Well worth a thorough read to see how both sides are arguing. Again, even though they only have one lawyer, Hyperions seems the most competant and sure of his facts and brings up all the issues that I thought he would.
Sorry to sound smug, but this new document confirms my original reading of the tactics of both parties.
This is Amiga Inc.s own testimony:
"All we want here is the code itself. The contract set the price for that at $25,000."
"Yes, they are seeking to exploit the benefit of that work in the marketplace. We understand that. We are not trying to stop that."
Hence why they wanted it in discovery....
Plus there is the unfortunate issue of redacted and backdated documents in the Amiga Inc submissions, the clauses in the Hyperion/Amiga contract and the fact that they still haven't paid the full amount ( and want to put it in bond, almost an admission they haven't paid Hyperion ).
Yes, the also want to strike from the record fundamental items of Hyperions defense.
Whoever you consider morally right in this, Amiga Inc failed the moment they couldn't get the source code in discovery because even if they ( unlikely ) win this one, they then have to wait while the protection of individual subcontractors is overcome.
In that case, it would be most amusing if Hyperion declared itself insolvent, it would mean that Amiga Inc would have to persue in a foreign court ( Belgium - and others ) each individual developer.
This is priceless. Absolutely hilarious, Amiga Inc (Washington) obviously thought they held all the ace cards and it turns out their hand is very shaky indeed.
The lawyer for Hyperion also brought up the facts that:
1. The definition of what Amiga Inc wants delivered to it is too vague.
2. That the court does not have jurisdiction over the subcontractors.
I read all that transcript and I couldn't help being underwhelmed by Amiga Inc lawyers reasoning. It seemed to be partly a "it is not fair" rant wasting his 25 minute slot. If I was Amiga Inc. I'd fire him.
Whilst the Hyperion lawyer pointed out all the technicalities that they had breached, the implications of the suit, the juridiction of the suit and raised cause and had contractual documents.
Both sides brought up unsigned press releases, which don't have the same weight. Emails do have a bit of weight, and Amiga Inc did a footbullet by claiming in their original rebuttal documents that they had no idea that the Freidens were not direct employees of Hyperion yet wants them dismissed as third party hearsay because they aren't!
Duh!!!!! Honestly, this is so far totally inept on the Amiga Inc side, and I have to say they don't stand a chance unless the Judge forms his own views of their case as their lawyer doesn't seem to be doing a very good job at all.
I almost feel sorry for them.
GregS, read the PDF above, it is an oral transcript and a summary of what the issues are better than you will get from me or any other armchair mouthpiece. You don't have to comment but it is well worth it.
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
I have not read the newest PDF (this week is busy for me) so I might be missing something; but if Amiga Inc. gets what it wants, and if the original contract still stands, wouldn't AI still need to produce a substantially improved OS (>4.0) within 6 months in order to retain any rights to OS4? And does anyone really think that they would do this? Hyperion could still regain total control, couldn't they?
Unfortunately that doesn't have to be the case. The judge can do pretty much what he likes to create new terms to achieve resolution so long as those terms are within the jusdiction of the complaint and cover only the plaintiff and the defendant. I think for Amiga Inc to win this the judge has to overlook certain major errors on the Amiga Inc side, and those on the Hyperion side which is why I think any ruling would not be entirely in one or the others favour but an enforced compromise.
Hyperion could end up in a sort of MorphOS situation, except this time they really would be an ancestral branch of AmigaOS instead of something re-engineered. Patches could be released "unofficially" to support various PPC targets.
But even if Hyperion lose partly or fully, that still doesn't mean that Amiga Inc get a working AmigaOS4.0 build tree ( or anything like it ) just the parts that Hyperion owns directly.
Say for example they did win, and the court orders that Hyperion has to hand over the source code that they are legally in a position to do, and Hyperion also has to resolve issues with its subcontractors. Putting appeals aside, to show Good Faith Hyperion could hand over the original materials used on which to build the project that they directly own .... warp 3d? Anything else that they directly own ( makefiles? ).
Then they go to court to secure the subcontractor rights one by one. OK so the judge has set a time limit on this in Washington. Fine. The court cases in Europe will overrun this regardless ( or the time limit will be so long it won't matter ).
Again we put aside Hyperion declaring bankruptcy.
What will the judge do then? Fine Hyperion? Demand contractual rights that are held and under jurisdiction of EU countries be rescinded? That is outside the authority of the court and cannot be done. So we reach an impasse where the only thing Amiga Inc gets out of this is a legal bill, some useless bits of source code and maybe Hyperion goes under. Maybe Amiga Inc then buys out Hyperions assetts, they still then have to go after each individual subcontractor in court to overcome their copyright ( if even possible ).
There is no way a judge in Washington state can prevent this situation.
What would be sensible at this point is for Amiga Inc. to put in a proper offer to Hyperion, with a time limit on it. The money to go into escrow, and only released once the full product and all sources and rights have been released to Hyperion ( and thence to Amiga Inc ) before that timeframe is up.
We are probably, in my view, looking at a 60% chance that AmigaOS 4.0 will be killed off in one way or another and a 40% chance that in some shape or form a compromise will be set out where Hyperion ends up with full or partial rights to get on and actually claw back some money from the project without Amiga Inc. interfering.
If Amiga Inc Washington had wanted Hyperion to make money from this, they wouldn't have stood in the way of every single hardware project ( apparently bar one, but what is going on there I wonder, could it be because the guy behind it is the same guy who claimed to get it running on the Pegasos to Bill Buck? ).
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
You and GregS should get together, it would be a facinating, intelligent and thoughtful debate
Having read the transcript, my gut feeling is that Hyperion have a stronger case. Whilst it may still swing Amiga's way, it will be a nightmare for Amiga inc to try and claw back the source code given the number of independant contractors involved in the project.
In short though, its us users who are gonna suffer.
Mikey C
No cause is lost if there is but one fool left to fight for it.
Hyperion certainly has the better lawyer. If with four attorneys that is all that Amiga Inc can argue in 30 minutes ( 25 pitch, 5 rebuttal ) versus one for Hyperion who was concise and accurate then they really are in trouble. However they will up their game, and bringing along a load of lawyers at the start is just a way of showing your arnaments before the battle.
Hey we got 4 long range cannons and a handgrenade! Be intimidated! Look how deep our pockets are!
Even the judge commented on it.
To me, that is a sign that they know it isn't done and dusted, a sign of weakness.
One decent, smart and dilligent lawyer would have been a better investment. Amiga Inc's legal team needs to bring their A game next time or it WILL become expensive. Whilst a judge might do the thinking for a lone lawyer against a team of 4 I doubt that he will compensate the other way around.
Another tactical misstep - in my view.
A lot of "ifs" and cause that Amiga Inc has to get dismissed by the judge to be sure of the very limited success this court can achieve for them.
Their best hope is if it is heard in front of a jury, because juries are frequently too collectively thick to understand the nuances of contract law and shell games.
As soon as legal counsel starts to use sarcasm, you know he has got nothing tangible to show.
The more interesting thing is going to be to see whom has changed their mode of attack from Amiga Inc to Hyperion since the Thendic court case. Then you know who really despises AmigaOS4.0 and Hyperion as opposed to what they claimed at the time.
I see a temporary injunction coming out of this, the judge not going against either side in reality and both sides will claim victory in their own way.
You have to ask yourself if Amiga Inc realised that the effect might be to end up with nothing and kill off Hyperion, in which case that might illustrate their deepest motivation.
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
What really amazes me though (and it is not unique in this case) is that assets can be transferred but debts are not. I find that quite disgusting, it happens over and over again in western society and it is just plain wrong.
For me this is a moral issue, Amiga knew they were struggling back when the contract was made and they made it public that they wanted Hyperion to have the IP should they fail, fail they did otherwise there was no reason to create shelve companies.
I take no glee in that at all but the spirit of what they were both trying to achieve in those days is lost and to claim otherwise is sad.
I wished they could come to a reasonable agreement and all participate, I guess that is what the Judge was trying to tell them.
Thinking more about it, the issue of HW has not come up but is central to Hyperion being able to make money from the venture.
Amiga Inc issued a (note a) license on the basis of meeting "Brand" expectations, price, quality and warranty, they issued a license to Eyetech, clearly their product was not up to scratch, Hyperion at that stage relied on that product for future sales. However, at no stage did Amiga Inc intervene or demand or enact remidial action, I would never buy an Amiga Inc endorsed product ever again. How then could Hyperion sell a product based on a flawed product endorsed by Amiga?
In my opinion they have failed to enforce their own expectations and have duped Hyperion deliberately. I hope the court gets to see this.
I am sure Eyetch would have stayed in the market and improved their product if Amiga Inc (Washington, Delaware, Siberia, Antartica or whatever) were an honourable company.
I remember the first edition of the joint press release announcing the branding programme stated that Eyetech was exempt from the terms of the programme.
It is obvious that Amiga Inc have been deliberately blocking Hyperion on Amiga OS4 with granting licenses to third parties. The old excuse that they used to spread around on IRC that Eyetech was the one standing in the way each time was clearly bullshit now we see their declarations of how in touch with Eyetech they really were.
Hyperion could have ( and should have ) challenged Amiga Inc.'s right to block once the asserts where not correctly transferred in the first place. But this can been seen as acting in good faith and only undermines their position slightly - and not fatally.
Eyetech left because people had stopped buying the product in sufficient numbers to justify the outlay at manufacturing time. There is only so long a company can take a loss for.
Why this was is down to Hyperion not releasing something they called final in time, down to black PR on the forums, down to minor problems with the hardware and mostly down to cost.
The Amiga market is dead, it just hasn't been declared so. The only way to revive it would be to get on and use what we have available, which IIRC is the reason amigans.net was put together in the first place.
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
From memory Amiga Inc Washington licensed IP and bought soem trademarks from Gateway does that mean assignment is required to transfer to ITEC, KMOS and Amiga Delaware? Did that happen?
Hyperion signed a document accepting the transfer to ITEC, their own website reflected (according to the plaintiff exhibits) that Hyperion knew and accepted that they were under license from KMOS, and Amiga Delaware is simply a rename of KMOS, requiring no transfer or acceptance, as it is the same corporate entity.
For those who are brave enough to want to know me better, visit my Home Page, my Storefront, and blogsey
@Mitch To me it looks like Hyperion is trying to grab as much as they can get and run. It isn't Amiga Inc's fault Hyperion sunk a million bucks into OS4 knowing full well they could lose it all for $25k. Maybe this risk will pay off or maybe not but I must say taking such a large risk was a real stupid move by Hyperion's management in the first place. They are insolvent, they are not the same company, you can't serve us in English, you don't have jurisdiction, it was finished on this date; no wait, this other date, etc. Please spare us the bad acting. Looks to me like Hyperion risked it all on nothing but a whim and now they are being challenged.
I always wondered why Hyperion refused to give us all a product road map beyond 4.0. Why the feature list kept changing and never really proclaimed "finished" until Dec. 2006. Now we know why. They were hoping not to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
I'm not an Amiga Inc. fan but they are obviously not going to just go away and they have the Amiga brand. I seriously doubt Hyperion has the money to go the other way around. Hyperion should sell the lot to Amiga Inc. and go back to making games or whatever. Don't even bother partnering, sell it all. Just make sure you don't accept a cheque...
Just read the pdf and many thanks for supplying the reference.
As the transcript is quite readable as it is presented, and I suspect by the nature of the presentation, both sides are at this early stage keeping their powder dry on certain important aspects, I thought to present a reading that makes arbitration rather than litigation a likely successful outcome.
--------------------------------------------- THE INSOLVENCY ISSUE First, I believe the fundamental aspect that needs to be clarified is the one that appears to be Hyperion's strongest claim - the insolvency issue.
Insolvent means liabilities exceeding assets (or the ability to pay) and is the condition which leads to bankruptcy procedures, unless something is done to resolve it.
That IP rights transfer to Hyperion on insolvency, is a protection of Hyperion's rights in the IP. In this way the OS IP becomes a reserved asset, if a company is liquidated the rights are not put up for sale, but are instead transferred.
There is a formal legal claim of insolvency which is the beginning of a bankruptcy action. An action where the company states legally that it is beyond their capacity to remedy matters with their creditors (in this Hyperion stands as a creditor with special privileges).
However, insolvency is a condition as well as potential legal remedy. That is it is the same as claiming that a company is or was insolvent and made or is making remedies outside bankruptcy actions.
It does not really matter what has been stated in contract - ie if the company becomes insolvent, or if the company is bankrupted - in effect as legal states (rather than general statements) both only have meaning when triggered legally (ie by audit, by third party legal action - ie by creditors, by engaging in legal procedures to place the resolution in the hands of others).
Hyperion's claim that they have or should have the IP because the original AI reached a point of insolvency, is countered by AIs actions in preserving the rights of creditors in transferring to ITEC -KMOS and the new AI.
Hyperion on this issue has not been harmed and hence cannot rely on this clause - their interests have been preserved intact (ie nothing has really changed except the names, and asset basis - the deals being private - rather than publicly sold).
--------------------------------------------- THE $2 MILLION OFFER It is very clear from the transcript (the reality may be different) that AI's offer was to buy back (not to be confused with a clause referred to by the same name elsewhere) all rights from Hyperion.
I would suggest that Hyperion, on the expectation of future profits from distribution, would view this as inadequate, and thus it was reasonable for them to refuse.
The cost of $1.1 million to Hyperion seems reasonable and not inflated. This is important in terms of future arbitration if this path is allowed.
Hyperion is not claiming outlandish costs.
AI has shown a willingness to pay, a recognition of costs, but with caveats to its own interest (dissolving the previous relationship).
--------------------------------------------- WHAT REALLY APPEARS AT ISSUE Obviously this battle has been going on for a long time, behind the scenes.
Two hostages are involved. One the source code - the very IP of the OS. The other licensing of HW, which has to happen before Hyperion can get anything for its efforts, or AI for its royalities.
The trigger for the case, was obviously Acube's SAM board.
This is hardball negotiation, Hyperion attempting to squeeze AI and AI forced to seek court relief.
This is not a claim of who is good and who is bad, but a logical result of the position of both companies and what they possess and can do.
HW, appears to be at issue but is not. The pity is that it would not be at issue if both companies went for an immediate PS3 port (I hope they see the point of this) and some actual cash flow was generated.
However, HW has become the pointy end of the stick. Clearly ACK (which has been in the process for sometime now - how close to production is another question, but legally irrelevant) has to exist so that AI can claim that Hyperion could have had a market under the conditions of the original agreements.
Likewise the SAM deal, can be seen as a reasonable attempt to provide a market by its own actions. Carefully, though strongly implied, there has been no claim by SAM to be a licensed Amiga board, but the inference is there and that matters legally.
--------------------------------------------- AN ARBITRATED RESOLUTION First some distinctions in view of HW.
AI has some right to claim that SAM/Acube directly harms it.
Hyperion by like reason can claim that the lack of HW forced them to seek an avenue outside of direct licensing.
Since Eyetech has left the scene (re the MIA's collapse), the meaning of having the rights to distribute and OS have been overtaken by events.
Luckily, for us. The SAM and ACK boards are not direct competitors (there may be a need to legally ensure this for the future).
This is the important bit. SAM is a passively cooled "slow board", while ACK series are high performance desktop boards.
In my view we need both along with a PS3 port.
There is a possibility in this of resolution, that is AI licenses both, but that Hyperion has to either hand over all the code, or have some legal arrangement (like exchanging title deeds) so that both things happen simultaneously.
Amiga's $2,000,000 may or may not be in the picture, as surety, or an immediate payment tied to the above.
The other alternative is simpler, especially if Hyperion cannot provide the cash to pay its contractors for their work and for their rights over the code.
As Hyperion engaged these contractors and has in the original distribution rights a percentage of sales, then Hyperion may have to come to an arrangement where the contracts rights in the code are exchanged for percentages of their distribution.
I believe this would protect the developers and keep them in the mix, which I think is essential.
AI's royalties do not come into this. But if the $2million was placed in trust, as a loan against Hyperion percentages, that would give the capital, to buy out some developers, or offer them a fair percentage of the distribution profits.
An arbitrated settlement, might include any of the above.
Clearly AI wants the source codes, Hyperion wants to distribute for boards that actually exist (why the hell they could not have worked out something for the PS3 is beyond me, probably because everything else is in such a mess).
Luckily, there seems enough in the mix to get a real resolution fast if a third party genuinely would arbitrate - and this is the good news story within the current court case.
There are a lot of other details, which I do not believe effect such an arbitration/resolution to any great degree.
Whatever the arrangements between Hyperion and the contractors, there has to be fair settlement made with the latter and Hyperion has to be in a position to make good on the sources for the IP owner. Here the $2 million is important as a loan perhaps secured against a percentage of distribution profits.
In Hyperion shoes I would argue the Acube agreement was made out of necessity (in order to realise profits), From AIs perspective they want the source code, yesterday. From the contractors perspective, they need to have their interests, looked after (a percentage of the distribution rights would be a very good offer, IMHO, but a cash payout from the $2 million for residue rights is the other option).
Arbitration to work would have to legally cement together effectively a new contract.
The means to resolve this are available, if the will to get on with things is there, and people come to the table taking responsibility for fair licensing on one hand, source code on the other and the contractors as meat in the middle of this sandwich.
Perhaps the court case, and this is what I hope, is the means for bringing about a resolution.
PS it would be helpful for the community to refer to SAM as a small server/embedded board, and to ACK as a high performance desktop board. It would be helpful to clarify the room for complimentary development.
Heh lot to read this morning, I'm going to be a while before I reply to everything!
@ssolie
Quote:
To me it looks like Hyperion is trying to grab as much as they can get and run. It isn't Amiga Inc's fault Hyperion sunk a million bucks into OS4 knowing full well they could lose it all for $25k.
Well OK but I'd be agreeing with you if it was Hyperion bringing the court case. My take on it is that the $25k does not buy in to the complete package that is AmigaOS4. Under the terms of the contract what it buys is quite limited. On the other hand, I don't think that Hyperion should be shpping their current product as "AmigaOS4.0" but "AmigaOS4" ( the libraries etc ) PLUS "Extensions". But that is a syntactic issue but will go to the heart of what the court decides Amiga Inc is entitled to.
But it isn't a straight contract "we pay you X and you do the work on Y". It has many other clauses that speak about revenue rights. It is common for a product to be comissioned either at a high price for exclusive rights, or a lower price with some rights assigned to the developer in compensation.
And here is the key point.
Amiga Inc want to dissolve the contract, and claim they already have (see 1). This means that Hyperion won't just lose the source, but revenue rights too. This amounts to more than just 25k.
So if I was the developer I would say that I need 30 days to fulfill the delivery of source. I would then strip anything out that was not covered under the original contract, go back through the library system to the 68k versions of the libraries and license petunia. Given WarpOS is already "available" the terms are fulfilled.
However what you have to think about is that Amiga Inc were originally in breach. Once a breach occurs a business has two choices. (a) Enforce it formally. (b) Grow the remit contract organically to fulfil the spirit of the contract.
So to me it seems that Hyperion have done (b), they have consistently bent over backwards and delivered far more than they were asked for.
(1) But they aren't so confident that they have correctly annulled the contract because they have put 25k into bond to fulfil the terms of it!
Quote:
Maybe this risk will pay off or maybe not but I must say taking such a large risk was a real stupid move by Hyperion's management in the first place. They are insolvent, they are not the same company, you can't serve us in English, you don't have jurisdiction, it was finished on this date; no wait, this other date, etc. Please spare us the bad acting. Looks to me like Hyperion risked it all on nothing but a whim and now they are being challenged.
These are all valid points though. When you are being attacked legally you have to build a defense whether it be on nit picking points or substantive points you have to do it. But I appreciate your perspective.
Quote:
I always wondered why Hyperion refused to give us all a product road map beyond 4.0. Why the feature list kept changing and never really proclaimed "finished" until Dec. 2006. Now we know why. They were hoping not to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
I think that is a leap. We did get a roadmap beyond 4.0 at one point, I remember it. It had bits showing when Intent would get "hosted" etc. However, in the case that my memory is incorrect, it sayes in the contract that the rights to 4.1 and beyond revert to Amiga Inc, so how could they? They would have to be Amiga Inc.s roadmap.
Quote:
I'm not an Amiga Inc. fan but they are obviously not going to just go away and they have the Amiga brand. I seriously doubt Hyperion has the money to go the other way around.
Well yes, but just having the brand isn't enough, I've said before how a contract dilutes rights in a specific way. Of course Amiga Inc can't just go away, that is obvious. If they do they are accepting a challenge to their rights and the value of their company ( what there is of it ) diminishes accordingly.
Quote:
Hyperion should sell the lot to Amiga Inc. and go back to making games or whatever. Don't even bother partnering, sell it all. Just make sure you don't accept a cheque...
But the point is, Hyperion doesn't own the rights to all of what you have on the CD, and never claimed they did.
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
Actually I think your logic is without fault, except for one point, but that is due to lack of information on the table.
What I am about to assert I can't back up in public. I freely admit this, so I am going to present it very carefully as speculation to avoid defamation of character or being pulled into a court case myself. So what follows is, as they say "pure fiction", read into it what you will:
Quote:
1. Back in the days of the Thendic/Amiga court case, it was obvious that Bill Buck was actually after the OS4 name/brands and rights. Ben Hermans and Alan Redhouse were screaming at Bill McEwen to get into court and pay for a lawyer, I think they might even have offerred to pay them at one point.
2. We know what happenned, Bill Buck tried to claim rights to the brand and source and was rebuffed by an unsympathetic court. KMOS as we know now where buying out Amiga Inc. The court case was handled as a rearguard action but at the time neither Eyetech nor Hyperion were made aware that the rights had been transferred.
3. KMOS had been told they had full rights to OS4 source and documentation and then found out they didn't actually. They really had full rights to DE, the brand and trademarks (but diluted by an existing contract with Hyperion ). I would guess this was the source of the SECOND argument with Hyperion. Also I would say this must have made ITEC pretty pissed off with Amiga Inc for breaching a fundamental term of the contract - that written notice was required. Especially when you see that the rights had been transferred when Bolton Peck had his dispute with Amiga Inc!
4. KMOS and Hyperion established a working relationship to bring AmigaOS4 as a executable demonstrator package onto the PDA reference design by IBM.
5. In the meantime it seems that KMOS/Amiga Inc were really interested in playing hardball. This doesn't surprise me as Garry Hare was an incredibly savvy operator. I believe that it was he that first realised the best strategy with the Thendic/Amiga case was to handle it as a nuisance and not a threat. This is definately a rumour though.
6. The strategy, was to push Hyperion back into negotiation with Amiga Inc. This was through applying stress to various points of the contract. You might ask why (4)? Well that is how businesses work. If you are aggressive and resort immediately to a court case you are just forcing your opponent to dig heels in. By subtly applying pressure you get what you want. Either side of the contract is almost useless without the other.
7. The pressure took the forms of refusing to accept new hardware partners as this was the only control that Amiga Inc had on AmigaOS 4.0 ( they still wouldn't have been able to get any money from it but the intellectual property would revert ).
8. The impasse has now reached a point where it is in the court, and Amiga Inc blinked first seeing the ACube announcement as an excuse to bring Hyperion into the dock.
9. Now the terms will be tested, will rights return to Amiga Inc, or transfer to Hyperion, or will the status quo return?
At some point Hyperion would have had to shut Amiga Inc out of their change control system, and throw them off their mailing lists. When that point was will be an indicator of when the realised what KMOS was up to. The project developers will know exactly what that date was if it took place.
I would guess that it would have had to have been as soon as they realised that KMOS thought they had full rights to demand it - after the Thendic/Amiga lawsuit. Probably some amount of time for both parties to size each other up properly. Say 11 months later?
I think that Amiga Inc has followed a distinct and almost brilliant strategy here. However I think also it was pretty obvious from early on, and Hyperion and its developers have taken measures to protect themselves.
So instead of all this boo hoo crap for Hyperion and Amiga Inc, let us be honest with ourselves. They both saw this coming, and they both needed it to happen. KMOS/Amiga Inc want full rights reverted to them and have since the start, and Hyperion want full rights reverted to them. Whatever, they both need clarity.
If Amiga Inc transferred rights whilst failed to inform their partners in the contract then they are in significant material breach of the contract. Add to that their inability to fulfill the original terms of the contract - deliver OS3.1 source code - they are in material breach twice.
This is why it isn't cut and dried, regardless of motivation, both parties aren't acting for "the good of the community" but it is the endgame of a very clever chess game played by both of them.
This is why I can't see them EVER working with each other again. I also can't blame either party from a purely business point of view.
From a moral point of view, from a benefit to the community point of view, I think Amiga Inc has fucked up the market for AmigaOS4 for the last 3 years and sacrificed it deliberately because they saw regaining the source code on the best possible terms for them as far more important.
What else could they do I suppose? Business isn't about altruism, but let nobody be fooled here, this is what the motivation really is - business.
Why though..... the project is of so little value now.
Edited by Mitch on 2007/6/9 8:48:46
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
For what it is worth, your "assertions" pretty well fit the picture as I have guessed. Of course you seem to be in a position to know more of things. Assertions which make logical sense, have to be respected, proving them is needless, they seem to fit things rather well and that is enough.
I am praying for arbitration that will force these companies to work together in a structured way.
The reason I liked AOS4 is because of its user friendliness. And OS5 because in general it is the way to go. Uniting the two makes very good sense.
I believe good arbitration would actually be good for all concerned, however, legal arbitration is not always that insightful.
To continue the legal battle would be pointless, by the time it had ended the window of opportunity will be well and truly closed.
This year is the critical one. If all this lo some workable solution good, but if it gets drawn out, well for my money I will be looking elsewhere for solutions again.
To be brutal, I don't care much about the community, what I care about is having the computer solution for our times, and despite the naysayers the AOS4 response was a very good one.
Yes well we both know that the community is full of jackals with a small group of genuine individuals wanting to use a computer!
I doubt Amiga Inc had to spend all night debating that sacrifice.
But I totally agree with you, we don't just need AmigaOS4.0 to build some kind of technical foundation on and a buzz, but some kind of future regardless of the "community".
In the court documents there is a submission which shows an email where Hyperion point out they have been willing to go into arbitration for a long while because it is cheaper than hiring lawyers and Amiga Inc has consistently refused.
I doubt that now Amiga Inc has started to spend money on 4 attorneys and is supposed to be putting 2 million into some backwater stadium for publicity for a product suite they don't even have they really want to back down but force a settlement in their favour.
Whether or not I would ever buy a product from Amiga Inc with the current management at the helm or not is a personal choice and I have to say I most definately would not. But that is simply a point of principle now. They have wasted nearly 8 years now with the only good thing to show for it being AmigaOS4.0 which they are busily trying to block.
A final note, I can't claim to be "well informed" or even at the center of things. I never was nor will I be. But enough hard information came my way to see this face off coming a long time ago.
The funniest thing at the moment is seeing the very same characters online who were desperate to prove that Amiga Inc was "bankrupt" or "insolvent" after the Bolton Peck judgement and the McEwen deposition to the Amiga/Thendic court case now just as desperately trying to prove they weren't.
Edited by Mitch on 2007/6/9 9:20:24
The court case is like a thunderstorm after a long humid summer.
I think that is a leap. We did get a roadmap beyond 4.0 at one point, I remember it. It had bits showing when Intent would get "hosted" etc. However, in the case that my memory is incorrect, it sayes in the contract that the rights to 4.1 and beyond revert to Amiga Inc, so how could they? They would have to be Amiga Inc.s roadmap.
No, we never did get an updated roadmap at all. I would have noticed since I've been asking McEwen, Hermans, etc. for one for years.
Quote:
Quote: Hyperion should sell the lot to Amiga Inc. and go back to making games or whatever. Don't even bother partnering, sell it all. Just make sure you don't accept a cheque...
But the point is, Hyperion doesn't own the rights to all of what you have on the CD, and never claimed they did.
My point is that Hyperion is standing in the way of Amiga Inc. No they don't have all the rights to everything but that doesn't matter. Sell it all to Amiga Inc. and let them renegotiate third party contracts. Easy as that. The way it is now both sides are blocking each other and that just sucks.
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
Donate
