| [News] Serious allegations about H&P | Link |
| Posted on 08-Nov-2001 14:17 GMT by Christian Kemp | 164 comments (122k)
View flat (1, 2, 3, 4)
View list
Add comment | | 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 ]
|
|
Serious allegations about H&P : Comment 92 of 164 | Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.253.114) on 09-Nov-2001 21:05:06 | In Reply to Comment 89 (Emmanuel Lesueur):
Well, say what you want that all of this is unrelated to MorphOS but why am I seeing the entire MorphOS line-up here then?
Gerber, Lesueur, Sallin etc.
Seriously guys, I hope you have some better legal arguments about the legality of MorphOS or you are in deep trouble.
This really is my final attempt now.
I will explain it in Matlock or Perry Mason fashion because anything else seems not to filter through.
Just imagine the authors of AmiTCP sue H&P.
What will H&P say? "We have a valid license obtained from Chris Wiles, licensee of AmiTCP ", at which point their lawyer opens his briefcase and hands the judge the contract in question.
At which point Chris Wiles and the whole contractual agreement would need to be called into the case for the judge to be able to rule on that case.
It is impossible for the judge to rule on the validity on H&P's claim without first assessing the validity of Chris Wiles license and the way he subsequently awarded a license to H&P himself.
Let's go take a look now and some of the arguments raised by our French developer turned overnight lawyer.
>No agreement has been terminated. NSDi had an agreement with
>Active Technologies for inclusion of AmiTCP on the NetConnect
>CD. They never had any agreement with H&P for inclusion with OS3.9
>nor AmigaXL, and NSDi being the copyright holders of AmiTCP, they
>are the only one who can decide how it can be distributed.
>NSDi have never sold all their rights to anyone.
Nobody claimed NSDi "sold" anything. That implies a transfer of ownership, we are talking about an arrangement whereby the ownership remains where it was and a license and sublicense is awarded.
Again, the validity of the sublicense cannot be judged without assessing the validity of the license held by Chris Wiles.
> Who cares. Wiles had a contract with per unit fee with NSDi. *If*
>he happened to have the right to transmit this contract to someone
>else (which he doesn't), there is no way *he* can decide that
>the contract terms change in the process.
Actually he can and he bears the full responsibility for that.
Say that he transfers it for 10000 euro. His contract with NSDi calls for a 10 euro per unit royalty.
Now if the sublicensee sells more than 1000 units, Wiles become liable for any additional payments afterwards.
In no event can the sublicensee become liable for these payments because they have no direct contractual link with the original licensors.
I hope this is finally clear.
And BTW: nothing guarantees us that German law applies and not for instance English law. This is entirely up to the parties to decide in their contract.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Add comments | 
- Links
|
