Amiga.org

Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: guest21671 on August 13, 2018, 07:41:26 AM

Title: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: guest21671 on August 13, 2018, 07:41:26 AM

Anyone heard anything on recent legal moves between these two.

https://twitter.com/amigadocuments
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Stevo on August 28, 2018, 08:42:10 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/2gr6fe.jpg)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on August 28, 2018, 08:57:45 PM
@thread

updates always here including info from Amiga Documents, cbmamiga & other sources (https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=41775&forum=2&start=620&viewmode=flat&order=0)

#6
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: RobertJDohnert on August 28, 2018, 09:15:59 PM
I think Hyperion is winning
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on August 29, 2018, 04:53:29 PM
I think Hyperion is winning

Why? The trial has not even started yet. Both Cloanto and Amino have demanded a jury trial. AFAIK jury selection has not even begun...   ::)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on September 23, 2018, 03:32:10 PM
UPDATE:

The 5 day trial is scheduled for 12/9/2019 so live long and prosper my curious friends!  ;D

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23929642/Hyperion_Entertainment_CVBA_et_al_v_Itec,_LLC_et_al
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Motormouth on September 26, 2018, 04:19:02 AM
This is unfortunate :-\

Our community seems always to be splintered.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: magnetic on September 28, 2018, 05:23:46 PM
The best thing that could ever happen to the Amiga community is for HYPErion to Go Away. That company (not the devs) have done so much harm to the amiga world its not even funny.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on September 29, 2018, 01:19:36 PM
The best thing that could ever happen to the Amiga community is for HYPErion to Go Away. That company (not the devs) have done so much harm to the amiga world its not even funny.

+1!

Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Rob on September 30, 2018, 03:53:31 AM
The best thing that could ever happen to the Amiga community is for HYPErion to Go Away. That company (not the devs) have done so much harm to the amiga world its not even funny.

+1!

It depends on the fall out from such an event. 
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Minuous on September 30, 2018, 03:42:48 PM
@magnetic:

I don't see how that is the case, one company has written OS4 and improved OS3.1, the other is a parasite company that sells a free emulator.

Hyperion seem to have a stronger legal case which is fortunate because if they lost it would be disastrous for the Amiga community, most likely the end of any further development of AmigaOS.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on September 30, 2018, 04:02:22 PM
@magnetic:

I don't see how that is the case, one company has written OS4 and improved OS3.1, the other is a parasite company that sells a free emulator.

Hyperion seem to have a stronger legal case which is fortunate because if they lost it would be disastrous for the Amiga community, most likely the end of any further development of AmigaOS.

WTF? Stronger legal case? The legal dispute is not about OS4 (or even an improved 3.1). It's about Kickstart 1.3 distribution rights and the specific trademarks which both "Parasites" are entitled to use.   ::)

Now, if both parasites had strictly followed their license agreements then there would be no legal dispute. But what happens when one parasite claims implied rights which infringe on the other parasite's rights?   :P 
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Minuous on September 30, 2018, 04:26:52 PM
@SpeedGeek:

I know the case is not about OS4. But if Cloanto win all the damages they are seeking it would surely bankrupt Hyperion. And an extra year of uncertainty hanging over the situation doesn't help the Amiga market either.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on September 30, 2018, 05:00:51 PM
@SpeedGeek:

I know the case is not about OS4. But if Cloanto win all the damages they are seeking it would surely bankrupt Hyperion. And an extra year of uncertainty hanging over the situation doesn't help the Amiga market either.

Hyperion has been technically insolvent since the temporary bankruptcy situation in 2015. They probably avoided filing financial reports to the Belgium Central Bank for that specific reason, but have only recently filed them in support of their case: 

http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2018-08-00011-EN.html

If Cloanto wins the damages they are claiming they are not likely to collect on them (e.g. you can't get blood from a turnip). IMO Cloanto's best outcome is to drive the last nail in Hyperion's coffin and possibly obtain a Court award for some of Hyperion's IP rights.  :-\   
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla on September 30, 2018, 05:03:19 PM
If Hyperion wins, Cloanto will most lilely throw their hands up and leave the Amiga. Instead Hyperion will get all rights to everything Amiga and take it all with them to the grave. Cloanto at least shown that they can stay in business doing Amiga stuff, Hyperion do exactly nothing to stay alive as a business.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Minuous on September 30, 2018, 05:42:37 PM
@kolla:

Well, Cloanto have no development costs, as they don't write the software they are selling. So it is hardly surprising if they are more profitable. Cloanto leaving the market would make no real difference as they haven't done any significant Amiga development for over 20 years, and I have seen nothing to indicate that any is intended.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: agami on October 01, 2018, 07:45:18 AM
@magnetic:
... if they lost it would be disastrous for the Amiga community, most likely the end of any further development of AmigaOS.

Promise?
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: F0LLETT on October 01, 2018, 11:44:23 AM
@kolla:Well, Cloanto have no development costs, as they don't write the software they are selling.

Neither does Hyperion.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: NinjaCyborg on November 11, 2018, 09:23:53 PM
The real parasites here are Amiga Inc
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Amiwest on November 11, 2018, 10:13:34 PM
I have seen posted the Hyperion 3.1.4 improvement but not the Cloanto 3.x.
Any one know what the Cloanto 3.x fixes are?
Yes this is part of Hyperion vs Cloanto so I posted here.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Pgovotsos on November 12, 2018, 03:10:31 AM
I have seen posted the Hyperion 3.1.4 improvement but not the Cloanto 3.x.
Any one know what the Cloanto 3.x fixes are?
Yes this is part of Hyperion vs Cloanto so I posted here.

https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-125
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla on November 12, 2018, 06:26:45 AM
I have seen posted the Hyperion 3.1.4 improvement

Have you really? So far, only a small fraction of the improvements have been "leaked", the real changelogs are kept internal, because that is how closed source AmigaOS development rolls - end-users only get dumbed down info on a need to know basis.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: NinjaCyborg on November 12, 2018, 08:08:15 AM
@kolla shut up
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Everblue on November 12, 2018, 05:08:24 PM
I think that if Hyperion packed up A-EON would be ruined. I wonder how come A-EON haven't bought Hyperion (yet?)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: yssing on November 12, 2018, 07:18:53 PM
If Hyperion wins, Cloanto will most lilely throw their hands up and leave the Amiga. Instead Hyperion will get all rights to everything Amiga and take it all with them to the grave. Cloanto at least shown that they can stay in business doing Amiga stuff, Hyperion do exactly nothing to stay alive as a business.
So AmigaOS4 and the new 3.1.4 are both nothing?  Well that's like your opinion.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: BozzerBigD on November 13, 2018, 01:05:20 AM
@yssing

They are not nothing but they don't seem to create enough revenue to keep Hyperion afloat with their current cash flow / debts.

Cloanto however DO seem able to make a living as shrewd (if unexciting) stewards / collectors / repackaging merchants of Amiga IP. They operate like careful guardians but also watch the bottom line.

Hyperion are beginning to resemble Amiga Inc. / Itec in that they need investor infusions every few years to stay afloat / to fund legal costs i.e. do stuff that actually isn't about core Amiga work / development at all!
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Amiga
Post by: Steino on November 13, 2018, 04:23:19 AM
Quote
Cloanto have no development costs, as they don't write the software they are selling.

If you mean Amiga Forever, maybe you are not familiar with it: "The active code base now consists of more than half a million lines written by Cloanto, in addition to OS components and independent open source modules of which Cloanto too is a grateful and active contributor." (Source: https://www.amigaforever.com/news-events/af-7/ (https://www.amigaforever.com/news-events/af-7/))

Just to understand your motives, you are the same person in Australia who accused Cloanto of shutting down a piracy server of yours many years ago, when it wasn't even them who did it (it turned out it was Jan from AmiKit)? That must have been quite embarrassing.

Quote
I have seen nothing to indicate that any [Amiga development] is intended.

According to this report, Cloanto tried engaging in some new 68K OS work "with Olaf Barthel and other Amiga developers", but Hyperion cut the ground from under their feet:

https://t.co/rOzi8OtMuL (https://t.co/rOzi8OtMuL)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Amiga
Post by: kolla on November 13, 2018, 07:11:46 AM
Just to understand your motives, you are the same person in Australia who accused Cloanto of shutting down a piracy server of yours many years ago, when it wasn't even them who did it (it turned out it was Jan from AmiKit)? That must have been quite embarrassing.

No, this is the person who maintain and distribute BoingBag 3+4 with everyone's agreement, and who have signed NDA with AEON. So a totally different person, and not this renegade you describe :)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Amiga
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 13, 2018, 08:28:07 AM
Cloanto wouldn't have had the possibilities to create 3.1.4 as we have it now. This is a matter of who contributed, and where such contributions went. I did not rewrite things from scratch (at least, for the most part), but we tried to reuse existing work available under licence as much as we could. A new scsi.device (derived from Heinz' work and others) would not have been possible. A new FFS would not have been possible in this time. New exec would have been largely delayed.

Moving to another hosting company would have required/will require additional negotiations with individuals, so it is certainly not correct saying that "Hyperion prevented that from happening". The overall situation for Os development is not in favour for Cloanto given where current contributions are bundled and how one can get access to it.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 13, 2018, 02:48:45 PM
Cloanto may not have been able to develop 3.1.4 but they certainly would have been able to distribute it (with legal trademarks). On the hand, Hyperion's inability to distribute 3.1.4 (with legal trademarks) suggest a common sense collaboration between the two companies. But of course, this is not possible due to the greed and dishonesty of Hyperion's management.

As far as the 3.1.4 hosting for digital download issue, Hyperion blindly filed a lawsuit against the Amiga parties and without any serious consideration of the consequences of their actions. So to say Hyperion is in no way responsible, is not correct either.             
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 13, 2018, 03:11:56 PM
Cloanto may not have been able to develop 3.14 but they certainly would have been able to distribute it (with legal trademarks). On the hand, Hyperion's inability to distribute 3.14 (with legal trademarks) suggest a common sense collaboration between the two companies. But of course, this is not possible due to the greed and dishonesty of Hyperion's management.

As far as the 3.14 hosting for digital download issue, Hyperion blindly filed a lawsuit against the Amiga parties and without any serious consideration of the consequences of their actions. So to say Hyperion is in no way responsible, is not correct either.           

You just dont seem to get it:

Cloanto could have not been able to both distribute and/or develop 3.1.4 due to the content of the contributions, as Thomas mentioned.

There is no devil and no angel here: both companies have played their cards in order to try to accomplish the destruction of the other, instead of cooperating.

Title: Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A. et al v. Itec, LLC et al
Post by: number6 on November 13, 2018, 03:21:44 PM
@thread

Don't mind me. Just making the topic (subject line) reflect the reality of the situation.
"etal" (and others) means exactly that.

#6
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 13, 2018, 03:30:48 PM
You just dont seem to get it:

Cloanto could have not been able to both distribute and/or develop 3.1.4 due to the content of the contributions, as Thomas mentioned.

There is no devil and no angel here: both companies have played their cards in order to try to accomplish the destruction of the other, instead of cooperating.

No, it's you who doesn't get it. I didn't say Cloanto had the developer rights but the only the distribution rights. Assuming, Hyperion has the developer rights (which include the 3.1.4 contributions) then cooperation would be possible.

BTW, Cloanto already has the rights to some of the OS3.5 and OS3.9 contributions (e.g. 3.X). Don't you think 3.1.4 users would like to have these contributions included as well?
   
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 13, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
You just dont seem to get it:

Cloanto could have not been able to both distribute and/or develop 3.1.4 due to the content of the contributions, as Thomas mentioned.

There is no devil and no angel here: both companies have played their cards in order to try to accomplish the destruction of the other, instead of cooperating.

No, it's you who doesn't get it. I didn't say Cloanto had the developer rights but the only the distribution rights. Assuming, Hyperion has the developer rights (which include the 3.1.4 contributions) then cooperation would be possible.

BTW, Cloanto already has the rights to some of the OS3.5 and OS3.9 contributions (e.g. 3.X). Don't you think 3.1.4 users would like to have these contributions included as well?
   

You still dont get it: Cloanto has no rights to distribute 3.1.4, and I am not assuming this, I know this for a fact, as I have seen the 3.1.4 source code, and I know where the contributions come from, and so does Thomas.

In the end, we can discuss it all you want, but it does not matter what you or I think would be best for the Amiga community, because it is not for us to decide.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kreciu on November 13, 2018, 03:45:37 PM
"then cooperation would be possible"

:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: Please don't use "C" word, it is basically offensive ;).

I really, truly don't understand why people can't cooperate. I buy Cloanto and Hyperion etc. etc. products. To support BOTH (or more) parties, I'm sick and tired on those law suits. I(we!) put money to pockets and then they go to court to fight. Idiots.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 13, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Cloanto does not have rights on 3.9 or 3.5. They are entirely at H&P and at contributing parties, not at Cloanto. So while I certainly do not know how agreements with other parties were made back then, I hold rights on ViNCEd and BenchTrash all alike, also on the IOTools and probably a couple of other components I forgot. Me alone, and not Cloanto, and neither Hyperion, and neither H&P anymore, which just had a 2 years limited licence. I just decided that 3.1.4 was not the right place to include my contribution, so everybody is invited to get them from Aminet if found appropriate.

In fact, unless there is some hidden earlier agreement between Amiga Inc. and Cloanto that predates the settlement agreement beyond what I know, Cloanto could not have developped 3.X in first place (did they even develop anything?) without having development rights which were (negotiated) exclusively to be at Hyperion's side. As far as I know, Cloanto has sufficient rights "for emulation purposes", which does not state much. They can surely sell ROM images (1.2 up to 3.1 even), they may even have rights on the source code for 1.3, but none of that would have helped for 3.1.4 in any particular way.

3.1.4 with Cloanto would have been a much harder work, and it would have required to replicate a lot of work unnecessarily.



Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 13, 2018, 04:17:11 PM

You still dont get it: Cloanto has no rights to distribute 3.1.4, and I am not assuming this, I know this for a fact, as I have seen the 3.1.4 source code, and I know where the contributions come from, and so does Thomas.

In the end, we can discuss it all you want, but it does not matter what you or I think would be best for the Amiga community, because it is not for us to decide.

From the Cloanto amended complaint:

Since 1997, under its AMIGA FOREVER trademark, Plaintiff has been the world leader in software that allows modern hardware and operating systems to emulate legacy AMIGA hardware and run AMIGA operating systems 0.7 through 3.1 (“Amiga OS’s”), as well as updates, patches and enhancements by various Amiga developers (“Enhancements”), AMIGA applications and games

Since 2000, also under its AMIGA FOREVER trademark, Plaintiff has offered and sold an Amiga OS “3.X,” which consists of Amiga OS 3.1 with further Enhancements. Cloanto released Amiga OS 3.X in order to address various needs, including those that might arise from “Y2K” and the rapid rate of growth in the size of hard drives. Unlike the Amiga OS’s0.7 through 3.1, Amiga OS 3.X did not initially run on original AMIGA hardware


Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 13, 2018, 04:20:10 PM
Cloanto does not have rights on 3.9 or 3.5. They are entirely at H&P and at contributing parties, not at Cloanto. So while I certainly do not know how agreements with other parties were made back then, I hold rights on ViNCEd and BenchTrash all alike, also on the IOTools and probably a couple of other components I forgot. Me alone, and not Cloanto, and neither Hyperion, and neither H&P anymore, which just had a 2 years limited licence. I just decided that 3.1.4 was not the right place to include my contribution, so everybody is invited to get them from Aminet if found appropriate.

In fact, unless there is some hidden earlier agreement between Amiga Inc. and Cloanto that predates the settlement agreement beyond what I know, Cloanto could not have developped 3.X in first place (did they even develop anything?) without having development rights which were (negotiated) exclusively to be at Hyperion's side. As far as I know, Cloanto has sufficient rights "for emulation purposes", which does not state much. They can surely sell ROM images (1.2 up to 3.1 even), they may even have rights on the source code for 1.3, but none of that would have helped for 3.1.4 in any particular way.

3.1.4 with Cloanto would have been a much harder work, and it would have required to replicate a lot of work unnecessarily.

https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/15-107
 ::)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 13, 2018, 04:34:21 PM
Those links are not rulings, just claims from a party (Cloanto).

And even more than that, I believe you are missunderstanding what Cloanto was trying to accomplish in the ammended complaint: They were trying to address the 3.x issue, and position themselves in a better way regarding it. Nothing more.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 13, 2018, 04:50:16 PM
Those links are not rulings, just claims from a party (Cloanto).

And even more than that, I believe you are missunderstanding what Cloanto was trying to accomplish in the ammended complaint: They were trying to address the 3.x issue, and position themselves in a better way regarding it. Nothing more.

The Cloanto claims appear to be supported by circumstantial evidence. Cloanto has successfully registered their Amiga Forever trademark and Kickstart 1.3 copyrights with the USPTO. Also, Cloanto has distributed their 3.X update and enhancements for at least 10 years without any objections from the Amiga parties.       
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 13, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
Those links are not rulings, just claims from a party (Cloanto).

And even more than that, I believe you are missunderstanding what Cloanto was trying to accomplish in the ammended complaint: They were trying to address the 3.x issue, and position themselves in a better way regarding it. Nothing more.

The Cloanto claims appear to be supported by circumstantial evidence. Cloanto has successfully registered their Amiga Forever trademark and Kickstart 1.3 copyrights with the USPTO. Also, Cloanto has distributed their 3.X update and enhancements for at least 10 years without any objections from the Amiga parties.     

Yes, indeed.

And that is one of the reasons the lawsuit is happening: Hyperion claims Amiga Inc. and/or its subsidiaries/shell companies did not defend their rights as they should have according to the settlement agreement.

But then despite Cloanto recognizes the agreement, they say it is no longer valid due to an alledged Hyperion´s breach.

And that is where things get really messy, and they both throw wild accusations upon each other to see what sticks.

A sad state of affairs for certain.  :'(

They shouldnt have stepped into each others toes.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 14, 2018, 06:57:57 AM
The Cloanto claims appear to be supported by circumstantial evidence. Cloanto has successfully registered their Amiga Forever trademark and Kickstart 1.3 copyrights with the USPTO. Also, Cloanto has distributed their 3.X update and enhancements for at least 10 years without any objections from the Amiga parties.     
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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 14, 2018, 07:14:01 AM
https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/15-107
 ::)

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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla on November 14, 2018, 11:39:50 AM
I have seen the 3.1.4 source code

Noted, for future references :)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Minuous 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla 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?
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek 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.   
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek 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.   
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Minuous 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek 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. 
               
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek 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.       
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver 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.  ::)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on 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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kreciu on November 14, 2018, 10:44:21 PM
Quote
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.

The more I read about all this issues, I really think we all should move to MorphOS/AROS etc. and keep our old Amiga's with max AmigaOS3.9 (some with AOS4.1) and be done with it.

I'm actually getting MorpOS for my iBook G4 :).
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: maw2k on November 15, 2018, 04:08:26 AM
I really think we all should move to MorphOS/AROS etc.

But this is exactly what split Amiga in the first place (the only few ppls which where left to code got split)... not all the TM and Copyright issues ... ppls where impatient and wanted to do their own thing... and now all is even more complicated.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: OlafS3 on November 15, 2018, 10:07:54 AM
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 Hyperion in what they call NG based on PPC. Then they included the kickstart roms in 4.X, then they licensed roms and now they offer 3.1.4 with 100% profit because the developers get nothing. So Hyperion more and more moved in the territory of Cloanto and that finally created the dispute. Trying to get trademarks and attacking all others they seem to have created a wave they cannot control anymore and in worst case will kill 4.X. Shit happens I can only say. Ben H. is attorney so he should know what he does...

Regarding the split... yes it is there. If 3.X would be standard and open source (with no "NG") that would have been best (the smaller but very active C64 market is a example) but it is how it is.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 15, 2018, 10:24:02 AM
The problem is that this is a dirty competiion that is fought between two companies by means of lawyers. The situation would be much more managable if this competition would be fought by market means: Whoever has the better product wins. That is the usual way how you approach such problems.

However, it seems, that this would be all too simple to make it happen...

Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: OlafS3 on November 15, 2018, 10:31:11 AM
In IT market unfortunately harming competition not by better products but by lawsuits is very common and happened lots of times (like SAP against Oracle), there were even companies buying other companies just to get means to start lawsuits...

In this small market with only few companies involved the potential harm is even bigger but (in a way) that was always the case in the amiga market...
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on November 15, 2018, 10:39:29 AM
Quote
The problem is that this is a dirty competiion that is fought between two companies by means of lawyers. The situation would be much more managable if this competition would be fought by market means: Whoever has the better product wins. That is the usual way how you approach such problems.

please do not come up with this free market idealism, you are certainly not being that naive. business is war, remember? and war is politics by other means. isnt that expectable for warring entities to grasp any means (inclusive legal proceedings) at hand to fight each other? the problem is not how its being carried out. the problem is that the entities consider each other aggressor in the first place, so that a conflict arises. dont tell me you have not seen it coming. and if not, you have been warned, havent you?
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on November 15, 2018, 10:44:16 AM
I really think we all should move to MorphOS/AROS etc.

But this is exactly what split Amiga in the first place (the only few ppls which where left to code got split)... not all the TM and Copyright issues ... ppls where impatient and wanted to do their own thing... and now all is even more complicated.

for years it was impossible to contribute to amiga development in any way. it was intentionally blocked to feed the so called "ng amiga". it failed. but in the meantime people had to make their choices. dont blame them for splits.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 15, 2018, 11:20:24 AM
please do not come up with this free market idealism, you are certainly not being that naive. business is war, remember? and war is politics by other means. isnt that expectable for warring entities to grasp any means (inclusive legal proceedings) at hand to fight each other? the problem is not how its being carried out. the problem is that the entities consider each other aggressor in the first place, so that a conflict arises. dont tell me you have not seen it coming. and if not, you have been warned, havent you?

The result of letting Hyperion die would have been that years of development would have been lost. Not a good alternative either. Remember, if Hyperion dies, it does not simplify development. It means that whoever picks up their sources (whoever that may be, even "if") will have to hunt down everyone who could potentially have contributed to it, and would need to check in how far this software could be used as basis for development.

So, just to give you ideas: There is more than just CBM code and my code in the printer device. There are (IIRC) at least two additional authors that also contributed to it in one way or another. Hence, one would need to contact them, check with them which type of agreement they had with Hyperion back then, probably re-negotiate contracts with them...

What is embarrasing is that the income of this work goes into the pockets of lawyers. I do not claim that I need the money, but at least it should be in some way re-invested into the development, and let it be only for infrastructure or servers. Unfortunately, that probably goes for whomever you pay for Amiga these days, even if it would probably be more beneficial for both party just to let this bullshit rest and instead develop good software.

However, I cannot resolve this conflict. I can only contribute with software, and software that is beneficial for users. So, in that respect, mission accomlished.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: OlafS3 on November 15, 2018, 11:23:02 AM
I do not need and use it but respect and thank you from me (even if we sometimes have different views about what is better open source or closed source)

 ;)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on November 15, 2018, 12:09:23 PM
The result of letting Hyperion die..

to be honest, i dont feel like it is a matter of my opinion or in my responsibility. no matter whatever me, you, anybody else, think or do, one day they might to choose to simply throw the towel and walk away. and they would be within their right to do so.

Quote
Remember, if Hyperion dies, it does not simplify development.

i think we need to grow ourselves resistible to be blackmailed like this. people here have been told to and are shelling out money for years for stuff they apparently dont need "just to support the platform".. i think it is wrong. and i think it is morally destructive.

Quote
It means that whoever picks up their sources (whoever that may be, even "if") will have to hunt down everyone who could potentially have contributed to it, and would need to check in how far this software could be used as basis for development.

i understand the you are emotionally attached to these sources and are trying to rescue them. but if the partners do not cooperate sometimes one needs to let it go.

im none to tell you what to do. i know there likely will not be legal way to access and build up upon cbm sources. let alone os4 extensions (if there is any value in them for us). as i said i have given up on this long ago. since there already is open source replacement for almost all of this code. it may not be complete or of enough quality in places, but we are not left with nothing to start from scratch.

Quote
However, I cannot resolve this conflict.

sure, neither can any of us. best to stay out of it.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 15, 2018, 12:24:33 PM
i understand the you are emotionally attached to these sources and are trying to rescue them. but if the partners do not cooperate sometimes one needs to let it go.
Hold on. I'm not saying that "Hyperion does not cooperate". They did, to the degree necessary to make 3.1.4 happen, which was the goal of the whole story.

Unfortunately, as always in life, things are never easy. One comes to another. After all these claims from Cloanto stating that "3.1.4 violates the spirit of the settlement agreement", it is unfortunately necessary to go to coart with this and clarify the legal situation. Not saying that I like this - I don't. 

A very strange statement, indeed. You write down contracts to make things very precise and clear, and now somebody walks along and claims "no, this wasn't really how it was meant to be". Then, why did you write down the contract in this way in first place, and sign it, if you didn't mean it?

Of course, we all know reasons. Strike down a competitor, nothing more. Legal bullshit.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on November 15, 2018, 12:52:52 PM
i dont really like to take sides here. i understand that you have placed your bets with one entity and therefore tend to side with them. but look: for many many years this entity has declared complete disinterest for a market share held by another entity. now, probably as result of independent developments in this area and in consequence of of your following initiatives (p96, 3.x update) this market share become increasingly attractive and the entity you allied with started to expand in this area. what have you expected to happen? i mean, you are actively intermediating in licensing of these codes for a while, or at least trying to, you must have been informed about the reality of the situation and the risk involved. this is essential for quality cooperation, id expect.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 01:14:54 PM
i dont really like to take sides here. i understand that you have placed your bets with one entity and therefore tend to side with them. but look: for many many years this entity has declared complete disinterest for a market share held by another entity. now, probably as result of independent developments in this area and in consequence of of your following initiatives (p96, 3.x update) this market share become increasingly attractive and the entity you allied with started to expand in this area. what have you expected to happen? i mean, you are actively intermediating in licensing of these codes for a while, or at least trying to, you must have been informed about the reality of the situation and the risk involved. this is essential for quality cooperation, id expect.

No one is taking sides in this case. You need to re-read the open letter to the Amiga Community by Thomas and Olaf to understand that.

Hyperion just happened to give green light to the 3.1.4 project and had sufficient rights to ensure a legal umbrella under which this project could be carried out.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: OlafS3 on November 15, 2018, 01:20:36 PM
it was a contribution to the community

unfortunately the money will not help the community (not even the AmigaOS community) but only feed lawsuits and attorneys...
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 01:27:57 PM
it was a contribution to the community

That was the goal, and as Thomas said, it was achieved.  8)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on November 15, 2018, 01:40:29 PM
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.

Quote
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.

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

apparently this remains to be proven.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 01:49:40 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on November 15, 2018, 02:01:27 PM
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
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 02:09:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 15, 2018, 02:11:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on November 15, 2018, 02:31:00 PM
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
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Louis Dias on November 15, 2018, 02:49:47 PM
@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...
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: OlafS3 on November 15, 2018, 02:54:48 PM
@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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 15, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
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. 
     
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kreciu on November 15, 2018, 04:56:35 PM
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?

Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on November 15, 2018, 05:23:42 PM
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 (http://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2018-11-00030-EN.html)

#6
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 05:45:24 PM
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 (http://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2018-11-00030-EN.html)

#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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on November 15, 2018, 06:20:03 PM
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 (http://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2018-11-00030-EN.html)

#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
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 15, 2018, 06:30:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 15, 2018, 06:52:33 PM
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.

No, No and No! The settlement agreement ended a previous breach of contract dispute between the Amiga parties and Hyperion in regards to the original Hyperion OS 4 licensing agreement. So, even if the the Amiga parties and Cloanto succeed in having the settlement agreement voided it does NOT void Hyperion's previous OS 4 licensing agreement. However, it would effectively reopen the original case and another trial could then decide whether there is cause to void the original OS 4 licensing agreement.

The settlement agreement may not be viewed as incidental to Hyperion, in particular if it affords them greater rights than the original OS 4 licensing agreement. But I never said it was in that regard, I simple said it was in regards to Cloanto's efforts to stop Hyperion's copyright and trademark infringement activities.     
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: cgutjahr on November 15, 2018, 11:15:47 PM
No, No and No! The settlement agreement ended a previous breach of contract dispute between the Amiga parties and Hyperion in regards to the original Hyperion OS 4 licensing agreement. So, even if the the Amiga parties and Cloanto succeed in having the settlement agreement voided it does NOT void Hyperion's previous OS 4 licensing agreement.
Are you sure? This is what the settlement says:

"This agreement substitutes for, supersedes, and replaces all previous understandings and agreements between the parties [...]. No party is relying on a representation not set forth herein."

Doesn't sound like things would just switch back to the way the were before...
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 16, 2018, 06:20:18 AM
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).
You are likely correct as far as 1.3 is concerned, but how can registering an unregistered trademark be a breach of a contract? The settlement agreement only specifies which tradmarks Hyperion is allowed to use, but not which trademarks they are NOT allowed to register.

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.
That would be a rather "strange coincidence" indeed.

BTW, even if the settlement agreement is voided, Hyperion can still continue with development and distribution under it's previous OS 4 licensing agreement.
Hardly, because it prevents them access to the operating system and the 3.1 sources upon which the PPC port is built.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: cgutjahr on November 16, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
You are likely correct as far as 1.3 is concerned, but how can registering an unregistered trademark be a breach of a contract?
They're still bound by the settlement, which limits their use of the Amiga marks to certain marks in certain contexts, trying to register another Amiga mark wouldn't be any different than distributing 1.3 - i.e. trying to use IP not covered by the settlement.

Btw., "this mark is no longer registered by Amiga" is not neccessarily the same as "this mark is no longer owned by Amiga" (it probably is, in this case - just saying "registering" and "owning" a mark is not the same.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 16, 2018, 01:49:43 PM
..
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 16, 2018, 02:04:08 PM
Are you sure? This is what the settlement says:

"This agreement substitutes for, supersedes, and replaces all previous understandings and agreements between the parties [...]. No party is relying on a representation not set forth herein."

Doesn't sound like things would just switch back to the way the were before...

Yes, don't you realize that if the settlement agreement is voided as a whole, then all of the above is voided along with it?

But obviously, some things have changed and will not switch back exactly as they were before, but the original OS 4 Hyperion licensing agreement would no longer be superseded or replaced.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 16, 2018, 02:21:27 PM

You are likely correct as far as 1.3 is concerned, but how can registering an unregistered trademark be a breach of a contract? The settlement agreement only specifies which tradmarks Hyperion is allowed to use, but not which trademarks they are NOT allowed to register.

That would be a rather "strange coincidence" indeed.

BTW, even if the settlement agreement is voided, Hyperion can still continue with development and distribution under it's previous OS 4 licensing agreement.

Hardly, because it prevents them access to the operating system and the 3.1 sources upon which the PPC port is built.

Registering a trademark comes under the broad definition of using the trademark. So, how do you think it's possible to register a trademark without using it?

Also, how do you propose Cloanto attack Hyperion's distribution and trademark rights separately from Hyperion's developer rights when they are all part of the same agreement?

Lastly, please explain how Hyperion managed to develop and test Beta versions of OS 4 (existing at the time of the settlement agreement) without any license rights to OS 3.1?   
   
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Thomas Richter on November 16, 2018, 02:28:33 PM
Lastly, please explain how Hyperion managed to develop and test Beta versions of OS 4 without any license rights to OS 3.1?   
This did not come out of nowhere. In fact, there was a previous agreement on the matter, as the development moved over from H&P to Hyperion, so it was certainly not out of the dark, and certainly not by just stealing the sources (as you may seem to suggest).

The problem arose as Amiga Inc. wanted to collect license fees from Hyperion from using the Os sources, and Hyperion claimed that Amiga Inc. would not have had the license in first place as it remained open in how far rights have been transfered from CBM (via Escom and Gateway) to Amiga Inc in first place.

Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 16, 2018, 03:20:12 PM

This did not come out of nowhere. In fact, there was a previous agreement on the matter, as the development moved over from H&P to Hyperion, so it was certainly not out of the dark, and certainly not by just stealing the sources (as you may seem to suggest).

The problem arose as Amiga Inc. wanted to collect license fees from Hyperion from using the Os sources, and Hyperion claimed that Amiga Inc. would not have had the license in first place as it remained open in how far rights have been transfered from CBM (via Escom and Gateway) to Amiga Inc in first place.

Actually, you are the one who suggested the stealing of sources, not me.  In any case the original Hyperion OS 4 licensing agreement contradicts those claims:

Amiga hereby grants the AmigaOne partners a right and license to use the Software and an exclusive right to market and distribute OS 4... Hyperion shall develop OS 4 for the Target-Hardware...

The AmigaOne partners mean Eyetech and Hyperion collectively

The Software means the source code of Amiga OS 3.1 and the upgrades of OS 3.1 including but not limited to, OS 3.5 and OS 3.9 and associated Boing Bags 
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: cha05e90 on November 16, 2018, 03:32:39 PM
Yes, don't you realize that if the settlement agreement is voided as a whole, then all of the above is voided along with it? 

Ever heard of something like "salvatory clause"?  ;)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: cgutjahr on November 16, 2018, 03:43:40 PM
Yes, don't you realize that if the settlement agreement is voided as a whole, then all of the above is voided along with it?
Nobody is arguing the settlement agreement should be voided, AFAICT. The Amiga parties are argueing to have it terminated, due to Hyperion's alleged breaches.

In other words: the agreement would still have been in place from 2009 to 2019, and it would have terminated any older agreements for good.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: cgutjahr on November 16, 2018, 03:51:27 PM
The problem arose as Amiga Inc. wanted to collect license fees from Hyperion from using the Os sources
No. As was well documented during the AInc-Hyperion trial, Amiga Inc. wanted to buy back OS4 using the appropriate clause in the original agreement. There were different interpretations about what the buy-back clause actually covered and how much money Hyperion was owed for OS4 and some AmigaDE work they had done - hence the lawsuit.

Quote
and Hyperion claimed that Amiga Inc. would not have had the license in first place as it remained open in how far rights have been transfered from CBM (via Escom and Gateway) to Amiga Inc in first place.
Yeah, and they actually made some very good points - just to forget about it all the second the were offered a settlement ;)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 16, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
Nobody is arguing the settlement agreement should be voided, AFAICT. The Amiga parties are argueing to have it terminated, due to Hyperion's alleged breaches.

In other words: the agreement would still have been in place from 2009 to 2019, and it would have terminated any older agreements for good.

Really? From the Amiga Inc. answer to complaint:

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Meeting of the Minds)
Consequently, the Settlement Agreement is unenforceable and void from inception.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mutual Mistake)
If both Hyperion and the Amiga Parties were each mistaken as to the meaning of the grant language in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c), then the Settlement Agreement is voidable for mutual mistake.


BTW, the Amino, Itec, and Cloanto answers all read similarly.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Gulliver on November 16, 2018, 04:13:58 PM
BTW, the Amino, Itec, and Cloanto answers all read similarly.

I would certainly like to be Gordon E. Troy and receive that triple paycheck.  ;D

Maybe he does volume discount.  :D
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: NinjaCyborg on November 16, 2018, 05:37:27 PM
My question is, why are you all so ****** unpleasant to one another? It's not as if there's many of you left. It's like an endangered species of animals who are all so resigned to being the last of your species, that you can't possibly be pleased for anything good to happen to someone else in the group, because you're so full of spite that you can't bear to work together even if that might actually save you.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Kronos on November 16, 2018, 06:25:32 PM
Quote
My question is, why are you all so ****** unpleasant to one another?

Pot, kettle, SpaceGrey :P
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 17, 2018, 06:06:25 PM
Ever heard of something like "salvatory clause"?  ;)

Yes, it's probably more often written as a "Severability" clause. However, there is a notable absence of such clause's in the settlement agreement... And for this particular agreement, if the Court finds there has been a material breach then the agreement terminates as whole (see below). So, voided or terminated have essentially the same results:

Termination. This Agreement and the rights and obligations contained therein, shall enter into force as of the Effective Date and remain in force until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final and non-appealable ruling on the existence of a material breach justifying termination of this Agreement. 
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: madgrizzle on November 17, 2018, 10:48:23 PM
I was curious as to what the monetary value of the two companies are? Is the amiga market so big that they can actually afford to pay lawyers?  I have a good sense as to how much lawyers cost, unfortunately.. maybe I just have a poor sense of how many amiga users are actively purchasing products that the companies are making profit off of.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: NinjaCyborg on November 18, 2018, 07:36:03 AM
@madgrizzle It makes little sense for those reasons. Frankly Amiga Inc needs to bugger off. They're nothing but a bunch of conmen.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on November 18, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
@madgrizzle It makes little sense for those reasons. Frankly Amiga Inc needs to bugger off. They're nothing but a bunch of conmen.

If some party filed an unexpected lawsuit against you, in regards to a matter you believed was "Settled" many years ago, I wonder if you would be willing to just "Bugger Off"?

Regarding Conmen... there is no honor among thieves, it takes one to know one, etc.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on November 18, 2018, 02:45:46 PM
@madgrizzle It makes little sense for those reasons. Frankly Amiga Inc needs to bugger off. They're nothing but a bunch of conmen.

If some party filed an unexpected lawsuit against you, in regards to a matter you believed was "Settled" many years ago, I wonder if you would be willing to just "Bugger Off"?

In that vein of "settled", think of Judge Martinez, whose court spent almost 2 years on this the last time (2007-2009). The result? Start all over with even more parties involved and even more issues to be dealt with...
There is an embarrassment factor for the court.

#6
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wawrzon on November 18, 2018, 02:58:21 PM
In that vein of "settled", think of Judge Martinez, whose court spent almost 2 years on this the last time (2007-2009). The result? Start all over with even more parties involved and even more issues to be dealt with...

i simply wonder for how long yet the amiga community intends to be just an audience of such a boring soap.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on December 28, 2018, 04:07:37 PM
WOW! The Amiga parties have just filed a motion for preliminary injunction, including a sh*t-load of supporting exhibits (e.g. Declaration of Bill McEwen). I wondered when they would get tired of cat and mouse games with "Cease and Desist"  ;D :

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , filed by Counter Claimants Amiga, Inc, Itec, LLC, Defendants Amiga, Inc, Amino Development Corporation, Cloanto Corporation, Itec, LLC, Consol Plaintiff Cloanto Corporation. Noting Date 1/18/2019, (Troy, Gordon)
      Att: 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Michele Console Battilana,
      Att: 2 Exhibit MB-1 - Hyperion 20091017 Announcement,
      Att: 3 Exhibit MB-2 - Boot Screens 3.1 (Original & 2016 Hyperion),
      Att: 4 Exhibit MB-3 - Boot Screen 3.1.4,
      Att: 5 Exhibit MB-4 - Boot Screen 3.1.4 (update),
      Att: 6 Exhibit MB-5 - Hyperion on Facebook,
      Att: 7 Exhibit MB-6 - Amiga OS discs,
      Att: 8 Exhibit MB-7 - Hyperion website statement 2017-12-31,
      Att: 9 Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Bill McEwen,
      Att: 10 Exhibit WM-1 - 2001 OEM License,
      Att: 11 Exhibit WM-2 - 2008-12-19 Hyperion Draft (Redline),
      Att: 12 Exhibit WM-3 - 2008-12-29 Amiga Draft (Redline),
      Att: 13 Exhibit WM-4 - 2009-03-30 Amiga Draft (Redline),
      Att: 14 Exhibit WM-5 - 2009-02-06 Hyperion Draft,
      Att: 15 Exhibit WM-6 - 2009-02-16 (Exhibit 1 List),
      Att: 16 Exhibit WM-7 - AmigaOS 3.1.4 floppy discs,
      Att: 17 Exhibit WM-8 - Boot-UP Screen Amiga OS 3.1.4,
      Att: 18 Proposed Order
   
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Senex on December 28, 2018, 07:41:29 PM
@SpeedGeek

Thanks for telling us. There is a corresponding news-item (http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2018-12-00060-DE.html) at amiga-news.de (http://www.amiga-news.de/standard) now - german-only for the time being, but in the text there is a link to our copy of the actual document.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: PaulT on January 15, 2019, 08:27:04 AM
In that vein of "settled", think of Judge Martinez, whose court spent almost 2 years on this the last time (2007-2009). The result? Start all over with even more parties involved and even more issues to be dealt with...

i simply wonder for how long yet the amiga community intends to be just an audience of such a boring soap.
Eh, Big Bill McEwen was early on seemingly earnest enough but as far as I'm concerned, Amiga, Inc. have done little but squat over their IP, grunting and gesturing with a stone knife and occasionally fanning the IP for signs of life, for well over a decade.  They can't even raise a glimmer of respect in a community which was once as active and enthusiastic as they come. :'( I wouldn't believe him if he stated that the Sun was going to rise tomorrow.

At least Hyperion and Cloanto have since had activities that have supported users to some extent, albeit not support enough to generate new users.  Now they're back to tugging on two ends of a string of cold gristle, and A,Inc has decided that if Hyperion has somehow found a beggar's worth of calorie content, then there is enough grease to convince a lawyer or two that there might be fees available.  My guess is that Cloanto and the others have thrown in a ream of paper and a couple hours' of lawyer fees each, to avoid being the target of the next valueless action by A,Inc.

Again, my personal opinion is that Amiga Inc has long ago lost the moral high ground, the market, and the respect of everyone who isn't getting a check from them (and who knows about respect in that situation). There is no forward looking value in their cold hands gripping obsolete code and trademarks to their chests lest anyone actually benefit.  It's the perfect situation for something to be released into the public domain or at minimum an unrestricted GNU-type license.  Even if, and it's not clear to me that it is the case, there was infringement, can Hyperion using an Amiga trademark possibly lower the image of Amiga, Inc.?  Not unless public opinion can go to a value less than zero.  Amiga, Inc. was going to do nothing themselves to generate revenue, or, heaven forbid, value to the community.

If I were to see Bill park his Victory motorcycle near me, I'd consider overcoming my support of a fellow motorcyclist for long enough to let the air out of his tires.  And that's a realization that he's bottomed out; when you're at the bottom of the valley, you should drop your burden and start walking up hill rather than getting out a shovel and digging deeper. 
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: number6 on February 05, 2019, 01:39:35 PM
@thread

This, with further detail (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23929642/Hyperion_Entertainment_CVBA_et_al_v_Itec,_LLC_et_al)

Here, and the document (https://twitter.com/amigadocuments)

Here (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1jzdHwTZ28vbMxDpgVOVQzyXSFWyBR2NE/edit)

#6
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kamelito on March 02, 2019, 04:00:57 PM
ROT13 message at Amiga.com

"As long as people kept worrying that the machines were taking over, they wouldn't notice what was really happening."
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: wakido on March 11, 2019, 05:25:57 AM
Amiga.com ROT13 message

The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: SpeedGeek on April 04, 2019, 01:59:23 PM
** NEWS UPDATE **

It looks like the snake will be permitted to live a little longer:

Wednesday, April 03, 2019 - ORDER denying Plaintiffs'45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: pixie on May 02, 2019, 08:02:56 PM
@magnetic:

I don't see how that is the case, one company has written OS4 and improved OS3.1, the other is a parasite company that sells a free emulator.

Hyperion seem to have a stronger legal case which is fortunate because if they lost it would be disastrous for the Amiga community, most likely the end of any further development of AmigaOS.

WTF? Stronger legal case? The legal dispute is not about OS4 (or even an improved 3.1). It's about Kickstart 1.3 distribution rights and the specific trademarks which both "Parasites" are entitled to use.   ::)

Now, if both parasites had strictly followed their license agreements then there would be no legal dispute. But what happens when one parasite claims implied rights which infringe on the other parasite's rights?   :P

This clearly shows that you have little knowledge about the product itself, Cloanto own contributions, and the obvious fact that without the roms you're running illegal software (unless you own an actual amiga)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: pixie on May 02, 2019, 08:22:56 PM
Trying out the WinUAE... sweet touch added by Cloanto
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ostx0pdf8ny3fru/window.png
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: kolla on May 03, 2019, 11:09:35 AM
How dare they, parasites, leeches...  ::)
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: Louis Dias on May 03, 2019, 01:17:27 PM
What am I missing here?
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: goldfish on May 03, 2019, 01:31:13 PM
Hi

Can we have a non dropbox image please
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: pixie on May 03, 2019, 08:30:29 PM
I tried, the forum didn't accept the image
Title: Re: Hyperion vs Cloanto
Post by: zipper on May 03, 2019, 10:43:47 PM
Well, something craps -- Your attachment has failed security checks and cannot be uploaded. Please consult the forum administrator