Poster | Thread |
kolla
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 9-Jan-2025 16:23:01
| | [ #421 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 20-Aug-2003 Posts: 3357
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @ppcamiga1
He did already. _________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
agami
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 9-Jan-2025 23:08:35
| | [ #422 ] |
|
|
 |
Super Member  |
Joined: 30-Jun-2008 Posts: 1898
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 23-Jan-2025 19:28:21
| | [ #423 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
kamelito
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 23-Jan-2025 22:27:59
| | [ #424 ] |
|
|
 |
Cult Member  |
Joined: 26-Jul-2004 Posts: 836
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Who is the “general assembly” |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Matt3k
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 23-Jan-2025 22:47:41
| | [ #425 ] |
|
|
 |
Regular Member  |
Joined: 28-Feb-2004 Posts: 264
From: NY | | |
|
| This would have been interesting in 2005 perhaps and earlier to me anyways.
Now not so much... Last edited by Matt3k on 23-Jan-2025 at 11:05 PM. Last edited by Matt3k on 23-Jan-2025 at 10:52 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 23-Jan-2025 22:55:15
| | [ #426 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| @kamelito
General assembly just means general meeting. It does not define entities with such a group name. However, the english translation at Amiganews might be a bit more clear.
"at a general assembly"
Obviously this involved the court and the shareholders. That could mean "some" or "all" of the shareholders since that is not stated clearly.
The latter lines about Ben's BV should indicate he was not involved in this meeting, since it clearly states the status of the shares in Hyperion at that time.
I'm only saying "at that time" due to the fact that we have no legal document from the court giving any additional clarity or "finality" to what has been posted. clear?
Added:
This statement by Hyperion is partially based on what we posted: court document OCR'd and translated
Although the decision is mentioned to be "unanimous" that doesn't mean they all were present at the general meeting referred to.
As you can plainly see, this court document contains considerably more information than the recent PR.
#6 Last edited by number6 on 23-Jan-2025 at 11:23 PM.
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kamelito
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 24-Jan-2025 13:46:50
| | [ #427 ] |
|
|
 |
Cult Member  |
Joined: 26-Jul-2004 Posts: 836
From: Unknown | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 24-Jan-2025 20:46:41
| | [ #428 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| @Individual currently handling the Hyperion Entertainment website
From the PR:
Quote:
The general assembly also instructed the new directors |
Please note the plural, pointed out also by AmigaNews.
Yet above as the subject of this PR:
Quote:
appointed Timothy De Groote as the company’s new director. |
Singular. So is this a typo or did you mean to state you had multiple directors?
#6
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
matthey
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 24-Jan-2025 20:59:54
| | [ #429 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 14-Mar-2007 Posts: 2456
From: Kansas | | |
|
| #6 Quote:
Comment #5 by Neb puts the news in perspective.
Google translation of Neb Quote:
By not mentioning that Ben Hermans has filed an appeal, Hyperion Entertainment without Ben Hermans shows that it is the same dishonest predator it was with Ben Hermans.
Nothing mentioned in this article will be final until the hearing takes place in two months. Doesn't the Amiga community deserve to know this?
Even after this, the courts can still declare Hyperion Entertainment bankrupt.
As of today (after more than a month under new management!), the company still has not filed its overdue 2022 and 2023 financial statements. Why?
There's probably a good reason why Bart De Moor is still listed as a court-appointed administrator:
https://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?lang=de&ondernemingsnummer=466380552
|
The announcements and news are Hyperion moving ahead with confidence that the Ben Era is over but may not be final. The Hyperion announcements seem perhaps deliberately vague to me. They create more questions than give answers.
https://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php/news Quote:
The general assembly also instructed the new directors to prioritize consolidating the company’s financial situation and restarting development of AmigaOS.
|
What does "consolidating the company’s financial situation" entail? Does that mean shearing up the financial situation? How is that accomplished with Hyperion Entertainment on the verge of bankruptcy only saved by all shareholders agreeing not to declare bankruptcy? Would Ben as director not have exhausted all legal financial remedies, perhaps even desperately resorting to illegal ones? How can Hyperion continue without a new financier willing to take on non-investment grade risk in a business with a broken business model, debt levels at the brink of insolvency and the most profitable product, 68k AmigaOS, resulting from not paying developers with the profits potentially lost in a lawsuit that is also a major drain on finances? Perhaps one such investor exists that is willing to throw good money after bad due to past Amiga bad investments and contracts creating a dependency on Hyperion? Would any other investors also prioritize "restarting development of AmigaOS" for an AmigaOS they do not own and depends on externally owned Amiga IP without an agreement with the IP owners who are suing them? Would a better way for Hyperion to improve their financial situation be to prioritize settling with the Amiga IP owner and/or selling/delivering all of the AmigaOS related software and returning to focusing on game licensing and porting? Should selling out or merging the business with a white knight business not be considered in the best interest of the shareholders? Is the non-specification of 68k or PPC AmigaOS development cover for restarting PPC AmigaOS development after Ben had practically stopped it due to it being unprofitable or to continue with 68k AmigaOS development seemingly with impunity in the face of the lawsuits?
https://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php/news Quote:
The general assembly followed the bankruptcy of Hyperion Entertainment’s largest shareholder, Ben Hermans BV, which, under Belgian law, resulted in the annulment of its shares.
|
This seems strange and unprofessional for a business to make an announcement about a shareholder's holdings that "resulted in the annulment of its shares" as there are privacy concerns. The announcement may be deceptively worded to make it look like Ben's Hyperion Entertainment shares were "annulled" when the Ben Hermans BV shares were annulled and the Hyperion Entertainment shares were sold by the bankruptcy administrator to pay debts. The info helps explain why Ben was removed as Hyperion Entertainment director but it would have been easier to say simply that Ben was removed as a director or with more detail that Ben was no longer a director due to no longer owning stock in Hyperion Entertainment. At the same time, there is no explanation of the current shareholder situation after an ~97% shareholder change which is more important. Perhaps the silent puppeteer wishes to remain anonymous again but is pulling the strings for director Timothy instead of Ben now. So much for Hyperion turning over a new leaf. It looks like outrageously expensive under powered PPC hardware is here to stay for more lost Trevor Amiga decades, unless Michele can rescue the Amiga from all the shenanigans.
#6 Quote:
@Individual currently handling the Hyperion Entertainment website
From the PR:
Quote:
The general assembly also instructed the new directors |
Please note the plural, pointed out also by AmigaNews.
|
Timothy De Groote and Bart De Moor makes two thus plural?
#6 Quote:
Yet above as the subject of this PR:
Quote:
appointed Timothy De Groote as the company’s new director. |
Singular. So is this a typo or did you mean to state you had multiple directors?
|
Only one new director, Timothy, was appointed thus singular even though there are likely multiple directors now.
Last edited by matthey on 24-Jan-2025 at 09:09 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 24-Jan-2025 21:30:10
| | [ #430 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| @matthey
You sure ask a lot of questions. heh.
I think Hyperion Entertainment was fairly brief because that is all they felt comfortable in stating at this time.
Surely some of what you question would be made public when the time is right in their eyes. Ditto for Amiga Corporation and others.
If an outsider (non-shareholder/owner/etc.) answered any of your questions, there could arise accusations of being a meddler, taking a side as opposed to sticking to facts.....or worse.
#6 _________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 25-Jan-2025 3:43:21
| | [ #431 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| @matthey
There are many reasons I can think of that might explain keeping Hyperion, as opposed to so many posts asking "why don't they just let it go bankrupt".
When Thomas Richter was still arguably acting as spokesman on EAB for the 3.x team, he was basically saying that going forward with Hyperion was the only way. Similar sentiments have been expressed by others associated with the 3.x endeavors.
Your quote obviously correct: Quote:
the most profitable product, 68k AmigaOS |
I would think if you then wished to preserve the talent of the team who creates this product, you might have to consider preservation of such a resource when making a strategic decision.
Feel free to disagree. It's just a thought.
#6
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
matthey
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 25-Jan-2025 10:14:07
| | [ #432 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 14-Mar-2007 Posts: 2456
From: Kansas | | |
|
| @ #6 Why is the AmigaOS through Hyperion the only way forward? Perhaps Trevor and Ben deliberately made AmigaOS development more difficult for anyone else by not delivering the AmigaOS 4 source code as contracted and coercing their financially distressed business partner into signing the 2009 agreement after Pentti Kouri's passing? Perhaps A-Eon does not need Hyperion so much to develop the AmigaOS as to preserve the coerced 2009 contract agreement? Perhaps the AmigaOS developers believe further AmigaOS development depends on staying in good standing with Hyperion?
Various leaks and rumors have hinted that AmigaOS 4 is a legal mess despite Ben being a lawyer. An acquisition of Hyperion or merger with it may be one way to get around some of the legal entanglements as it would still exist even under a different name but it would likely require assuming liabilities as well.
Example: Chevron is attempting to buy Hess with 30% contractual ownership of a large oil field in Guyana. Chevron says that because they are buying Hess as a whole that existing contracts remain valid while Exxon claims there is a change of ownership that triggers a contractual right of first refusal.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-clash-with-chevron-hinges-change-control-hess-guyana-asset-sources-say-2024-07-18/ Quote:
Exxon Mobil's legal bid to stop Chevron's proposed $53 billion acquisition of Hess rests on whether the transaction would involve a change of control of Hess' prize subsidiary in Guyana, according to people knowledgeable about the argument.
The two top U.S. oil producers are in an arbitration battle over the world's largest oil discovery in almost two decades, in offshore Guyana. Exxon, which operates all output in the South American country with a 45% stake in a lucrative consortium, has challenged the merger in which Chevron would gain control of Hess and its 30% stake, a deal that would define Chevron's future.
Exxon asserts that Hess should have first given it the opportunity to purchase its stake in the Guyana asset.
Exxon's position is that the right of first refusal is triggered by a change of control in Guyana and that Chevron structured the deal in a way to bypass it, people familiar with the arguments, which are confidential, said.
Chevron and Hess say the acquisition is structured in a way that would keep Hess intact, with no change of control of its asset in Guyana, since Hess would become a unit within Chevron.
Chevron and Hess believe the argument has no merit because Hess would survive under a new Chevron and continue to own the asset, people close to their thinking said.
"The crux here is whether a change of control even occurred," agreed oil and M&A expert James English at law firm Clark Hill Law.
The three-person arbitration panel which will make the call must decide in part whether to focus on the language in the contract or to delve into Chevron's intent.
|
I believe Chevron's claim that Hess survives the buyout is the predominate legal belief, as least as long as there were no legal mistakes. Exxon is willing to take a long shot because the oil field is so valuable worth ~$1 trillion USD. My point is that mergers and acquisitions of Hyperion may be possible with most legal contracts persisting. Contrast this to C-A Acquisition Corp which I believe bought the Amiga IP instead of acquiring Amiga Inc. While this minimized risks, it also triggered change of ownership clauses in contracts which Ben exploited.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 25-Jan-2025 11:05:59
| | [ #433 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 20-Aug-2003 Posts: 3357
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @number6
Quote:
When Thomas Richter was still arguably acting as spokesman on EAB for the 3.x team, he was basically saying that going forward with Hyperion was the only way.
|
He changed this stance over time.
At the start of the 3.1.4 his logic was that, by the 2009 settlement agreements, OS4 was defined as _any_ OS developed by Hyperion, regardless version or architecture, so hence even a re-release of OS 3.1 was by definition also legally OS4. For which Hyperion had all rights.
(And yes, that is one way to interpret the agreement. From what I understand this was a result of Ben Hermans cleverly insisting on adjusting some sentences right before they were about to sign, and the implication was probably not obvious at the time. However, when it comes to such agreements, there is always the wording vs. intent, and the intent throughout the agreement was very clear.)
At the time of OS3.2, right before he left the OS team, his stance was more pragmatic, that they would work with whoever end up owning the rights. As reason for why he quit the OS team, he wrote that he rather work for someone who pays him (and I'm sure, with stuff he finds more rewarding intellectually) so he's now working on P96, for IComp. My guess is that he wasn't so happy about how things were going with Hyperion, and also not so happy about the path certain other team members wanted to take with the OS. It's been a bit entertaining to see ThoR and Minuous go toe-to-toe on forums over deficons vs datatypes, and ThoR occasionally stating that various bugs/problems were not present when he left, and are not present on _his_ variant of OS 3.2 (which is not what was released), suggesting that Mr. "open source leads to forks!!11" now maintains his own "fork"? Then there's the promise by IComp (that is, Jens) that he will withdraw from Amiga market if Hyperion looses the rights (which frankly many would see as bonus win).
So let's say Hyperion looses and Amiga (aka Cloanto) wins, what are the consequences?
- will the OS team go on rage-quit and delete all the work they've done? - will the OS team willingly move everything to Amiga? - will Amiga start from scratch with OS 3.1 again? - will Amiga release "in house" OS components as open source? - will Amiga cooperate with AROS (along with AmigaKit, Apollo, whoever)? - will AmigaOS and AROS somehow merge? - will IComp leave the Amiga scene as promised, and forever hold P96 hostage? - will IComp leave the Amiga scene, and sell P96 to Amiga for inclusion in the OS? - will IComp stay in the Amiga scene, and just continue with P96 and whatever? - will Hyperion sell ReAction to Cloanto? - will Amiga continue OS development without ReAction? - will Minuous continue ReAction on his own, regardless of rights, NDAs and agreements? - will the MorphOS team compile a 68k release just to stirr up the pot? - will ppcamiga continue to moan about MUI as if it's an Amiga OS component?
_________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 25-Jan-2025 14:55:57
| | [ #434 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| @kolla
Quote:
He changed this stance over time. |
And for anyone brave enough to read all the arguments, this is where to go: What's the status of the Cloanto / Hyperion lawsuit?
And for the change when he realized this was going to be about something entirely different: Hyperion Dead?
Quote:
At the start of the 3.1.4 his logic was that, by the 2009 settlement agreements, OS4 was defined as _any_ OS developed by Hyperion, regardless version or architecture, so hence even a re-release of OS 3.1 was by definition also legally OS4. For which Hyperion had all rights.
(And yes, that is one way to interpret the agreement. From what I understand this was a result of Ben Hermans cleverly insisting on adjusting some sentences right before they were about to sign, and the implication was probably not obvious at the time. However, when it comes to such agreements, there is always the wording vs. intent, and the intent throughout the agreement was very clear.) |
All of which was refuted by the major shareholder and managing partner and signatory of said document, Evert Carton.
* Mr. Carton executed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of Hyperion. * Mr. Hermans attempted to create material issues of fact by arguing about how the Settlement Agreement should be read, thereby raising the question whether the agreement is clear as to its meaning * the Meaning of, theSettlement Agreement Are Contradicted by Mr. Carton’s Testimony * Mr. Carton was the majority shareholder and the only person with decision-making authority at Hyperion, as Mr. Hermans was neither a shareholder nor a managing partner,
Is that last bit even common knowledge around here any more? Would that not mean it is -only- Mr. Carton's interpretation of the settlement agreement that matters?
Anyway, that is my bullet point version. All the detail is in the public court documentation:
Source
Beyond that I see your "list", so you get my drift. There is a boatload to consider.
Take care, #6
Added: the Source doc also outlines how shares travelled around/changed, which has also been a matter of discussion here. Some might find that intereting as well.Last edited by number6 on 25-Jan-2025 at 03:00 PM.
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hammer
 |  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 25-Jan-2025 21:23:03
| | [ #435 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 9-Mar-2003 Posts: 6171
From: Australia | | |
|
| @kolla
Quote:
kolla wrote:
So let's say Hyperion looses and Amiga (aka Cloanto) wins, what are the consequences?
- will the OS team go on rage-quit and delete all the work they've done? - will the OS team willingly move everything to Amiga? - will Amiga start from scratch with OS 3.1 again? - will Amiga release "in house" OS components as open source? - will Amiga cooperate with AROS (along with AmigaKit, Apollo, whoever)? - will AmigaOS and AROS somehow merge? - will IComp leave the Amiga scene as promised, and forever hold P96 hostage? - will IComp leave the Amiga scene, and sell P96 to Amiga for inclusion in the OS? - will IComp stay in the Amiga scene, and just continue with P96 and whatever? - will Hyperion sell ReAction to Cloanto? - will Amiga continue OS development without ReAction? - will Minuous continue ReAction on his own, regardless of rights, NDAs and agreements? - will the MorphOS team compile a 68k release just to stirr up the pot? - will ppcamiga continue to moan about MUI as if it's an Amiga OS component?
|
FYI, Cloanto has its AmigaOS 3.1 distribution fork i.e. AmigaOS 3.X and Kickstart 3.X ROM sales.
Kickstart 3.X ROM includes support for 64-bit file system.
Reference https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-125
The 3.X series by Cloanto, first released in 1999, aims to remain as true to the original as possible while merging some essential updates, the most notable of which being the ability to boot from "large" hard disks. This was originally released by Amiga (under the ESCOM and Gateway ownership) as a "SetPatch", while the Amiga Forever ROM distribution made it officially possible to use it as a native ROM, without requiring a reboot.
For maximum compatibility with the existing code base, the original binary code was largely preserved, limiting recompilation and thus the potential for new bugs to a minimum.
Since the initial release, further 3.X ROM improvements followed in 2006, 2014 and 2016. All were designed for use across the Amiga Forever product series, i.e. including both emulation and Classic Support scenarios ("real" Amiga hardware).
I purchased Cloanto's physical Kickstart 3.X ROM before Hyperion's Kickstart 3.1.4 ROM.
Atm, I use CoffeineOS, which is based on AmigaOS 3.9 despite purchasing Hyperion's AmigaOS 3.1.4 and 3.2.
Modern rolling updates wouldn't be efficient with part of the OS in ROM i.e. buying separately and pulling out Kickstart 3.1.4 and 3.2.x ROMs.
Last edited by Hammer on 25-Jan-2025 at 10:16 PM. Last edited by Hammer on 25-Jan-2025 at 09:50 PM. Last edited by Hammer on 25-Jan-2025 at 09:23 PM.
_________________ Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68) Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68) Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
matthey
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 26-Jan-2025 21:35:18
| | [ #436 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 14-Mar-2007 Posts: 2456
From: Kansas | | |
|
| #6 Quote:
All of which was refuted by the major shareholder and managing partner and signatory of said document, Evert Carton.
|
I went back and reread Evert's testimony and have been thinking about it. Since there is no architecture or version specified for what the 2009 Agreement calls "AmigaOS 4", I am not so sure that 68k AmigaOS 3.1+ development and sales are in violation of Evert's statements regarding intentions. The main point is that the AmigaOS has to be an enhancement of AmigaOS 3.1. Selling AmigaOS 3.1 or any previous versions of AmigaOS including kickstarts/ROMs without enhancements and marketing using Amiga licensed IP would be a violation. Evert may not have foreseen an AmigaOS version less than 4 but it is logical in a transition from AmigaOS 3.1 to AmigaOS 4, especially when porting an enhanced AmigaOS to a new architecture where it is not as enhanced as the first PPC AmigaOS 4 version. What is an enhanced enough AmigaOS is up to interpretation too. Is updating the copyright and a few minor bug fixes enough? Is it ok to include unmodified older kickstarts than the AmigaOS 3.1 kickstart with an enhanced AmigaOS to improve compatibility?
I say the above even though I generally side with the Amiga parties in the court cases. I do not see strong evidence that AmigaOS 3.1+ violates either Evert's intentions or the simple reading of the 2009 agreement. I have heard that Hyperion sold mostly unenhanced versions of AmigaOS 3.1 and earlier for retro use and challenged ownership of Amiga IP in multiple ways which could have terminated the 2009 agreement if true. I also believe the 2009 agreement was coerced under duress which would make the contract illegal. The contract is problematic in many ways including lack of quid pro quo as nothing was gained that was not already owned by Amiga Inc. The 2009 agreement was a gift that no rational business would agree to unless under duress.
#6 Quote:
* Mr. Carton executed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of Hyperion. * Mr. Hermans attempted to create material issues of fact by arguing about how the Settlement Agreement should be read, thereby raising the question whether the agreement is clear as to its meaning * the Meaning of, theSettlement Agreement Are Contradicted by Mr. Carton’s Testimony * Mr. Carton was the majority shareholder and the only person with decision-making authority at Hyperion, as Mr. Hermans was neither a shareholder nor a managing partner,
Is that last bit even common knowledge around here any more? Would that not mean it is -only- Mr. Carton's interpretation of the settlement agreement that matters?
|
I expect Evert's 2009 agreement interpretation is very important but it is weakened somewhat due to being recorded long after the event, unless there is old documentation of communications about the interpretation to back up his claims. While Ben's intentions were not important, he was the lawyer who needed to understand Evert's intentions to write the contract. There is also the interpretation of Amiga Inc. The Amiga related court cases are not simple which may explain why they are still ongoing.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 26-Jan-2025 23:13:07
| | [ #437 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11662
From: In the village | | |
|
| @matthey
ok, but let's look at Ben's reaction from the legal standpoint.
Quote:
MOTION to Quash NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF EVERT CARTON AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, |
Surely you can smell the fear here.
Added: Regardless of what we think, anything regarding the lawsuits and appeal are truly "back burner" in order of "need to resolve". I'm sure we can agree on -that-.
#6Last edited by number6 on 26-Jan-2025 at 11:48 PM.
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
matthey
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 27-Jan-2025 5:41:42
| | [ #438 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 14-Mar-2007 Posts: 2456
From: Kansas | | |
|
| #6 Quote:
ok, but let's look at Ben's reaction from the legal standpoint.
Quote:
MOTION to Quash NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF EVERT CARTON AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, |
Surely you can smell the fear here.
|
Ben likely felt he was betrayed by Evert but that was going to happen unless Evert refused to give a deposition or answered all questions with "what Ben said". Ben may have thought he was doing Evert a favor with the predatory 2009 agreement so Evert owed him but Evert may have surrendered his Hyperion stock to distance himself from Ben's shady business activities. Who betrayed who?
I do not see Evert's deposition as being as damaging to Hyperion's case as Ben's reaction. Evert explained that Hyperion needed a less restrictive license to use the AmigaOS for AmigaOne branded hardware and embedded markets. I believe Cloanto already had a license for Amiga IP use in retro markets. Evert's deposition clarifies the intended markets but it more corroborates existing evidence rather than introducing much new. Evert mentioned intended porting of the AmigaOS so no restriction on architecture, as the 2009 agreement is worded, and the limitation of marketing "AmigaOS 4" could be interpreted as any sufficiently enhanced version of AmigaOS. Allowing only and exactly "AmigaOS 4" for marketing is unreasonably limiting when Evert also said Hyperion was seeking a less restrictive license. If AmigaOS 4.x is allowable then an enhanced AmigaOS 3.x should be allowable unless it is AmigaOS 3.1 or earlier. My interpretation does not mean Hyperion is in the clear as selling unenhanced versions of AmigaOS and kickstarts/ROMs, changing Amiga IP copyrights to Hyperion and registering Amiga IP as a challenge of ownership may be violations of their license.
#6 Quote:
Added: Regardless of what we think, anything regarding the lawsuits and appeal are truly "back burner" in order of "need to resolve". I'm sure we can agree on -that-.
|
Delays are more likely to benefit the defendant who uses the Amiga IP with impunity and without an injunction. The plaintiff would like to see the case resolved quickly but they also need to be and have been cautious. The judge was happy with the slow pace as he was hoping for an out of court settlement. Ben was unreasonable though and lost his Hyperion stock where there may have been other settlement options that could have benefited Hyperion shareholders. He seemed to be more skilled at intimidation than diplomacy. We will see if the new management is anymore reasonable.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 27-Jan-2025 7:14:26
| | [ #439 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 20-Aug-2003 Posts: 3357
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @Hammer
Quote:
FYI, Cloanto has its AmigaOS 3.1 distribution fork i.e. AmigaOS 3.X and Kickstart 3.X ROM sales |
Those are not forks in the real sense (source code), more like a compilation of legally available binary components, more or less carefully selected to ensure internal compatibility. If Cloanto's AmigaOS 3.X is considered a fork, you can also say the unofficial BoingBag3+4 for 3.9 was a fork. Or what I did, a "mostly 3.9" compilation for 68000. Or CoffeineOS.Last edited by kolla on 27-Jan-2025 at 07:15 AM.
_________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
|  |
Re: Hyperion Entertainment - Reorg/Restructure Posted on 27-Jan-2025 10:05:13
| | [ #440 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member  |
Joined: 20-Aug-2003 Posts: 3357
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @number6
Quote:
* Mr. Hermans attempted to create material issues of fact by arguing about how the Settlement Agreement should be read, thereby raising the question whether the agreement is clear as to its meaning * the Meaning of, the Settlement Agreement Are Contradicted by Mr. Carton’s Testimony * Mr. Carton was the majority shareholder and the only person with decision-making authority at Hyperion, as Mr. Hermans was neither a shareholder nor a managing partner,
|
Aha, I was not aware of (or have forgotten) these details.
So you are saying Hermans came up with his interpretation of the settlement (in which OS3.x development also was "legally" counted as OS4), an interpretation which Carton then rejected?
Quote:
Is that last bit even common knowledge around here any more? |
Knowledge sometimes needs a fresh-up :)
Quote:
Would that not mean it is -only- Mr. Carton's interpretation of the settlement agreement that matters? |
I'm not sure, I can imagine this not to be the case in reality. Anyways, an agreement which the parties cannot agree on the interpretation of, isn't really an agreement and should be reworked. It's not necessary to involve lawyers or going through the courts, though it might be wise to publish reworked agreement and if possible, have it added as an addendum to the original agreement, with comments about the changes._________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|