@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou Quote: Here's where his logic bites: If Hyperion didn't need the 3.5 & 3.9 sources to make OS4, then why does KMOS? Why can't they pay Olaf for his 3.1 CVS code and create their own OS4 successor? Because unlike Hyperion, they are not going to waive their rights to the sources that they are owed by the contract. Hyperion had the chance to do the same before they got themselves into this mess, there is no reason why Amiga Inc. should make the same mistake. It makes perfect sence.

The contract clearly states that Hyperion was to exercise best efforts to secure the sources...and with $24,750, you don't get much source code, yet KMOS thinks you get it all. Is that so hard to understand?

Quote:

Quote: Surely by HIS logic, KMOS can simply take 3.1, study the functionality of OS4 and then reproduce OS4 and enhance it, correct? Sure, they could, but why should they?

because rather than waste 15 months on a lawsuit, they could have released 4.5 or 5.0 "in 6 months" and carried on with their business... But actually they have no business and are trying to make an i.p. grab from the developers and laying waste to Hyperion in the process.

Quote:

Quote: What would be KMOS' excuse to not partake in such an endeavor? Could it be TIME and MONEY? ... Now who would have thought that? I mean, seriously now - who would have thought that producing an upgrade to an OS without all the proper documentations would cost additional time and money? What part of "at the sole expense of Hyperion" is so hard to understand? It was Hyperion's choice wether to undertake this project or not, nobody forced them. If any contractual obligation of Amiga Inc. was obstructing them of fulfilling their part of the deal, they should have done something about it then rather than just keep accumulating undertakings beyond their obligations of the contract. It seems that I cannot repeat this often enough; any damages as a result of Hyperion's undertakings beyond their obligations of the contract was self-inflicted. Hence there is no reason for Hyperion to expect that Amiga Inc. to pay for those damages.

We can continue to play the finger pointing game about who damaged who if you'd like. Let's keep it simple, I'll point at Amino/ITEC/KMOS, you point at Hyperion. Mmmkay?

Quote:

Quote: I'm sure their first problem would be paying Olaf. It seems they can pay lawyers (though Reed & Smith may raise an eyebrow), but when it comes to paying employees & developers, that's where the problems begin for that bunch. Any issues between Amiga Inc. and Olaf has nothing to do with the lawsuit between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion.

No, but like for Hyperion, it would give them a better base than the orginal 3.1 sources that they supposedly do have.

Quote:

Quote: So I expect KMOS to release OS4.5(or 5.0) in late May of this year, or else, Hyperions can continue to develop the OS4.X line... No, since Amiga Inc. are not waiving their rights to the sources of AmigaOS4, Hyperion will have to honor their obligations first.

No, but they are still contracted to produce a better version, or else Hyperion resumes all development, marketing and sales of future versions.

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: I'm sure their first problem would be paying Olaf. Much as I'd like Olaf to come out of this with as positive an experience as possible, I find it hard to imagine what Amiga could pay Olaf for. Certainly not the work done on cleaning up the 3.1 sources, because that work was sold to someone else.... Who, unfortunately, also seems to have been less than perfect in fulfilling their obligations of payment --- but I am absolutely positive Lou would scream bloody murder if Olaf came out and said "well, guys --- you didn't pay me according to contract anymore than Amiga did, so I hereby cancel the contract for cause. You no longer have a right to distribute anything derived from those cleaned up sources, as they are mine, and you don't have a license. Also, as you have publicly stated OS4.0 was completed in 2004, the OS4.0 project is now over, and I have thus removed all CVS access in accordance with the contract terms. As you will undoubtedly recall, you may request a CD with the CVS contents upon complete payment of the fees for my CVS hosting, and not a minute before then. Have a nice day. BTW, I sincerely hope you have local copies of the sources which match the GPL'ed binaries you have distributed, because otherwise, you might currently find it difficult to make good on your three year obligation, and may consequently lose any rights to distribute things like your system compiler and debugger, too." I really wonder whether Hyperion understands how lucky they are that Olaf is such a nice guy....

Umisef, if my aunt had a ####, she'd be my uncle.
Perhaps Olaf feels HIS best chances of ever getting paid for anything lie with a company who actually releases products rather than one that makes announcements about announcements?
I can't speak for Olaf and neither should you.

Last edited by Lou on 03-Mar-2008 at 12:45 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Nope. It's the only thing that does make sense for that behavior. Infact, we have ITEC claiming that they told Hyperion they were intending to buy all of Amino's assets and later on that they changed their minds.

Actually Hyperion needed money is the thing that makes sense of the behavior Lou, kinda like later when they borrowed money from Alan or the fact in 2006 we know they hadnt paid Olaf, the Friedens, AV etc. Itec may have intended to buy the assets and decided not to, your story now seems to be that if they changed there mind, the 2003 contract is null and void, thats really not going to work in a court of law.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: No, but they are still contracted to produce a better version, or else Hyperion resumes all development, marketing and sales of future versions.

With the contract cancelled, Hyperion doesnt have the right to do anything.
-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: @Lou [quote] thats really not going to work in a court of law. -Tig

Only a judge can decide that, not you.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: No, but they are still contracted to produce a better version, or else Hyperion resumes all development, marketing and sales of future versions. With the contract cancelled, Hyperion doesnt have the right to do anything. -Tig

So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code?
The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger.

Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too.

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Yabba A suggestion for future SDK updates, though --- I don't think the sources to "tar" or "gzip" are included anywhere. Those are two rather essential tools, especially when some of the other source archives are included as .tar.gz files... I believe the fileutils sources have accidentally been left off.

Possibly, or maybe we just don't need the tar and gzip utilities. Unarc decpomresses them fine via the xpk library (or xfdlib or whatever it's called).

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.

@Lou

Quote:

@Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] thats really not going to work in a court of law. -Tig Only a judge can decide that, not you.

Same can be said for the majority of your comments.

_________________
Dammy

@Lou

Quote:

So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code? The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger. Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too.

Because that was a seperate contract.

_________________
Dammy

@Lou

Quote:

because rather than waste 15 months on a lawsuit, they could have released 4.5 or 5.0 "in 6 months" and carried on with their business... But actually they have no business and are trying to make an i.p. grab from the developers and laying waste to Hyperion in the process.

How would you expect the IP owners (Amiga inc.) to release future updates when they don't have sources to 4.0? afaik, Hyperion was contracted for only 4.0.

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: Yeah - that must be why the "father of the OS4 Devs" - Rogue - stated: If Rogue is happy that he is owed 3/4 of a million EUROs, more power to him.

If not, I'd say he'd filed an appropriate claim at court...

Quote:

damocles wrote: Quote: Hmmmm - Rogue's statement does not seem to imply in any way the Devs felt abused... Question is, does he have much of a choice in the matter? I suppose if I were in his shoes, I'd be pubically backing Hyperion as well.

Yeah - but continuing the speculation when he said you're on the wrong track with that doesn't seem to make much sense, either...

Quote:

damocles wrote: ...question is how does Olaf feel about getting 10% of what he was promised six years ago?

Hmmmm - I see the situation as follows:
AInc once ordered Olaf to rework the 3.1 sources. Olaf did as assigned and never got paid - I take he's still waiting for this money.

Then Hyperion contracted him for access to those reworked sources.
As he hasn't been paid by AInc up to now he asked them for a fee for the access.

In my book these are two eintirely different incidents - and so Olaf is entitled to get money from AInc AND Hyperion...

All I know is the contract between Hyperion and Olaf - I don't know if they made a different agreement on the method of payment in the meantime to cover a possible delay in payments.

Quote:

damocles wrote: Quote: That's your interpretation of the current situation. I've more got the feeling they're trying to clear the disaster up that the masters of disasters - AInc. - created so far... Problem is, it's Hyperion's disaster from their own mismagement.

Sorry that I have to contradict you here, but the disaster already existed before Hyperion entered the stage.

AInc badly failed to acquire all the rights to OS 3.5, OS 3.9 and the related BoingBags from Haage & Partner and their contractors.

Instead they claimed in the 2001 Agreement:

Quote:

2001 Agreement: Article IV. WARRANTIES AND INDEMNIFICATIONS 4.01 Warranty and Covenant of Original Development by Amiga. Amiga represents, warrants and covenants that: (a) it is and shall be the owner of all intellectual property rights in the Software under copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and other applicable law; ...

Quote:

damocles wrote: Quote: If the devs felt this way I'm sure they'd filed a claim at court concerning this matter in the meantime - don't you think so? ... Again, why did Hyperion allow this to go this badly and not look out for their Devs?

Up to now I didn't hear any of the devs complaining - so I'd say that's pure speculation on your side...

Last edited by Dandy on 04-Mar-2008 at 07:52 AM.

_________________
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)

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Same can be said for the majority of your comments.

Which I've been saying...
Everybody should stfu and just wait and see.

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code? The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger. Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too. Because that was a seperate contract.

?
So now there are TWO 2001 contracts?

@Lou

Quote:

@damocles Quote: damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code? The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger. Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too. Because that was a seperate contract. ? So now there are TWO 2001 contracts?

Did I say there was?

_________________
Dammy

@Jupp3

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: @Lou Quote: because rather than waste 15 months on a lawsuit, they could have released 4.5 or 5.0 "in 6 months" and carried on with their business... But actually they have no business and are trying to make an i.p. grab from the developers and laying waste to Hyperion in the process. How would you expect the IP owners (Amiga inc.) to release future updates when they don't have sources to 4.0? afaik, Hyperion was contracted for only 4.0.

You forget who's logic I was using.
Samwel and others stated that Hyperion didn't need the sources.
Assuming that is true, only object code is needed and a working installation in order to study functionality. Then they can come up with a functionally superior version. As at it's core it maintains original rom kernal library compatibility to sources they already have...by their logic, the process is trivial and can be done in 6 months as Hyperion was expected to when going from 3.1->4.0. Heck, going from 4.0 to 4.5 should only take 3months and cost $12,500 in development costs.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Lou [quote] thats really not going to work in a court of law. -Tig Only a judge can decide that, not you.

Not true at all. Its a basic tenet of contract law that the written part of a contract out weighs any "understanding" between parties. The 2001 contract says that once cancelled Hyperion loses there rights under the contract, you dont need to be a judge to understand thats what it means. You could argue that the judge may not allow the contract to be cancelled, or say it wasnt cancelled in Dec of 2006, but even if that were true, nothing prevents the contract from being cancelled now, and again Hyperion will have lost there rights under the 2001 contract.
-Tig

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

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: @damocles Quote: damocles wrote: @Lou Quote: So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code? The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger. Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too. Because that was a seperate contract. ? So now there are TWO 2001 contracts? Did I say there was?

No, you insinuate that the contract that gives Hyperion the right to develop and distribute OS4 is different from the one in which KMOS is demanding the source code to OS4... So why don't you enlighten us on this "separate contract".

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: So if the contract is cancelled, why does Hyperion still have to submit source code? The answer is simple - whatever YOU say goes and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander per Tigger. Hey, have my piece of cake and heck, eat it too.

Of course since Hyperion is supposed to be delivering the code under the 2003 contract which hasnt been cancelled, your arguement falls apart there doesnt it?
-Tig

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

So how long do these things go on for then?

Longer than a year?

I mean Hyperion and Amiga Inc. are just going backwards and forwards with claim and counter claim - at what point does the judge stop it all and make a decision?

Otherwise this 'we have the rights to the trademarks' - 'no you don't we do' nonsense will go on for all eternity - or at least until one company dies.

_________________
Sam

@Tigger

Tigger wrote:
@Lou
Quote:

Quote: thats really not going to work in a court of law. -Tig Only a judge can decide that, not you.

Quote:

Tigger wrote @Lou: Not true at all. Its a basic tenet of contract law that the written part of a contract out weighs any "understanding" between parties. The 2001 contract says that once cancelled Hyperion loses there rights under the contract, you dont need to be a judge to understand thats what it means. You could argue that the judge may not allow the contract to be cancelled, or say it wasnt cancelled in Dec of 2006, but even if that were true, nothing prevents the contract from being cancelled now, and again Hyperion will have lost there rights under the 2001 contract. -Tig

Once again you twist an answer into something else and do a side-step.

Let me quote how you go into the ITEC case to which I was replying to, then re-read what you wrote:

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Nope. It's the only thing that does make sense for that behavior. Infact, we have ITEC claiming that they told Hyperion they were intending to buy all of Amino's assets and later on that they changed their minds. Actually Hyperion needed money is the thing that makes sense of the behavior Lou, kinda like later when they borrowed money from Alan or the fact in 2006 we know they hadnt paid Olaf, the Friedens, AV etc. Itec may have intended to buy the assets and decided not to, your story now seems to be that if they changed there mind, the 2003 contract is null and void, thats really not going to work in a court of law. -Tig

So your defence of the ITEC contract was a point of the 2001 contract. You do this quite often and it confuses people, mostly, I think you confuse yourself and everyone else in the process.

Once again, I'll state that I just prefer to wait to hear it from the judge, not from you or anyone else.