16-Nov-2025 02:55 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 70 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 70]
[Forum] Dave Haynie on MOSANN.lu
Posted on 18-Aug-2003 12:46 GMT by Secret70 comments
View flat
View list
Found the following on bunny. New information to me! --- BEGIN ---
From: "Dave Haynie" <dhaynie@...>
To: <teamamiga@...>
Subject: [TAML] Re: Ralph Schmidt comments on deal with Amiga Inc
Date: 5 Nov 2001 03:59:09 GMT
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:01:46 -0500, Skal Loret <skal@...> jammed all night, and by sunrise was heard saying:

> On Sunday 04 November 2001 15:30, Gary Peake regaled all and sundry with:
>
> > It is common knowledge that Petro gave source to Haage-Partner, Phase5
> > and others who "he" viewed as worthy. These sources were given for
> > very specific projects, but as these projects were finished or as the
> > companies went broke or left the Amiga market, the source was not
> > returned. This is problem number one. Everyone who was ever given or
> > has seen source feels part owner of it. They all fail to realize that
> > WE paid 5 million plus for it. They have paid nothing for it. >
> Yup. Even if they are still in possession of the source, the law is quite
> clear: it is still your IP, and you get to make the calls as to its use. Or
> lack thereof. They cannot use it to develop their own products without
> licensing from AI.

As I told Skal, these guys aren't even confused -- they know very well that the sources are stolen. They might throw off some argument claiming to use it legally, or they might say they're not. In 1996, Amiga Technologies source-reviewed a so-called "New C Exec" from Ralph & Co. Andy found copied comments from the original assembler code that he had written himself.

Now, I have no poof that same code made it into MorphOS. But it does provide a data point for the character of the people involved.People who are dishonest with me once rarely get a second chance.

--
Dave Haynie d.haynie@... http://www.merlancia.com
Chief Technology Officer, Merlancia Industries
--- END ---
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 1 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Secret on 18-Aug-2003 10:48 GMT
Sorry for bad formatting :-(

Should be:

--- BEGIN ---
From: "Dave Haynie" <dhaynie@...>
To: <teamamiga@...>
Subject: [TAML] Re: Ralph Schmidt comments on deal with Amiga Inc
Date: 5 Nov 2001 03:59:09 GMT

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:01:46 -0500, Skal Loret <skal@...> jammed all night, and by sunrise was heard saying:

> On Sunday 04 November 2001 15:30, Gary Peake regaled all and sundry with:
>
> > It is common knowledge that Petro gave source to Haage-Partner, Phase5
> > and others who "he" viewed as worthy. These sources were given for
> > very specific projects, but as these projects were finished or as the
> > companies went broke or left the Amiga market, the source was not
> > returned. This is problem number one. Everyone who was ever given or
> > has seen source feels part owner of it. They all fail to realize that
> > WE paid 5 million plus for it. They have paid nothing for it.
>
> Yup. Even if they are still in possession of the source, the law is quite
> clear: it is still your IP, and you get to make the calls as to its use. Or
> lack thereof. They cannot use it to develop their own products without
> licensing from AI.

As I told Skal, these guys aren't even confused -- they know very well
that the sources are stolen. They might throw off some argument claiming
to use it legally, or they might say they're not. In 1996, Amiga
Technologies source-reviewed a so-called "New C Exec" from Ralph & Co.
Andy found copied comments from the original assembler code that he had
written himself.

Now, I have no poof that same code made it into MorphOS. But it does
provide a data point for the character of the people involved. People
who are dishonest with me once rarely get a second chance.

--
Dave Haynie d.haynie@... http://www.merlancia.com
Chief Technology Officer, Merlancia Industries
--- END ---
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 2 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith on 18-Aug-2003 10:57 GMT
As Dave says - prooving all of this may be a problem.

Sam
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 3 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 18-Aug-2003 11:01 GMT
And another flame-fest ensues...

If stolen source code was indeed used in MOS, and AmigaInc knows this so well, I
think it's time to take action about it once and for all. Hinting in fora is
taking us nowhere - and posting something such as this here on ANN is just
fishing for a non-constructive flame war. In a few seconds people-preferring-MOS
(inventing a more neutral term here) will rush in screaming. And right after
that, people-preferring-AOS4 will come rushing in from the other end. Noone will
probably have a clue as to real facts, and everyone will thing the other guys
are idiots or fanatics, or both.

Could we please leave out all the-oh-so-predictable flame fest for once?

Nah, who am I kidding ... :-(
.
SlimJim
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 4 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by secret on 18-Aug-2003 11:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Sam Smith):
And money to do something about it?
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 5 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Jules on 18-Aug-2003 11:04 GMT
To be honest, I'm so tired of this endless tirade (and many others) going on. No doubt this thread (like so many others) is bound to get all stupid again in the not too distant future with people turning this into MOS vs Amiga crap. Whether source code has been copied or not is of no importance to the end user (i.e. the majority of US). It's up to the companies/organisations directly involved themselves to sort out any legal issues there may be. If they are not interested in pursuing anything, then there is no reason for anyone here to keep dredging this up.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 6 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Humm on 18-Aug-2003 11:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Jules):
Well... I believe it was Ben Hermans who decided to bring up this post here on
ANN in a recent thread. Maybe something is being done, he surely wouldn't be
using it to spread more FUD?
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 7 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Jules on 18-Aug-2003 11:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Humm):
*If* he did, then I also don't agree with that. Just as much as users should stay out of company issues, companies and their representatives should also avoid embroiling users in this type of poinless conversation (pointless because no matter how much this is discussed/flamed/whatever in public, the situation will never be resolved that way). Whatever/whoever the cause of the original flamebait though, it is still no excuse for the general public to continue to feed the fire. 2 wrongs do not make a right! Irrespective of the origins, this information is of NO importance to the general public!
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 8 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Humm on 18-Aug-2003 11:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Humm):
Found it:
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1059932256&category=forum&number=300#comment
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 9 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 18-Aug-2003 11:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Jules):
Ben was, IIRC pressured by about 50 odd posts jeering at him asking for something public that gave im the right to hold such an opinion.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 10 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by José on 18-Aug-2003 11:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (SlimJim):
If stupid flame wars arrise some people are not on level with what could be open honest discussion.
If MOS had stolen sources, or we know the people involved used it, I for one think it's important that pontential customers know the companies behaviour behing the curtains.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 11 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith on 18-Aug-2003 11:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (José):
You are correct in that it is important that users know. If MOS turns out to be illegal then where does that leave end users? I don't think that the issue will be resolved soon as it may require quite some effort to proove.

Sam
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 12 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith on 18-Aug-2003 11:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (SlimJim):
I wish that AInc. would come forward with an official line on the matter.

Sam
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 13 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Elwood on 18-Aug-2003 11:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Humm):
Don't "believe" please, bring facts...
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 14 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 11:30 GMT
I have to admit that I don't get Dave's point. If the company owning the AmigaOS source code gave that source code - via one of its employees - to Ralph and other people, they have only themselve to blame. Plain stupidity. After that has happend, it is pretty thick to complain about the receivers actually having had a look at it (duh). That does of course not entitle the lucky receivers to incorporate it directly into their own projects. But if I understand Dave correctly, even he wouldn't claim that: In the case of that exec rewrite, the original was obviously written in assembler while the rewrite was written in C. Pretty hard to argument that original code was stolen rather than just used to understand and reimplement exec (and using source code that way is perferctly legal in Ralph's and Petro's country; don't know about the land of the formerly free). If "they" want to sue anybody, they will have to sue their former colleague Petro for gross negligence.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 15 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Humm on 18-Aug-2003 11:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Elwood):
Read on and you'll notice I did.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 16 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 18-Aug-2003 11:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Sam Smith):
>I wish that AInc. would come forward with an official line on the matter.


Well they did over a year ago, and the deadline they gave is gonna celebrayet
it's 1st birthday in less than 2 weeks.

Should be quite clear by now where those claims belong.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 17 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by mahen on 18-Aug-2003 11:39 GMT
If this really happened and has enabled me to use a full PPC amigaOS clone (&more) on modern hardware for one year, well, it's a great thing actually :p
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 18 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by José on 18-Aug-2003 11:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
"That does of course not entitle the lucky receivers to incorporate it directly into their own projects."

So you DO understand afterall. It was said that even original comments were found on that "C version".Wether the code made it to MOS apparently cannot be proved, so no case. But it does raise some thinking about the business ethics involved.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 19 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Somebody on 18-Aug-2003 11:43 GMT
Proof, if you needed it, that sometimes even the most technically gifted of us can troll.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 20 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 11:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (José):
>So you DO understand afterall. It was said that even original comments were found on that "C version".

Comments are not protected by copyright. The original code was not used, that is what matters.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 21 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 18-Aug-2003 12:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Kronos):
I think the basic point we glean from this is..

Apparently the world and his dog has the OS3.1 source code, thanks to Petro :)

Of course nobody who NEEDED it actually got it (Mick Tinker or VillageTronic
for example) but whoever did have it, (including Haage & Partner who may have
used it to code WarpUP stuff, there are enough PPC-reimplementations of Exec
functions in there) certainly did LOOK at it.

There are pirates out there (hello Digital Corruption guys!) who have it.
There are people on this board who have pasted what look like legitimate
portions of it, to my untrained eye..

Olaf Barthel only has it for these same reasons. So for a time there, he had
"illegally" held, modified, and used the AmigaOS 3.1 source code! OHMYGOSH!!!


Amiga have always stipulated that "the MorphOS team have stolen tapes which
they included in their product", which is crap to say the least. There are
no stolen tapes, and no such source code survived the implosion of phase5,
and none of it is included in MorphOS.

Now, therein lies the rub: does reading source code that a company you worked
for once legitimately had, then implementing something similar, but not
identical, a few years later, make you a criminal?

Nope.

I will bet you €50 that at least 1 person in the AROS team has seen the
AmigaOS 3.x source code. I'd consider that there are even more. Go after them.
They're even distributing their efforts!

Jumping around threatening lawsuits just because someone you hate may have
looked at it fleetingly in the past under legitimate circumstances, but
ignoring everyone else? Is that what professional companies do these days?

Well, SCO is doing it, and you all think *that* sucks.

Why can Amiga get away with it?

Because you're all hypocritical double-standards fanboys? Oh, say it ain't so,
say it ain't so! :)

=Neko=
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 22 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 18-Aug-2003 12:13 GMT
Oh, I forgot. This is the funniest part about the email:
--
Dave Haynie d.haynie@... http://www.merlancia.com
Chief Technology Officer, Merlancia Industries

=Neko=
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 23 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 12:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
"(and using source code that way is perferctly legal in Ralph's and Petro's country; don't know about the land of the formerly free)"

ehh.. maybe it's legal to use source code to reproduce some behavior for you own personal etc. use, but I doubt that it's legal to use(as in look into, not neccesary c'n'p) the source code to make a competing product in germany... Just like you may not use reverse engineering.

Also it's copyright law and therefore not innocent until proven guilty. So it should be enough to proove that eg. laire "probably" still has the source lying around (as he got and accepted a copy some years ago)
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 24 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Gio on 18-Aug-2003 12:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
I live in Ralph and Petro's country (which is Germany FYI) and reverse engineering is here illegal, too.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 25 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 12:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Neko):
>Now, therein lies the rub: does reading source code [...] then implementing something similar [...] make you a criminal?

In the land of the formerly free and now paranoid, who knows. They have the DCMA, the patriot act and a ridiculous court system. You can buy a Mars, eat it and then sue the manufacturer for making you fat. With such rules, it is hard to predict anything.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 26 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by José on 18-Aug-2003 12:24 GMT
@Neko
" Well, SCO is doing it, and you all think *that* sucks.

Why can Amiga get away with it?

Because you're all hypocritical double-standards fanboys? Oh, say it ain't so,
say it ain't so! :) "

:) Well, one thing is Linux wich is open source, other thing is using the thing to earn money. There seems to be a point however, where the commercial interests of companies are against the benefit of users, and this would be no exception with AmigaOS, so yes, other solutions existing IS good. But you can understand the companie's position, cause they payed VERY much for the bloody sources.
What is ironic to me is that the P5/MOS people didn't wanna give any info about their products and even wanted to control what Kernel people used on their hardware! Hell the PPC board are what 5 years, and still nobody could use the flash ROM on the cards to boot the OS due to "intellectual property issues". So I don't think they deserved anything different if something about it actually happened. You can't look at it from just one point of view.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 27 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Gio):
>I live in Ralph and Petro's country (which is Germany FYI) and reverse engineering is here illegal, too.

Except that (a) there was no reverse engineering involved (because the IP was received directly from Amiga Inc in form of source code) and (b) you are clearly mistaken, reverse engineeing for the sole purpose of understanding software (rather than extracting and stealing code) is permitted in the EU. Nor are software patents implemented in the EU.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 28 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 18-Aug-2003 12:32 GMT
And by Golly, it was Mike Bouma who posted the orginal quote on Moo. Funny that.

Dammy
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 29 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 12:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous):
>I doubt that it's legal to use (as in look into, not neccesary c'n'p) the source code to make a competing product in Germany

Of course it is, if the source code was legally obtained (as in "provided by the owner") with no strings attached. If the code was licensed and the license forbids use of the source code outside an indicated scope, that would be a totally different matter. But as I understand, Petro was handing out the souerce code left and right to interested parties in a time when then Amiga was more or less ruined and something like the recent developments - two competing PPC operating systems - were just unimaginable. Don't remember that at that time Amiga Inc. more or less gave up on it and was totally fascinated with AmigaDE. The source code was probably considered worthless by everybody but Petro (thanks Petro :-)
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 30 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 18-Aug-2003 12:44 GMT
Well. funny how these old things keep bouncing up every now and
while. An old message from secret and closed mailing list that happens
to leak to public conviently when there is no real progress to report.


Reel clever.. Would be a lot better if people had forgotten that
Campaing year ago, tough :)
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 31 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Gareth Knight on 18-Aug-2003 13:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Neko):
>Well, SCO is doing it, and you all think *that* sucks.
>Why can Amiga get away with it?

The only relation they have is that both matters are IP disputes. Besides, if you look at the date you will see that Amiga Inc. have done nothing about it. However, Dave Haynie's claim regarding Ralph's 'New C Exec' does stand as reasonable (i.e. he was in a position to know this)
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 32 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by José on 18-Aug-2003 13:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (JoannaK):
@Joanna
"Well. funny how these old things keep bouncing up every now and
while. An old message from secret and closed mailing list that happens
to leak to public conviently when there is no real progress to report.
Reel clever.. Would be a lot better if people had forgotten that
Campaing year ago, tough :)"

2 things:
1- Funny how when these "wars" start in the markets, politics whatever, people get paranoid and allways exagerate and interprete any action in view of the "war".
2- Ultimately it'll probably have the opposite effect that you seem to belive. People don't like these practices when there is only interest behing and not the truth. Even without we knowing what happened, I think people will interpret it like this. So theoretically this could be even posted by some smart MOS guy;)
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 33 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 18-Aug-2003 13:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
> I have to admit that I don't get Dave's point. If the company owning
> the AmigaOS source code gave that source code - via one of its
> employees - to Ralph and other people, they have only themselve to
> blame. Plain stupidity.

Assuming the employee's action was ratified by someone with the authority to do so. If the employee exceeded his authority, then it's another matter.

Dave's point is based that there is no evidence of anyone ever being authorised to use any of the AmigaOS source or derivative code in their own product. The existence of _identical comments_ to the original source would indicate that the source seen was at least derived from the original.

However, this does not provide any proof that MorphOS is built from this code, or that knowledge derived from this source was used in writing MorphOS. Mike Bouma and his Amiga Inc backers are using Haynie's old comment as another attack against Genesi.

Amiga Inc are doing exactly what SCO have been doing: making damaging public allegations and then refusing to provide any substantiating evidence to that same audience. It's called FUD and Amiga Inc and Bouma are obsessed with using this tactic while whining that everyone else is using it against them.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 34 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 18-Aug-2003 13:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (José):
Or it could be someone willing to give impression of one team willing
to smudge another etc.. anyhow.. it's same old stuff that was on year
ago.. and imho not value to been posted on all sites..
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 35 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Jules on 18-Aug-2003 13:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Neko):
<sigh> and so the flames begin. This is exactly the crap I was alluding to when stating that poeple should just leave this sort of subject to the companies and organisations involved.

>Well, SCO is doing it, and you all think *that* sucks.
>Why can Amiga get away with it?

Are Amiga still touting this and threatening law suits? Personally I haven't heard anything official for over a year now so why suggest that they are?

Don't worry Matt, I'm not blaming you personally. You're just reacting strongly to a simple suggestion that the MorphOS team have acted illegally. However, where does this sort of rubbish stop? You react strongly and infer something which isn't true, someone else acts the same way from the Amiga side, and before you know it, total flames again. And the question is, will anything have been resolved after the event? The plain answer, NO. Nothing is EVER resolved that way.

The simple fact is, nothing will ever be resolved this way. Too many people who are not concerned with this sort of issue (aka users) and have no true understanding of the facts (only have opinions and beliefs based on 3rd hand information) and jump into the pot to put in their views. This is a total waste of time and effort.

I put it to all of you out there continuing this sort of thread, it is not Amiga Inc runing the future of Amiga. It is not MorphOS ruining the future of the Amiga. It is not Genesi ruining the future of Amiga. It is every single one of you who have no active involvement in either organisation who 'know' the facts and want to jump into the melee, and it is every single one of you from the actual organisations concerned who jump in to 'defend', 'accuse', whatever, in a PUBLIC forum.

To those in the companies/organisations involved, keep this out of public forums and privately to yourselves, and stop pampering to the shouts of the users who don't know any better.

To the users out there, try staying out of pointless discussions. however much you feel you know the facts "because you've heard them from a reliable source", guaranteed, you don't. No matter how reliable any one source is, information will ALWAYS be a personal perception from that one source. And besides, no matter how much you feel this is important to you, or how much you feel you are owed an explaination, guess what? It ISN't important to you, and you AREN'T owed an explaination. The only time this becomes important to you is if a lawsuit is forthcoming from one side or the other. Until then, don't fan the flames cos it's a total wast of time and bandwidth, and it damages what little community we have left
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 36 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by tarbos on 18-Aug-2003 13:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Neko):
My, my...this posting is really OLD!Besides - didn't we have a ceasefire or something? I believe in 1996 Phase5 and Amiga Technologies were still more or lesspartners to work on common PPC upgrades and a new PPC Amiga which was toappear in early 1997. >Amiga have always stipulated that "the MorphOS team have stolen tapes which>they included in their product", which is crap to say the least. I wonder who they did finally blame for the disappearing stock in a warehousethey once mentioned (I think it had been in connection with their "Get legaltill Sep 1st or we will shut you down!" threats)...
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 37 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Jules on 18-Aug-2003 13:47 GMT
Appoligies, I should have checked my spelling more carefully

> it is not Amiga Inc runing the future of Amiga

= it is not Amiga Inc ruining the future of Amiga
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 38 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Aug-2003 13:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
Please bare in mind that Petro wasn't working for the current Ainc at that time, iirc

Cheers
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 39 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Aug-2003 13:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Anonymous):
ROTFL

Cheers
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 40 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 18-Aug-2003 13:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Jules):
Of course he's reacting strongly to such accusations... He IS part of the MorphOS team.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 41 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 18-Aug-2003 14:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Amon_Re):
He was working for Amiga Inc, he was practically the leader of the situation
during those years. He gave the Source code to several companies, including H&P,
to whom he later gave the authorization to release AOS3.5. That was BEFORE Amino
was formed, to buy the Amiga name and become Amiga Inc.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 42 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith on 18-Aug-2003 14:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Kronos):
But they haven't stated that it is or isn't illegal - it's just hanging there.

Sam
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 43 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 18-Aug-2003 14:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
@Alkis

> He was working for Amiga Inc, he was practically the leader of the situation
> during those years. He gave the Source code to several companies, including
> H&P, to whom he later gave the authorization to release AOS3.5. That was
> BEFORE Amino was formed, to buy the Amiga name and become Amiga Inc.

That's the problem. It's unclear if Petro was ever authorised to do all the stuff he did and worse, he never documented his activities. That's why Petro's activities during this period are rightfully seen by many as "shady".

Much of Petro's reputation was gained by cutting corners and bypassing bureaucracy to "get things done", but there's always a price to pay when using a loose cannon, and that he undoubtably was.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 44 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2003 14:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Bill Hoggett):
> I have to admit that I don't get Dave's point. If the company owning the AmigaOS source code gave that source code - via one of its employees - to Ralph and other people, they have only themselve to blame. Plain stupidity.

I have to correct myself, could also be pure genius. Apparently in the US companies get very angry and very paranoid if you send them ideas, concepts, demos etc. (they return mail "unopened" and threaten you not to send such material again). Obviously they are afraid that you could later proove in court that a certain idea originated from you and compensation payment could be awarded, thus ruining their independend in-house development, which is almost impossible to prove in front of a court. In other words, if you know that your competitor secretly develops A and you are working on A as well (but not yet finished and probably behind), send them a friendly traceable letter that explains in detail some key concepts of A. If they are stupid enough to open it, say halleluja and start preparing a lawsuit.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 45 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2003 14:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Neko):
"Now, therein lies the rub: does reading source code that a company you worked
for once legitimately had, then implementing something similar, but not
identical, a few years later, make you a criminal?"

No, but it does mean that you can't claim to be doing a clean-room implementation.

Not that copyright infringement is a crime. It is a cause for a civil law suit.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 46 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 18-Aug-2003 15:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (mahen):
But it didn't happen. You should ask Dave Haynie if he knows how, when
and where this "source review" was supposed to happen. I bet he
doesn't even know.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 47 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Aug-2003 15:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
That was what i meant, it has no relation to the current Ainc.

The problem is, i think, that there were no clear agreements (on paper) between these companies & the former Ainc.

However, it's a moot point, we can't or shouldn't judge on this info, the only person(s) who can are those involved.

So basicly, this thread is pointless.

Cheers
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 48 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 18-Aug-2003 15:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
 Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 14 of 46

Posted by Anonymous (80.133.140.38) on 18-Aug-2003 13:30:19
. If "they" want to sue anybody, they will have to sue their former colleague Petro for gross negligence.


I still think "they" are trying to figure out who stole the 2-3 million in inventory from the German warehouse.
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 49 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Aug-2003 15:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Rich Woods):
You know, Rich, this whole stolen inventory is a new one to me, got any links i might read? (Or some pointers to where & when this was posted?)

Cheers
Dave Haynie on MOS : Comment 50 of 70ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 18-Aug-2003 16:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (tarbos):
Posted by tarbos (217.187.197.106) on 18-Aug-2003 15:46:34

I wonder who they did finally blame for the disappearing stock in a warehouse
they once mentioned (I think it had been in connection with their "Get legal
till Sep 1st or we will shut you down!" threats)...

------------------

First time pixs made public - date Nov 6, 2002 - the day Christina pulled a gun on me....Wonder what she didn't want me to see?

http://www.merlancia.us/merlanciabk/chrissypallet.jpg

http://www.merlancia.us/merlanciabk/truckangle.jpg

Funny how 2 trucks are parked at such an angle as to prevent observation of any unloading. This was an unload operation from their Cactus Street store to their "new" location.
Anonymous, there are 70 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 70]
Back to Top