[News] Serious allegations about H&P | ANN.lu |
Posted on 08-Nov-2001 14:17 GMT by Christian Kemp | 164 comments View flat View list |
Amigo follows up on serious allegations about H&P and says: "I also just asked Unisys as it says here, and am waiting for a reply. If true, H&P could probably be forced to close."
[ If H&P indeed didn't pay royalties for Unisys' GIF algorithm, they might not be forced to close per se, but if this is indeed true, and Unisys decides to sue, they might have to pay some serious fines. Also note that while this is not in unmoderated, it's highly speculative, unconfirmed and generally should be taken with the usual grain of salt - CK ]
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Serious allegations about H&P : Comment 59 of 164 | ANN.lu |
Posted by David Gerber on 09-Nov-2001 10:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 55 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion): >>There was good faith at the beginning. As soon as they *know* they
>>have no rights to distribute AmiTCP and they continue to do it,
>>there is no longer good faith.
> That reasoning simply won't stand up in court.
> Just imagine the repercussions of such type of reasoning.
> Two days prior to a release of a product an agreement might get cancelled and
> you would then be required to destroy the entire inventory?
2 days? It's been *ONE YEAR* H&P has been informed about the status of AmiTCP. They *acknowledged* being wrong and wanted to find a solution to license AmiTCP. That was shortly after "OS" 3.9 was released. No solution was found. Then *ONE YEAR* after, they sell it *AGAIN*.
> No, a license agreement cannot be terminated without abiding by the
> contractual terms governing termination.
> Is there are no contractual terms, a "reasonable" period must be observed.
A license was granted to Active Technologies (Chris Wiles) and Active had to pay a license fee for every NetConnect3 and Genesis unit sold. Now we have two things:
- the license is not transferable to H&P and they simply cannot sell AmiTCP
- the license is transferable to H&P thus they must pay the license fee for every "OS" 3.9 unit sold
Either way, they didn't agree.
> For instance, when we license a game from Monolith, we acquire a license to
> develop, modify, use, distribute and market.
> Nothing prevents us from assigning certain rights to third parties
> (distribution and marketing rights to a publisher for instance) or even to
> assign the entire development to third party contractors.
But you cannot give the game to a 3rd party and have this 3rd party sell it and not give anything back to Monolith. Furthermore, if this 3rd party is informed that the rights of the game are Monolith's, he has to stop selling it immediately.
> Like I said, H&P claim to have a valid contract with Chris Wiles which grants
> them the rights to do exactly what they did.
This contract is *BOGUS*. Chris Wiles cannot claim anything for software he doesn't own. Do you understand?
Do you also find that it is an acceptable behaviour to recognise being wrong with including AmiTCP in "OS" 3.9 and then, one year later, include it again with Amiga"OS" XL?
And then people wonder why not everyone wants to "cooperate" with H&P.. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|