Midgets Go to War: Genesi sues Amiga Inc.

[downix]

Note the date of the patent...

This is not the patent discussed, however.  But it is a very interesting patent, one of the last ones ever created with the Amiga name on it.

Pity it doesn't cover any of the technologies being discussed here, such as right-mouse-button clicks.  I thought this had evolved into a "What does MorphOS do illegally" arguement, which this patent doesn't even touch.

But, it is a very interesting patent, and showed a very advanced concept of computer architecture that would have made AmigaObjects the pride of Gateway.

[greenboy]

AmigaGuy (and others),

All though the thread, if I am skimming with any comprehension,  there seem to be lots of users confused by the difference between actually using source code, and simply supplying compatible APIs by clean-room design and developed with available documentation (of which there is plenty, as Downix points out).

Anyway, there is a huge difference legally, a huge difference in the delivered code base (and in some cases, even the OS architecture could be significantly different). And as some have pointed out, there are legal precedents.

As for whom would need to prove what in such a case, the burden of proof would fall on Amiga Inc to show in court after filing suit that IP (source code) had been infringed/used; compatible APIs are no sin or crime here. Well, Amiga blustered months back and even publicly issued a deadline (for amnesty?) but I see absolutely no signs that they followed through on anything like this.

To address another (rhetorical?) query here: the reason Genesi has pressed suit is unrelated entirely, and evidently because it seemed to be the only way to get a response after contractual agreements failed to be honored. Notice I said "evidently": it is for the court to decide. And it isn't cheap to do this for Genesi, but when parties agree to sign a contract and later one does not honor it, someone often feels it needs to be resolved.

I think it's the same as it would be for any of us, had we contracted for services or products and failed to recieve them, or even have queries about fulfilling those obligations acknowledged. I'm not sure how deep it goes and wouldn't gossip about it if I did, but that's the picture to the best of my knowledge.

[System]

All though the thread, if I am skimming with any comprehension, there seem to be lots of users confused by the difference between actually using source code, and simply supplying compatible APIs by clean-room design and developed with available documentation (of which there is plenty, as Downix points out).

Here's what I don't understand.
Maybe someone can help me here.

How can someone build a compatible API without getting information from the origional source code?

And if you build api's that act exactly like the origional enviornment, then you would have to write it the same way, although you would extend it further.

And the available documentation that you speak of also would have to be source code.

Correct?

So no matter how you say it, it always comes back to the origional source code.

If you're going to emulate the Amiga OS and extend it, you're gonna have to do it with the origional source code.

Correct?

What other documentation would there be that would even start to help that is not source code?

Doesn't make sense to me.

[Herewegoagain]

To address another (rhetorical?) query here: the reason Genesi has pressed suit is unrelated entirely, and evidently because it seemed to be the only way to get a response after contractual agreements failed to be honored. Notice I said "evidently": it is for the court to decide. And it isn't cheap to do this for Genesi, but when parties agree to sign a contract and later one does not honor it, someone often feels it needs to be resolved.

And I have yet to hear anyone answer the statement that this "contract" was for the SmartBoy running WindowsCE and NOT Morphos.  If that is the case, how do you justify what you just said.  You are presuming Amiga to be guilty without trial.  It's really funny that on November 24, 2002 Bill Buck had this to say  about AmigaDE:

If there is anyone interested in working as a *paid* Developer for this "special" project, that is, bringing MorphOS and Amiga DE together then please contact us. It might be interesting to do, but as before and for the moment now, we do not see the value of such an effort.

He see's no value in such an effort.  Then only just over 1 month later a lawsuit is filed against Amiga.  I see who is stirring crap here.  As anyone should be able to if they open their eyes.  This is one big attempt to tie Amiga up in litigation and drain any possible amount of money he can from them in lawyers fees.  Viscorp and Phase5 will get their revenge yet!

[downix]

Here's what I don't understand.
Maybe someone can help me here.
How can someone build a compatible API without getting information from the origional source code?

Easy, you use other sources of information.  For programs to be able to use an OS's API's, they will need the documentation on how to interface with the OS's API's.  Otherwise, you can't run any apps.

And if you build api's that act exactly like the origional enviornment, then you would have to write it the same way, although you would extend it further.
And the available documentation that you speak of also would have to be source code.
Correct?

I'm afraid not.  API's work via a system of interfaces and calls to those interfaces.  What lies behind those interfaces is a complete mystery to the program, they only know to use a specific API call and get a specific result.  How things work between call and result can be done one of a hundred ways, as shown by the various mechanisms to impliment the POSIX API in many OS's

So no matter how you say it, it always comes back to the origional source code.
If you're going to emulate the Amiga OS and extend it, you're gonna have to do it with the origional source code.
Correct?

Incorrect.  AROS has done it without any source code.  They just read the documentation on the system API's, and then created a new system that uses the same API calls to the same results.  The inner-mechanism for these can be worlds different.  One could use a message-passing mechanism as in a microkernel, one could use a dynamic library setup as in an executive library, and yet another methodology is to make the API calls directly to a monolithic kernel.

What other documentation would there be that would even start to help that is not source code?
Doesn't make sense to me.

The documentation used in this case are the infamous Rom Kernel Manuals, published by Commodore Business Machines.  I happen to own 2 complete sets of these manuals, the Brown and the Grey editions.  I can state quite clearly:  

These books contain no source code to the Amiga Operating System.

(Ironically, one edition does include partial schemaitcs for a segment of the Amiga chipset that were covered by patents, the blitter)

Please, purchase a copy of these books on eBay and read them.  They have complete docs on the API's, library system, even the style of the AmigaOS widget set.  With them, it is more than possible to clone an OS's API's without using a single line of code, nor even using the same mechanism for how the system operates.

[greenboy]

If that is the case, how do you justify what you just said. You are presuming Amiga to be guilty without trial.

Please put the bifocals on. I said nothing about guilt, or whose guilt, used the word "evidently" to qualify what I did say, and "it is for the court to decide".

I know you want to everyone to think Genesi is baaad-they're bad! But you are loading your verbiage with way more "presumption" than I think mine carried. But whatever; I suppose we all have our versions of what is or could have been, and that's why some things end up in court.

[strobe]

I'm glad a JUDGE is going to decide this case instead of a WEB FORUM FLAME WAR!

[dammy]

Here's what I don't understand.
Maybe someone can help me here.

How can someone build a compatible API without getting information from the origional source code?

And if you build api's that act exactly like the origional enviornment, then you would have to write it the same way, although you would extend it further.

And the available documentation that you speak of also would have to be source code.

Correct?

So no matter how you say it, it always comes back to the origional source code.

If you're going to emulate the Amiga OS and extend it, you're gonna have to do it with the origional source code.

Correct?

What other documentation would there be that would even start to help that is not source code?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Is NT source code been released?  If not, how do you explain:
ReactOS


Dammy

[Waccoon]

I agree with Moutain_Myst.  I *REALLY* don't like this new trend where companies are trying to emulate or reverse engineer other applications or operating systems.

The reason for this is hypocritical.  Everyone wants a new product that is much better than anything we have used before.  But, getting software support is a big challenge.  So, the logical step is to pull stunts like Lindows, and leech off Windows.  Make a better OS to run the same crap that we've always run, and it doesn't ususally run better since it *IS* just emulation.

Even if your system doesn't use any code from the original product, you're still stealing *something*.  Code isn't the only IP, you know.  You're stealing ideas, designs, methods, principles, formats, standards...  companies work just as hard to develop and standardize their design as they do to write their code.  But, who cares?  Design is just all about looking pretty, right?  Design has nothing to do with functionality, right?  MacOS X is just a pretty version of UNIX, right?

Hell, just look at Linux.  Most new Linux distributions I've seen claim to be better than what's offered by the "Evil Empire", but the machines look and function just like Windows.  Red Hat 6 was a per-pixel *COPY* of the Win95 interface, from the highlights on the buttons, to the shape of the windows, to the color of the desktop, and right down to the word "Start" on the application menu.  It wasn't compatible with Explorer.exe, but it worked almost exactly like it!

It was nothing more than a damn stunt to convince people Linux could easily be compared to Windows.  Look!  It looks the same!  It's Windows, only better!

Until, of course, you wanted to install drivers or something, and then the true Linux core showed its ugly self big-time!

The whole world is full of damn hypocrites!  Personally, I think the MorphOS people are really pushing their luck.

[Frodon]

Hello,

Here's what I don't understand.
Maybe someone can help me here.

How can someone build a compatible API without getting information from the origional source code?

No I'll try to explain this more practically below.

And if you build api's that act exactly like the origional enviornment, then you would have to write it the same way, although you would extend it further.

And the available documentation that you speak of also would have to be source code.

Correct?

So no matter how you say it, it always comes back to the origional source code.

If you're going to emulate the Amiga OS and extend it, you're gonna have to do it with the origional source code.

Correct?

What other documentation would there be that would even start to help that is not source code?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Well what do you have in an API documentation generally:

You have the API prototypes, example for a function:

int toto (char* titi, int ta);

Than you have explaination so the programmer understand how to use the function and what it does exactly:

Ex: The toto function is a function to pass a message to titi and tell if this is the final message (ta=1 if yes, 0 if not).

It return 1 if the message have been received by titi, 0 if not.


Ok this is a very simple example. Then you the only thing you have to take care when you want to recreate this function is that your recreated function takes the same arguments, do the same job (send a message to titi and tell him it's the last one, as well as check if he received it) and return the same value (1 if titi received the message, 0 if not).

In a nutshell you have to do the same work that have been done by the original engineer of the function when he created it. That is to say, you have to reinvent it.

That's what have done the AROS Team and that what have done the MOS Team (with the help of the already done work of the AROS Team).

I hope this help you to understand better (even if the example is very simple )

Regards

[Frodon]

Hello Wacoon,

Just a little remark. Open your eyes! This is how the world is progressing!
Using ideas of the past and improve them.

Do you want people to always reinvent everything? What alternative to a wheel would you invent if you don't allow people to use the wheel idea?

Personnaly I'm european, here we don't have software patents and lot of people don't want them. I'm particularly supporting the no software patents campaign by EuroLinux (http://petition.eurolinux.org/) as I think it's something that can stop the innovation.

How can you innovate if you always have to reinvent something different for doing the same thing (what about when you can't do it differently?) for everything protected by a software patent? If you can't concentrate only on new innovating stuff because you have to concentrate to invent stuff that do what old protected stuff already do, it's not very good.

I personnally think that the world can only progress significantly by sharing the ideas and concepts invented. Because I think that there is always someone that can use your ideas and concepts to create something new or improve your invention.

Ok this is just a matter of opinion. This is very polemistic subject and I won't blame anyone who don't have the same opinion than me. You are free to think what you want This was just MY opinion

Regards

[Herewegoagain]

To address another (rhetorical?) query here: the reason Genesi has pressed suit is unrelated entirely, and evidently because it seemed to be the only way to get a response after contractual agreements failed to be honored. Notice I said "evidently": it is for the court to decide. And it isn't cheap to do this for Genesi, but when parties agree to sign a contract and later one does not honor it, someone often feels it needs to be resolved.

Um...well I don't need bifocals to see that there are 2 sentences that end with the presumption that Amiga broke their contract.  Yeah, I know you stepped around abit to word it.  But the assumption is there clearly.

But whatever; I suppose we all have our versions of what is or could have been, and that's why some things end up in court.

Exactly.  That's why I think this should have never been posted here, or in any public light until the court has made a ruling.   But you know what I think about why it was posted in public forums.  Because thats the way Genesi (BB) does business.  It's all about creating a psychological frame of mind in your competitiors potential customers.    Ever played an online game like Unreal Tournament where your opponent keeps heckling you to try and distract you so you won't play as well.... That's Bill Bucks game.

[KapitanKlystron]

This one cracks me up.  Ten years from now you can come back and see folks promising OS4 real soon now and Bill Buck or is it Herb Tarlick in his white shoes and belt making every claim under the sun.

A  fact for everyone:  the number of people who care about either system is getting smaller by the second. I spent the money I had set aside for an Amiga overChristmas on a nice wintel box and a wintel laptop. I have AF5 if I get too nostalgic.

Ten years ago I watched the same kind of zealotry torpedo a very nice computer system. It  pissed me off then but now as I watch all this I am more amused than anything else.

[JoannaK]

Well.. to many this all is just alternative (a hobby) while using X86 systems for work. In that use it may have a future, but getting something as old and primitive as OS4 to punch thru on desktop use is quite impossible dream. So, as a hobby it's not too bad, even though lack of honest/open information and Fud-wars are not best way to keep people around.

[Waccoon]

Open your eyes! This is how the world is progressing!

Laissez faire!  All innovation is progress!  Quality is irrelevant!  Tehcnology always trumps functionality!

I'm a designer, not a programmer.  I care very much about being able to control and market your own ideas so you can earn a living.  Patents never used to last forever, but, the world is progressing!

Do you want people to always reinvent everything? What alternative to a wheel would you invent if you don't allow people to use the wheel idea?

I think the patent on the wheel ran out a long, long time ago.   ;-)

I personnally think that the world can only progress significantly by sharing the ideas and concepts invented.

What ever happened to "scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours?"  That's what the sharing of ideas *IS*!!!

Trade tools with other companies.  Make business partnerships.  Test and certify your products.  Support your customers.  Build a reputation.  Earn a living.  If you screw up, you'll suffer... so don't screw up or sell out on your partners.

Ah, screw it!  We'll just make an emulator and run all YOUR software!  After all, it's the only way we can compete with people who have been in the business for 20 years and have gotten good at it!  WAAAAAH!

Oh yeah, we want everything for FREE, and a tech support line, too.

Because I think that there is always someone that can use your ideas and concepts to create something new or improve your invention.

Which obviously invalidates your effort on the invention.

Let me tell you something about improving on other people's ideas.  Years ago, there was only one JPEG standard and all was well.  Today, just about every company adds their own special meta data into JPEG files.  As a result, about 50% of the JPEG files I take in every day don't work on our Kodak DLS printer.  I have to "strip" the extra data out of the files before I can send them to the printer.  I've even run into JPEGs that will load in ACDSee, but not Photoshop.  I would MUCH prefer to have a single standard that gets replaced every few years, than have a thousand variations of the same standard.  I don't want to see five variations of the JPEG format with the file extention ".JPG".  I want each version of JPEG to have its own file extention, so we can tell which is which.

But, wait!  We can't do that!  Nobody will support the format!  We *HAVE* to make a new standard and accept it as compatible with the old standard to force it to work with old applicaions that weren't designed to use the new standard!  Compatibility is irrelevant!  Confusion is a non issue!  Upgrading is mandatory!  Innovation rules!

I'll take invention over innovation, anyday.  Better to get it done right the first time!

JPEG's aren't that unreliable, but there are lots of other "standards" that have similar compatibility problems because people don't want to make something new when they can just leech off an existing technology and pass it off as the "same thing".

Remember, we're not talking about new software.  We're talking about emulation.  Not making it truly better, just trying to make it as compatible as possible.  Look up the defenition of "emulation".

I belive that if you invent something, you have the right to sell it any way you want.  If you want to sell a music CD for $100, that doesn't give anyone the right to steal it because it costs too much.  Why not?  It's still your CD!

Patents, like most laws, help inventors earn profit from their efforts.  They *CAN* be taken too far.  The war of the consumer verses the lawyer is the example of human nature.  But that should not invalidate the work of the inventor.

We should improve on ideas, not clone them.  But, hey, "This is how the world is progressing!"

Of course, whether it's stealing or innovation, simply depens who is suing whom, really.

[Frodon]

Hello Waccoon,

Ok you seem to have understood nothing of what I said. Never mind, I'll not waste my time any longer to re-explain.

I'm a bit tired to explain things to people and see people completely misinterprete what I explain (which seem to be something quite often in this community ). So I will not waste my time any longer.

I just hope that some people understood correctly, so that I didn't completely wasted my time. For the others, never mind.

Regards