Hyperion vs Cloanto

[Gulliver]

it was a contribution to the community

That was the goal, and as Thomas said, it was achieved. 

[wawrzon]

You need to re-read the open letter to the Amiga Community by Thomas and Olaf to understand that.

but the community is simply not in charge, open letters wont change that.

Hyperion just happened to give green light to the 3.1.4 project

for a revenue. if you asked someone else to "give green light to the project" (for that revenue) and they granted you that, you might likely find yourself blocked off exactly the other way around.

and had sufficient rights to ensure a legal umbrella under which this project could be carried out.

apparently this remains to be proven.

[Gulliver]

You need to re-read the open letter to the Amiga Community by Thomas and Olaf to understand that.

but the community is simply not in charge, open letters wont change that.

Hyperion just happened to give green light to the 3.1.4 project

for a revenue. if you asked someone else to "give green light to the project" (for that revenue) and they granted you that, you might likely found yourself blocked off exactly the other way around.

and had sufficient rights to ensure a legal umbrella under which this project could be carried out.

apparently this remains to be proven.

3.1.4 is already out, and it cannot be un-released by any means (unless you have time travelling abilities).

The rest is just another unfortunate soap opera in the long Amiga saga.

Pick your favorite pop corn and watch them torn each other in season 2018-2019.

[number6]

how I see it...

all companies involved understood that the 68k market is the only one you can still earn money (partly because of activities around apollo/vampire). For a long time Cloanto was involved in the 68k market (emulation)

And that is where the problem started in 2010, when Hyperion stepped into that acknowledged by all (except Hyperion) Cloanto emulation market, without consulting Cloanto.

#6

[Gulliver]

how I see it...

all companies involved understood that the 68k market is the only one you can still earn money (partly because of activities around apollo/vampire). For a long time Cloanto was involved in the 68k market (emulation)

And that is where the problem started in 2010, when Hyperion stepped into that acknowledged by all (except Hyperion) Cloanto emulation market, without consulting Cloanto.

#6

According to both parties (Hyperion and Cloanto), the problem started with the settlement agreement which was earlier than that.

They both state their own particular opposing views on the settlement agreement in the case documents.

[guest11527]

And that is where the problem started in 2010, when Hyperion stepped into that acknowledged by all (except Hyperion) Cloanto emulation market, without consulting Cloanto.

But we have a free market here, don't we? This is what I mean by "competition". No problem doing so - if you have a better product than your competitor. I am not aware that there was any contract that enforced an exclusive licence for a particular market.

[number6]

And that is where the problem started in 2010, when Hyperion stepped into that acknowledged by all (except Hyperion) Cloanto emulation market, without consulting Cloanto.

But we have a free market here, don't we? This is what I mean by "competition". No problem doing so - if you have a better product than your competitor. I am not aware that there was any contract that enforced an exclusive licence for a particular market.

I'm merely attempting to correct a rather common misconception that issues only began to arise because of 3.1.4 or Vampire interest.
I'm not going to participate in the trying of the case in the forums.

#6

[Gulliver]

And that is where the problem started in 2010, when Hyperion stepped into that acknowledged by all (except Hyperion) Cloanto emulation market, without consulting Cloanto.

But we have a free market here, don't we? This is what I mean by "competition". No problem doing so - if you have a better product than your competitor. I am not aware that there was any contract that enforced an exclusive licence for a particular market.

I'm merely attempting to correct a rather common misconception that issues only began to arise because of 3.1.4 or Vampire interest.
I'm not going to participate in the trying of the case in the forums.

#6

Correct a missconception by setting in another one? Not participating by participating?

[Louis Dias]

@thor, Olsen

You two would have been better serve forming your own corporation and releasing "Patch 3.1.4" for Amiga OS 3.1 ...  As for the rom, I don't know what the best solution would have been except to describe how someone could build their own and just supply the added files and describe what needs to be removed.

In my contracting work - I don't own my source-code.  My client(s) owns it because they paid me for my time.  So I find this "Amiga" situation odd in regards to previous contributors, etc...  It seems to me, in Amiga-land, only executables and libraries are owned by the client  and the sources belong to the coder for some odd reason.  So in other words, I don't care who coded what parts of 1.3, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.5, 3.9 - if I can enhance a library - and someone pays me to do it - I will.  Those previous contributors were already paid for their work.  And if they weren't paid then and didn't pursue that issue - then they shouldn't hold revisions to their work in limbo...

[OlafS3]

@thor, Olsen

You two would have been better serve forming your own corporation and releasing "Patch 3.1.4" for Amiga OS 3.1 ...  As for the rom, I don't know what the best solution would have been except to describe how someone could build their own and just supply the added files and describe what needs to be removed.

In my contracting work - I don't own my source-code.  My client(s) owns it because they paid me for my time.  So I find this "Amiga" situation odd in regards to previous contributors, etc...  It seems to me, in Amiga-land, only executables and libraries are owned by the client  and the sources belong to the coder for some odd reason.  So in other words, I don't care who coded what parts of 1.3, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.5, 3.9 - if I can enhance a library - and someone pays me to do it - I will.  Those previous contributors were already paid for their work.  And if they weren't paid then and didn't pursue that issue - then they shouldn't hold revisions to their work in limbo...

that was very common in the past... Maxon f.e. obviously only sold, the copyright stayed at the developers. One result was that they rewrote Cinema4D when leaving amiga to control both sources and copyrights.

[SpeedGeek]

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. 

No, I am not wrong. Simply, because Cloanto says the settlement agreement is now void due to breach of contract does NOT mean the breach was due to Hyperion's abuse of it's developer rights. Hyperion, has already breached it several other ways. Specifically, distribution of software they have no rights to
(e.g. Kickstart 1.3) and trademark abuse (e.g. registering Cloanto's trademark in the EU and claiming rights to Cloanto's Amiga trademark).

The above are only few examples of the numerous Hyperion breach's, but they are certainly the most blatant of them. The possibly that the settlement agreement could be voided as a whole, which may affect Hyperion's developer rights does not mean Cloanto is specifically attacking Hyperion's developer rights. It is merely incidental.

BTW, even if the settlement agreement is voided, Hyperion can still continue with development and distribution under it's previous OS 4 licensing agreement.  Whether or not this restricts Hyperion in some ways is not exactly known. 
     

[kreciu]

Why those "two parties" can't simply understand that they could COLLABORATE? Really, why not?

Lack of collaboration (and spending money on court cases and settlements), especially in situation when Amiga is basically dead is simply: STUPID. It is like kicking someone who already is bitten to basically DEATH.

This only show to me how human ingenuity and creativity  (AmigaOS) can be destroyed by... greed? What else it can be?

[number6]

Why those "two parties" can't simply understand that they could COLLABORATE? Really, why not?

I see this question or something quite similar posted over and over. You need to understand the timeline. Initially this was about Cloanto and Hyperion, true.
The moment the Amiga parties entered the fray that changed.

The recent cease & desist notices come from the 3 Amiga parties, not from Cloanto.
Source

#6

[Gulliver]

Why those "two parties" can't simply understand that they could COLLABORATE? Really, why not?

I see this question or something quite similar posted over and over. You need to understand the timeline. Initially this was about Cloanto and Hyperion, true.
The moment the Amiga parties entered the fray that changed.

The recent cease & desist notices come from the 3 Amiga parties, not from Cloanto.
Source

#6

Cloanto simply got those parties involved to gain leverage, as they did not have enough rights on their own to challenge the copyright claims.

I am pretty sure it is just a mere coincidence that Cloanto and all other parties involved have agreed the same representation on the same court case despite they are sued for different things. 

And is funny how Amino all of a sudden got up from the grave.

This is not a sweet and innocent game.

No angels and no evils, just players.

[number6]

Why those "two parties" can't simply understand that they could COLLABORATE? Really, why not?

I see this question or something quite similar posted over and over. You need to understand the timeline. Initially this was about Cloanto and Hyperion, true.
The moment the Amiga parties entered the fray that changed.

The recent cease & desist notices come from the 3 Amiga parties, not from Cloanto.
Source

#6

Cloanto simply got those parties involved to gain leverage, as they did not have enough rights on their own to challenge the copyright claims.

I am pretty sure it is just a mere coincidence that Cloanto and all other parties involved have agreed the same representation on the same court case despite they are sued for different things. 

And is funny how Amino all of a sudden got up from the grave.

This is not a sweet and innocent game.

No angels and no evils, just players.

My only point here is that this has progressed beyond Cloanto and Hyperion talking, for the sake of those who did not follow how this expanded to encompass more parties.
Anyway, the only active lawsuit is once again titled "Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A. et al v. Itec, LLC et al", so I don't see how those Amiga parties could do anything but respond. Did they not get involved "because" Hyperion filed the lawsuit?

#6

[Gulliver]

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. 

No, I am not wrong. Simply, because Cloanto says the settlement agreement is now void due to breach of contract does NOT mean the breach was due to Hyperion's abuse of it's developer rights. Hyperion, has already breached it several other ways. Specifically, distribution of software they have no rights to
(e.g. Kickstart 1.3) and trademark abuse (e.g. registering Cloanto's trademark in the EU and claiming rights to Cloanto's Amiga trademark).

The above are only few examples of the numerous Hyperion breach's, but they are certainly the most blatant of them. The possibly that the settlement agreement could be voided as a whole, which may affect Hyperion's developer rights does not mean Cloanto is specifically attacking Hyperion's developer rights. It is merely incidental.

BTW, even if the settlement agreement is voided, Hyperion can still continue with development and distribution under it's previous OS 4 licensing agreement.  Whether or not this restricts Hyperion in some ways is not exactly known. 
     

The settlement agreement is not incidental, it the core of the matter.

Whoever wins in this point will ruin its adversary.

If Cloanto gets the resolution that the the settlement agreement is void, Hyperion will loose absolutely all Amiga rigths (including OS4 rights). This is because the previous license agreement has been legally declared breached by Amiga Inc., and that is why they had to make a settlement agreement in the first place. So if there is no settlement agreement, there is nothing to support Hyperion.

If Hyperion gets the resolution that the settlement agreement is still valid without any modification, they will be awarded their claim of loss of revenue which will most likely end up edging Cloanto into a bankrupt situation due to discontinuation of  3.1.4 online sales, 3.x development line and 3.x physical roms between other things.

My take is that just by witnessing what each party has done up untill now, they are both confident they will crush their opponent in court.

Also keep in mind that many times court cases are not won or lost by the core arguments themselves. Many times they are resolved based on legal technicalities.