What's the status of the Cloanto / Hyperion lawsuit?

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by number6

Since there might be people who don't understand all of your reference:
Evert Carton was managing partner by title.
He was also majority shareholder....

Shareholders or more specific who owns what portion of a company is totally irrelevant to the law suite: the company itself is subject to the law as an entity, no matter the ownership.
But statements are of course relevant, if someone was in a designated capacity to speak for the company, as representative, spokesman, legal representative, employee ...
(again, totally independent of shareholder-ship)

That seems to be true for Evert Carton at the time he made his statements ... independently of his actual ownership

[terminills]

Originally Posted by Gorf

Shareholders or more specific who owns what portion of a company is totally irrelevant to the law suite: the company itself is subject to the law as an entity, no matter the ownership.
But statements are of course relevant, if someone was in a designated capacity to speak for the company, as representative, spokesman, legal representative, employee ...
(again, totally independent of shareholder-ship)

That seems to be true for Evert Carton at the time he made his statements ... independently of his actual ownership

Ben used new math anyways. Rumor has it there's over 100% of shares floating around ;D

[number6]

Originally Posted by terminills

Ben used new math anyways. Rumor has it there's over 100% of shares floating around ;D

You must admit that with Ben now owning 100% there are finally no more fisticuffs at the yearly (lol) meetings.

#6

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Korodny

how Hyperion never intended to target m68k based Amigas and/or update 3.1 - so that could not be the intention of the wording in the contract.

So who did? Cloanto? They defaced 3.1, and now are trying to prevent further development of 3.2. What will they do (or not do) if they get control of it?

Originally Posted by Gorf

3.1.x and 3.2 (and so on) are of course not originally developed by Hyperion, but in significant (or overwhelming) portions it contains code from Commodore.

And Commodore was well known for not paying their dues. Therefore Hyperion has held true to their spirit. I say full speed ahead and damn the torpedos!

[number6]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

What will they do (or not do) if they get control of it?

Granted words are just words, but intent was spelled out:
Here

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see reference to "control" here. Quite the contrary.

#6

[pixie]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

So who did? Cloanto? They defaced 3.1, and now are trying to prevent further development of 3.2. What will they do (or not do) if they get control of it?

Defaced, how come? Trying to prevent an external entry to sell their ip? It seems right, just like if you use patents you have to pay why should they play coy that someone else is selling a product which they do not own? They are the owners, they could even thrown it in the bin, they would still be in the right, you know, ownership et all

[amigang]

So basically if Hyperion called it AmigaOS 4.3.2 68k it would be ok, but they might be a problem as it’s called AmigaOS 3.2.

Also does this lawsuit / issues prevent the release of the source code of say AmigaOS 1.0 to 2.0?

I said this in Amigaworld thread, but the best thing I've seen is this infighting over the scraps of who owns what didn't stop project like Vampire! Who basically said screw it and supported Aros! That to me is the best thing, that no matter what happens we got ways to get around this crap.

It’s a shame as I’m sure with official support it might of made the project more successful and a lot easier for devs. But it clear that these companies saw dollar signs / control first over community projects.

[pixie]

Originally Posted by amigang

So basically if Hyperion called it AmigaOS 4.3.2 68k it would be ok, but they might be a problem as it’s called AmigaOS 3.2.

I guess as long as it was ppc...

But it clear that these companies saw dollar signs / control first over community projects.

When you buy a company is actually something you expect to be able to do...

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by pixie

I guess as long as it was ppc...

The settlement agreement does not mention a particular hardware architecture.

[pixie]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

The settlement agreement does not mention a particular hardware architecture.

Let's check:

Amiga hereby grants the Amiga One Partners a right and license to use and modify the Software and an exclusive right and license to market and distribute OS 4 as a standalone version for the Target hardware and as an OEM version shipped with the Amiga One. Amiga furthermore grants the Amiga One Partners a right and license to use the Amiga trademarks in conjunction with the Amiga One. Hyperion shall develop Amiga OS 4.0 for the Target Hardware with the minimal feature-set set out in Annex I andpursuant to the development guidelines set out in Annex I. Amiga acknowledges and accepts that Hyperion will bring in third party contractors (Annes II) to fulfill its contractualobligations.

[pixie]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

"Amiga-news" has unfortunately a certain byas in the matter. You should probably read the original judgement.

That's rich! xD

[grond]

Originally Posted by pixie

Let's check:

@pixie: is there a definition of the Target Hardware?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by pixie

Let's check:

Which clause is this? Because I do not find this text. I neither find an Annex I to the document. It seems you are probably quoting from some earlier contract, but that does not matter anymore.

Concerning the Version numbering, you should look up the definitions, in particular item d), where it states in particular that "AmigaOs 4" applies to the software irrespectively of the version number.

[Gorf]

Here is the 2009 settlement agreement Thomas is referring to:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federa...245/147/1.html

Hermans' literal interpretation is contested by former Hyperion boss Carton, as we can read here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1ON-y...BVNxn_l9NNpNf/

This and other presumed/aledged breaches of this agreement are now part of the still ongoing lawsuit between Mike‘s Amiga Corp and Hyperion.

[TCD]

Thanks for the links Gorf. So... the remaining case is about if Hyperion has the rights to develop and distribute OS 3.x too or if it is limited to OS 4+ if I understand the settlement correctly.

[Thomas Richter]

That's pretty much what the court has to decide, indeed.

[TCD]

I can see why that is open for debate. The settlement is quite loosely formulated.

[pixie]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Which clause is this? Because I do not find this text. I neither find an Annex I to the document. It seems you are probably quoting from some earlier contract, but that does not matter anymore.

Concerning the Version numbering, you should look up the definitions, in particular item d), where it states in particular that "AmigaOs 4" applies to the software irrespectively of the version number.

Obviously you should have some problem with your google, here's the link, based the direct text google:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...631/143245/38/

[amigang]

Originally Posted by pixie

When you buy a company is actually something you expect to be able to do...

Well I agree, but if they just worked together, allowed the Vampire team to use AmigaOs3.1/Rom they likely could of got a small amount of money from licensed Amiga Roms to the Vampire Team and more importantly got free development work on AmigaOS3 and advanced the OS, instead you got a much improved 68K version of Aros, likely the last thing either company wanted. Which is why its so funny to me!

[Thomas Richter]

This is not the settlement agreement. Your document is from 2007, but the settlement agreement is from December 2009.