Quote:

My advice: stop. Just stop.

Quote:

Agreed.

Quote:

pfft yeah everyone knows it's got 100% of the ENIAC operating system in every version.

@thread

Back to topic...

the accounts

claim made on this topic


Quote:

Source

#6

> claim made on this topic

I hope these "sources" are more reliable than his previous "source" :-P

A company can't be allowed to remain in debt forever, especially if it lacks the ability to ever pay that debt. Time was never on Hyperion's side. This one is more believable.

”Is another bankruptcy imminent, or who will take over?”

Indeed, who will take over? Half a million in the negative, that’s just what’s required to get back over the surface (and those numbers are *really old* BTW, much could have happened on the cost-side sine then, given the legal struggles they put themselves into). Another half a million *at least* would be required in order for the company to actually seriously do something (anything! Court case, marketing, paying devs for development, paying licenses, paying running costs like phone bills, server costs, etc). And what assets would such high risk lottery ticket potentially grant the new owner? Nothing, except *perhaps* a limited right to use some property owned by others, and even that is not a given. Hyperion doesn’t own anything of value itself. Who will come forward?

[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 20.06.2019 - 09:06 ]

Quote:

If you are referring to the Paul C. Clements testimony about "the Agreement's" use of the term "Software Architecture" (found in the stipulated judgement under "Definition o.") in order to specify exactly what copyrighted materials is being granted for Hyperion to use for development and put to market (in "Definition n. 'Software'", "Definition d. "AmigaOS 4", "Grant (b)", and various pages of "EXHIBIT A") then you might be out of arguments.

Nowhere in the settlement agreement is there a list or in any other way a specification of exactly what copyrighted materials are being granted for Hyperion to use under the license. For example, browse the USPTO for Amiga copyrights, and you will see a comprehensive (yet not complete, which it does not have to be in USPTO contexts) list of various copyrighted parts of Amiga OS, all copyrights now owned by Cloanto. This resembles what a proper license should have looked like (but a license would of course need to be exact and cover 100% of the licensed objects), but "the Settlement Agreement" lists no Source Code, no Object Code, and no other files in any shape or form. It's like granting a license to "meatballs" without covering a specified list of ingredients. Instead the settlement agreement relies *solely* on Amiga "Software Architecture" in the definitions of "the Software" etc ("including without limitation its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation"), and most notably in the "Grant (b)" for the "[...] Object Code and Source Code license to the Software".

And this is what makes the settlement worthless for Hyperion, as testified by Paul C. Clements.

Version numbers isn't the main thing here. The most significant way in which Paul C. Clements use version numbers in his testimony, is when he establish the fact that "The Documentation", which consist of the list of five books in Exhibit 4 of "The Agreement" (like the RKRM's), only covers versions up to 2.04 and not 3.1. Not that it matters, since "only a minimal amount of information about the software architecture of the Amiga operating systems up to version 2.04 can be gleaned from the Documentation". So almost nothing about 2.04 and *NOTHING* about 3.1. Again: "The Documentation" does not at all document a full "Software Architecture" of *any* version of the OS, not 1.3, not 2.04, not 3.1.

Regarding specifically what you claimed in your post, about "rights to previous versions", (which, again, is *not* the key point in his document), Paul C. Clements writes: "If a party were to believe that the term 'Software', because its definition says 'including without limitation its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation', gave that party the right to source code from an earlier version of that program or any other program, that party would be categorically mistaken. This would be as absurd as a person commissioning an architect to design a house, then commissioning builders to build the house, then conveying rights to the architecture to a second person, with the result that the second person asserts ownership of the first person’s house. Just as the architecture of the house is not the house itself, so 'Software Architecture' is not the software in which it is instantiated."

But the main point is obviously not about version numbers at all, but: "'Software Architecture' exists apart from, and does not include, object code or source code, and there is no such thing as an 'Object Code and Source Code license' to a software architecture", "The Documentation does not contain any source code of any Amiga operating system (3.1 or prior)", and "While there is obviously such a thing as an 'Object Code and Source Code license' to an operating system, there is no such thing as an 'Object Code and Source Code license' to a Software Architecture, since Software Architecture contains neither object code nor source code. The very concept is nonsensical because a program's software architecture is not its instantiation, but an abstraction that exists independent of any instantiation."

Hyperion may have thought about apples, but what they wrote in the contract was about oranges. And they even misunderstood that orange part, since they managed to describe it erroneously. But that's their problem, it's all on them.

To summarize:

"The Settlement Agreement" does not specify exactly what copyrighted 3.1 materials are to be licensed to Hyperion (no list of specific files, no specific sources) but relies entirely on the Documentation about the Amiga System Architecture for the description of this. Problem for Hyperion is that this documentation does not cover 3.1, in fact it doesn't describe the System Architecture of *any* version, it does not provide the source code of *any* OS version, and more important, it *DOES NOT* describe the Amiga System Architecture, and even if it did, Software Architecture contains neither Source Code nor Object Code.

And this is actually the whole foundation the entire agreement relies on.

Hmm, since there is no list specifying what files, objects and other materials that the license should cover, maybe Amiga/Cloanto should provide to the court a list of files that specifically *were not* covered by the license?

@thread

With all the motions and responses that could not be anticipated since the filings began, I always suspected that the December, 2019 trial data was overly optimistic. Indeed.

Here is the new/amended schedule:
Quote:

Source item 73

#6

> Nowhere in the settlement agreement is there a list or in any other way
> a specification of exactly what copyrighted materials are being granted
> for Hyperion to use under the license. [...] "the Settlement Agreement"
> lists no Source Code, no Object Code, and no other files in any shape
> or form. [...] "The Settlement Agreement" does not specify exactly what
> copyrighted 3.1 materials are to be licensed to Hyperion (no list of
> specific files, no specific sources)

The settlement agreement mentions an "Object Code and Source Code license to the Software" and defines "Software" as meaning Commodore's AmigaOS 3.1, which is a distinctive product. That's sufficiently clear. Why should all the files AmigaOS 3.1 is comprised of be listed separately (or even their source code be written down in or annexed to the agreement) for this license to be valid? This wasn't even done in the retroactively drafted software purchase agreements between Commodore, Escom and Gateway.

> the settlement agreement relies *solely* on Amiga "Software Architecture"
> in the definitions of "the Software" etc ("including without limitation
> its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation"), and most
> notably in the "Grant (b)" for the "[...] Object Code and Source Code
> license to the Software".

No, it does not. You may want to think a while about the meaning of the word "including". The fact that there is no such thing as source code or object code of the "Software Architecture" of AmigaOS 3.1 doesn't void the existence of the source code and object code of AmigaOS 3.1.

> this is what makes the settlement worthless for Hyperion,
> as testified by Paul C. Clements.

He testifies no such thing. I quoted his testimony from his "Summary of Findings" in comment #900 to you. You may want to re-read it and stop putting words in his mouth.

> Version numbers isn't the main thing here. [...] the main point
> is obviously not about version numbers at all

It is with regard to what Paul C. Clements thinks about what Hyperion did get and did not get out of the agreement, as testified by him in the quote referred to above.

> Hyperion may have thought about apples, but what they wrote
> in the contract was about oranges.

I think they more likely may have thought about fruits, but what they wrote in the contract was about apples (or oranges).

> "The Settlement Agreement" [...] relies entirely on the Documentation
> about the Amiga System Architecture for the description of this.

No, the alleged "Software Architecture" is irrelevant for the object code and source code license to AmigaOS 3.1. It simply means that Hyperion's object code and source code license to AmigaOS 3.1 doesn't extend to prior versions of AmigaOS just because they share the same "Software Architecture".

> this is actually the whole foundation the entire agreement relies on.

I think you severely misread the agreement. But then, you would not be the first to do so ;-)

This case will take years to resolve. It's not even starting properly next year.

Only the Belgian government can end this madness by folding Hyperion, which will itself take years. Assuming Trevor doesn't help out again, that is, and stretch the inevitable out even further.

And even if that happens, it only means the end of Hyperion. The free-for-all for whatever remains of their assets will then begin in earnest, and take even more years of litigation to resolve.

> This case will take years to resolve. It's not even starting properly next year.

Yes, likely. Original date of jury trial was set for December 2019. Let's see :-)


Edit: I only now see number6's report (comment #934) that the date has been postponed to April 2020 already.

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 20.06.2019 - 16:11 ]

At this rate, the case might last longer than any remaining Amiga news site to actually report its resolution. Seems Amiga-news needs new people to help run it, and AO and AWN have been on autopilot for some time now.

Moo is gone, Amigans is a tomb (and let's face it was never a credible news site anyway, just a dumping ground for the loonies). Even MZ and aros-exec can be slow with the updates. And eab isn't really "news" as such...

> AO and AWN have been on autopilot for some time now.

At least AO is being worked on and enhanced now and then.

> Amigans is a tomb (and [...] was never a credible news site anyway [...]).
> Even MZ and aros-exec can be slow with the updates.

I don't think there's any difference in credibility of the news sections of either site. They simply restrict themselves to news relevant to the respective platform. And if Amigans.net with 42 news articles in 2019 is a tomb, then what is MorphZone with 8 news articles? :-) AROS Exec lost its seriously underused (0 articles in 2018, 2 in 2017) news section with the site relaunch in October 2018, btw.

Quote:

In some parts of Europe bankruptcy can not be declared by a court if assets of company are worth less than the cost of the procedure.
Have you carefully checked Belgian law in this regard?
Maybe you are waiting for something that will never happen.

Even if we take the Paul C Clements analysis seriously.
Paul C Clements still has a problem with logic.
Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 MAY have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3 and in his conlusion that's why Hyperion has not rights to Amiga Os 1.3.
Paul C Clements is wrong ofcourse.
If Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 MUST have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3 he will be right.
In reality 3.1 is based on 2.0 this on 1.3, 3.1 include 1.3 and 1.3 can be cut off from 3.1.

> Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1
> MAY have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3

No, he does not. You completely make this up.

> in his conlusion that's why Hyperion has not rights to Amiga Os 1.3.

No, his conclusion is that the sameness of "Software Architecture" between 3.1 and older versions like 1.3 does not give Hyperion a source code and object code license to any older version because the agreement only grants them a source code and object code license to 3.1 and there is no such thing as a source code or object code of a "Software Architecture".

> Paul C Clements is wrong ofcourse.

I don't think so. Wrong are the people who read things into his testimony that aren't there, not even implied.

> If Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 MUST
> have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3 he will be right.

You completely miss the point of his testimony.

> In reality 3.1 is based on 2.0 this on 1.3

In real reality, 3.1 is based on 3.0, which is based on 2.1, which is based on 2.0(x), which is based on 1.3(.x).

> 3.1 include 1.3 and 1.3 can be cut off from 3.1.

No and no. As soon as one line of code has been deleted or changed on the way from 1.3 through 3.1, it is no longer included in 3.1 and thus can no longer be "cut off" from 3.1. Your idea that software development means just adding more and more lines of code and leaving old lines untouched is incredibly naive. There are even complete 1.3 components that weren't inherited through to 3.1 like the say/narrator.device/translator.library combo. I'd like to see you cut this off from 3.1.


Edit: corrected AmigaOS lineage (thanks Kronos)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 23.06.2019 - 20:26 ]

Quote:

Tsts you disappoint me...

2.1 is based on 3.0 not the other way round.



But kinda back to the topic:

The whole intent of the agreement was to give Hyperion a clear legal standing developing OS4.x based on 3.1 sources while AInc retained ownership (atleast on paper).

Wording is poor, so it might be interpreted that Hyperion also has rights to 3.1 or even earlier versions outside the context of 4.x and the brefore there is no sure way to say how this will end (my guess is on either one side going under during the process or another shady agreement).

Quote:

Likely that 'bankruptcy' is far too dramatic a word for this and what's going to happen is that they'll just be struck off the company register again.

That means they won't be able to accept money, employ people, defend themselves in court or do anything an actual registered company can do.

Time will tell what Ben does about it this time.

[ Edited by KennyR 23.06.2019 - 13:39 ]

Quote:

My guess is that the wording was so poor because Amiga Inc didn't want to draw further attention to the fact that it did not own a copy of AmigaOS source and had taken no interest in AmigaOS/AmigaONE development whatsoever despite publicly saying they had (being more focused on possible investor scams and money laundering, which they would naturally not want to talk about either).

Amiga Inc knew nothing about AmigaOS, and cared nothing except money and not losing their IP.

It was a rogue's agreement, probably thrown together on the 11th hour, and only meant to give both sides breathing space while they got ready to wreck the other again.

[ Edited by KennyR 23.06.2019 - 13:50 ]

@thread

Re:amended schedule (post 934) &
Claim made (post 929)

The actual document (more than the schedule I posted) is now available:

Source

There seems to be mention of something not publically mentioned before that relates to the claim I mentioned in post 929.

Quote:

The fact that the 2018 accounts were never filed with the Central Bank of Belgium is common knowledge.
The fact that there is some legal proceeding about this underway is not common knowledge, afaik.

#6

>> In real reality, 3.1 is based on 3.0, which is based on 2.1,
>> which is based on 2.0(x), which is based on 1.3(.x).

> 2.1 is based on 3.0 not the other way round.

Indeed, thanks for correction. In my defence, the whole 2.x series completely escaped me as I jumped directly from 1.3 (A500) to 3.0 (A4000) in 1994.

Well, 2.1 was completely disk based as there was no 2.1 ROM (it ran on 2.04), and it offered not much over 2.04, so most people just ignore it. It was the set I got with my A600, strangely enough.

But anyway, oh dear Hyperion. Looks like we'll find out the week coming whether they come to an end or Ben pulls some new legal trick out of the bag...

> 2.1 [...] offered not much over 2.04

Well, this digest doesn't sound too shabby:

- support for hard drives larger than 40MB (2.05)
- support for high-density floppy disk drives (2.05 or 2.1)
- dynamic localisation of programs to different languages and locale (2.1)
- new CrossDOS for easy transfer of MS-DOS and Amiga files (2.1)

Sources:
http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_205.html
http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_21.html

Well the "big" HD support thing was in the 2.05ROM which AFAIR predates 3.0 and would only effect the IDE part of "scsi.device" as A3000s came with 52 or 105MB drives stock.
A3000s came with HD floppies so I'm not sure it really got added that late. And even if the code in 2.1 would have been just a SetPatch bringen 2.04 ROMs to 2.05 functionality both still "2.0".

CrossDos was just a 3rd party add on, so that would leave only locale as major backported feature.

Still wonder why they didn't add 3.0 2nd party piece (datatypes)......