> "nonsensical ideas"? That's pretty harsh coming from you Andreas. Usually you
> consider your statements more carefully before you say something like that.

It was you saying that you "can't see Bill considering PC production (or a MorphOS port)", so I concluded that you regard these ideas as nonsensical from Amiga Inc's point of view. (And I'm completely with you on that, assuming I didn't misunderstand you.) At least, I didn't see anyone else than you portraying these ideas.

> I'm not the only one that interprets Amiga Inc. agreement with Hyperion
> as precluding competition on similar platforms regardless of the name.

Marketing "Amiga"-labelled PCs with a non-Amiga-like OS ("like" as in "API compatible") wouldn't be "competition on similar platforms" in the sense of the agreement, else Commodore USA wouldn't be allowed to use their "Amiga" trademark license for their keyboard PCs.
With the other matter (paying the MorphOS Team for porting MorphOS to anything they'd like) I've just come to the conclusion that I was wrong. I had misread the agreement's sentence "the Amiga Parties may develop, market, license and sell Operating Systems that do not exhibit a Substantially Similar Software Architecture [...], so long as such Operating Systems do not use the Exclusive Licensed Marks [...] or the phrase "Amiga operating system"..." as missing a "not". Sorry for that. My bad.

> Licensing the Amiga name for us on keyboard X86 computers to CUSA is a lot
> different than selling MorphOS based computers (especially using the Amiga name).

Yes, I see.

> I don't think he's that stupid

I don't think that either, not necessarily because it would violate the agreement (which it most probably would) but rather because Amiga Inc. never seemed interested at all in the concept of something like MorphOS.

> I cam't picture the MorphOS team as willing to work with someone like this.

Me neither. And I suspect that Amiga Inc. wouldn't be willing to work with some-*thing* like MorphOS :-)

> here what I see as me likely, Bill decides to focus on tablet, hand held, and
> cell phone devices and he leaves the conventional PC market alone.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell all along.

> seems far more likely than your entirely speculative ideas.

What "speculative ideas" of mine are you on about?

Sorry Andreas,
I misinterpreted your first response.
My post was composed hastily and concluded poorly. This was partly due to the anziety I felt at seeing information quoted that insinuated that the MorphOS development team were somehow involved with Amiga Inc. and Bill McEswen.
With two AAS degrees and one BS degree and most of my class work in economics and business (as well as decades of working for/with numerous small corporations in my State) I have a jundiced view of contracts and the enforcability of business agreements in general.
I know you think very literally and believe that there can be devined a precise meaning in words, phrases and statements.
I however live in the most litegeous society in the world. Its a place where two parties can come to very different interpretations of even the most carefully worded document..
There is a common principal in contract law in the US that if one party of a contract believes that the other partiy's actions do not display the "good faith" intent to fulllfil their contractual obligations, that the first party may assume that their obligations are null and void while still holding the second party to their contractual obligations..
Does it sound complicated allowing business entities to make an assumption before a court ruling? Trust me, this precident is one of the reasons there are so many lawsuits in the US. Basically its due to in imprecise nature of language, interpretation, and basically the fair treatment of the other party in the contract.
What does this have to do with Amiga Inc and Hyperion? First, let ME be completely speculative (and in order to avoid be accused of slander let me remind you this IS entirely speculation).
Suppose when Hyperion's representatives met with Amiga Inc's representatives during the required non-binding arbitration meetings before Amiga Inc's lawsuit, Hyperion's lawyers stated their opinion that the contract that was originally in place between Hyperion and Amiga Inc was null and void because te transfer of the obligation between the four corporations holding the contract (Amino, KMOS, and both Amiga Incs) was not valid? They could also argue that the stipulations in the contract (ie time) were not met and finally argue that Amiga Incs claim to ownership of the IP in question was not valid or enforcable due to failure to properly transfer the property.
Were Amiga Inc's lawyers sufficently swayed by their opponent's arguement they might suggest to their client that it would be in both parties interests to settle the lawsuit before it went to trial.
Why would Hyperion agree to that? Because they would obtain legally documented evidence of Amiga Inc's agreement that they(and their developers) were the sole owners of AOS4,the only parties allowed to market products with the names ptreviously mentioned (AmigaOS, AmigaOne, etc), and the sole licensee of AOS3.1 to develop future versions of AOS. Avoiding a potential legal challenge Amiga Inc was able to continue tgo claim ownership of the IPs it claim to own.
Depending on how long ago the improper transfer can be proven to have occured the IP may be considered abandoned (Amiga Inc claim to it would not be valid unless it was properly transfered or the required time had lapsed for THEM to re-apply for control of the trademarks/IP, again as abandoned). Complicated? Hey, US law is what allowed there to be two different Amiga Incs in two different states claiming to be different entities but both holding the same IP (after several claimed transfers between all four corporations).
So my speculation icomplete. There is no way to verify any of the particulars of an out of court settlement except for the information the parties themselves agree to disclose.
In tis case, we have a settlement agreement (which is actually a contract) between Hyperion and Amiga Inc.

So why does this worry me? Since ther parties have agreed to forego the legal precedings and instead have come to a mutuallty agreed upon settlement, we only have the good will of both parties preventing a continuation of their dispute.
Should either Hyperion or amiga Inc feel that the other has failed to meet their obligations, they can then file a lawsuit claiming damages and perhaps (if they can argue their position before a judge) obtain a preliminary injunction against the other party (OR their associates) preventing use or distribution of goods and or services derived from the IP in question until the matter has completed litigation. I believe a similar situation occured once in the Amiga's history already (CD32 units maybe - I can't recall).

This unstable situation is why the developers of MorphOS should not allow themselves to be drawn into any busibness arrangement which could place them at risk of potential lawsuits.
I know everyone here would contend that MorphOS is a seperate, legally developed product.
But two things need to be kept in mind. First, that an entity only have a claim (not that they prove it) in order to file a lawsuit. Second, that in contactual or business relationships with another company (like Amiga Inc) the MOS developers need to be aware that if they assist Amiga Inc in the violation of a contactual agreement, that they too may become a party in further litigation.
Now I know all of you have an opinion on the legal obligations set by the agreement/settlement, but remember, tin order for all the involved paties to wind up back in court all that is required is that one of the two parties in the agreement believe that the other has failed to meet their obligations (and thus they file a lawsuit).
IAmiga Inc has apparently agreed that Hyperion has the sole right to use AOS3.1 develop successors to AOS3.1 (in the form of AOS4 andAOS5 but not limited to those products) even though MorphOS is a seperately developed product (that has been on the market for some time) Hyperion could argue that Amiga Inc's use of the product is intended to circumvent their agreement (rendering their obligation to Amiga Inc null and void)..
I know this may sound implausible, but MorphOS has BETTER compatibility with AOS3.1 than A
OS4 (the JIT compiler rendering it essentially compatible with binaries that don't depend on the direct addressing of legacy hardware. Hyperion could easily argue that a business relationship between Amiga Inc. and the MorphOS developers was an attempt to circumvent the agreement between both paties and initiate legal action against all parties involved.

I can't stress this enough, the last thing that MorphOS needs is to be involved in the legal morass that is the Amiga curse. It could be expensive and final decisions could be years after the suits were filed.
A little advice, you guys should issue astatement refuting this information and assertingb your independance from both companies.
Sorry for the length of the post and for any spelling errors or gramatical problems. I thought this matter was important enough to post this hastily and I promise to edit it tomorrow (if its still here)

Jim

> information quoted that insinuated that the MorphOS development team were
> somehow involved with Amiga Inc. and Bill McEswen.

I don't think there is such "information" here in this thread. As far as I can see, you were the first one portraying such idea here, only to immediately question its accuracy in the same line. That didn't make any sense to me (and still doesn't, to be honest).

> you think very literally

No, I *read* very literally.

> Hyperion's lawyers stated their opinion that the contract that was originally in
> place between Hyperion and Amiga Inc was null and void

Actually, it was Amiga Inc. who terminated the contract:

"The license agreement was terminated on December 20, 2006."
http://www.amiga.com/about/history/?t=os

> because te transfer of the obligation between the four corporations holding the
> contract (Amino, KMOS, and both Amiga Incs) was not valid?

These "four corporations" really are just two: Amino (aka Amiga Inc. Washington, AIW) and KMOS (aka Amiga Inc. Delaware, AID). Allegedly, the obligations of the contract were transfered between *three* corporations the following way: Amino/AIW -> Itec LLC -> KMOS/AID (with claiming "Itec LLC, later acquired by KMOS, Inc." being a sheer lie, as was KMOS' later claim to have acquired Amino/AIW).

> They could also argue that the stipulations in the contract (ie time) were not met

...by themselves. According to the original contract, a first version of OS4 should have been done within 4 months time (and based on the WarpOS kernel, running on Amiga PowerUP hardware and Escena's vapour AmigaOne).

> US law is what allowed there to be two different Amiga Incs in two
> different states claiming to be different entities

Yes, both Amino/AIW and KMOS/AID existing concurrently using "Amiga" as company name from 2005 to 2007.

> after several claimed transfers between all four corporations

Three companies really, see above.

> There is no way to verify any of the particulars of an out of court settlement
> except for the information the parties themselves agree to disclose.

Yes, we mere mortals can only refer to the public settlement agreement.

> I believe a similar situation occured once in the Amiga's history already
> (CD32 units maybe - I can't recall).

Yes, CD32:

"a deadline was reached for Commodore to pay a patent royalty to Cad Track for their use of their XOR patent. A federal judge ordered an injunction against Commodore preventing them from importing anything into the United States. Commodore had built up CD32 inventory in their Philippine manufacturing facility for the United States launch, but, being unable to sell the consoles, they remained in the Philippines until the debts owed to the owners of the facility were settled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_CD32#Release

Similar thing happened in the very early Amiga days:

"Tramiel immediately used the situation to countersue Commodore through its new (pending) subsidiary, Amiga, which was done on August 13, 1984. He sought damages and an injunction to bar Amiga (and effectively Commodore) from producing anything with that technology. The suit tried to render Commodore's new acquisition (and the source for its next generation of computers) useless and do to Commodore what they were trying to do to him. Meanwhile at Commodore, the Amiga team [...] was sitting in limbo for nearly the entire summer because of the lawsuit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Corporation#History

> even though MorphOS is a seperately developed product (that has been
> on the market for some time) Hyperion could argue that Amiga Inc's use
> of the product is intended to circumvent their agreement [...]
> Hyperion could easily argue that a business relationship between Amiga Inc.
> and the MorphOS developers was an attempt to circumvent the agreement
> between both paties

Yes, that's how I read the agreement too.

> you guys should issue astatement refuting this information

Again: What information? Where did it come from?

@Andreas_Wolf

Regarding Thom and OS news, he is writing some responses:

here

#6


[ Edited by number6 on 2010/11/4 11:12 ]

> Regarding Thom and OS news, he is writing some responses

Unfortunately, none of the three points addressed:

1. Presentation of Amino/AIW and KMOS/AID as one and the same company.
2. Claim that Amiga Inc. didn't have products.
3. Overrating the value of the Amiga patents.

Quote:

Who cares? Really?

OS4 might be affected by this, but certainly not MorphOS.

Them selling off their IP is something most people have expected ever since Amiga Inc failed with its business plan almost a decade ago. Naturally they want to recover as much of the loss as possible. The only strange thing with this is that it took so long.

> Them selling off their IP is something most people
> have expected ever since Amiga Inc failed with its
> business plan almost a decade ago. [...] The only
> strange thing with this is that it took so long.

Actually, it didn't. Allegedly, Amino/AIW sold their AmigaOS IP to Itec LLC in April 2003 (who in turn sold it to KMOS/AID in March 2004). Subsequently, Amino/AIW allegedly sold their remaining Amiga IP to KMOS/AID in mid-2004.
Now imagine some random company purchasing the recently offered Amiga assets and ending up with Bill McEwen as their CEO ;-)

wow...now all is clear!

@takemehomegrandma

who cares?
I posted that question only to induce Andreas and Jim to tell me
and others MorphOS new users, more about Amiga genesis and history
instead of search the internet.
Can't you see?

[ Edited by scrAb_ on 2010/11/4 22:51 ]

@scrAb_

Yes I understand that. And for the record, I have nothing against you raising the discussion here, and I apologize if you interpreted my post in that way!

The way I see it, it has no impact on MorphOS though. It will for OS4 though, but that's not our problem...

@takemehomegrandma

Hey mate!
I didn't misunderstand your words at all. I was jokin'.
Even so, to me this is an interesting starting point to better understand
from where MorphOS comes

[ Edited by scrAb_ on 2010/11/4 23:29 ]

Wow Jim, that was one long post. You appear to have gotten yourself all worked up about a connection between Amiga Inc. and the MorphOS Team that only existed in your own perception?

I hope nothing I wrote contributed to such a misconception. I can't imagine the MorphOS Team ever being interested in having anything to do with Amiga Inc., now, or at any time in the future.

Since no one cares about Amiga Inc. here on MorphZone.org, I find it hard to believe that this thread is still alive.

No, that post was to long and apparently it wasn't worded clearly enough.

I'm not particularlly worried about the potential issues raised by the MorphOS team involving themselves in this situation. As intellegent individuals, I trust that their decisions would be sound concerning what organizations they involve themselves with.

Andreas' quotaation of these statements did trouble me:
> fund the development of new computers to run MorphOS2.x on and name
> them new Amiga computer models.

Andreas, I, and I assume the MOS development team know that can't occur because of the legal constraints Andreas has already pointed to in the Hyperion/Ainc aettlement.
>its "Substantially Similar Software Architecture" clause

That same clause would probably affect CUSA's abillity to ship PCs with either MorphOS or AROS installed (as the restriction is not hardware specific).

So no Dave, I'm not "worked up about a connection between Amiga Inc. and the MorphOS Team that only existed in your own perception".. I was worried about statements made by others (and quoted by others) that could lead someone else to a coclusion that such as relationship might exist (when it cleatrly can't). Then I spent way to much time on the potential ramifications of oa situation we know won't occur

As I am not a lawyer, and shouldn't have offered my opinions on the ramifications of a situation that isn't likely to occur.

Further, I never should have made that statement regarding AInc not producing anything. At the time, I was thinking of hardware, and they have produced some software (ie Amiga Anywhere). Also, as an IP holder, they are not obligated to produce anything.

So for that inaccurate statement and for foolishly voicing speculation that I'm sure all of us have considered, I appologize.I My opinions regarding all parties, comments, and quotes mentioned in this thread had too great an influence on that post and I should use more caution when mixing opinion, conjecture, and facts.

No problem Jim, I just don't like to see any MZ.org members get so upset about misunderstandings, or misconceptions about things that are not real and extremely unlikely to ever happen, if not completely impossible.

Earlier in the thread I had made some "what if" statements that could never really happen, but I did not think anyone would take them seriously, or be concerned that the MorphOS Dev. Team had any connection to anyone from Amiga Inc.

We wouldn't want MZ.org forum messages to start looking like AW.net, would we???

>> Andreas' quotaation of these statements did trouble me:
>> fund the development of new computers to run MorphOS2.x
>> on and name them new Amiga computer models.

I don't understand. How can you be troubled by me quoting those "statements" done by others more than by those "statements" themselves?

> That same clause would probably affect CUSA's abillity
> to ship PCs with either MorphOS or AROS installed

...if those PCs are named "Amiga", yes.

> statements made by others (and quoted by others) that
> could lead someone else to a coclusion that such as
> relationship might exist

Really, I don't see any such statements here in this thread.

Again Andreas,
I may have to concede to you, and perhaps I should have said could instead of might.
I It would be difficult to take dave's statement about someone with deep pockets buying Amiga Inc's assets to build MorphOS computer, as serious.

But what if somerone took that partial quote you made of his statement seriously (or they just repeated the part you quoted with no attributions to the source)?
Rumors get started and perpetuate this way, I over-reacted to the slightest hint of a link between Ainc and MorphOS not just because of the legal ramifications, but because the idea of these two names being link together seemed implausible and undesirable.

Edit - Check this out. One more reason to avoid association with the Amiga name (or move to X86).

http://www.amiga.com/news/2010-08-31-commodore-amiga-aio.php
After the establishment of a good reputation, why would the MorphOS team want to be associated with anyone using the Amiga name?

But I really wish I hadn't taken this to heart, made that overly long post, or that this was still a topic we were bantering about. As I've said before, I applogize for mis-interpreting this and from now on I'll try to find the humor in such comments (even if I find them disturbing)

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/11/5 22:11 ]

> perhaps I should have said could instead of might.

I don't think it would make a significant difference in meaning. But then, I'm no native English speaker.

> what if somerone took that partial quote you made of
> his statement seriously

That partial quote doesn't even have an agent. So there's nothing in that quote to even possibly take seriously without inventing a fantasy agent before, which could as well be the pope ;-) Or put another way: To take it seriously you would have to look up the agent (and auxiliary verb to be precise) in the original message anyway.

> or they just repeated the part you quoted with no
> attributions to the source

Then they'd repeat a fragment that doesn't make any sense on its own due to missing agent (and auxiliary verb).

> Rumors get started and perpetuate this way

To have a rumour (or a proposition in the first place) an agent would have to be invented. And if someone dares to invent parts of quotes then there couldn't be any precaution that would be of any help because he could as well invent anything to add to or replace in that quote.

> Check this out.

That's where I linked to before in this thread.

> why would the MorphOS team want to be associate
> with anyone using the Amiga name?

I don't know :-)

> What a mess Amiga Inc. has made of the trademarks and copyrights
> surrounding the name Amiga!

Someone has attempted to screen the "Amiga" trademark mess:

http://aminet.net/package/docs/misc/Amiga-Trademarks

Christoph Gutjahr?
Anyone know him?
A lot of work went into that document.
"Cloanto Italia SRL 2006 Opposition pending" - Really?

> Christoph Gutjahr? Anyone know him?

https://morph.zone/userinfo.php?uid=1645
http://wiki.aminet.net/Team_Members
http://www.amiga-news.de/impressume.shtml
http://deliriumbbs.freehostia.com/en.bbs
http://gutjahr.free.fr/temp/
http://www.amiga.org/forums/member.php?u=966
http://www.amiga.org/forums/member.php?u=357
http://amigaworld.net/userinfo.php?uid=360
http://eab.abime.net/member.php?u=363
http://www.lemonamiga.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281
http://sourceforge.net/users/cgutjahr

> "Cloanto Italia SRL 2006 Opposition pending" - Really?

Most recent (and final) status is "Opposition dismissed":

http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2011-03-00002-EN.html
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91183272
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91175664

Update:

>> "Cloanto Italia SRL 2006 Opposition pending" - Really?

> Most recent (and final) status is "Opposition dismissed"

Document now reflects that recent development.

http://aminet.net/package/docs/misc/Amiga-Trademarks

>> "Substantially Similar Software Architecture" clause

> That same clause would probably affect CUSA's abillity to
> ship PCs with [...] AROS installed

It seems some Wikipedia author is attempting to rewrite history:

"CommodoreUSA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to be bundled with their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly discarded by CEO Barry Altman, due to litigation issues with Amiga Inc. who as legal licensors of the closed source Amiga Workbench interface did not like the idea of AROS (being open source) being developed for Commodore USA's x86 range of computers, in particular the Amiga range."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA#Controversy

And he even gives a posting of yours as alleged source for this nonsense:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=578528&postcount=183

As far as I can see, your posting says nothing like what's claimed in the quoted part from Wikipedia. It wouldn't even make sense to not be allowed to ship AROS due to its open source nature but then be allowed to instead go to another open source OS that is Ubuntu. That's really a contradiction in terms.

No, that definitely doesn't agree with what Barry told me directly in a phone conversation.
He wasn't interested in direct development of AROS and after examining the state of the OS he didn't consider it polisedh or stable enough for inclusion with his PCs.
And the MorphOS developers had apparently rejected an X86 port (for at least the immediately future).
So he turned to a Linux Distro (which he's now getting gaffs for).

I'm not sure how I feel about C=USA, but it doesn't seem fair that other small shops can sell AROS based systems and not get any negative press but when C=USA wants to bundle an open source OS with their machines they get flack for it.

> He wasn't interested in direct development of AROS and after examining the state
> of the OS he didn't consider it polisedh or stable enough for inclusion with his PCs.

I was alluding to the time the Wikipedia quote refers to, i.e. when he still *was* considering AROS and was subsequently pressured to scrap this idea, but by another entity and for entirely different reasons than are claimed in the Wikipedia article. From Commodore USA's August 31st 2010 press release:

"Commodore USA has now taken a major role in not just supporting the future Amiga market with our many new products, but also in providing a new beginning for the enormous existing Amiga community. Our relationship with them, along with our support for the elegant, robust and lightweight AROS desktop operating system, will ensure that they and future customers will benefit from our new and exciting vision, and enable the legacy Commodore and Amiga culture to flourish. [...] In response to an overwhelming demand from Amiga users worldwide, Commodore USA’s CTO Leo Nigro announced today that their new Amiga branded computers will be fully AROS compatible, and that they will be supporting the AROS open source community in every way possible. Mr. Nigro states 'With the monumental strides that AROS has recently achieved, we realize the importance of accelerating this progress with funding that will enable this project to rapidly move forward and take it’s rightful place at the forefront of desktop operating systems'."
http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_News.aspx

The Wikipedia article now claims that it was Amiga Inc. who after publication of this press release prohibited Commodore USA to ship AROS with its new 'Amiga' line of computers, and it claims further that the reason for Amiga Inc. doing this was the open source nature of AROS. Problem is that's not what happened at all, and besides it doesn't make any sense (taking into account that they now go for altered Ubuntu, which is open source as well). The one who put this into the Wikipedia article is either purposely and falsely putting the blame on Amiga Inc. or he really thinks that's what happened and is pulling this out of his arse. It's getting way beyond funny when he cites a posting of yours as source for his claims when this posting doesn't support any of those bizarre claims.
It's well known that what's potentially prohibiting Commodore USA to ship AROS with its new 'Amiga' line of computers is the "Substantially Similar Software Architecture" clause in the September 2009 settlement agreement between Hyperion and Amiga Inc., and it's certainly Hyperion, *not* Amiga Inc., who would have attempted to enforce this clause should Commodore USA have decided to go for AROS (see in my previous posting the link to Hyperionmp's telling reaction to the above quoted press release on amigaworld.net).
One could argue that not Commodore USA but Amiga Inc. would have got sued by Hyperion over this as Hyperion's agreement is not with Commodore USA but with Amiga Inc., and that consequently it was not Hyperion but Amiga Inc. who in order to avoid litigation prohibited Commodore USA to ship 'Amiga' computers with AROS, but that still doesn't render the claims regarding the alleged reason any less bogus.

> the MorphOS developers had apparently rejected an X86 port (for at least
> the immediately future).

Yes, and Commodore USA 'Amiga' computers with MorphOS would have caused the same outrage in Hyperion that the Commodore USA's original AROS announcement did. At least I wouldn't know how MorphOS could be less subject to the "Substantially Similar Software Architecture" clause than AROS.

> it doesn't seem fair that other small shops can sell AROS based systems
> and not get any negative press but when C=USA wants to bundle an
> open source OS with their machines they get flack for it.

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here. The AresOne and the iMica are systems without the 'Amiga' name that come with a native AmigaOS-like OS, whereas the Commodore USA 'Amiga' line will be systems *with* the 'Amiga' name that come *without* a native AmigaOS-like OS. So these are exactly contrastive situations that cannot be easily compared. Furthermore, the open source matter has nothing at all to do with anything here.

Update:

> It seems some Wikipedia authors are attempting to rewrite history: [...]

Fortunately, someone with a sense of reality has removed the stupid claims. It now reads only:

"Commodore USA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to be bundled with their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly discarded by CEO Barry Altman."

Jim wrote:
Quote:

Well actually i find the C64x not too bad : )
The problem is that selling a "Amiga" named PC with an amiga-like OS seems to result in legal problems.

Now i would like to ask:
Where the hell is the difference in selling those with Linux + AmigaForever? huh? This mix should be more harmful to Hyperions business..

Well CUSA made one mistake:
They said: "Wohoooo you Amigans we will bring AMIGA-PC's with AROS!!!!" at a time where some people put some hard work and money into AROS... CUSA did nothing... so i was pi**ed and said things like "Broadway on CUSA-machines = no go" ... i just hoped they will donate at least a few bucks to the bounties.... nothing .. remember they spoke about 30,000,000$ budget..... result: not even 5$ for a bounty...

Than they needed a sound-driver which was closed source... Stephen Jones has paid for it and i have paid to get it working with the AresOne later... CUSA said "suck my salty balls" and posted private messages in public forums.

You see the more i recap the more my blood starts boiling... hmm a minute ago i was positive about the C64x : D , still nice.

So there is nothing unfair....

aaaarrrrgghhhh ... ok everything is fine again : ) Did i say that the c64x looks fine?