@number6

Well, I have learnt to take Thomas' words with a grain of salt, it would be much better to see a statement from Caldi himself. Also - where does H&P fit into this, didn't they also "own" Reaction at some point?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Quote:

where does H&P fit into this, didn't they also "own" Reaction at some point?

No, until the acquisition of the class set by Hyperion, ReAction had merely been licensed.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@thread

New filing.

Author of crucial definition in 2009 Amiga-Hyperion Settlement Agreement takes stand for Amiga Parties

#6

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

@number6

Interesting follow-up on the status of Ben Hermans:

Amiga Documents

@ne_one

Before this rumor gets out of hand, please read:

Source

#6

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

@number6

Experienced lawyer joins the new firm of a newly bared lawyer from his old firm Funding her startup firm maybe Seems a bit odd he'd leave his firm, willing or not, to not start his own firm but going a brand new firm started by a young lawyer from his former employer

_________________

@number6

I'm not sure that the explanation will eliminate speculation.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

And Belgium apparently as well.

@Argo

Quote:

Seems a bit odd he'd leave his firm, willing or not, to not start his own firm but going a brand new firm started by a young lawyer from his former employer

To me this makes perfect sense. A highly competent lawyer teams up with a promising high-flyer because two heads are better than one. Hope this version sounds more politically correct

Last edited by Trixie on 17-Jun-2019 at 08:14 PM.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@number6

Usual scam.
Paul C Clements did not work on the 2009 agreement.
Paul C Clements is also not the author of the definition of "software architecture".
Paul Clements also has no experience with operating systems without memory protection.
The Paul C Clements analysis is based on the fact that "Software architecture is separate from a system's functionality".
Which is true for systems with memory protection, but not for amiga os where the entire system internal structures are available to the developer.
In short Paul C Clements mislead Amiga os with operating systems from next era, made after commodore bankruptcy where memory protection where popular.
Which makes Paul C Clements whole analysis worthless.

@ppcamiga1

Amiga Inc et al seem to be trying to rewrite the original court ruling.

Quote:

Which makes Paul C Clements whole analysis worthless.

Yep, it has so many errors of fact that any good barrister ought to be able to have his "expert opinion" dismissed.

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php

@Trixie

Careful trixie you just 'libeled' a lawyer! And come to think of it your were quite condecending and sexist about the partner.

Haven't quoted you so you can edit your comment....

Last edited by broadblues on 17-Jun-2019 at 12:10 PM.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

Yawn yawn yawn how long can they really drag this crap out for...…..BBC should buy the rights would make a great soap opera LOL

_________________
A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr
Elbox empty Power Tower
RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC
Wii with Amiga emulation
Vampire v4 SA

@ne_one

Quote:

I'm not sure that the explanation will eliminate speculation. Something is rotten in Denmark. And Belgium apparently as well.

Thanks for the humor. I needed a laugh this morning and I couldn't agree with you more!

@broadblues

Yes, I perhaps wasn't being the nicest. Still, I believe scamming people through legal tricks is comparably worse than making a negative comment in a forum.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

Paul C Clements did not work on the 2009 agreement.

That is irrelevant. It was the 2009 agreement that cited Paul Clements' work and his definition of "software architecture".

Quote:

Paul C Clements is also not the author of the definition of "software architecture".

Yes he is (as cited by the 2009 agreement).

Quote:

Paul Clements also has no experience with operating systems without memory protection.

Not relevant, as his report does not address this layer.

Quote:

The Paul C Clements analysis is based on the fact that "Software architecture is separate from a system's functionality".

No it does not. His report has a focus on "software architecture", and how this relates to the settlement agreement and to the documentation texts. Paul Clements does not even attempt to analyze the Amiga OS itself. Nor, in my understanding, would it make any difference whether the OS had memory protection or not (by definition, the public structures and APIs as documented would be available to the developer either way).

Quote:

Which makes Paul C Clements whole analysis worthless.

It seems to me that you have not read or understood it. Which is not surprising, as Clements' book, as cited in the settlement agreement, is used in master's in software engineering courses.

I too would have liked to read an expert report provided by Hyperion, but they chose not to file one by the June 12 deadline.

@aria

Quote:

I too would have liked to read an expert report provided by Hyperion, but they chose not to file one by the June 12 deadline.

I note that item 71 is shown for that very same date:
Quote:

Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time and Proposed Order

Is that referring to an expert report response?

#6

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

@aria

Nevermind.

It's the pushback in the dates concerning the 1st trial, previously listed for December of this year.

Quote:

ORDER granting71 Motion to Extend Trial Date and Related Deadlines. Jury Trial is CONTINUED to 4/13/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Discovery Motions due by 11/8/2019, Discovery completed by 12/10/2019, Dispositive motions due by 1/8/2020, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 2/21/2020, Motions in Limine due by 3/11/2020, Agreed Pretrial Order due by 3/26/2020, Voir dire/jury instructions/trial briefs due by 4/2/2020.

Source item 73

#6

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

@aria

Quote:

2009 agreement that cited Paul Clements' work and his definition of "software architecture".

2009 agreement did not cited Paul C Clement s' work.

Paul C Clements is not the author of the definition of "software architecture".


Quote:

Not relevant, as his report does not address this layer.

Quote:

His report has a focus on "software architecture", and how this relates to the settlement agreement

You're contradicting Yourself.

Quote:

It seems to me that you have not read or understood it.

In Your opinion everyone who do not agree with crappy work of Paul C Clement do not understood it


Quote:

Clements' book, as cited in the settlement agreement, is used in master's in software engineering courses.

Clements' book is not cited in the settlement agreement and is not used in master's in software engineering courses.

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

2009 agreement did not cited Paul C Clement s' work.

Correct. It failed to cite Clements's work, despite including Clements's words (almost) verbatim.

Quote:

Paul C Clements is not the author of the definition of "software architecture".

Again, correct. Clements is the author of a definition of "software architecture", not the definition.
However, he is the author of the definition included in the 2009 agreement. So when determining what the definition used in the 2009 agreement does or does not mean, he is the most qualified person to provide an expert opinion.

Quote:

In Your opinion everyone who do not agree with crappy work of Paul C Clement do not understood it

Whether you, I, or aria agree with Clements is irrelevant. However, the simple fact that the author of the 2009 settlement agreement chose to include Clements's definition, lifted (almost) verbatim from his books, in said agreement means that Clements's views on software architecture, as expressed in those books, are the ones relevant to interpreting the agreement's intended meaning.

What the Amiga parties are saying is "here is how we understood the terms of the agreement when we entered into it 10 years ago. And here is an expert in the field --- in fact, the very expert who wrote the very books providing the definition used in the agreement --- who states that that interpretation is reasonable".
So Hyperion can either argue that that was the intended understanding in 2009, or Hyperion can argue that they had a different understanding of the terms. In the former case, the agreement has to be interpreted on those terms. In the latter case, there clear was no agreement, no meeting of minds. Thus, it is up to the court to determine which interpretation is reasonable --- and with the Amiga parties having provided not just an expert, but arguably the expert on the definition included in the settlement agreement, and Hyperion having provided zip, nada, nothing... well, if you were in their shoes, how would you decide?

Quote:

Clements' book is not cited in the settlement agreement and is not used in master's in software engineering courses.

Again, the definition was lifted from his books, even if the agreement's author fails to properly cite their source.

Also, 2 minutes on Google turns up this page from Eindhoven University of Technology. Similarly, section 1.1 of this paper clearly indicates that you are factually wrong in the second half of your sentence.

@umisef

Quote:

including Clements's words (almost) verbatim.

Quote:

Clements is the author of a definition of "software architecture"

2009 agreement do not contains Paul C Clements's words (almost) verbatim.
Definition of software architecture in 2009 agreement is very basis and in form which is used in 2009 agreement was in common use many years before Paul C Clements wrote his first book of software architecture in 1998.

Quote:

So when determining what the definition used in the 2009 agreement does or does not mean, he is the most qualified person to provide an expert opinion.

Paul C Clements is not most qualified person to provide an expert opinion.
Paul C Clements is one of many authors of books about software architecture.
software architecture was in master's in software engineering courses many years before Paul C Clements wrote in 1998 his first book.

Quote:

In the former case, the agreement has to be interpreted on those terms. In the latter case, there clear was no agreement, no meeting of minds.

Or software architecture definition in 2009 agreement was based on common knowledge and not on Paul C Clements's works.

Quote:

wrong in the second half of your sentence.

Paul C Clements's is one of many authors of books about software architecture.
You found his books only used in one master's in software engineering course.
Its is proof that Paul C Clements is irrelevant.