An Open Letter to Dave Haynie
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > The validity of AmigaOS4.x has been fought in court between AInc. and Hyperion
    > and Hyperion came out on top, so if they did not have the legal right before, they
    > sure as hell have it now and it is clearly stated in court documents to prove it.

    The validity of Amiga Inc's claim of ownership over the AmigaOS 3 copyright (i.e. that Amino/AIW ever owned it) was not tested in that litigation. And it's clear that none of the involved parties strived to do so since a possible finding of non-ownership would have compromised both Amiga Inc. and Hyperion*. So the validity of Hyperion's AmigaOS 4 is based on the non-tested assumption that the AmigaOS 3 copyright is owned by Amiga Inc. To turn that assumption into certainty someone would have to challenge Amiga Inc's claim in court. So far nobody did that.

    * While Hyperion challenged the alleged IP transfer from Amino/AIW to KMOS/AID, AIW's ownership of AmigaOS 3 (i.e. transfer to AID was illegal) wouldn't have invalidated Hyperion's right to AmigaOS 4. So for Hyperion it was only essential that either AIW or AID owns AmigaOS 3.
  • »26.04.11 - 12:18
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Thanks Andreas. I've already come across the web page mentioning the sale of trademarks, so Amino did own those.
    But, as you've pointed out, there has never been any proof that Amiga Inc. ever acquired AOS.
    And unlike Dave comment, you are right to point out that this wasn't tested in court as the parties agreed to a settlement (avoiding having to produce any documentation in court).

    Frankly, all we have is Hyperion and AInc agreeing that AInc owns AOS3.1 without any prior proof to that claim.

    I find this matter highly suspect and will continue to contest the validity of this contention until proven otherwise.

    Again, the MorphOs development team has been wrongly accused of using AOS3.1 source code while we know that Hyperion's developer has.

    If anyone is likely to have committed an illegal act, it is AInc. and its licensee Hyperion.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »26.04.11 - 17:12
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > there has never been any proof that Amiga Inc. ever acquired AOS.

    Yes, that would require the contract between Gateway and Amino to be public. And even then, assuming the AmigaOS transfer from Gateway to Amino to be part of that contract, it wouldn't prove that Gateway ever owned AmigaOS, or that Escom ever owned it.

    http://sites.google.com/site/amigadocuments/#TOC-1994-1998:-From-Commodore-Amiga-to-ESCOM-to-Gateway

    > this wasn't tested in court as the parties agreed to a settlement
    > (avoiding having to produce any documentation in court).

    The settlement only prevented the alleged transfer from Amino/AIW to KMOS/AID (via Itec LLC) from being tested. The question if Amino ever got AmigaOS from Gateway, or if Gateway ever got it from Escom, or (that's the interesting part) if Escom ever got it from Commodore, is a whole other matter. That said, if AmigaOS was never legitimately transferred to Escom, none of its successors could have owned it, no matter what's written in their respective contracts. In conclusion, Hyperion and Amiga Inc. deciding against a settlement wouldn't have led to a testing of the transfer chain prior to Amino/AIW as Hyperion were smart enough to not challenge Amino's claim to have purchased AmigaOS from Gateway.

    > all we have is Hyperion and AInc agreeing that AInc owns AOS3.1
    > without any prior proof to that claim.

    Basically, there're three transactions of AmigaOS that are contested:

    1. Commodore -> Escom (1995):
    dubious, see Hembach's subsequent (1998!) attempt at repairing the situation; only ever challenged by VillageTronic in Germany in 1997 but no real judgement on that

    2. Gateway -> Amino (1999):
    rather non-dubious; contract is not public but to my mind there's no clue hinting that AmigaOS wasn't part of the deal; never challenged nor tested in court

    3. Amino/AIW -> Itec LLC (2003) -> KMOS/AID (2004):
    highly dubious, probably company and IP shell games; was challenged by Hyperion but not tested due to settlement

    > I [...] will continue to contest the validity of this contention
    > until proven otherwise.

    Which of the three above mentioned contentions do you aim at?

    > If anyone is likely to have committed an illegal act, it is AInc.
    > and its licensee Hyperion.

    What exactly would be the illegal act that Hyperion committed?
  • »26.04.11 - 18:56
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    amigadave
    Posts: 2507 from 2006/3/21
    From: Lake Arrowhead...
    @Jim,

    If someone else owned the rights to AmigaOS3.1, don't you think they would have come forward by now?

    If it makes you happy to contest the validity of the ownership of AmigaOS3.1 and subsequently the validity of Hyperion's AmigaOS4.x, knock yourself out, but it is only going to create more conflict and is not going to help the current situation with the claims that MorphOS has/had parts of the original source code within it.

    Using this argument will not solve anything, or shut anyone up that is making the allegations against MorphOS.

    [ Edited by amigadave 26.04.2011 - 12:12 ]
    MorphOS - The best Next Gen Amiga choice.
  • »26.04.11 - 20:06
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    No David, I don't think anyone would come forward to claim ownership of this.
    The last completely provable, valid owner is CBM and Commodore-Amiga.
    After that, the entire chain of transactions is questionable.
    Can a German notary clerk render a contract legal after the US principle has declared bankruptcy? Or are the assets of a bankrupt company forfeited to pay its remaining debts?

    The $1 contracts don't appear to be worth the value paid for them.

    As far as Hyperion continuing to market AOS4, why not? I'm not against that. I'm just pointing out that the pot has been calling the kettle black.

    Dave Haynie and Ben Herman's are less honorable people than our own developers. These two individuals have made unsupported accusations while Hyperion's own developers do exactly what the MorphOS team has been accused of.

    I don't care if it offends the AOS community,. Harry's got a right to be pissed off.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »26.04.11 - 21:50
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    amigadave
    Posts: 2507 from 2006/3/21
    From: Lake Arrowhead...
    I don't disagree with you that Harry has every right to be angry about the accusations, even if they were not directly aimed at him. And I have no problem with his "Open Letter to Dave Haynie" as an appropriate way to "call him out" and challenge him to prove his accusations, or shut up about the whole matter.

    I am only questioning your method(s) of dealing with the accusation(s) as being non-productive and confrontational without any hope for resolving the issue, or getting any kind of retraction, or apology. In fact, I think your tactics will only make the situation worse, not better, and before these latest statements, I thought the Blue vs Red wars had calmed down for the most part.
    MorphOS - The best Next Gen Amiga choice.
  • »27.04.11 - 04:48
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    David, you do have a point that things have been less confrontational in recent years. There has even been some cooperation (like Fab's port of OWB to AOS4).
    And we are never likely to see the questions I've dredged up directly addressed because the transaction chain probably isn't valid.
    Frankly, I'm glad Hyperion has retained control of its work.
    I just bristle at Dave's contention that somehow the MorphOS team has improperly used AOS3.1 source code.
    It's an echo of sentiments voiced by Ben Hermans years ago and its baseless.
    When I've exchanged messages with Trevor Dickinson, we've discussed how it would be nice to have a common platform.
    But with all this old baggage dragging us down, I don't ever see that happening.

    You are right I calling me out for bring this into the discussion as it isn't directly related to Piru's request to Dave Haynie.
    I hope he gets an answer, but I've never seen anyone who has made comments like this actually address those they're commenting on.
    The whole situation plays out like the Obama birther idiocy.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »27.04.11 - 15:53
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > Dave's contention that somehow the MorphOS team
    > has improperly used AOS3.1 source code. It's an echo
    > of sentiments voiced by Ben Hermans years ago

    I believe it might be the other way round. AFAIK Haynie posted his accusations the first time in early November 2001 to the TeamAmiga mailing list. And now look when Hermans chimed in:

    http://www.biclodon.com/misc/amigafarm/benhermans/

    Coincidence? Maybe, but probably not. I tend to believe that actually Haynie started it and Hermans "just" blindly followed and blew it out of proportion and context because it came in useful to him (btw, Haynie was announced as technical consultant for Hyperion's OS4 project in January 2002). However this doesn't mean I come to Hermans' defence here, of course.

    > I hope he gets an answer

    He did, about a week ago. See CISC's posting #14 here in this thread or Haynie's reply on AW.net.
  • »27.04.11 - 16:32
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Wow Andreas, that doesn't look like he's addressing Harry's concerns. It just looks like a different snipe.
    I'm liking Dave Haynie less by the minute.

    BTW - What has he done recently?
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »27.04.11 - 16:49
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > What has he done recently?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Haynie#Robots_and_radios
  • »27.04.11 - 18:04
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Wow, his own Wikipedia page. Bet that stokes his ego.

    But, essentially, since Amiga nothing particularly successful?
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »27.04.11 - 18:29
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > since Amiga nothing particularly successful?

    I don't know as I'm not well versed regarding the markets Nomadio is in.
  • »27.04.11 - 18:42
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Good point. And I should avoid sounding judgmental (just because I've found Dave's opinion offensive).
    He's had some fairly cool near misses anyway.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »27.04.11 - 21:15
    Profile
  • Just looking around
    Fats
    Posts: 19 from 2011/2/3
    Jim,
    Quote:

    I just bristle at Dave's contention that somehow the MorphOS team has improperly used AOS3.1 source code.
    It's an echo of sentiments voiced by Ben Hermans years ago and its baseless.
    When I've exchanged messages with Trevor Dickinson, we've discussed how it would be nice to have a common platform.
    But with all this old baggage dragging us down, I don't ever see that happening.


    Sorry for ranting but I have to get this of my chest. Please read on and read the message twice as I will try to do more than ranting :(

    Please guys, if anything is stopping cooperation it is you guys. I think the rest of the amiga world is ready to leave the past behind. I regret that is does not seem to be the case for some of the MorphOS guys.
    Taking a step back. A guy who was once a big Amiga person but is out of the scene for a very long time makes some comment on a forum; a guy who no longer has any amiga connection except that he was working for it when Commodore went bust; a guy who has just sold his last Amiga remnants. That guy makes a comment about the legality of the Exec code of MorphOS.
    After this several fora are filled with messages with how Ben Hermans is the devil, that this guy above has to retract his statements, how Amiga Inc. doesn't own the Amiga IP rights etc, etc. This all without a single comment from guys currently linked with AmigaOS4 etc. All posts are made by people linked to MorpOS or supporters of the platform.

    All this gives me the impression that one the main reasons of existence of MorphOS is to be anti-AmigaOS4 and anti-Hyperion. In my mind not a very good basis to develop an OS on.

    It is true that some people at Hyperion and Amiga Inc. believe the C Exec code - developed at H&P I think and on which the MorphOS Exec is based - is illegal. They do believe they have prove for it and not just hearsay. Also Amiga Inc. is the owner and is the only company to be able to take legal action.
    It is also true that the MorphOS devs believe they have made a clean room implementation and all code is legal. With that the case it should be possible to move and leave the past behind.
    Would you guys think about the following: make site on morphos-team documenting your stance - something along the line: "Some people claim MorhpOS code is illegal. Using our development practices this ... and this ... we do believe everything is legal. If somebody disagree he can contact us with proove or take other actions."
    Then if somebody make a comment somewhere just post a reply with a reference to the page and move on.

    I also fail to see how Amiga Inc. being a valid owner of Amiga IP rights or not is relevant. Either the MorphOS code is OK or not OK, independent of Amiga Inc. owning the IP.

    Each of the parties is convinced of their own stance; so one party asking the other party to retract their stance is just a road block to possible cooperation or even peaceful co-existence.

    Even if Amiga Inc. would once come out of it's shelter and start to sue I don't think there is much to worry about; given their track record of past court case that is :-). At that time it would be a good occasion to test the validity of their claim for Amiga IP ownership. I personally don't see that happen, so IMO one reason the more for MorhpOS to just to move on.

    Also the 'probably illegal' comment of Evert in a legal court filing has long been discussed off-the-record by me with him. I notified afterwards the AROS devs that I don't feel any reason to be worried and we (AROS) moved on. We don't need other guys taking a stance for AROS and beating on dead horses.

    I already feel a little bit guilty of posting this but I do think you guys needed a mirror to see how the outside world (outside of MorpOS) can perceive you.
    Most people will know I am a main AROS developer but I would like to use the open source AROS code to bring the whole Amiga world closer together in the future. As AROS dev I try to refrain from commenting on AOS4 or MorhpOS (especially bad things) but as this legacy seems to interfere with my other goal I could not stop posting this message.
    Also want to let you know it does not change anything with my plans for MorphOS etc. as I sincerely hope some perseverance from me will help to get this bad blood out of the amiga community.

    greets,
    Staf.

    PS: Saw Jim's reply to my post on Ric Elias; feel even a little more guilty now...


    [ Edited by Fats 27.04.2011 - 21:48 ]
    Trust me ...
    I know what I am doing
  • »27.04.11 - 21:45
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Don't sweat it Staf. You know I'm usually a little more even tempered. The fact that this stuff still gets posted had me burned up.
    I had hoped for some time to see some reconciliation amongst all Amiga related camps, so my use of inflammatory posts is counter productive.
    Please don't take offense with the rest of the MOS community over my recent contributions.
    Harry's original request is quite valid.
    If someone thinks there's proof, show it (or shut up).

    And I'm not helping by diverting attention from that request.

    Sorry Piru.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »27.04.11 - 22:05
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > messages [...] that this guy above has to retract his statements

    ...or provide proof.

    > All posts are made by people linked to MorpOS or supporters of the platform.

    Not surprising. Or why should people not linked to MorphOS be concerned by accusations regarding the legality of MorphOS?

    > All this gives me the impression that one the main reasons of
    > existence of MorphOS is to be anti-AmigaOS4 and anti-Hyperion.

    Not likely. MorphOS very much predates Hyperion's OS4.

    > some people at Hyperion and Amiga Inc. believe the
    > C Exec code - developed at H&P I think and on which
    > the MorphOS Exec is based - is illegal.

    I think this is nonsense on multiple levels:

    1. I don't think that anybody at Hyperion or Amiga Inc. considers the C Exec code illegal. Why should they?
    2. I don't think the C Exec code was developed at H&P.
    3. I don't think the MorphOS Exec is based on anybody else's C Exec code. Do you realize you take Haynie's and Hermans' line here?

    > They do believe they have prove for it

    I doubt they really believe that.

    > Amiga Inc. [...] is the only company to be able to take legal action.

    According to the settlement agreement Hyperion is able to take legal action as well.

    > it should be possible to move and leave the past behind.

    Yes, but reiterating the old claim that MorphOS uses stolen AmigaOS source code is quite the contrary to leaving the past behind, don't you think?

    > one party asking the other party to retract their stance

    I think you're confusing stance with public statement here. You can have a stance about something without ever uttering it anywhere (in public). Likewise, you can make public statements that don't present your true stance on the matter.

    > Even if Amiga Inc. would once come out of it's shelter and start to
    > sue I don't think there is much to worry about; given their track record
    > of past court case that is :-)

    I don't think so. A litigation is always consuming resources, even if the other party's accusations are completely unfounded. Just see Hyperion's statements on how the court case against Amiga Inc. slowed down development of OS4.
  • »27.04.11 - 23:16
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Velcro_SP
    Posts: 929 from 2003/7/13
    From: Universe
    |||

    [ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:46 ]
    Pegasos2 G3, 512 megs RAM
  • »28.04.11 - 11:39
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Velcro_SP
    Posts: 929 from 2003/7/13
    From: Universe
    |||




    [ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:38 ]
    Pegasos2 G3, 512 megs RAM
  • »28.04.11 - 12:20
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > he has in past years occasionally made this allegation, IIRC never
    > clearly and openly explaining his basis for it [...]
    > Hazydave then finally explained himself clearly (he says Andy Finkel
    > said Andy Finkel saw some of Andy Finkel's own code and comments
    > from classic Amiga OS "Exec" in assembly language in "C Exec" in C
    > by Phase 5 which employed Ralph Schmidt who would go on years later
    > to found MorphOS). [...] it was decent of hazydave to finally explain himself
    > clearly and publicly.

    I think that's basically the same story he told in 2001 already:

    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7824&forum=3&start=1
  • »28.04.11 - 12:22
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    itix
    Posts: 1514 from 2003/2/24
    From: Finland
    @fats

    I think difference is that Evert Carton dropped his empty threats against AROS while Dave Haynioe continues to play his broken record.

    Dave Haynie being PCB layout guy at some ex-toy company doesnt make him any special.

    [ Edited by itix 28.04.2011 - 14:35 ]
    1 + 1 = 3 with very large values of 1
  • »28.04.11 - 12:30
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > I think this just says when the transaction of the Amiga patents and title
    > occurred, the contract didn't make reference to OS 3.1.

    Yes. To quote the web page where this document is originally linked from:

    "a German appeals court (Oberlandesgericht Celle, judgment 13 U 97/97), after a review that included the contracts between the "Commodore-Amiga Group" and ESCOM AG, and while recognizing that for example patents were transferred between Commodore-Amiga and ESCOM, also concluded that there was no indication that any copyrights for the Amiga operating system itself had been transferred to ESCOM."

    > Now did the lawyers in 1997 just FORGET to put that in there,
    > or was there a REASON they didn't put that in there?

    I guess you mean 1995 here, not 1997. Taking into account that Hembach acted as the bankruptcy trustee during both the transaction from Commodore to Escom (1995) and the transaction from Escom to Gateway (1997), and further regarding the fact that he was the one who in 1998 (after the Celle court findings) drafted and signed those nifty $1 contracts in order to subsequently repair the mess for Gateway, we *may* conclude that the omission of the rights to AmigaOS in the contract between Commodore and Escom was just an oversight. If someone can come up with a plausible conspiracy theory I may change my opinion though ;-) What's not making things easier however is that nobody can ask Hembach anymore since he passed away in August 1999.

    > should OS 3.1 be naturally included as patent rights, whether
    > or not it is expressly named?

    Probably not. Else Hembach wouldn't have considered his $1 contracts necessary in 1998.

    > I think there were later legal attempts by entities seeking the OS
    > rights to fix this situation, and I don't know about those.

    Yes, see link there:
    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7824&start=27
    (it's where the court judgement you linked to is originally linked from)
  • »28.04.11 - 12:50
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    So, to sum it up, we have Dave Haynie quoting hearsay evidence from Andy Finkel related to a project Ralph Schmidt worked on before MorphOS.
    In a US court, without adding qualifiers, Dave's statements would be considered libel.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »28.04.11 - 20:54
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1055 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    I wouldn't call that libel. For me it's just pure bullshit. I completely agree with Itix's opinion.
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »28.04.11 - 21:14
    Profile Visit Website
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4695 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Bullshit can be libel if it hurts your reputation or costs you sales. The real question is why Dave's still spouting this crap almost ten years later. "My friend say this..."Not admissible in even the most biased courts.

    [ Edited by Jim 29.04.2011 - 15:59 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »28.04.11 - 21:34
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9957 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > Dave's still spouting this crap over ten years later.

    November 2001 was less than ten years ago. At least I'm not aware that Haynie uttered those accusations prior to this.
  • »28.04.11 - 22:57
    Profile