code" or "IP related to the source code" and we know that the Source Code is not required for OS4 to boot and operate on the Arctic device, for that the Object Code is sufficient, and 2.04 clearly defines what KMOS will get as a deliverable, and that is the Object Code which they may use only for demonstration purposes.

To sum it up (again), all KMOS could ever get out of that contract as a deliverable is the object code of the changes required for OS4 to run on the arctic device, which they probably have already.

Last edited by COBRA on 21-Jan-2008 at 09:14 PM.

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote: @Tigger Quote: Stop thinking of Hyperion as this big company, its a 1 man VOF whose one man has to work elsewhere to make ends meet. You seem to insist that Hyperion is a one man company, but from their website, it looks like Hyperion is: Evert Carton, Timothy De Groote, and James Sellman.

Feel free to email the two gentlemen and ask about there status. Lets be honest what exactly does a sales manager and a US Liason do for a company thats software is distributed by someone else (ie Acube)?
-Tig

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

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: @Tigger Quote: I'm guessing 2.05 would be the one we should look at for who owns it The question is not who owns "it", but rather what "it" is which is owned. Since the definition of "Work" does not include "Source code" or "IP related to the source code" and we know that the Source Code is not required for OS4 to boot and operate on the Arctic device, for that the Object Code is sufficient, and 2.04 clearly defines what KMOS will get as a deliverable, and that is the Object Code which they may use only for demonstration purposes.

No, software development (which they own) does not mean object code and object code only.
-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: @AmigaPhil Quote: AmigaPhil wrote: You seem to insist that Hyperion is a one man company, but from their website, it looks like Hyperion is: Evert Carton, Timothy De Groote, and James Sellman. Feel free to email the two gentlemen and ask about there status. Lets be honest what exactly does a sales manager and a US Liason do for a company thats software is distributed by someone else (ie Acube)?

I don't think I will annoy them with such a question (I probably will if it turns to be a key in the understanding of the lawsuit between Amiga/Hyperion).

In the meantime, do you have any info as to who are the Amiga Inc (D) founders ?

@umisef

Quote:

Well, it *does* say quite clearly that Itec is not bound by the jurisdiction provision. Seeing as that was part of the 2001 contract, the judge seems to believe that the 2001 contract applies to Itec at best partially, but possibly not at all.

Maybe the jurdisdiction issue will bite on both sides.
See pdf no 72-2 page 38.

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

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Maybe the jurdisdiction issue will bite on both sides. See pdf no 72-2 page 38.

No, Itec is a NY company, Hyperion did business with them, NY is the place for a lawsuit to occur.
-Tig

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

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

Yeah. I wonder how well William A Kinsel (Hyperion's only lawyer) will do fighting on three case fronts at the same time.

Hide all of the money he makes as a result under his matress?

_________________
When swimming with sharks, make sure to bring lots of band-aids...

@Tigger

Quote:

You bought software that Hyperion likely doesnt have a license to sell, did you say "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight" while you did it?

Wait a minute - did you just call every single OS4 owner a pirate?

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Kicko Quote: Kicko wrote: Hyperion will wiiin, hyperion will wiiiiin, hyperion will wiiiiiin :) :) If you seriously think that, how do you think they are going to win the Itec case?

That's quiete easy:
The judge decides in their favour...

_________________
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:

No, software development (which they own) does not mean object code and object code only.

Well I know you like to add things to contracts which are not there but that doesn't change the fact that when you sign a contract and define in a clause what will be delivered to you, you will get just that, nothing more. Nowhere is there any mention in the contract of Source Code or IP relating to it, and it's clearly defined under the "Delivery" section that KMOS are getting Object Code and even that they're only allowed to use for demonstration purposes, so there's nothing to argue about here.

Last edited by COBRA on 22-Jan-2008 at 06:35 AM.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Hmmm - let me think - I bought an OS that Hyperion delivered (OS4 for classic). You bought software that Hyperion likely doesnt have a license to sell,

In the contract I read they have that license - so your point being?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: did you say "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight" while you did it?

??????
What "Pieces of Eight"? After Eight?
??????


Quote:

Tigger wrote: ...you have much lower standards then I do.

Of course - yours is much bigger than mine...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Why did it take AInc so long to notice it? Didn't they fulfil their contractual obligation for inspection? The contract states: "2.02 Timeline. Hyperion shall use best efforts to ensure that Amiga OS 4.0 is ready for release before march 1, 2002. ... 2.04 Records and Inspection. During the term of this Agreement, the AmigaOne Partners shall deliver to Amiga bi-monthly reports within thirty (30) after the end of ..." You apparently don't understand that those inspections are to check sales vs royalties paid, they have nothing to do with seeing how Hyperion is doing on getting the software done.

I understand very well that if after June 1, 2002, no sales report arrived at AInc, their alarm bell should have rung and they should have become active - so in my book it's solely AIncs fault that OS4 is that late - they had it in their own hands to accelerate things...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: And AI has been asking for the software for years as we have seen from the court documents.

Haven't seen it there - could you please point me to?

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Which just proves our point, AI did as much (actually more) for OS 4.0 then Hyperion did.

Yes - those criminals actually did more:
They took 50 Euros from me and gave nothing in return up to now...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Stop thinking of Hyperion as this big company, its a 1 man VOF whose one man has to work elsewhere to make ends meet.

Never thought that way...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Again, since no Royalties have been paid from Hyperion to AI, there is no reason for an inspection by AI of Hyperions books, what exactly got you off on this tangent that makes you think the inspection clause has something to do with Code?

Exactly this is the reason why AInc should have become active in June 2002.
They set a timeline in § 2.02 of the 2001 contract and in 2.04 they secured the right for inspection of the AmigaOne Partner's books.

Wouldn't you agree that such a secured right only makes sense, if you execute it in case no money arrives?

And if - as you stated - Hyperion waived their claimes by waiting too long, its only fair to say Ainc waived their rights as well by the same reason.

_________________
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:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: did you say "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight" while you did it? ?????? What "Pieces of Eight"? After Eight? ??????

"Pieces of eight" is a common phrase attributed to pirates (the kind with peglegs and parrots). Basically, Tigger is alleging that Hyperion were behaving like Jack Sparrow by selling OS4 Classic.

edits: fixed a typo, and added the links, and stuff

Last edited by NomadOfNorad on 22-Jan-2008 at 07:59 AM.
Last edited by NomadOfNorad on 22-Jan-2008 at 07:56 AM.
Last edited by NomadOfNorad on 22-Jan-2008 at 07:54 AM.

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator