Pegasos Gothenburg Show 2002 announced

[samface]

Yeap, while you know every single piece of evidence and are sure that they will win

I never claimed that the facts I have been pointing at would be any kind of evidence that will be used in this case. All I'm saying is that certain things are so obvious for anyone to see that denying it is pointless.

[samface]

[sarcasm]

I believe the MorphOS website states that their product is an Amiga next-genearation PPC OS. Tell me doctor, what should I do? Is it a disease that can be cured?

[/sarcasm]

[samface]

It never was in the MorphOS website, it was in a newsnet posting by Ralph Schmidt.

That's odd, this URL works for me:

http://www.morphos.de/files/pressancdec2399.txt

Perhaps you should check your network settings?

Anyone is entitled to make a Next Generation PPC OS for Amiga computers, cause that's how any sane man would interprete that.

The phrase "next-generation" refers to something beeing the successor of a previous version. What's the previous version of MorphOS? Well, let's stop arguing about it and read it stated even more clear at this URL:

http://www.morphos.de/files/morphos_overview11-Apr-00a.txt

I quote the highlight:

> ...will bring you now what you`ve always wished
> for....
> AmigaOS running on PPC in 2000

it runs on *COMMODORE AMIGA HARDWARE*

Nope, it runs on Phase5 PowerUp boards.

[samface]

Ehm, do the Phase5 PPC accelerator boards work
without the Amiga hardware? Yes, it runs on the
Amiga hardware, like OS4 does/will. Except if you
say the same about OS4 too:)(that it doesn't run on
Amiga hardware minus AmigaONE, it only runs on
P5 PPCs). Sorry, you're nuts. You're totally nuts.

Ehhh... What are you on about? We're talking about what the MorphOS runs on, not the requirements for the Phase5 PowerUP boards. MorphOS runs on the Phase5 PowerUP boards PowerPC CPU, not the Amiga hardware's 68k CPU. You cannot simply skip a part of the chain and claim that MorphOS runs on the Amiga hardware because MorphOS cannot run on the Amiga hardware as it has no PowerPC CPU.

[samface]

Ehm, do you know anything about Operating System
generations? Bah, I don't think you do... If you did you
wouldn't even mention that...

But I do know that you must have the legal issues set straight before claiming to be the successor of someone else's product line, regardless of how compatible it is.

[samface]

So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.

*sigh*

[metaphor]

Police officer: I hereby arrest you for the murder on John F. Kennedy. You have the right to remain silent...

Murderer: But that was back then, officer! I don't kill people anymore and I'm nowadays an ordinary obidient citizen, promise!

Police officer: Oh? Well, ok then. You're free to go. Have a nice day!

[/metaphor]

Can you see the flaw in your argument? Please tell me that you do or do I have to spell it out for you?

[samface]

So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.

The versions the announcement talks about runned AmigaOS 68k. It needed the Amiga chipset, so yes
it does run on Amiga hardware with the Phase5
PPC *EXPANSION/ACCELERATOR* cards.

Hmmm... someone is getting confused by his own arguments, I see... FYI: That is a perfect example of how a contradiction looks like.

Anyway, what hardware an OS runs is defined by the CPU. MorphOS runs on the PowerUp boards from Phase5 and makes use of the Amiga hardware like an expansion board in contrary to the AmigaOS which runs on the Amiga hardware and makes use of the PowerUp boards as an expansion board.

[samface]

Seehund, I'm not going to argue with you anymore except for about the stuff that is outright lies. Well, either that or the official information available is lying and I see no reason for why you would be a more reliable source of information than corporate websites.

1. You claim that Eyetech only buys ready made boards for redistribution as AmigaOne computers. Their official FAQ says differently and therefore I find your statement to be of little credibility.

2. You claim to know unofficial secrets about Amiga Inc.'s AmigaDE plans, supposedly told to you by Bill McEwan in person just three weeks ago. Once more you want me to believe this despite the fact that the official information says otherwise. Now here is where it gets really interesting; why would Bill McEwan tell you such a thing even if it was true when you haven't signed an NDA? Also, if you're such a "buddy" with Bill McEwan, how come you don't settle your issues with Amiga Inc. directly with him in person instead of spreading your dissatisfaction with them all over the net? Please help me straightening out these question marks and I would be really grateful...

3. You also claim that the AmigaOne license has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications. Once more that is untrue since a piece of hardware must be *ensured* to be AmigaOS4 compatible before beeing able to label itself as an AmigaOne computer.

The rest of your post I will argue about no more as we're obviously not getting anywhere. I agree to disagree with you and that's it.

[samface]

What you can't understand is that it's not illegal to run AmigaOS under an Amiga emulator on your
Amiga computer, using your original Kickstart ROM,
that is essentially installed on your hardware.

According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. Don't believe me? I'll give you a court case for reference, if you like.

[samface]

Eyetech are buying boards from the same manufacturer that supplies Mai with theirs.

No, they are buying *designs* from the same hardware *designer*. Sure, they might have bought a few ready made boards for testing etc. but those ready made ones will not be sold as end user products. It's a small but very important difference.

BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE DESIGN, STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS!

Yes because the hardware design, standards and specifications of the specific hardware in question has to be ensured to be compatible with AmigaOS4 in order to be able to label itself as an "AmigaOne".

Bill McEwen said this in the interview held at AmiWest on July 27th ...

Ok, now I see how this got really way off track. I said that the new Amiga will be a combination of the AmigaDE and the AmigaOS (version unspecified) and then you jumped on me saying that there won't be anyone for AmigaOS4. Do you see it? A misunderstanding, that's all.

[samface]

From http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/AppendixB.htm:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Readysoft, Inc.  (aka the A-Max precedent, 1989)

While this court case never happened to the best of my knowledge, the potential threat of it and the subseqent inaction on Apple's part to bring it about set a imprtant precedent for emulation technology.  A-Max was the brainchild of Simon Douglas and the first Macintosh emulator for any platform.  It allowed any Amiga computer to emulate a Mac via a combination of software and special hardware.  Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market.  Therefore, by default, Readysoft was allowed to continue marketing and improving A-Max at will.

The A-Max precedent is important to anyone who may be required to defend the development and subsequent release of an emulator.  It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights.

Let me point out the highlights:

"Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market."

"It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights."

This very much proves what I stated previously which was:

According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP.

[samface]

Please do! Please do! PLEEEASE!

I hope you are as good at saying "thank you" as you are saying "please". :-P ;-)

[samface]

The court
decided that such use of ROMs for emulation is legal.

...so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights.

Exactly. The EULA of 3.1 doesn't mention anything
against emulation, only about illegal copying.

Please, AmiGR. I've already done my homework on this one so don't even try. There are specific laws regarding the use of ROM's that applies *regardless* what the EULA says. The EULA is *not* what decides wether something is infringing on the IP or not.

[samface]

A court case proved that the law DOES NOT APPLY
TO THIS USE OF THE ROMS.

MorphOS may technically use it the same way as the A-Max but as they are using this for their competing product to the AmigaOS (which the ROM is a part of) then it is per definition infringing on their IP. It's actually simple logic. I mean, it's just like if you would take the exterior of a brand new sportscar, put it on your old Ford and then sell it as a next-generation Ford called "morphord". You don't think that would be infringing on Ford's IP?

The "specific laws" were proved not to apply in that
case, so it does not infringe the IP rights of the
original vendor.

I can't believe you actually managed to miss my point despite all of my bold wordings and all... *sigh*

Anyway, here we go again; MorphOS infringes on Amiga Inc.'s IP by using their ROM for their *competing* product. The AmigaROM is Amiga Inc.'s intellectual property and may not be used by a product that is a competing alternative to the original. An emulator is not a competing alternative or even a stand alone product but rather a complement to the original product. MorphOS is an OS (or claims to be atleast, sometime I doubt) and as it makes use of both the ROM and even more parts from the rest of the AmigaOS, it is per definition infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. How could you possibly question this when it's obvious enough dazzle your eyes?

[samface]

Perhaps this will clear things out for you:

intellectual property
n.
A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


intellectual property

(IP) The ownership of ideas and control over the tangible or virtual representation of those ideas. Use of another person's intellectual property may or may not involve royalty payments or permission, but should always include proper credit to the source.

(1997-03-27)


Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe

The law has made it legal for an emulator to make use of the original system's BIOS/ROM if it's running unchanged on the original hardware as that isn't infringing on the intellectual property. But an OS on the other hand, may not as it would be infringing on the intellectual property of the owners to the original OS.

[samface]

MorphOS 0.1-4 was an emulator using the ROMs LEGALLY.

MorphOS never was just an emulator. Regardless of the technical details they market their product as an OS and therefore you cannot refer to it as something else.