HAM-E / NewTek
43 messages in this thread
I don't know what they are doing and can make no conclusions. They won't
steal any limelights, tho – even if they had a version of this thought of
five years ago, they didn't have the vision to see it through, and they
sure as heck didn't have all the features that are in this unit.
Yep, that's my point, and I also don't think they're in any position to
market it before yours becomes a standard. I feel NewTek's going to miss
the boat on this one, especially if Babzoo soft releases Photon Paint with
those features or an EA Deluxe Paint IV (spoke to the product manager they
can't wait for the board to start work.)
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. We'll have paint support
one way or another, that's for sure. Even if I have to write it.
I'll gladly wok on the DigiView support. (at least for translating the Raw
files)
It will be interesting to see what you come up with. :*)
I'll do my best. BTW when shall we (developers) see the board, early or late
Jan.?
Ben
It's very difficult to say at this point, Ben. We're hoping that we'll have
them on the early side of January, it's a matter of parts procurement more than
anything else. We have the UL approval out of the way now (Yay! – not as nasty
as the FCC stuff but just as bad if you fail it) which had to be done before we
could even sell the developer units.
We want them released as badly as you do, so try not to fret about it; we'll
get em out as quickly as possible.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
Okay I can wait (really, honest, okay I'm lying).
Ben
<grinning>
That's the spirit!
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
Ben,
I was shocked and dismayed to read your message which implied that
NewTek had somehow stolen your ideas. I think you know me well enough to
realize that I would never do such a thing and that, in fact, I go out of
my way to fight for intellectual property rights. Anyone who has spent time
around NewTek soon discovers that unethical behavior of any kind is simply
not tolerated. This is true from president through custodian. I value our
reputation for honesty far more than I value our bottom line. You can see,
then, why your comments and the replies they provoked saddened me. I feel I
must try to set the record straight.
In view of the fact that the Video Toaster was revealed so long ago, it
may be hard to believe that there are several products under development at
NewTek that no one in the outside world has ever seen. Nevertheless, there
are about half a dozen products under active development and several more
waiting on the back burner. The device in question is under VERY active
development and has been for over a year.
The device, which bears the codename "Solcon", IS a display device,
but that's where the similarity ends. It does NOT have any of the features
of your unit. You will see, when the product ships, that it is definitely
not something that could be whipped together in a few months. It is based
on some very unique ideas and is the result of several man-years of
hardware and software development. A patent application is underway and
there are reams of dated documentation and witnesses who will corroborate
what I say.
If we had, in fact, heard about your design an quickly grabbed a
napkin to reverse-engineer and develop it, we would indeed be worthy of the
kind of condemnation I am seeing on this board. That is NOT the case,
however, and I must ask that you, and the other participants of this
discussion, please get your facts straight before you leap. As it is, the
comments here represent an illegal attack on our integrity.
Signed,
Tim Jenison
President
NewTek, Inc.
First of all, my message did not imply anything of the sort. What you read into
it, or others read into it are due entirely to circumstance; Your response here
may serve to alleviate some of the supposition on other people's part – I nevr
made any, and so don't need to change my position, which is neutral. Please
note that _I_ never said _anything_ that implied you or yours were using
napkins – that was another forum member, and my response was "it doesn't matter
if they did or they did not", more or less.
The _only_ thing that I posted on this board was factual information.
As for it's being "illegal", I think you're talking out your ear. All I have
done is reported exactly what was said to me, personally, by a member of your
team, company, whatever, and the dates upon which the statements were made.
When your lawyer called us last week, I told him the same thing, and he
proceeded to threaten legal action if we (I) didn't "shut up". Tacky;
inapropriate; and unnecessary. We weren't talking.
<continued>
Ben,
sorry about that. In the future, I think I'll use EasyPlex! Jeez, what a
can of worms.
Brian J. Bartlett
hey – no problem – not on my end, anyway. It's NewTek and crew that's upset;
not us. It's a free country, and there is a great deal to be said for free
speech. I have no objection to what you said, although I don't neccesarily
agree with all of it.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
Now, for the "SolCon". Good – I'm glad it isn't similar. Unfortunately, your
representative (Mark Randall) wasn't clear on this, because HE said it was
similar, and that was why you would not be interested in supporting our
product. He said, and I quote "So we'll be supporting our own version, of
course". If he was mistaken, and this is not similar, then I imagine there is
some other reason he is not privy to that caused the reversal in his (and
presumably the company's) attitude. Now, I'll grant you that a spokesmans
opinions do not (always) a company's policy make, but he seems to see things
differently than your stated position(s) in this note, and he certainly changed
his tune over the two weeks that NewTek was in posession of our data sheet.
Notice there is NO implication there, only facts. Feel free to explain all you
want, I'm sure I'm very interested.
I can see that you would be upset that there were some very negative opinions
voiced here; but you jumped too quickly yourself as far as finger pointing
goes.
Right now, we're very busy with the FCC approval of our hardware so that this
new product, like our previous hardware product, will be legal and above board.
It's really time consuming, and I don't particularly want to waste time
fighting/arguing with you or your company. Best to leave it be, I think – And
I'm sure that all here would be fascinated to hear about the SolCon, us
included.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
Hey Ben, your not alone in the legal threat area. I just had to reply to a
rather threatening message myself, and I did drop the name of the
representative in that message who spoke to me. That's all I'll say about it
becuase that happens to fall just within thier constraints (I didn't mention
the you know what, wich they told me not too, but they didn't say I couldn't
mention thier letter, HA!). Your right the response they gave you coupled with
info (that I won't mention Mr. NewTek Lawer) may have indeed caused
"confusion", and would be appreciated if it was cleared up.
Ben
Sorry I meant Lawyer not Lawer, my Spelling slips alot when I'm mad.
Ben
I understand completely.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
Coltron ha! Customer never wait more time for hardware from Newtek, try to cry
for wolf. If you want to restore your image speak toaster before.
Solcon not Coltron anyway vap name.
Sir,
It was I, not Ben Williams that implied that your company had stolen/
appropriated/reverse-engineered his technology. I'm glad to hear from you that
such is not the case. I do not "know" you, or your company, but had listened
in on conversations in the AmigaTech conference area and read messages posted
here, and jumped to a conclusion that appears erroneous now.
My only experiences with your company so far has been your booth at
AmiExpo LA and you advertisements in various magazines. I based my conclusion
mostly on your track record with the "Video Toaster" which has been long
announced, but has yet to appear in production, so far as I know.
Given that, I felt safe in my conclusion. The other factor was the
information based on statements by your represenitive here, by the unlikely
name of "RAD Moose" that NewTek was going to release a similar product soon.
The timing of that statement was curious, at best.
I have since been notified by your lawyer that the statement was in error,
with numerous threats of legal action unless I remove my posting here. I
question the legality of such efforts on his part since this is a public forum
and I do have the right of free speech. I also did qualify my statement "It
sounds like" if memory serves me right, but I'd have to dig out a backup of the
message, since it has already scrolled off the forum by now. Anyway, that's
neither here nor there.
Instead, I will reserve further judgement one way or the other until I see
the product. Till then, I withdraw my statement.
Brian J. Bartlett
I think this is utterly disgusting! How many people is NewTek going to
sue because they don't like what people say about them! I'm lucky I didn't get
a phone call. Mr. Jenison, I DID say that Ben should make sure his board was
copyrighted reel soon. That has implications so should I be sued too? This is
going to end up being VERY bad publicity for you as I'm going to make sure the
news spreads.
— Ethan
It seems to me that there are a few countries in Eastern Europe that just
recently had changes of government because free speech was being denied to the
people. I had always assumed that the Bill of Rights of our Constitution
protected our right to speak our minds either in public or private. It appears
that NewTek does not subscribe to that theory. I am thinking about changing
digitizers in the near future, since a company that needs to think with lawyers
cannot be responsive to their customers.
Bill, K3OZM
Oh, gee this is funny, I've just replied to an E-plex message telling them
to talk to me in this forum or this might start happening. I hope they
listen, or are they going to blame this on me and Black Belt too?
I don't know at this point, but I will say that I am arguing with their
lawyer at this point. I don't think they have a case since this is a
public forum and all messages here are understood to be opinion, at best.
If I had mailed the same message to a newspaper, the best they could do is
to send a letter to the contrary. Personally, I think the whole thing is
silly, but you know lawyers. Look at Apple :-). I will not edit my
commentary to fit some lawyers preconcieved notions of what I can say or
not say, but until NewTek releases more information, I will reserve
judgement on their product. Given their track record, it could be a long
time. I wonder what they are thinking of, since I'll be living on
disability very soon now. So far as I know, that is not something that you
can grab in a suit.
Tim, I feel that Ben, despite everyone else, tried to deny the connection
that everyone else is making. It seems that he feels that its possible there
was theft, but not likely. He did seem to knock down some of the rumors.
But, on the other hand, I don't understand why you are unwilling to
support the board. You say you are working on something but it has different
technology and different features: where is the conflict with something you are
making?
It seems that his product, assuming it does everything specified, costs
only around $300, works with ANY Amiga setup, and is available in February, is
DEFINITELY worth supporting. If in 6 months there are 400,000 HAM-E boards out
there and ASDG ScanLab and Photon Paint are supporting it, you will be way
behind in both getting your product into the market and writing a supporting
version of DigiPaint.
The reason why I feel distressed that you are not going to support it is
that I feel DigiPaint 3 is the BEST paint program for me, i.e. someone with no
artistic skills and no desire to learn all the intricacies of using Photon.
DigiPaint 3 is VERY easy to use. I was able to use ALL of its features within 2
hours, and very effectively. You can DEFINITELY take this as a compliment! I
would be very willing to spend $s0 or so on an upgrade. I fully intend to buy
the HAM-E board, assuming that there is support. (I hardly have the money to
afford a Sharp scanner so ScanLab support is meaningless for me).
In other words, I think you are making a dear mistake by not supporting
it. I really like DigiPaint and am upset that I won't really be able to use the
HAM-E board fully.
— Ethan
P.S. I am a DEEP DemoReel fan, but I was disappointed at the lack of OVERSCAN!
I can vouch for what Tim says. Although I've never seen the output from the
exact device, I can verify that NewTek had been working on a device that
increases color resolution, at least a year ago, if not earlier than that.
Ben's device certainly reminded me of the NewTek device. They are based on
similar concepts, and both promise the same goal: increased color resolution.
I look forward to both devices, when they are available. As a friend of mine
says, "May the Market be with you."
Meanwhile, I don't think that Ben believes that NewTek stole his ideas. Ben
should clarify that, considering that some people here jumped to that
conclusion. A more reasonable interpretation is that Ben is miffed that led
him on by showing interest in supporting the product, and then telling him they
wouldn't support it, after they heard the details of it. Ben did post a very
detailed product description to the public, and I doubt he told NewTek anything
more detailed than what's in that file. If these products truly compete with
each other, it's natural to expect that they wouldn't support each other's
format.
Why is it natural that they would not support each other's format?
Wouldn't it be better to support both format, but try to "tweak" the
competition's through software so you end up enhancing the user's output?
One of the strengths of the Amiga is the IFF formats, so that everyone is
working from the same sheet of music. We all know there are weaknesses in
the current IFF standards, and they can be improved. But is it worth it in
the long run to have every software/hardware house in the industry coming
out with its own proprietary format used by no one else in the world? That
seems kind of silly to me. After all, if we wanted a whold bunch of
mutually exclusive formats, we could go to clones and play with CGA, EGA,
VGA, and whatever other kind of GA they come up with next.
Of course it is.. then they would have to find other ways to INTERCHANGE
data.
I agree – it would be nice if we could agree early on – but consider; if
NewTek has a device brewing that they want to be bought, and have spent any
money on it's development, then they have a very real stake in the public
(the Amiga public) buying theirs, and not ours – it follows immediatly that
they would not naturally think that support for our stuff would help sales
of their unit.
And in fact, with the support from the other vendors we already have, they
are in a position of catchup now – support for us would probably make it
not even worth trying to bring out their unit, which from their point of
view HAS to be a bad deal.
There are several issues here which are getting a little muddled; we have
to look at this from the vendors point of view: Black Belt's, NewTek's, and
the aftermarket support of either/both/neither.
Then from the user's view – what to buy? Features? Colors? Ease of use?
Compatability? Software support? Genlock? Paint program of choice?
It's not black and white – let's not bust NewTek up over their decision not
to support this thing. You can tell them what you WANT them to support, and
I'm sure they would appreciate the data. But you can't tell them what to
do. They can't tell others what to do either – that, perhaps, they need to
learn.
As I've stated in several magazine articles in the past few years, the IFF
standard is a big myth. And I've seen several other articles, similar to
mine, written by other authors, with big charts that explain which formats
can be read by which programs, and which programs save in strange ways.
Yes, we have a very simple bitmap format that can be shared best when you
don't exceed any Amiga hardware resolution. Are pictures the only thing
that matters? Where was the music score format? Where is the DTP format?
Where is the 3D format? Where is the common text format? The structured
drawing format? Why didn't these digitizer/scanner companies cooperate on
formats with the advent of these dynamic picture modes? There are dozens
of reasons why a company can gain a competitive advantage by *not*
cooperating on an IFF standard. I agree, it would be a rosy world if
everyone cooperated. However, it's a much safer to bet that companies will
not cooperate – and I've staked my company on that premise for more than
two years.
Let me give you an example I'm familiar with: 3D formats. My company is
Syndesis, we make InterChange, a system for sharing objects between 3D
modeling programs. All along, each of the 3D program companies (Byte by
Byte, Aegis, Impulse, etc.) had access to the details of each other's
formats. They could have added them in a second. And Impulse even put
forth a proposed 3D IFF format. It's registered with Commodore, for what
that's worth. But no one – not even Impulse, if I'm not mistaken – ended
up using that format. Why? Dozens of reasons. Adding a competitor's
format to your program can alert a consumer to the existence of the other
program. Marketing types tend to hate that kind of situation. Finding a
common format isn't perfect, either – it only sets a least common
denominator for the kind of data that can be exchanged. 3D programs live
and die by the extra features they can add. Would Company X ever agree
with a feature in the "standard" if their program didn't support it? It is
very difficult to find common ground for standards in highly competitive
environment. InterChange is a solution for the consumer who wants to share
3D formats.
I don't doubt Tim's word for a minute. In fact, I had pretty much
dismissed all of this as much ado about nothing. However, I find NewTek's
legal posturing reprehensible. It seems to be the high-tech trend: If you
can't compete in the marketplace ("May the Market be with you"), compete in
the courtroom.
It is? How natural is it to ignore a market that can be enhanced by
INTERCHANGability? IFF is a good case in point. Do companies refuse to use
IFF because their competitors use it too, allowing easy INTERCHANGE of
data? The attitue that your competition is the vilest of enemies can
sometimes be quite counterproductive.
There isn't a market for an "InterChange" for every type of file. There
are always 100 people who insist that they really need to go from Analyze!
spreadsheets to Bard's Tale characters, but Syndesis (or any company) needs
a reasonable amount of sales to cover development and marketing costs. If
Ben only sells 100 HAM-E boards, I'm afraid I can't justify the cost of
developing and selling an image file converter, unless I price it at $400
and sell to all 100 people. I hope he sells more than that, of course.
I give up, tell me why so many companies and developers blatantly ignore
the letter and spirit of the IFF documentation. It's not as if the IFF
docs are hard to find. It's not as if their algorithmic spirit is hard to
understand. But how many IFF readers woof on "standard" files? They woof
because some programmer thinks it's more important to make a 536 byte
"show" program that to make something that handles IFF correctly. Why does
Deluxe Paint itself barf on some IFF files, such as HAM or VGA IFF files
from its IBM brother?
I know… just tugging lightly on your leg. 🙂
As for IIF.. well, I really don't know. I put a lot of it down to folks
who want their own format to be 'exclusive', yet pay lip service to IFF,
and to folks who just don't consider the problem from the right viewpoint.
The right way, of course is to skip over hunks you don't recognize, and
to make do with what you get, or exit gracefully if yjou can't make do.
I don't consider PD 'show' programs to be a good indicator, since most of
them probbaly worked oneverything the author tried, and after all, he isn't
depending on the behaviour of his code to put food on the table. Ohters,
like Dpaint, barf of some perfectly good IFF files simply because EA
doesn't care. Take a look at their file requester, their bugs, and so on,
to see how much they care about things that don't add glitter and
advertising fodder to the product.
Speaking of IFF. I am firmly convinced that the lack of support for the
clipboard is the fault of CBM specifying that stuff in the clip should be
IFF. The folks writing small, PD utilities won't use it, because they are
handling something like ASCII only, and it's too much bother to add IFF
support. Because it is left to the big commercial guys (relatively
speaking), and because they don't support it either (too easy to user
competitors programs?), the result is that hardly anyone uses it, and less
care.
I already clarified it. I said that what I thought was interesting was the
change in attitudes over a two week period. It has yet to be explained to
me in any believable fashion, other than by their lawyer, who seemed to me
to be completely full of beans in any case – but he is NOT NewTek, and I am
well aware of that.
I feel that their expression of interest, followed by a VERY delayed "no,
not interested, doing similar stuff" is still an indication of something –
not theft.
The lawyers "You had better shut up, or else" was asinine, clearly nothing
beyond a threat which he could not back up. Apparently, Tim Jennison feels
that he has to do business this way. It's my personal opinion that lawyers
are the last resort of the incompetant.
So, let me state, for the record and for all to see/read: I am not, and
have not, stated that NewTek "stole" anything from me/black belt. They
have every right to choose what they will or will not support. The
marketplace will vindicate or bury them, as appropriate, just as it does
all the rest of us. In the meantime, we DO have support from many other
vendors, well established ones with FCC approved digitizers.
Good, this is what I thought you thought. But I'm sure you realized that
some people misinterpreted your message. I'd rather assume you were busy
hunting moss agate and didn't get around to respond to clarify, than to
think you watched them spread half-truths and guesses. Rumors on networks
can really inflame some people; I know, I've gotten my share of calls from
muckity-mucks and lawyers for doing that. I'm sure you understand that,
too. But if you knew people were jumping to the wrong conclusion (that
they stole your idea) then you should have corrected them, lest some people
ump to a second conclusion, that you didn't mind seeing NewTek get flamed.
Letting them spread aspersions damaging to another company is as un-kosher
as siccing a lawyer on someone, in my book. If I saw someone sliming your
company by misinterpreting a posting, I'd stop them.
Hold on a sec, here: Point number one – I do NOT know that they were
spreading half-truths – I saw guesses, yes, but I feel they have as much
right to make guesses as you or I do. It's not my place to quiet them – I
_did_, in fact, reply to the first message that I saw that was drawing
conclusions of that nature, and I said "I don't think you can draw that
conclusion; the only conclusion you can draw is they don't want to support
our product. " I do NOT know that they do, or do not, have a product
similar to mine. I know, that they have talked about it, but they have not
shown one to anyone I have talked to (yet). I do NOT know where they got
the idea (nor do I really care). I find it interesting, no more than that,
that SoftCircuits (my old company) made a device for the CoCo that used
these techniques, and Tim Jennison was doing his digitizer for the CoCo at
that time. I made no secret of what I was doing – and I am NOT saying that
he/NewTek "stole" anything.
The schematic for the original device was published in the manual, and in
fact, the PCB layout is on every BoardMaster disk, even the old PCLO
disks.
<continued>
Your right they should have told him upfront instead of waiting, now
statements that they made to him, myself, and others here that are evident
from a few messages back have caused this wrong impression and now NewTek
seeks to punish us for our opinions based on thier statements. I'm glad to
hear that they were indeed working on the board before Black Belt and are
not taking from his efforts, so I'll say it in response to your message
since they only E-Plex me rather than posting on this forum, that my
OPINION (hey NewTek laywer note the word OPINION) was in correct. But next
time instead of scoffing at something I mention, or tell a developer after
expressing interest that there is none be straight forward and up front
with us and say "We have something already in the works for quite a while"
that way this won't happen again.
it was I that jumped to that conclusion, not Ben, and my conclusion was
based on statements by their representitive here. Apparently I was wrong,
but that doesn't change the fact that they "announced" shortly after Ben
did, so as to cast a shadow over his project and _AT THE SAME TIME_
threaten legal action against myself. Personally, a clarification message
would have been sufficient, and I would have meekly retracted my statement
along with apologies to all concerned.
NewTek didn't announce the product, as I understand the flow of events.
They told Ben they had been working on something similar. Then Ben posted
a message about it. Did I miss an official announcement of this device?
their representitive stated that NewTek was working on something similar. I
jumped to the conclusion that they were appropriating Ben's idea since they
haven't announced a product before it was actually released. Heck, they've
announced one product for almost two years and haven't released it yet.
Anyway, all Ben did is relate what NewTek told him. Supposedly, NewTek is
working on the SolCon, or somesuch, and will be releasing it soon. As I
stated earlier, I'll be awaiting it's release to see what it actually looks
like.
Mr. Jenison:
Having observed the thread from it's start, I can assure you that Ben not only
NEVER said that NewTek stole his idea, he went out of his way, at least twice,
to cool down folks who were making such assertions, including, at least once,
pointing out that the general concept behind his HAME format had been around
for years, and that he himself had used it several years ago in another product
for another platform.
I do think, however, that he felt that either your organization wasn't
communicating very well internally, or that he had been, perhaps, shut down in
working with you 'cause he had said some uncomplementary things about your
Dynamic HiRes mode. Which he did. That's sorta Ben's way (grin).
Regardless, we all need things like 256 gray scale and the ability to actually
display and SEE manipulations of 24 bit color on the Amiga. Ben's HAME format
and what he claims is a relatively inexpensive hardware add on, transparent to
a lot of standard Amiga IFF software, promises to be a big step in that
direction, and one that other vendors can work with in both hardware and
software. Seems to me the best of all possible worlds would be for NewTek to
work with Ben NOW so that, if it's possible (and maybe it isn't) your new
product and his could be complementary, and could work around a file format for
such images that could become a stadard extension mode for the Amiga. It
certainly looked like that was where it was heading before a sudden shutdown in
cooperation from your end, if I read the chonology correctly.
Ray Lewis