Yes very interesting but what does it have to do with Hyperion potentially shut down by the bank?

Plenty of space on eab if you want to discuss 2.04. Just saying.

Quote:

Well that happens twice a year, so not much point in discussing it....

Quote:

I don't see why any Amiga user would think that Hyperion Entertainment would dissolve, just because they don't have the money to prove they are a viable company inside Belgium. After all the "Shell Games" that Amiga Inc. went through with Bill McEwen at the helm, why wouldn't you think that Hyperion Entertainment won't do the same, or similar moves, to just create a new "Hyperion" in another country, and transfer all the assets (debts) to the new company?

I personally believe that the majority of the debts shown on Hyperion's books are inflated legal services charged by one "Ben Hermans", so that any partners are unable to gain a larger share of the company and threaten his complete control of what they do. Hyperion has done more litigating than anything else in its entire history of existence. That seems to be the only thing they are somewhat competent at doing!

Quote:

That's not how it works.
the last time filing was late

This is further detailed as it transpired:
Source

Layman summary:
(1)years of filings not made to the Central Bank of Belgium
(2)strike off - Central Bank officially shows they are not a business in the business register
(3)Expert statements in the lawsuit make the point that a non-company can not be engaged in legal activity.
(4)Hyperion files statements with Central Bank for years 2015-2017
(5)Hyperion restored to business registry

This time from the brief statement made in the document I linked to, it appears the Bank is looking at past and present more as to whether they are a valid company based on meeting set requirements. Hence it is referred to as a legal proceeding.

imo, all of this makes (3) above somewhat key.

Edit: added
items 19-23 reflect statements in the AW thread linked above

#6

Although I didn't look at all of the links you provided, I get your point, which I think is that Hyperion will have difficulty continuing with the current legal battle with Cloanto, if they are shut down as a business and therefor prevented from proceeding in the current legal proceedings.

My point was more towards the fact that Hyperion will most likely still be able to reorganize, or transfer it's ownership of AmigaOS4 to another company, if they are prevented from continuing to be a company in Belgium. That could be true unless the whole agreement between the "Amiga Parties" and Hyperion is voided due to breach of contract by Hyperion can be proved.

I've made it well known that I believe that the whole Amiga community will be better off if Hyperion goes away completely, even if that means that AmigaOS4 has to be recreated from scratch, for those who still want it and refuse to switch to MorphOS, or use AROS as an alternative. The Classic Amiga market certainly will continue to thrive without Hyperion in the picture. What happens to the Amiga copyrights and trademarks is becoming less and less important to anyone, as time marches on.

@Andreas_Wolf

The "agreement" is *anything but* clear. The "agreement" and its terms are heavily contested, the entire ongoing dispute *is because* of the unclearness of the terms. As long as everyone is happy about a deal and the terms are not contested, *then* it may work to use sweeping definitions painted with a broad brush (such as "AmigaOS 3.1" or "the Amiga Software Architecture"). It's only when a dispute arises (such as now) that parties usually regrets not having been overly specific in defining the terms of a contract.

Cloanto, the owner of the Commodore/Amiga Copyrights, could most certainly present a complete and detailed list of their owned Copyrights down to single files, while Hyperion *can not* provide similar paper-work describing what they may have actually licensed, leaving them in a position where they have to make sweeping definitions like "3.1" and "Amiga Software Architectre".

So yes Andreas, a proper contract should *absolutely* have had an appendix listing every single item in "3.1" that the parties meant should be included in the agreement, and especially using *the proper* version number scheme! Don't forget that "3.1" was only a term used for marketing (used by several different publishers over several years on top of that!), *not* something that defines the actual version numbers from a *technical* or *development* point of view of the OS and its components. Internal Amiga version numbers use "library revision" numbering. The sweeping marketing term "3.1" can mean too many different things in practice to be relevant in terms of Source Code. There are several confirmed versions of Kickstart in the 40.xxx branch but technically speaking, if you are talking about "Commodore Amiga" (like "the Settlement Agreement" does) then only the CD32 one came into existence (a "non-standard" 1MB ROM/firmware with many device specific deviations including its CD-ROM support) before Commodore went bankrupt. Instead, the *Commodore Amiga* Workbench 40 was made to rely on the contents of the Kickstart 39 that was shipped with the *Commodore* Amiga 1200 and Amiga 4000 computers, but that OS-version ("3.0") isn't included in the Hyperion agreement (since it say "3.1"), right? And if you on the other hand *broaden* the scope to also include post-Commodore publishers of "3.1" (there has been a few, and the v40.xx ROM's as well as "OS 3.1" as a stand-alone product for various Amiga's didn't come out until post-Commodore), then you will find components like "Installer" in version 43.3 (never completed "3.2") or 44.10 ("3.5") depending on CPU, and "FastFileSystem" version 45.9 ("3.9"), a new conditional "SetPatch" (for "3.X") and a Y2K-patched "Version" command.

So the marketing term "3.1" can in practice really mean components from 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.9 and 3.X, and it can also mean specific OS code for several specific machines. This is why "Object Code and Source Code for 3.1" is impossible; Source Code of a certain version can only be compiled into binaries of *that specific* version, this is why you must specify what you mean in a contract using *the proper* software version number scheme, and not using *a for the context nonsense marketing term*. And may I also point out that even *Hyperion* adds confusion to their own mess by releasing a new "3.1" update ("3.1.4"), compiled out of version 46.xx (and/or later?) source code.

Speaking of that, much of the post-Commodore Amiga OS development is also based on a different set of sources than Commodore's original Source Code, namely the Olsen port and rewrite of the sources from various ancient languages into (then) contemporary GCC where he also cleaned it up and made it easier to port and develop in the future. These *new* post-Commodore "3.1" sources does obviously *not* compile into the corresponding "Commodore 3.1" binaries, since the rewritten source code itself as well as the entire tool chain is completely different from "Commodore Amiga's". So the product mark "3.1" can not only be used to reference OS code from 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.9, 3.X, 3.1.4, also in specific versions for several different computers, from a number of different publishers, no on top of that the actual Source Code and Object Code (that also partly exists in CPU-specific versions) also exists in *two different incarnations*, one prehistoric Commodore version, and one *usable* version.

So the "3.1" product mark is utterly worthless to determine any particular source code or object code; "3.1" spans over more than 25 years (a quarter of a century!) of sporadic development and evolution, while one version of source code in practice can *only* compile into *one* fixed specific version of binaries! There is no such thing as "3.1" source code, the sources comes in versions 39.xx, 40.xx, 43.xx, 44.xx, 45.xx, 46.xx and technically speaking also unreleased stuff of version 41.xx and 42.xx.

So then remains only the last straw to grab, the "Grant (b)" for the "[...] Object Code and Source Code license to the Software", and with "3.1" being completely useless as a reference point this can only mean "including without limitation its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation". However, the "Documentation" does *not* cover "3.1", in fact it doesn't describe the Amiga 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 so (which it does not), "Software Architecture" contains neither Source Code nor Object Code per definition!

It all comes down to interpretations of "the Settlement Agreement". You obviously have yours Andreas, and you seem to think it's all crystal clear. I have mine, and I don't think it's clear at all. Cloanto and the Amiga Parties obviously have their interpretation, and Hyperion has another. In the end, what matters is how *the Court* interprets it at the time of the trial, if it will come to that. Until that date, which obviously has been postponed, the case will continue to evolve. The Paul C. Clements testimony was a quite valuable addition to the case evolution IMHO. More will certainly come. At the end it's all the facts and testimonies *weighted together* that will produce the final outcome. The text above is merely an example of how you could argue regarding the source code, you may agree or you may disagree, but when you have such an unclear contract as "the Settlement Agreement", *and* a dispute, then the way you argue about it gets kind of essential. We can all have opinions, but only a fool would try to proclaim at this point what the outcome will be.

[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 25.06.2019 - 00:17 ]

Quote:

Hyperion *was* actually declared bankrupt not very long ago, all according to the Belgian law and practice you reference to.

So it has already been done before...

A liquidation and deletion of the company would of course be preferable, but I think a ban from operating as a business might suffice in the context of the lawsuit.

Quote:

No assets can lawfully be transferred from a company at the brink of bankruptcy, the bankruptcy laws (which I believe are pretty similar in all western countries) are there to protect creditors, and at a liquidation all assets are sold and then distributed to the creditors according to a preset priority order. Stealing potential assets away from creditors would be a rather serious crime, at these amounts it would probably mean several years in prison. And I believe that the Amiga parties and Cloanto would win all cases (including trademark oppositions) by default if Hyperion would be no more, everything is pinned to Hyperion, not "a new 'Hyperion'".

@granny

Worked for Amino,Itec,KMOS,.....

@Kronos

Maybe the circumstances were different? I don’t remember actually. But I don’t think it would work here though, the bankrupt-alike state of Hyperion has been fully exposed for a long time, and they actually were put to bankruptcy before and the situation has hardly improved since then, rather the opposite. Can’t fly under the radar here...

And “the Settlement Agreement” is pinned to the current legal entity “Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A” and nothing else, and the same contract that granted Hyperion any license at all specifically stipulate a condition for the license (Grant g.) that the license *can not* be transferred without a prior written consent from the Amiga parties. I sincerely doubt that will happen at this point. A transfer without it would be a reason for nullification. And without “the Settlement Agreement” the Hyperion house of cards collapses. This case will then be won by Amiga/Cloanto by default, there will be no ground for any of the trademark disputes from Hyperion, etc.

>>Maybe the circumstances were different? I don’t remember actually.
Not by much.

>> But I don’t think it would work here though, the bankrupt-alike state of Hyperion has been fully exposed for a long time,
Just like Amino
>> and they actually were put to bankruptcy before and the situation has hardly improved since then,
McBillThereDoneThat
>> rather the opposite. Can’t fly under the radar here...

Lots of things can fly under the radar for quite a long time, till someone with the means and will to expose it actually does.

Quote:

Happens in my State, Delaware, all the time.
Assets get transferred to another entity and the original company declares bankruptcy.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken one of those shell companies was incorporated in Delaware.

Many of you place "the law" in too high a regard. Government considers itself a partner in business, and the average smuck... well he gets used.


[ Edited by Jim 25.06.2019 - 20:39 ]

Well, the same agreement that granted Hyperion a license to whatever they may have licensed, also stipulated that Hyperion’s license can not be transferred to another entity without prior written consent from Amiga. Hyperion *doesn’t own* anything Amiga related that could be transferred, they have only a license *to use*. That grant is specifically for Hyperion and not some other company. It’s not an asset that can be handed over, it’s a permission, an agreement between two specific parties.

Quote:

I didn't see that in the settlement agreement, only the the license was transferable.

Do you have a quote stating that Amiga Inc's permission is required?

Keep in mind that I've never felt the Amiga Inc actually owned the asset and that the prior lawsuit really just helped them legitimize that claim.

Quote:

Although clearly labelled "rumor" this time, this would seem to be related to the above:
Rumors abound

Minor correction in above post. It is actually Central Balance Sheet of the National Bank of Belgium.
Forgive me when I refer to it as Central Bank. heh.

#6

Quote:

Page 5 second paragraph.

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/147/1.html

@number6

That rumor sounds plausible IMHO.

Ben suddenly taking over most of the company is one of those rumours that people automatically believe because it's so true to character. Just like the bank wiping them because they aren't satisfied they are a true company.

Just a few more days to know the truth, I suppose.

And no, I doubt this will go down like Amiga Inc. AInc opened their shell in Delaware precisely because it is a corporate haven, where the state will look the other way as long as you bring your money to it. Such things are illegal in the EU as they would harm other member states - probably why Britain's wealthy want to leave.

> The "agreement" is *anything but* clear. The "agreement" and
> its terms are heavily contested, the entire ongoing dispute
> *is because* of the unclearness of the terms.

Yes, see comment #56 and many more where I stated exactly this while others in this thread kept insisting that Cloanto's position was clearly backed up by the wording of the agreement.

> Cloanto [...] could most certainly present a complete and detailed list of their
> owned Copyrights down to single files

See comment #391 for a link to the purchase agreement between Amiga Inc. and Cloanto, revealing what Cloanto bought "for the sum of One Dollar (US$1.00)". It's the same old list of copyrights that was already included in the copyright purchase agreements between Commodore, Escom and Gateway, with anything beyond "2.04 kickstart ROM" notoriously missing. No trace of anything 3.x, any disk-based releases let alone anything "down to single files".

> Hyperion *can not* provide similar paper-work describing what they
> may have actually licensed

Quite to the contrary, the low level of detail is eerily similar.

> they have to make sweeping definitions like "3.1"

So far, no party has contested the meaning of the term "AmigaOS 3.1" in the settlement agreement, unless I missed it.

> a proper contract should *absolutely* have had an appendix listing
> every single item in "3.1" that the parties meant should be included
> in the agreement

By this requirement, none of the copyright purchase agreements between Commodore, Escom, Gateway, Amiga Inc. and Cloanto was a proper contract. I think that yes, there's no harm in having it broken down to file level, but I also think that this shouldn't be necessary and obviously wasn't necessary with the mentioned copyright transfers.

> and especially using *the proper* version number scheme! Don't forget
> that "3.1" was only a term used for marketing [...]

How can I forget when I was the one who needed to remind you of this fact several times in this very thread?

> The sweeping marketing term "3.1" can mean too many different things in
> practice to be relevant in terms of Source Code. There are several confirmed
> versions of Kickstart in the 40.xxx branch [...]. [...] So the marketing term "3.1"
> can in practice really mean components from 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.9 and 3.X, and it
> can also mean specific OS code for several specific machines. This is why "Object
> Code and Source Code for 3.1" is impossible; Source Code of a certain version can
> only be compiled into binaries of *that specific* version, this is why you must
> specify what you mean in a contract using *the proper* software version
> number scheme, and not using *a for the context nonsense marketing term*.

I see no issue with this. (The source code and object code of) "3.1" can easily mean (the source code and object code of) all and any components sold together as "3.1", regardless of "real" version numbers and machine-specific code. The fact that some components of "3.1" were also included in prior or later releases does not matter one tiny bit. And as mentioned, it wasn't a real issue with the other copyright transfers apparently.

> much of the post-Commodore Amiga OS development is also based
> on [...] the Olsen port and rewrite of the sources

Yes, the "Boing Ball branch" as you like to call it.

> These *new* post-Commodore "3.1" sources does obviously *not* compile
> into the corresponding "Commodore 3.1" binaries [...]. So [...] the actual
> Source Code and Object Code [...] also exists in *two different incarnations*,
> one prehistoric Commodore version, and one *usable* version.

You are trying to create issues where there are none. Hyperion obviously also has a license to Olsen's rewritten components, else he wouldn't work on 3.1.4 and beyond for them. The fact that Hyperion has a license to "Commodore's 3.1" doesn't mean they must use its components and aren't allowed to use Olsen's rewrites instead as they see fit. Hyperion also has always had a license to use his rewritten source code for OS4, btw.

> So the "3.1" product mark is utterly worthless to determine any particular
> source code or object code; [...] There is no such thing as "3.1" source code

So far, not even Cloanto shares this imaginative interpretation.

> It all comes down to interpretations of "the Settlement Agreement".
> [...] you seem to think it's all crystal clear.

No, see above, quite to the contrary. I can seek out the names of those who objected to my stance by saying that everything was crystal clear (and in support of Cloanto's position), if you like.

> The text above is merely an example of how you could argue regarding
> the source code

Let's wait for Cloanto and/or the Amiga Parties to adopt your line of argument ;-)

> Although clearly labelled "rumor" this time, this would seem to be related
> to the above: Rumors abound

Question is how the proportions were before this alleged restructuring.

Quote:

Bingo Kenny, we're sleazy corporation central. And it's actually pretty cheap to incorporate here.
Does Hyperion's license originate from the original corporation or the Delaware corporation?

And beyond all this, what makes any of you think Hyperion is going anywhere?
Now that they have created 4.1 does 3.1 really matter?
Because let's face it, there's very little if any 3.1 code in 4.1.
There's this ongoing myth that you can just recompile code from one ISA to another.
It's probably what led Ben to quote such a short time when the project was announced.
Instead it took years to create.

None of this really matter to me, as I'm sticking with MorphOS.
About the only part of OS4 that interests me is the code created by Hans de Ruiter to better support newer graphics cards and OpenGL.

You're all primed to see Hyperion's downfall. I'd rather see AmigaOS in their hands then Amiga Inc's, and I'm none too sure of Cloanto.

"Preservation Mode" - Serious bullshit.

Ideally, AmigaOS would be donated to public domain and we could take it upon ourselves to advance AmigaOS.
But since that isn't happening, let's just focus on making MorphOS better.

After all. OS4 has all sorts of authorship issues. Someone recently posted that Treavor Dickenson bought the Frieden's kernel.
So Aeon owns the core of the OS?
Many other parts are licensed, but owned by other authors?
Without Hyperion to act as a central coordinator and official licensee, OS4 becomes a dead issue.

And then there is the fact that they are the only licensee entitled to create new versions of AmigaOS.

If Mike was dumb enough to buy an encumbered asset, well that's his stupidity.

But don't try to drag me into this partisan bullshit.

If Aeon hadn't built the X5000 for OS4, we wouldn't have that system to port to. Same goes for Acube's SAM460.
And there are still companies building PPCs based on the IBM 465 core, and then there is the Power9/10 cpus as potential targets.

And of course there are those last G5 systems we aren't supporting (yet).

We're actually in a better place than the OS4 community. We can run on their top of the line hardware. And our cheap hardware is light years better than theirs.

So, better graphics and OpenGL support. An X64 fork, with hopeful some continued support of the PPC variant.

But for Christ's sake, let's stop acting like Hyperion, Ben Herman's, or OS4 are really worth worrying about.

Quote:

Not to mention "all others, including" can be read to indicate there are other shareholders.

Edit added:
It might be easier to just state what the court says about how clearcut the issues are.
Re: additional 4 month schedule delay

Quote:

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't speak much to being clearcut, imo.

#6

Quote:

BTW - Could you post links I can actually click on? This kind of crap makes me dig out my laptop so I can cut and paste it.

Quote:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/147/1.html

Page 5, at the top.





Quote:

Hyperion's current license comes from "the Settlement Agreement", which takes all these various Amiga parties in account.


Quote:

Because they are selling 3.1 (and earlier) versions, which their counterparts believe is a breach of the Agreement (which is violated in numerous other ways in the same process).


Quote:

OS4 is built upon 3.1 IP. Point is "the Settlement Agreement" is about this, to grant them the right to use 3.1 for creating 4.x, question is whether they have breached this contract in such ways that it could be nullified. OS4 can't exist without those granted rights to 3.1. And 3.1 can not "be removed" from 4.x either, it's forever copyright contaminated.


Quote:Quote:

The original plan was to only do a limited number of smallish developments as consultant work for Amiga Inc. The work was clearly listed in the original contract. The time frame for this was very reasonable, a couple of months (six). It was not much development really, absolutely not to create a new complete OS, only some key components on top of current 3.1 (or 3.9 really, but that should turn out to be out of reach because Haage&Partner had that one). For this they should receive a reasonable amount of $25,000.




Amiga Inc should still own the OS, including the newly developed components, this development was purely consultant work by Hyperion on Amiga's behalf.




Everything fine so far, except Hyperion didn't come back after a few months to deliver the contracted work to Amiga, instead they kept going for years and years, building an OS for themselves that went far beyond the contracted work and they had no intention whatsoever to hand it over to Amiga Inc.

The contract had stipulated that upon the work being finished (which would take six months as per the contract), Hyperion should hand over the work to Amiga and Amiga Inc should pay the $25,000. This was in 2001. In 2004 Hyperion started to sell the OS as it was theirs (all online communications also suggested they owned it), but carefully not calling it a finished product (which would make them hand over the work to Amiga and collect the $25,000 for their contracted work). No, instead they called it "OS4 pre-release". Then came "pre-release 2". And over the years "3" and "4" as well.

Then came the first lawsuit from Amiga, which Hyperion managed to win (yes, a "settlement" with those terms is a victory) because of the dead state Amiga Inc was at that time. This whole process is what's being called "The Robbery of Amiga OS". At the end, Hyperion was granted ownership of the "OS4 part" while the Amiga parties would continue own "3.1". Which now Hyperion is going for as well.

It's like you hire a contractor carpenter to build a fence around your house. You say to the carpenter, "it's OK to use these 3.1 construction materials I have at this other house". You both agree with the specific work to be done, decide on a time frame, and a fair payment.

Then the carpenter builds your fence partly using your "3.1" building materials. But he doesn't come back to you when it's done. No, instead he spends years and years to also build a complete house, that he later tries to claim ownership of. And not only that, the carpenter also claims the rights to your 3.1 beyond using it as source of building materials and start developing that further and making money on that as well, despite the fact that this is *your* product. But not only that, he comes after you aggressively on your other domains, trying to destroy your business by attacking your trademarks for other products that you have had for two decades, etc.

All this from an original contract to build a simple fence.

Ben Hermans and Hyperion is like a Psychopath Cancer with HIV. Everything they touch or comes near dies. If it isn't contractual robberies, then it's robbery of individual developers through "NDA-agreement" schemes.

They need to die a horrible death, fast, and be removed from the Amiga body.


Quote:

Post #2:

https://amigaworld.net//modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=42002&forum=2

Quote:

You want the moon on a stick.