24-Apr-2024 15:20 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 100 items in your selection (but only 50 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100]
[News] Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case!ANN.lu
Posted on 12-Apr-2004 17:52 GMT by Rich Woods100 comments
View flat
View list
RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs re 60 MOTION for Relief from Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(AF, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004) RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs re 60 MOTION for Relief from Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (AF, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 51 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 13-Apr-2004 15:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (schmoot):
ROTFL!
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 52 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 13-Apr-2004 18:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Amon_Re):
It's *NOT* irrelevant. Trust me on this one...
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 53 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 14-Apr-2004 03:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):
Give the guy a break, Neko has to sell pegasos boards - its what he is getting instead of pay. See Moobunny for details.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 54 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 05:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Oh sod it, let'm sue eachothers into the ground.

But if the "MOS is ilegal" game for awhile ago is relevant, should i then conclude there might be truth to those flamewars from then? After all, they would only want the code in relation to AOS if MOS was indeed based on the old code...

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 55 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 14-Apr-2004 10:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Amon_Re):
Why? A false accusation is as harmful as a real one, as long as it's
not cleared up. And it's near impossible to cleanse yourself from a
false accusation - except for example, by making it logically
impossible.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 56 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by cyberamiga on 14-Apr-2004 11:01 GMT
law suits are cool in these modern times. In the USA you can't do nothing without the fear of being envolved in some law suit. If you look at a girl/wife too long you're being sued for sexual abuse.
Here in Europe these same law suits are popping up on a daily basis too.
In Luxembourg (where ann.lu is ) teachers must be afraid to give pupils/students bad notes because chances are great that the sudent's parents sue the teacher!!!
The same is true for companies: if there is some money to be earned somewhere and on company can't get it, they just sue the other companie. Genesi/Thendic vs Amiga, SCO vs IBM, MS vs EU etc etc.

We're living in a mad world with the human beings as the most silly creatures living on this planet.
If we could get rid of laywers and armies the world would be great to live.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 57 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 11:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 55 (Johan Rönnblom):
Sorry, but that logic doesn't look very logical to me, the absence of a lawsuit in itself is proof that the claim was bogus, otherwise they'd be in court already.

It looks more logical to me that MOS is based on ilegal sources in this case, afterall, they could have sued for libel or simular things instead of attempting such a back handed tactic.

Note that i'm talking about BBRV's attempt at getting the judge to extend the judgement to include AOS, not the motive for the original case, it very well could have been "a means to shut them up", but the coup for AOS coupled with what some people are now saying make it more plausible that there might be code from AOS inthere.

*Disclaimer:
This is speculation based on something other people brought up, i am in no way claiming MOS to contain AOS code,m i am not in a position to know about these things,

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 58 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 11:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (cyberamiga):
don't forget the religious people! hurl them all into the sun for all i care ;P

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 59 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 14-Apr-2004 13:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (DaveP):
Give the guy a break, Neko has to sell pegasos boards - its what he is getting instead of pay. See Moobunny for details.

Totally unprovoked snide personal attack - jeepers, but you're sinking fast, DaveP; you're even making me look good.

Gregg
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 60 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 14-Apr-2004 13:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 57 (Amon_Re):
Amon_Re wrote:
> Sorry, but that logic doesn't look very logical to me, the absence
> of a lawsuit in itself is proof that the claim was bogus, otherwise
> they'd be in court already.
>
> It looks more logical to me that MOS is based on ilegal sources in
> this case, afterall, they could have sued for libel or simular
> things instead of attempting such a back handed tactic.

Thanks for proving my point. First you claim that it would be proven
that the accusations are bogus - then in the very next sentence you
show how the accusations are very much alive and easily triggered anew
by even the most remote of reasons.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 61 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 14-Apr-2004 13:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (Gregg):
No, he said it himself, or rather Polyhead said it for him.

Go read moobunny.

Dave.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 62 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 13:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (Johan Rönnblom):

Amon_Re wrote:
> Sorry, but that logic doesn't look very logical to me, the absence
> of a lawsuit in itself is proof that the claim was bogus, otherwise
> they'd be in court already.
>
> It looks more logical to me that MOS is based on ilegal sources in
> this case, afterall, they could have sued for libel or simular
> things instead of attempting such a back handed tactic.

Thanks for proving my point. First you claim that it would be proven
that the accusations are bogus - then in the very next sentence you
show how the accusations are very much alive and easily triggered anew
by even the most remote of reasons.

Actually, no i didn't, i'll try to be more clear, first of all, the absence of a lawsuit against MOS is in itself proof that there was no copyright infringement or whatever.

However, if Genesi is trying to aquire the sources of AOS (and that through a nasty way, i might add) raises suspiction upon MOS itself, as one could easilly conclude that they have something to hide.

Had the MOS crew sued Ainc about libel, things would be different, then it would be them protecting themselves against false claims.

So you see, by entering this trail of thought, one could conclude that they do have reasons to fear...

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 63 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 14-Apr-2004 13:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (DaveP):
If you can't manage to find it yourself, look at polyheads comment here:

http://www.flyingmice.com/cgi-bin/squidcgi/mbthread.pl/amiga/expand/100609?page=6



"On Friday, Apr 9, 2004, Bob wrote:
> On Friday, Apr 9, 2004, Polyhead wrote:
> >
> > Neko is busting ass preping machines and heckling distributors to
> > prepare soem machines for an important customer while trying to code an
> > opengl stack and god knows what else that he will only hint at. He will
> > only tell me he's "putting together machines and coding stuff." I beleive
> > him too, wish he would talk to me more.. he's just too damn busy though.
>
> Hah! Discovered why you are running around telling people not to buy pegs.
> :) See, Neko doesn't have enough time to make time for you. All his time is
> dedicated to trying to make the peg thing a success, or at least salvage
> the current situation. You figure if there were no more pegs to sell or at
> least nobody able to sell them, Neko will have plenty of free time to spend
> with you. Not like Buck was paying him, anyways, right? ;)

no he's getting paid... if only in boards but its pay. "

QED

Dave.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 64 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 14-Apr-2004 13:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 57 (Amon_Re):
Well, the FUD campaign against MorphOS was VERY harmful, with developers
leaving it and stuff like that. You can guess the rest.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 65 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 14-Apr-2004 14:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 63 (DaveP):
Very good, Dave, but not really relevant. You haven't made a habit of boosting struggling MorphOS developers and promoting Pegasos resellers, so it seems fair to assume you had an ulterior motive.

Or is Neko now a pet charity for you? Can we expect similar public service announcements on behalf of Genesi in the future? Maybe there's room for another category over at amigaworld.net : "Pegasos Resellers We'd Like You To Support"? Perhaps you could start a club, with T-shirts and newsletters and competitions and stuff.

Uh-oh - now I've really gone too far. I think I'd better take a break...

Gregg
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 66 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 14-Apr-2004 14:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
>Well, the FUD campaign against MorphOS was VERY harmful, with developers
>leaving it and stuff like that.

Harmful? I'd say it wasn't effective enough since they're still around. ;-)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 67 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 14-Apr-2004 15:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Gregg):
Yes, it is very good isn't it, completly shot your bolt on that one didn't you?

As for the rest, regardless of what your spin on my past and views are I don't like to see anyone in such straits. Might even manage to feel sorry for you if it happenned that Fidelity booted you out the door. But the argument wasn't about motivation, it was about you effectively accusing me of making it up but keep up your greggorian ground shifting ;-)
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 68 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 14-Apr-2004 15:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 67 (DaveP):
Yes, it is very good isn't it, completly shot your bolt on that one didn't you?

'fraid not, buddy - hold the victory lap.

Sad git that I am, you'll have trouble convincing anyone that I wasn't already aware of those posts on Moo Bunny; this was so obvious that I thought it would be tediously unnecessary to point it out before, but you've proved me wrong there.

As for the rest, regardless of what your spin on my past and views are I don't like to see anyone in such straits. Might even manage to feel sorry for you if it happenned that Fidelity booted you out the door.

"You can't fire me - I quit!".

Thanks in anticipation of your sympathies.

But the argument wasn't about motivation, it was about you effectively accusing me of making it up

I knew what you were referring to, therefore I wouldn't have made such an accusation; _that_ silly accusation is entirely your inference.

What I _was_ saying is that you were using the opportunity to gratuitously make fun of Neko* (who, in other recent Moo Bunny posts which you surely must have missed, has been at pains to point out his other sources of income and continuing financial stability), and by implication Genesi.

That accusation stands.

but keep up your greggorian ground shifting ;-)

Glad to see the "winky" - there's the Dave we know and love. (ed - insert "sarcasmy" here pls.).

Gregg

* : OK, he's fair game, but sometimes the hunters get shot too...
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 69 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 16:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
True, but i fail to see how this would help.
It's one of those sad things that happened.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 70 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous Orc on 14-Apr-2004 17:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Amon_Re):
why should KMOD bother? to protect their IP? well, that'd be the main reason - but in another few months Genesi will be gone forever and MorphOS a distant memory.

make a big issue, and they become a big thing. imho I dont think KMOS
care about Genesi/Thendic/time-wasters
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 71 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 17:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 70 (Anonymous Orc):
Flamebait eh?

I seriously doubt MOS is going to disapear that quickly, and honestly, i hope it won't disapear, it's not because something holds little or no value to me that it isn't valuable to others, besides, it would be a sad thing for all the people who worked their asses of coding MOS if all their effords would be wasted.

Now, in the unlikely event KMOS does go after MOS, well, let's just say that i'll be eating popcorn & watching the flamefest :P

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 72 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 14-Apr-2004 19:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (Amon_Re):
"Now, in the unlikely event KMOS does go after MOS, well, let's just say that i'll be eating popcorn & watching the flamefest :P"

Cool, does that mean we can claim OS4 is based on illegally obtained MorphOS code? ;)


- CISC
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 73 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 14-Apr-2004 19:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 72 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
Now that's a strange conclusion if i ever saw one :)

Reread my statements, i think you missed the correct context, someone inhere said that Genesi was going after AOS so that people wouldn't be making the claim anymore that MOS was based on ilegal code, my point was that, in such a situation the action itself proved the point that they used ilegal code.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 74 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 14-Apr-2004 20:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 73 (Amon_Re):
..which is about as strange a conclusion as I just made (jokingly)...


- CISC
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 75 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 14-Apr-2004 21:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
Indeed, it's every bit as likely. We know several OS4 developers have
a Pegasos. We know some MorphOS source code is even available without
resourcing, since it's contributed back to AROS.

So.. we have a motive, we have an opportunity. Can we really be sure
OS4 is not based on stolen sourcecode?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 76 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 05:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
No it isn't, what i said is a logical conclusion based on someone else's statement, go reread the thread if you can't figure it out.

Someone said in this thread that the reason genesi is attempting to go after AOS is so that in the future nobody would be able to make the claiming of it being based on stolen code, because they would own the code in question.

My conclusion was, that if that is indeed the reason why genesi is attempting to obtain the code, then MOS probably is based on stolen code.

However, i do not believe that Genesi is going after AOS for that reason, rather, they just want to bury Ainc.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 77 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 05:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 75 (Johan Rönnblom):
Indeed, it's every bit as likely. We know several OS4 developers have
a Pegasos. We know some MorphOS source code is even available without
resourcing, since it's contributed back to AROS.

So.. we have a motive, we have an opportunity. Can we really be sure
OS4 is not based on stolen sourcecode?

Erm, no, it's not likely at all, if KMOS were to sue Genesi for use of stolen code, they would not obtain MOS as a result, nor would they obtain the sources, so your claim doesn't hold up.

Nice attempt at spinning my logic, but alas, your attempt failed.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 78 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 15-Apr-2004 05:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 76 (Amon_Re):
"However, i do not believe that Genesi is going after AOS for that reason, rather, they just want to bury Ainc."

Only as a step toward burying Eyetech. Genesi's business is boards, not operating systems.

Why they think attacking other businesses rather than growing the total market will help them beats me. Their big problem is getting anyone to buy a non-standard motherboard at all, and the sensible thing would have been to get together with other suppliers for a joint campaign to try to show that buying PPC isn't stupid.

The competition isn't Eyetech, it's x86 motherboards.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 79 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 15-Apr-2004 06:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 76 (Amon_Re):
"No it isn't, what i said is a logical conclusion based on someone else's statement, go reread the thread if you can't figure it out."

Instead of being patronizing maybe you should hold your logic to closer scrutiny?


- CISC
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 80 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 06:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 78 (Don Cox):
Agreed Don

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 81 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 06:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
Instead saying my logic is flawed, why not provide a logical arguement why it is flawed in the correct context to my original arguement.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 82 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 15-Apr-2004 08:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (Amon_Re):
Sure, but first let's review this one:

"Sorry, but that logic doesn't look very logical to me, the absence of a lawsuit in itself is proof that the claim was bogus, otherwise they'd be in court already."

..now already here you're on pretty flimsy ground .. there can be any number of other reasons not to launch a lawsuit .. however, as we all know that does not prevent you from perpetuating the false public image you helped create...

Now, let's move onto this one:

"It looks more logical to me that MOS is based on ilegal sources in this case, afterall, they could have sued for libel or simular things instead of attempting such a back handed tactic."

Ofcourse we are still discussing on the premise that there would be such, as you say, back handed tactics at play .. one could naturally have sued for libel and won, however that would do nothing to diminish the myth already set in motion .. acquiring the aforementioned sources legally however would effectively make any such unsubstantiated claims moot...

This does however open up for the usual amount of criticism towards strong-arming your way through, but atleast it would be based somewhat in reality instead of these cowardly insinuations and downright accusations about theft fabricated and actively promoted by leading authorities within the community.

But let's get back on track:

"After all, they would only want the code in relation to AOS if MOS was indeed based on the old code..."

Now here's a major leap in logic, what possible reasoning got you to come to this conclusion? Why would they want code they already had? Ah, "So no-one can prove they stole it in the first place!" I hear you say, well, sure, if you can prove you also stand in possession of a fully working time-machine, and the moment you legally acquired the sources you sent them back in time so you could base your OS on them .. a very strong argument indeed...

Anyway, all silly premises aside, I suggest you all stop speculating on whatever "evil" agenda whoever may have hidden behind their actions, and either just don't give a flying toss why who sues what like some of us, or, like some of you are inclined to do, line up the popcorn and enjoy the show .. but unless you have something worthwhile to contribute, I suggest you don't.


- CISC
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 83 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 10:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
Sure, but first let's review this one:

"Sorry, but that logic doesn't look very logical to me, the absence of a lawsuit in itself is proof that the claim was bogus, otherwise they'd be in court already."

..now already here you're on pretty flimsy ground .. there can be any number of other reasons not to launch a lawsuit .. however, as we all know that does not prevent you from perpetuating the false public image you helped create...

For the record, my line has always been the put up or shut up line on this perticular issue, i was argueing on the premise of something someone else brought up.

Now, let's move onto this one:

"It looks more logical to me that MOS is based on ilegal sources in this case, afterall, they could have sued for libel or simular things instead of attempting such a back handed tactic."

Ofcourse we are still discussing on the premise that there would be such, as you say, back handed tactics at play .. one could naturally have sued for libel and won, however that would do nothing to diminish the myth already set in motion .. acquiring the aforementioned sources legally however would effectively make any such unsubstantiated claims moot...

By effective owning the source they can do with them as they please, note however, that it would depend on what right the judge grant them. And it might even put them in a worse position, if they have access to the source (with the right to port it *as is*) then Ainc could effectively sue MOS on the premise they used said code to improve their own product (MOS), it would be up to the MOS people then to defend themselves & show their source as a result, after all, Ainc would have it easy to prove they possess the code in the beginning.
(Yes, i just thought of this one :P)

This does however open up for the usual amount of criticism towards strong-arming your way through, but atleast it would be based somewhat in reality instead of these cowardly insinuations and downright accusations about theft fabricated and actively promoted by leading authorities within the community.

Well, their current image (Genesi) isn't rosey, lots of shadystuff surrounding it's name

But let's get back on track:

"After all, they would only want the code in relation to AOS if MOS was indeed based on the old code..."

Now here's a major leap in logic, what possible reasoning got you to come to this conclusion? Why would they want code they already had? Ah, "So no-one can prove they stole it in the first place!" I hear you say, well, sure, if you can prove you also stand in possession of a fully working time-machine, and the moment you legally acquired the sources you sent them back in time so you could base your OS on them .. a very strong argument indeed...

Not really, how can i prove they added the code before of after they obtained the code? One could bring up the issue of CVS logs etc, i suppose

Anyway, all silly premises aside, I suggest you all stop speculating on whatever "evil" agenda whoever may have hidden behind their actions, and either just don't give a flying toss why who sues what like some of us, or, like some of you are inclined to do, line up the popcorn and enjoy the show .. but unless you have something worthwhile to contribute, I suggest you don't.

Please note that this whole line of thought originated with Alkis (IIRC) bringing up that issue as part of Genesi's motivations, and as such, this is all speculation, i personally have no knowledge of MOS, nor the people who wrote it, i am not aware of them using or even having access to said code.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 84 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Apr-2004 11:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 83 (Amon_Re):
Amon_re: I think just about every "logical" conclusion you're making
in that post is totally bogus.

Let's see:

1) Not suing someone for theft does NOT prove that no theft has
occured.

2) Not suing someone for libel does NOT prove that no libel has
occured.

3) Suing someone for breach of contract does NOT prove that no libel
has occured, or that theft has occured.

4) Having possession of something is NOT grounds for suing someone for
misusing the possessed material.

5) Having possession of something does NOT reverse the burden of
proof, should there be a lawsuit alleging misuse of the possessed
material.


I don't think you've made any other conclusions, forgive me if I
missed something.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 85 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 15-Apr-2004 11:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 76 (Amon_Re):
> My conclusion was, that if that is indeed the reason why genesi is attempting to
> obtain the code, then MOS probably is based on stolen code.

Non sequitur. Could you please illustrate, step by step, argumenting every steps, the path that lead you to that conclusion?
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 86 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 11:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 84 (Johan Rönnblom):
Yes... you missed something alright, how many times do i have to repeat myself untill you guys will get it?

Someone said that Genesi is trying to obtain AOS code for protecting themselves against being sued for use of stolen code, i elaborate on that statement that if that is their motive that they must have something to hide.

THIS IS ONLY RELATED TO THAT STATEMENT, NOT TO THE CASE IN ITSELF, IT IS PURE SPECULATION

Clear enough now? Is my English that bad, or are you guys not reading what i'm writing?

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 87 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 11:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 85 (Fabio Alemagna):
Read the whole thread & then read comment 86, eighter my Enlish is fucked up beyond repair, or some people clearly have selective reading skills.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 88 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 15-Apr-2004 11:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 87 (Amon_Re):
> Read the whole thread & then read comment 86, eighter my Enlish is fucked up
> beyond repair, or some people clearly have selective reading skills.

I read it, still your logic seems pretty flawed. Please, explain the reasoning.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 89 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 15-Apr-2004 11:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Amon_Re):
> Someone said that Genesi is trying to obtain AOS code for protecting themselves
> against being sued for use of stolen code, i elaborate on that statement that if
> that is their motive that they must have something to hide.

> THIS IS ONLY RELATED TO THAT STATEMENT, NOT TO THE CASE IN ITSELF, IT IS PURE
> SPECULATION

Speculation or not, it's pretty flawed nonetheless. In no way you can conclude, given the premise you mentioned, that they must have something to hide (read: MOS is based on stolen source code).
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 90 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 12:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 88 (Fabio Alemagna):
I'll try.. *sigh*

Company A makes a deal with company B
Company B merges with Company C giving company D
Company A claims company C' product uses stolen code
Company C denies this
Times passes..
Company D sues Company A over aformentioned deal
Judge agrees with Company D
Company D decides to go after Company A's products upon wich Company C's product is supposebly based
Person X claims Company D is doing this because of Company A's claim about the legality of company C's product
If person X's claims are correct, what motive could they have for going after Company A's sources?

The most likely to me is that Company A's claims were correct.

Makes sence now?

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 91 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 12:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 89 (Fabio Alemagna):
Well, give me another explication then instead of saying my argument is flawed.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 92 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Darth_X on 15-Apr-2004 13:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 90 (Amon_Re):
I'll try.. *sigh*

Company A makes a deal with company B
Company B merges with Company C giving company D
Company A claims company C' product uses stolen code
Company C denies this
Times passes..
Company D sues Company A over aformentioned deal
Judge agrees with Company D
Company D decides to go after Company A's products upon wich Company C's product is supposebly based
Person X claims Company D is doing this because of Company A's claim about the legality of company C's product
If person X's claims are correct, what motive could they have for going after Company A's sources?

The most likely to me is that Company A's claims were correct.

Makes sence now?

Cheers

Company A's claims were false.

Person X is unhappy with company A because their clowning around lost him thousands of $$$.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 93 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Apr-2004 13:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 90 (Amon_Re):
There's simply no logic conclusions anywhere in that post.

You're just lining up a set of statements and then you make a claim
that "to me, it seems most likely". Well - maybe. But that doesn't
tell us anything. You've not explained your reasoning.

To answer your question "If person X's claims are correct, what motive
could they have for going after company A's sources?" could be
answered for example in the following ways:

1) They may in fact not be after those sources at all.
2) They may want to use those sources for something.
3) They may want the right to use those sources so that no one can
claim they have no right to use them, even though they don't actually
want to use them.
4) They may want to damage company A because company A damaged
company D with their allegations (false or not), and because it's the
most viable route to legally damage company A.
5) They may only be after those sources because they are part of
something else that company D wants.
6) They may have reasons which are hidden to us because we do not have
full insight into the dealings of company A, B, C, D or other relevant
parties.


Your reasoning is to me equivalent to "The duck is not purple,
therefore it must be turqoise."
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 94 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 13:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 92 (Darth_X):
Most likely, but i was just trying to follow through with Person X's statements, i wasn't saying they were true or false.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 95 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 15-Apr-2004 13:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 93 (Johan Rönnblom):
There's simply no logic conclusions anywhere in that post.

You're just lining up a set of statements and then you make a claim
that "to me, it seems most likely". Well - maybe. But that doesn't
tell us anything. You've not explained your reasoning.

Erm, well, considering the above, it's the only thing i could come up with.

To answer your question "If person X's claims are correct, what motive
could they have for going after company A's sources?" could be
answered for example in the following ways:

1) They may in fact not be after those sources at all.

Hmm, that doesn't mix with the ammendment BBRV tried to push through the judge, unless i'm starting to mix things up, wich is always possible.

2) They may want to use those sources for something.

To burn them & throw out the ashes? :P

3) They may want the right to use those sources so that no one can
claim they have no right to use them, even though they don't actually
want to use them.

Euh... Care to elaborate?

4) They may want to damage company A because company A damaged
company D with their allegations (false or not), and because it's the
most viable route to legally damage company A.

This is the most likely one, but that could backfire, and Person X's claims would then be irrelevant, as i said to him before, the MOS is ilegal claim is completely irrelevant to the case at hand (wich isn't the same as saying that it didn't play a part in their motives)

5) They may only be after those sources because they are part of
something else that company D wants.

World domination? :P

6) They may have reasons which are hidden to us because we do not have
full insight into the dealings of company A, B, C, D or other relevant
parties.

This is something i can agree on completely

Your reasoning is to me equivalent to "The duck is not purple,
therefore it must be turqoise."

Not exactly, the problem was more that i failed to see any other reasoning for their move in connection to person X's statements.
So yes, perhaps my logic was flawed, but hey, that's what discussion is for right?

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 96 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Leif on 15-Apr-2004 13:52 GMT
Here's an algorithm building a puzzle.

If a piece does not fit, throw it away.
If the piece feels nice holding in the hand, keep it.
If there ends up beeing a hole in the middle, fill it with
a piece of paper from the floor, or alternatively, use a
pencil to paint the missing parts onto the table.
Voila!
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 97 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 15-Apr-2004 14:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 96 (Leif):
Addendum :

And if somebody says "You know, I don't think you're constructing that puzzle properly.", respond with "Well, you obviously have no artistic appreciation for the beautiful picture I am constructing. Why do you want to destroy something so beautiful? You are an evil Philistine, and I must therefore ignore your advice."

Gregg
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 98 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Apr-2004 15:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (Amon_Re):
Amon_re wrote:
> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>>1) They may in fact not be after those sources at all.

> Hmm, that doesn't mix with the ammendment BBRV tried to push through
> the judge, unless i'm starting to mix things up, wich is always
> possible.

The amendment doesn't mention anything about any sources.

>> 2) They may want to use those sources for something.

> To burn them & throw out the ashes? :P

Perhaps. More likely, to fill some gaps in MorphOS. Although the most
important missing parts which exist in AOS have been used illegaly by
AInc (ARexx and Genesis), there are some other parts, perhaps most
notably Installer and AmigaGuide, which are relevant here and which
could possibly be useful for Genesi.

>> 3) The may want the right to use those sources so that no one can
>> claim they have no right to use them, even thought they don't
>> actually want to use them.

> Euh.. Care to elaborate?

Ok. I will write shorter sentences. Maybe you will understand.

Say someone accuses Genesi. Someone claims they use sourcecode. The
claim is the sourcecode is not theirs. Say Genesi sue AInc. They sue
them over the sourcecode. They win. They now own the sourcecode. They
have the right to use it. Say someone again accuses Genesi. They claim
Genesi uses the sourcecode. They claim Genesi can't use this
sourcecode. Now, Genesi can reply. They can say they own the
sourcecode. They can say that they can use it. The can say they just
don't want to use it.

If you still don't understand, I give up.

>> 4) They may want to damage company A because company A damaged
>> company D with their allegations (false or not), and because it's
>> the most viable route to legally damage company A.

> This is the most likely one, but that could backfire, and Person X's
> claims would then be irrelevant, as i said to him before, the MOS is
> ilegal claim is completely irrelevant to the case at hand (wich
> isn't the same as saying it didn't play a part in their motives)

Of course the claim is irrelevant to the judge. It's highly relevant
when looking at the reasons for why AInc were taken to court in the
first place.

>> 5) They may only be after those sources because they are part of
>> something else that company D wants.

> World domination? :P

Or the right to use some trademarks, etc.

>> 6) They may have reasons which are hidden to us because we do not
>> have full insight into the dealings of company A, B, C, D or other
>> relevant parties.

> This is something i can agree on completely

Good. Then the conclusion that this lawsuit - if filed because of the
accusations about stolen sourcecode - supports these accusations, is
obviously invalid. Sorry if that sentence is too complex.
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 99 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 16-Apr-2004 05:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 98 (Johan Rönnblom):
I still disagree with you on some points, but i suggest we drop it, don't feel like wasting more time on this.

Cheers
Latest Update to the Thendic-Amiga Court Case! : Comment 100 of 100ANN.lu
Posted by MIKE on 16-Apr-2004 11:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (Amon_Re):
Was Chewbacca a Wookiee?
Anonymous, there are 100 items in your selection (but only 50 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100]
Back to Top