Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Hyperion vs Cloanto  (Read 47502 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kolla

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2018, 11:50:53 AM »
Just a funny side remark: Cloanto should really update their statement on MP3. MP3 patents run out last year.

Another funny side remark - you seem incapable of grasping the concept of "past tense" in English language - the text by Cloanto says "was", "were", "at the time" etc.
Quote
And, just another interesting remark: I *am* actually working for Fraunhofer Institute für Integrierte Schaltungen. Yes, the MP3 guys, execept that I'm not working on MP3.
Right, so maybe you can talk with Gunnar about "DVD Quality" mpeg1 video.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline kolla

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #45 on: November 14, 2018, 11:56:46 AM »
I'm sick and tired on those law suits. I(we!) put money to pockets and then they go to court to fight. Idiots.

Well, as I see it, it is a good thing that all money goes to the only ones who actually do a decent honest job here - the lawyers.
And I am very happy to see that all the involved developers, testers, and everyone else who have signed NDAs, have "seen the source code" etc, all agree, that the only ones who deserve payment, are the lawyers.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2018, 11:59:34 AM »
Another funny side remark - you seem incapable of grasping the concept of "past tense" in English language - the text by Cloanto says "was", "were", "at the time" etc.
Which means that, for that very reason, there is no need to exclude such components, thus why I noted.

Right, so maybe you can talk with Gunnar about "DVD Quality" mpeg1 video.
You are confusing Fraunhofer IIS with Fraunhofer HHI. There is no MPEG video here. We are in digital cinema, which is JPEG 2000, and digital postproduction, which is SDI and related protocols. And of course audio technology, but that is another department at IIS.
 

Offline kolla

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #47 on: November 14, 2018, 12:30:50 PM »
Which means that, for that very reason, there is no need to exclude such components, thus why I noted.
But there _was_ a need. Not like Cloanto are the only ones not in a hurry to "bring back" mp3 support.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline Minuous

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2018, 12:42:01 PM »
There was never any need to remove parts of OS3.9 and turn it into crippleware; no legal action was ever brought against H&P, just Cloanto's FUD.

Anyway I don't know what their latest excuse is since those patents are expired anyway and yet OS3.X is still crippled.
 

Offline kolla

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2018, 01:18:29 PM »
There was never any need to remove parts of OS3.9 and turn it into crippleware; no legal action was ever brought against H&P, just Cloanto's FUD.

Anyway I don't know what their latest excuse is since those patents are expired anyway and yet OS3.X is still crippled.

Ask ThoR here what would have happened if Cloanto had included MP3 and all the goodies from OS3.9 into AmigaForever?
Heck, ask ThoR why OS 3.1.4 cannot include Reaction??

And ... still crippled? How would you know, have you bought it?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 01:20:11 PM by kolla »
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2018, 01:20:20 PM »
And why does  a trademark or copyright registration for 1.3 cover anything for 3.1?

So, a couple of things: First of all, an UPSTO registration means nothing - it is rather optional. An UPSTO registration cannot invalidate an international contract. Second, if you search for the copyright registration for 3.1, you will find that it is *not* registered by Cloanto (yes, been there, done that). They cannot. If you look into the Settlement agreement, you'll see that Hyperion there received the right to register themselves if Amiga Inc. does not register them after 30 days - but they have not done either.

The obvious reason that neither Cloanto nor Hyperion have registered the copyright for OS 3.1 is because neither of them owns the copyright. What they do both own is a distribution license for OS 3.1. What I said about circumstantial evidence speaks for itself.

Cloanto has distributed OS3.X for at least 10 years. So if Cloanto was in "Breach of Contract" all of this time then why is there no lawsuit or "Cease and Desist" orders from the Amiga parties?

By comparison, Hyperion has only been distributing 3.1.4 for only a few weeks and they are subject to all of the above.   
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2018, 01:35:39 PM »

Which proves nothing - these are just blant statements. I really wonder where they take the right from to distribute some V44 versions of libraries. Did they approach Heinz, for example? I do not know... They approached me for the Shell and layers, but all I could say is that these components were never mine, so it wasn't up to me to release them either. They went straight into the Os 4 pool, same as the scsi.device, by the way.

Just a funny side remark: Cloanto should really update their statement on MP3. MP3 patents run out last year. And, just another interesting remark: I *am* actually working for Fraunhofer Institute für Integrierte Schaltungen. Yes, the MP3 guys, execept that I'm not working on MP3.

Just because you were unwilling or unable to license your OS 3.9 contribution to Cloanto does not mean others did exactly the same. Heinz had already made NSDpatch freely available for the Amiga community so I doubt he would have a problem with Cloanto distributing it.

That fact that H&P contracted out OS 3.9 development to various developers certainly left the door open for Cloanto once those contracts expired.   
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 01:40:45 PM by SpeedGeek »
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2018, 01:56:36 PM »
Just because you were unwilling or unable to license your OS 3.9 contribution to Cloanto does not mean others did exactly the same.
Could you please stop lying? ViNCEd, BenchTrash and IoTools are available for Cloanto and included. They asked for it, and I said that there is no problem including it for a free copy of AmigaForever. They did so, and I received my copy, so no problem. So I'm sorry to destroying your picture or me willing to stop Cloanto. I don't really care. I just don't like people wiggling around arrangements made in the past, and ignoring previous agreements because they no longer fit to their strategy. It is precisely that what happens now, on either side.

Just to state this again: The problem is really that I cannot give permission for things I do not own. It is really as simple as that.

Heinz had already made NSDpatch freely available for the Amiga community so I doubt he would have a problem with Cloanto distributing it.
Except that the problem is not NSDPatch, solely by Heinz (which is obsolete anyhow...). Heinz is the author of NSDPatch, so he can do with it whatever he likes, all provided he made a similar agreement with H&P compared to what I did. So thnigs are easy.

The problem is, just to note one component, that Heinz is not the only author of the scsi.device. So the question is whether Heinz did give permission for inclusion (I do not know) and whether Heinz was even in the position to do so (I do not know either, I can only state that I'm not for the shell and layers). And whether by including it in 3.x, Cloanto violated the exclusivity of the deveopment licence Hyperion holds.

That fact that H&P contracted out OS 3.9 development to various developers certainly left the door open for Cloanto once those contracts expired.   
The situation is not *that* easy. It is easy in case the corresponding component had a single author. Heinz, for NSDPatch, or me for BenchTrash, ViNCEd and IOTools. Here, it depends on the type of contract between the author and H&P, which may or may not have been expired after 2 years, depending on negotiations.

The situation is incredibly more complicated for components that had been derived otherwise and had multiple authors. I do not know precisely which arrangements Heinz made there with H&P and/or Hyperion (as for Os 4 development), but I can only state that, for his contributions, Hyperion does have a license. Whether that allowed him to provide another license to Cloanto I do not know, and hence my question mark. It looks at least strange to me, but that's just between Hyperion, Cloanto and him.

I can only tell you that I cannot give out licenses for the shell or layers. These components are not mine, and have never been mine, and I am not in the position to provide licenses to things I do not own. All I have is a permission to distribute updates on Aminet, which is less than providing licences to another party.

So, no, the world isn't black and white. It is just an incredibly complicated legal mess we're sitting at, and I am certainly not willing of getting intertwined by all this mess by easily passing out software that is not entirely my own.
 
The following users thanked this post: Tygre

Offline Minuous

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2018, 01:59:31 PM »
@kolla:

I'm not buying it every year just to see if it is still crap. I would not give a cent to those parasites.

If you read the link https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/15-107 which has already been posted in this thread, you can see Cloanto's own list of what is missing.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 02:01:17 PM by Minuous »
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2018, 02:12:18 PM »
all i can say, that it was obvious that a shit storm will arise of all this and i am staying reassured, that there is unfortunately no constructive way to build whatever amiga updates upon proprietary code base, nor there will ever be such a secure option. this will always depend on a good will and sanity of parties who may or may not behave as people expect and/or wish them to. luckily im in a comfortable position not to need to place my bets an any stack here, as i went for an open alternative long ago. whoever has not yet realized what the situation is, has only to blame themselves.
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2018, 03:47:37 PM »
Could you please stop lying? ViNCEd, BenchTrash and IoTools are available for Cloanto and included. They asked for it, and I said that there is no problem including it for a free copy of AmigaForever. They did so, and I received my copy, so no problem. So I'm sorry to destroying your picture or me willing to stop Cloanto. I don't really care. I just don't like people wiggling around arrangements made in the past, and ignoring previous agreements because they no longer fit to their strategy. It is precisely that what happens now, on either side.

Just to state this again: The problem is really that I cannot give permission for things I do not own. It is really as simple as that.

Except that the problem is not NSDPatch, solely by Heinz (which is obsolete anyhow...). Heinz is the author of NSDPatch, so he can do with it whatever he likes, all provided he made a similar agreement with H&P compared to what I did. So thnigs are easy.

The problem is, just to note one component, that Heinz is not the only author of the scsi.device. So the question is whether Heinz did give permission for inclusion (I do not know) and whether Heinz was even in the position to do so (I do not know either, I can only state that I'm not for the shell and layers). And whether by including it in 3.x, Cloanto violated the exclusivity of the development licence Hyperion holds.

The situation is not *that* easy. It is easy in case the corresponding component had a single author. Heinz, for NSDPatch, or me for BenchTrash, ViNCEd and IOTools. Here, it depends on the type of contract between the author and H&P, which may or may not have been expired after 2 years, depending on negotiations.

The situation is incredibly more complicated for components that had been derived otherwise and had multiple authors. I do not know precisely which arrangements Heinz made there with H&P and/or Hyperion (as for Os 4 development), but I can only state that, for his contributions, Hyperion does have a license. Whether that allowed him to provide another license to Cloanto I do not know, and hence my question mark. It looks at least strange to me, but that's just between Hyperion, Cloanto and him.

I can only tell you that I cannot give out licenses for the shell or layers. These components are not mine, and have never been mine, and I am not in the position to provide licenses to things I do not own. All I have is a permission to distribute updates on Aminet, which is less than providing licences to another party.

So, no, the world isn't black and white. It is just an incredibly complicated legal mess we're sitting at, and I am certainly not willing of getting intertwined by all this mess by easily passing out software that is not entirely my own.

The word "Contribution" means singular (one English, eins Deutsch, 1 numerical). Obviously, I was referring to the "One" contribution you did mention, not the other contribution(s) which you did NOT mention. So please do not accuse me of lying based on comments which were never made!

As far as Hyperion's rather dubious "Exclusive" rights to OS 3.1 you seem to have forgotten these rights are "Without prejudice to the rights of existing licensee's" which include Cloanto. So your claim that Cloanto has violated Hyperion's exclusive rights is just as bogus as your lying claim about me.  :P

BTW, the fact that Cloanto is listed in the infamous Hyperion settlement agreement is also circumstantial evidence which support Cloanto's distribution rights claims. 
               
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2018, 04:03:01 PM »
As far as Hyperion's rather dubious "Exclusive" rights to OS 3.1 you seem to have forgotten these rights are "Without prejudice to the rights of existing licensee's" which include Cloanto. So your claim that Cloanto has violated Hyperion's exclusive rights is just as bogus as your lying claim about me.  :P

BTW, the fact that Cloanto is listed in the infamous Hyperion settlement agreement is also circumstantial evidence which support Cloanto's distribution rights claims. 
               
Of course a later contract cannot invalidate a contract made earlier with another party. Though, at this time, nobody knows which rights Cloanto actually did have before they bought 3.1. If, however, you look into the Settlement agreement, you find mentioned that it states "Sufficient rights for emulation purposes". This does not say much, but at least you can derive a direction into which these rights go. It would surprise me if you need for emulation purposes a development licence, but, indeed, I do not know.

If, however, Cloanto do have develoment rights, it would have been ideal to let me know when requesting the Shell and layers as this would have allowed to evaluate the request in a slightly different light. Neither Cloanto seems to make a claim in the direction of a development licence - instead, they attack the settlement agreement which prevents them from development. If Cloanto has, the best policy they could run would be openly publish this contract. Again, anybodies guess why, but for me it seems to indicate in the same direction.

At this point, I have nothing substantial from Cloanto that supports that they actually do have develpment rights - and it is anybodies guess of what precisely they have that predates the latest accquisition.
 

Offline SpeedGeek

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2018, 05:27:52 PM »

Of course a later contract cannot invalidate a contract made earlier with another party. Though, at this time, nobody knows which rights Cloanto actually did have before they bought 3.1. If, however, you look into the Settlement agreement, you find mentioned that it states "Sufficient rights for emulation purposes". This does not say much, but at least you can derive a direction into which these rights go. It would surprise me if you need for emulation purposes a development licence, but, indeed, I do not know.

If, however, Cloanto do have develoment rights, it would have been ideal to let me know when requesting the Shell and layers as this would have allowed to evaluate the request in a slightly different light. Neither Cloanto seems to make a claim in the direction of a development licence - instead, they attack the settlement agreement which prevents them from development. If Cloanto has, the best policy they could run would be openly publish this contract. Again, anybodies guess why, but for me it seems to indicate in the same direction.

At this point, I have nothing substantial from Cloanto that supports that they actually do have development rights - and it is anybodies guess of what precisely they have that predates the latest acquisition.

EDIT: After reading Cloanto's answer to complaint, apparently they are now claiming developer rights too:

The various rights granted to Cloanto IT srl, and later transferred or licensed to CLOANTO, can be summarized as follows:
(a) The right to market and sell software that allows modern hardware and operating systems to emulate AMIGA hardware (“Amiga Emulation”), and to run AMIGA operating systems 0.7 through 3.1, as well as updates, patches and enhancements by Cloanto IT srl and other various third party developers (“Enhancements”), and applications and games created for AMIGA operating systems by third parties and Cloanto IT srl, which has been a prominent AMIGA developer since the 1980s.
(b) Since 1997, the right to develop, market, and sell Amiga operating systems and Enhancements for use on AMIGA hardware
   

Also, Cloanto has not attacked Hyperion's developer rights, only Hyperion's distribution of Kickstart 1.3 in violation of Cloanto's copyright and Hyperion's
abuse of Cloanto's trademark rights.       
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 06:33:42 PM by SpeedGeek »
 

Offline Gulliver

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2018, 08:26:32 PM »

Of course a later contract cannot invalidate a contract made earlier with another party. Though, at this time, nobody knows which rights Cloanto actually did have before they bought 3.1. If, however, you look into the Settlement agreement, you find mentioned that it states "Sufficient rights for emulation purposes". This does not say much, but at least you can derive a direction into which these rights go. It would surprise me if you need for emulation purposes a development licence, but, indeed, I do not know.

If, however, Cloanto do have develoment rights, it would have been ideal to let me know when requesting the Shell and layers as this would have allowed to evaluate the request in a slightly different light. Neither Cloanto seems to make a claim in the direction of a development licence - instead, they attack the settlement agreement which prevents them from development. If Cloanto has, the best policy they could run would be openly publish this contract. Again, anybodies guess why, but for me it seems to indicate in the same direction.

At this point, I have nothing substantial from Cloanto that supports that they actually do have development rights - and it is anybodies guess of what precisely they have that predates the latest acquisition.

EDIT: After reading Cloanto's answer to complaint, apparently they are now claiming developer rights too:

The various rights granted to Cloanto IT srl, and later transferred or licensed to CLOANTO, can be summarized as follows:
(a) The right to market and sell software that allows modern hardware and operating systems to emulate AMIGA hardware (“Amiga Emulation”), and to run AMIGA operating systems 0.7 through 3.1, as well as updates, patches and enhancements by Cloanto IT srl and other various third party developers (“Enhancements”), and applications and games created for AMIGA operating systems by third parties and Cloanto IT srl, which has been a prominent AMIGA developer since the 1980s.
(b) Since 1997, the right to develop, market, and sell Amiga operating systems and Enhancements for use on AMIGA hardware
   

Also, Cloanto has not attacked Hyperion's developer rights, only Hyperion's distribution of Kickstart 1.3 in violation of Cloanto's copyright and Hyperion's
abuse of Cloanto's trademark rights.     

You are wrong again. You should read the entire court case.

Cloanto is clearly attacking Hyperion saying that Hyperion has no rights at all since the settlement agreement according to their view, is now void due to breach of contract.

And not only that, they are the ones who are complaining about AmigaOS 3.1.4 with wild claims just to muddy waters even further.

Understand that Cloanto legally needs to clearly position themselves as holders of development rights to legitimate their 3.x product line, which is one of Hyperion´s complaints.

Again: there is no angel and no devil here, in both cases it is just the search for the destruction of the other "competitor" company.

Capitalism at its best.  ::)
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
« Reply #59 from previous page: November 14, 2018, 09:40:51 PM »
Quote
You are wrong again. You should read the entire court case.

we shouldnt be required to.

Quote
there is no angel and no devil here

i assume that.

Quote
Capitalism at its best.

as long as we, as community, be it plain users or developers/contributors, sanction/tolerate this behavior, or even effectively support it, letting the entities in question cash up upon it, we are co-responsible and it will never end.