> Is it true?

Why shouldn't it?

Btw, that OSNews article is wrong in some regards:

"Amino Development was Bill McEwen's company, and still is today, renamed as Amiga, Inc."

In 2007, Amiga Inc. (Washington), the company that started as Amino in 1999, was renamed back to Amino. The company that is called Amiga Inc. (Delaware) today was named KMOS until 2005.

"Amiga, Inc. never produced anything"

http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4659 ;-)

@Andreas_Wolf

Quote:
Agree.

I've read several articles now that quote some pieces from the original news release, but also offer commentary in the process.
I find the original news more authoritative:

Pluritas: Engaged by Amiga, Inc. to Market the Global IP Rights to the Iconic Amiga Computer

#6

Who cares?

Quote:

Exactly!

And with Amiga Inc. no longer owning the rights to AmigaOS and never owning the original Amiga patents, the only thing they appear to own anymore that is of questionable value, is the name Amiga, which is worth less and less every day that goes by.

How ironic would it be for the MorphOS Development Team to find some free money, like from a wealthy MorphOS user and fan like Trevor Dickinson is for the AmigaOS4.x users, but with deeper pockets and less common sense, who would buy Amiga Inc. and fund the development of new computers to run MorphOS2.x on and name them new Amiga computer models.

We would then have one company with the right to create and market the AmigaOS, but not having the right to market an "Amiga" computer to run it on, and another company with the right to market "Amiga" computers, but not have the right to call it's OS, "AmigaOS".

What a mess Amiga Inc. has made of the trademarks and copyrights surrounding the name Amiga!

The last two posts about sum it up.
All this indicates is Bill McEwen (hopefully) giving up and attempting to shill a few last dollars off a damaged trademark and no valid IP.
Good ridence!

I wonder how Barry Altman feels?

Hope this will not kill futuredevelopement of Snowman Maker

> with Amiga Inc. no longer owning the rights to AmigaOS

Right now they still own these up to including v3.1 at least, as far as I can see.

> who would buy Amiga Inc.

I doesn't seem the company itself is up for sale. From Pluritas LLC's press release:

"Amiga Inc. [...] is also actively seeking investment capital to fund the ongoing development of their enabling technologies"

Of course, once they actually sell their Amiga assets they'd have to rename themselves afterwards, for instance back to KMOS (or alternatively go for an "Amiga" trademark license from the new owner).

> fund the development of new computers to run MorphOS2.x on and name
> them new Amiga computer models.

That could be problematic because the buyer would replace Amiga Inc. as a party in both the contracts with Commodore USA and with Hyperion. According to the press release, Commodore USA has an *exclusive* license to the trademark for their keyboard computers. Admittedly, that would still leave non-keyboard "Amiga" computers as a possibility for the new owner to market them with MorphOS. But that's where the contract with Hyperion and its "Substantially Similar Software Architecture" clause (pages 3 and 25) may kick in regarding MorphOS and thus prohibit a new "Amiga" computer for MorphOS.

What does Bill have to sell besides the company name? He's never produced anything. The company technically owns the right to the name AmigaOS, but only Hyperion can use it and Amiga is forbidden from competing with Hyperion.
They have no software except for some very old games. They have no hardware. And the hardware patents they may or may mot own have probably expired.
And then there is Barry Altman. Does he really have an agreement to license the name for X86 use?

"Amiga Inc. [...] is also actively seeking investment capital to fund the ongoing development of their enabling technologies"

Are they selling assets to raise capital (what assets do they have)?

Are they looking for investment capital (who would throw money into that)?

What "enabling technologies" are they talking about?

> What does Bill have to sell besides the company name?

The Pluritas LLC press release mentions "hardware designs, software, operating systems" besides trademarks.

Hardware designs: no frigging idea what that should be
Software: "CoolTools"
Operating systems: AmigaOS 1.x to 3.1 (see my answer to amigadave)

> He's never produced anything.

Assuming "he" = "Amiga Inc. (Delaware)", that's not true, as I pointed out before in this thread. Whether you attribute any kind of value to what "he" produced is another matter.

> They have no software except for some very old games.

You mean the Cinemaware and Vulcan games they sell/sold in bundle with their "Caveman" modification of WinUAE? These old Amiga games are only licensed, not owned by Amiga Inc. But yes, those licenses can be considered assets as well. For examples of software they really own see above.

> They have no hardware.

Yes, that's why the listing of "hardware designs" as asset puzzles me. I sincerely hope they don't classify their infamous "Zico specs" as "hardware design", even though their famous "Director of Hardware" Dean Brown may have had a hand in it ;-)

> the hardware patents they may or may mot own have probably expired.

Yes, they should have expired by now. But they've never been Amiga Inc's asset anyway:

"Gateway will retain ownership of all patents acquired when it bought Amiga in 1997."
http://web.archive.org/web/20020225145745/http://investor.gateway.com/news/19991228-12782.htm

The Amiga patents remained with the Gateway subsidiary Amiga Development LLC.

Interesting side note:
During the patent litigation (July 2004 to March 2006) of Amiga Development LLC vs. Hewlett Packard the former was renamed to AD Technologies LLC in 2004 or 2005. In 2006 AD Technologies LLC surrendered their no longer needed "Amiga" word and picture marks to Amiga Inc. in Germany and elsewhere. And meanwhile as is well known, Gateway, including the owner of the (by now expired?) Amiga patents AD Technologies LLC, belongs to Acer.

> Does he really have an agreement to license the name for X86 use?

He has an "Amiga" trademark license for keyboard computers according to Amiga Inc. I can't read anything about "x86" (or processor ISA in general) in the press release.

> Are they selling assets to raise capital (what assets do they have)?

Pluritas say so, at least. Regarding what assets Amiga Inc. allegedly have see above.

> Are they looking for investment capital (who would throw money into that)?

I'd say yes.

> What "enabling technologies" are they talking about?

My guess is AA2.

@Andreas_Wolf

I hate to further complicate the discussion, but in regard to what you have noted in your post about Amiga Development LLC vs. Hewlett Packard:

Long ago this bit appeared and I can not find anyone to explain it in terms a layman can understand...

Amiga Development LLC v Hewlett-Packard Company

#6

> I can not find anyone to explain it in terms a layman can understand...

As far as I can tell, it went briefly that way:
HP sued both Gateway and its subsidiary eMachines over infringement of HP's patents. At that, both Gateway and its subsidiary Amiga Development LLC counter-sued HP over infringement of patents held by them. Finally, the suing parties settled with a patent cross-license agreement and a payment of 47 Million USD from Gateway to HP.

@Andreas_Wolf

I think this might be another problem with Thom's article. Perhaps he is being sarcastic with his paragraph that begins:

Quote:

I don't think this is true.(anymore)

#6

> Perhaps he is being sarcastic with his paragraph

I'm afraid he's not.

> I don't think this is true.(anymore)

While you can't sue anyone using expired patents you can very well use them to defend yourself by claiming prior art in case being sued.

@Andreas_Wolf

Quote:

Yes, and that's where another question get raised.
While everyone seemed to marvel at the prototypes etc. that Carl Sassenrath brought to AmiWest, I was drawn instantly to one line he posted.

Quote:

Source

Carl had often spoke on record that he made a nice living working with prior art cases. It seemed odd for him to let material go unless there was nothing further to be gained financially by holding on to it.
What do you think? Does this speak to whether the patents are still of great importance, or am I taking something out of context here?

#6

Perhaps its Bill's intention to divest his company of the old IP it owns in an attempt to fund the project you mentioned Andreas.

I can't see Bill paying for a MorphOS port or trying to sell PC right now.
The accuracy of this information seems questionable.

> It seemed odd for him to let material go unless there was nothing
> further to be gained financially by holding on to it. What do you think?
> Does this speak to whether the patents are still of great importance,
> or am I taking something out of context here?

Logically concluding, it seems from him giving his hardware away that those prior art cases are no longer of importance to him. As for the reason I don't know really. Maybe there haven't been any such cases with his participation for a long time? Someone should have asked him at Amiwest ;-)

Btw: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52756 :-)

@Jim

Quote:

And that's the problem with all information in printed form. We can only work from the words, and not necessarily from the reality.

@Andreas_Wolf

Someone should have asked him at Amiwest

Sadly, I was not there to do so.

#6

> Perhaps its Bill's intention to divest his company of the old IP it
> owns in an attempt to fund the project you mentioned Andreas.

Yes, that's what I think the Pluritas press release basically says.

> I can't see Bill paying for a MorphOS port or trying to sell PC right now.

Me neither. The former one would seem completely nonsensical. And the latter one wouldn't make sense either considering he couldn't even name such PCs "Amiga" anymore after selling the trademark.

> The accuracy of this information seems questionable.

Which information do you refer to here specifically?

Quote:

Sorry Andreas, that part of my post was vague.
What I mean't is I can't see Bill considering PC production (or a MorphOS port) as his agreement with Hyperion would seem to preclude that.
Even his selling 3.1 doesn't make a lot of sense, I can't tell from the wording but it might be infered that only Hyperion can use 3.1 as a basis for new OS'. And he could still gain some revenue by selling licensees for this.

Would the older workbench versions have any value?

>>> The accuracy of this information seems questionable.

>> Which information do you refer to here specifically?

> What I mean't is I can't see Bill considering PC production (or a MorphOS port)
> as his agreement with Hyperion would seem to preclude that.

So you basically cooked up some nonsensical ideas just to declare that they don't make any sense ;-) Btw, I don't think that the agreement with Hyperion could prevent Amiga Inc. conducting production of ("Amiga"-labelled) PCs or paying the MorphOS Team for porting MorphOS to anything they'd like. Amiga Inc. just wouldn't be allowed to market "Amiga"-named PCs (regardless of processor ISA) with MorphOS (or AROS or AmigaOS).

> his selling 3.1 doesn't make a lot of sense

I see it the other way round: If Amiga Inc. intend to divest anything else related to their Amiga IP anyway then why should they keep the AmigaOS 1.x to 3.1? For what purpose?

> it might be infered that only Hyperion can use 3.1 as a basis for new OS'.

Even if that was true it surely wouldn't discourage Amiga Inc. from divesting it ;-) But as far as I understand the agreement, Amiga Inc. *are allowed* to sell "Amiga"-labelled devices with AmigaOS 3 (or anything based on that) as long as they don't market it as a desktop machine with a desktop-style OS. That would allow for any kind of embedded device with AmigaOS as operating system but might require Workbench to be omitted or at least heavily restricted.

> he could still gain some revenue by selling licensees for this.

Yes, that's always the decision you've to face when being in possession of assets you don't really use technically yourself: Giving out licenses or divesting it lock, stock and barrel. It seems that Amiga Inc., after going for the former, now decided for the latter.

> Would the older workbench versions have any value?

That's up to a potential buyer to decide :-) But as implied above, bearing the agreement with Hyperion in mind it's more like anything but the Workbench that has any possible value to a buyer of the Amiga assets including AmigaOS up to v3.1 ;-)

Quote:

"nonsensical ideas"? That's pretty harsh coming from you Andreas. Usually you consider your statements more carefully before you say something like that.
I'm not the only one that interprets Amiga Inc. agreement with Hyperion as precluding competition on similar platforms regardless of the name.

Licensing the Amiga name for use on keyboard X86 computers to CUSA is a lot different than selling MorphOS based computers (especially using the Amiga name). Similar processors and an extremely similar OS? Even if they own the Amiga brand this could be viewed as nothing more than a contrivance to circumvent their obligations under their agreement with Hyperion.

Sounds like a formula for an instant lawsuit.

I don't trust Bill's judgement, but I don't think he's that stupid (even after all the other things that may point to the contrary)..

Also, I cam't picture the MorphOS team as willing to work with someone like this. After years of building good will and keeping their promises, would the MOS team be willing to sell out to someone who has repeatdly done the opposite?


If so, I have misjudged the development team's integrity.

Instead on your siceanarios, here is what I see as more likely, Bill decides to focus on tablet, hand held, and cell phone devices and he leaves the conventional PC market alone., Considering the direction A Inc. was headed before they disappeared, this seems far more likely than your entirely speculative ideas.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/11/4 2:40 ]

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/11/4 2:50 ]

> "nonsensical ideas"? That's pretty harsh coming from you Andreas. Usually you
> consider your statements more carefully before you say something like that.

It was you saying that you "can't see Bill considering PC production (or a MorphOS port)", so I concluded that you regard these ideas as nonsensical from Amiga Inc's point of view. (And I'm completely with you on that, assuming I didn't misunderstand you.) At least, I didn't see anyone else than you portraying these ideas.

> I'm not the only one that interprets Amiga Inc. agreement with Hyperion
> as precluding competition on similar platforms regardless of the name.

Marketing "Amiga"-labelled PCs with a non-Amiga-like OS ("like" as in "API compatible") wouldn't be "competition on similar platforms" in the sense of the agreement, else Commodore USA wouldn't be allowed to use their "Amiga" trademark license for their keyboard PCs.
With the other matter (paying the MorphOS Team for porting MorphOS to anything they'd like) I've just come to the conclusion that I was wrong. I had misread the agreement's sentence "the Amiga Parties may develop, market, license and sell Operating Systems that do not exhibit a Substantially Similar Software Architecture [...], so long as such Operating Systems do not use the Exclusive Licensed Marks [...] or the phrase "Amiga operating system"..." as missing a "not". Sorry for that. My bad.

> Licensing the Amiga name for us on keyboard X86 computers to CUSA is a lot
> different than selling MorphOS based computers (especially using the Amiga name).

Yes, I see.

> I don't think he's that stupid

I don't think that either, not necessarily because it would violate the agreement (which it most probably would) but rather because Amiga Inc. never seemed interested at all in the concept of something like MorphOS.

> I cam't picture the MorphOS team as willing to work with someone like this.

Me neither. And I suspect that Amiga Inc. wouldn't be willing to work with some-*thing* like MorphOS :-)

> here what I see as me likely, Bill decides to focus on tablet, hand held, and
> cell phone devices and he leaves the conventional PC market alone.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell all along.

> seems far more likely than your entirely speculative ideas.

What "speculative ideas" of mine are you on about?

Sorry Andreas,
I misinterpreted your first response.
My post was composed hastily and concluded poorly. This was partly due to the anziety I felt at seeing information quoted that insinuated that the MorphOS development team were somehow involved with Amiga Inc. and Bill McEswen.
With two AAS degrees and one BS degree and most of my class work in economics and business (as well as decades of working for/with numerous small corporations in my State) I have a jundiced view of contracts and the enforcability of business agreements in general.
I know you think very literally and believe that there can be devined a precise meaning in words, phrases and statements.
I however live in the most litegeous society in the world. Its a place where two parties can come to very different interpretations of even the most carefully worded document..
There is a common principal in contract law in the US that if one party of a contract believes that the other partiy's actions do not display the "good faith" intent to fulllfil their contractual obligations, that the first party may assume that their obligations are null and void while still holding the second party to their contractual obligations..
Does it sound complicated allowing business entities to make an assumption before a court ruling? Trust me, this precident is one of the reasons there are so many lawsuits in the US. Basically its due to in imprecise nature of language, interpretation, and basically the fair treatment of the other party in the contract.
What does this have to do with Amiga Inc and Hyperion? First, let ME be completely speculative (and in order to avoid be accused of slander let me remind you this IS entirely speculation).
Suppose when Hyperion's representatives met with Amiga Inc's representatives during the required non-binding arbitration meetings before Amiga Inc's lawsuit, Hyperion's lawyers stated their opinion that the contract that was originally in place between Hyperion and Amiga Inc was null and void because te transfer of the obligation between the four corporations holding the contract (Amino, KMOS, and both Amiga Incs) was not valid? They could also argue that the stipulations in the contract (ie time) were not met and finally argue that Amiga Incs claim to ownership of the IP in question was not valid or enforcable due to failure to properly transfer the property.
Were Amiga Inc's lawyers sufficently swayed by their opponent's arguement they might suggest to their client that it would be in both parties interests to settle the lawsuit before it went to trial.
Why would Hyperion agree to that? Because they would obtain legally documented evidence of Amiga Inc's agreement that they(and their developers) were the sole owners of AOS4,the only parties allowed to market products with the names ptreviously mentioned (AmigaOS, AmigaOne, etc), and the sole licensee of AOS3.1 to develop future versions of AOS. Avoiding a potential legal challenge Amiga Inc was able to continue tgo claim ownership of the IPs it claim to own.
Depending on how long ago the improper transfer can be proven to have occured the IP may be considered abandoned (Amiga Inc claim to it would not be valid unless it was properly transfered or the required time had lapsed for THEM to re-apply for control of the trademarks/IP, again as abandoned). Complicated? Hey, US law is what allowed there to be two different Amiga Incs in two different states claiming to be different entities but both holding the same IP (after several claimed transfers between all four corporations).
So my speculation icomplete. There is no way to verify any of the particulars of an out of court settlement except for the information the parties themselves agree to disclose.
In tis case, we have a settlement agreement (which is actually a contract) between Hyperion and Amiga Inc.

So why does this worry me? Since ther parties have agreed to forego the legal precedings and instead have come to a mutuallty agreed upon settlement, we only have the good will of both parties preventing a continuation of their dispute.
Should either Hyperion or amiga Inc feel that the other has failed to meet their obligations, they can then file a lawsuit claiming damages and perhaps (if they can argue their position before a judge) obtain a preliminary injunction against the other party (OR their associates) preventing use or distribution of goods and or services derived from the IP in question until the matter has completed litigation. I believe a similar situation occured once in the Amiga's history already (CD32 units maybe - I can't recall).

This unstable situation is why the developers of MorphOS should not allow themselves to be drawn into any busibness arrangement which could place them at risk of potential lawsuits.
I know everyone here would contend that MorphOS is a seperate, legally developed product.
But two things need to be kept in mind. First, that an entity only have a claim (not that they prove it) in order to file a lawsuit. Second, that in contactual or business relationships with another company (like Amiga Inc) the MOS developers need to be aware that if they assist Amiga Inc in the violation of a contactual agreement, that they too may become a party in further litigation.
Now I know all of you have an opinion on the legal obligations set by the agreement/settlement, but remember, tin order for all the involved paties to wind up back in court all that is required is that one of the two parties in the agreement believe that the other has failed to meet their obligations (and thus they file a lawsuit).
IAmiga Inc has apparently agreed that Hyperion has the sole right to use AOS3.1 develop successors to AOS3.1 (in the form of AOS4 andAOS5 but not limited to those products) even though MorphOS is a seperately developed product (that has been on the market for some time) Hyperion could argue that Amiga Inc's use of the product is intended to circumvent their agreement (rendering their obligation to Amiga Inc null and void)..
I know this may sound implausible, but MorphOS has BETTER compatibility with AOS3.1 than A
OS4 (the JIT compiler rendering it essentially compatible with binaries that don't depend on the direct addressing of legacy hardware. Hyperion could easily argue that a business relationship between Amiga Inc. and the MorphOS developers was an attempt to circumvent the agreement between both paties and initiate legal action against all parties involved.

I can't stress this enough, the last thing that MorphOS needs is to be involved in the legal morass that is the Amiga curse. It could be expensive and final decisions could be years after the suits were filed.
A little advice, you guys should issue astatement refuting this information and assertingb your independance from both companies.
Sorry for the length of the post and for any spelling errors or gramatical problems. I thought this matter was important enough to post this hastily and I promise to edit it tomorrow (if its still here)

Jim

> information quoted that insinuated that the MorphOS development team were
> somehow involved with Amiga Inc. and Bill McEswen.

I don't think there is such "information" here in this thread. As far as I can see, you were the first one portraying such idea here, only to immediately question its accuracy in the same line. That didn't make any sense to me (and still doesn't, to be honest).

> you think very literally

No, I *read* very literally.

> Hyperion's lawyers stated their opinion that the contract that was originally in
> place between Hyperion and Amiga Inc was null and void

Actually, it was Amiga Inc. who terminated the contract:

"The license agreement was terminated on December 20, 2006."
http://www.amiga.com/about/history/?t=os

> because te transfer of the obligation between the four corporations holding the
> contract (Amino, KMOS, and both Amiga Incs) was not valid?

These "four corporations" really are just two: Amino (aka Amiga Inc. Washington, AIW) and KMOS (aka Amiga Inc. Delaware, AID). Allegedly, the obligations of the contract were transfered between *three* corporations the following way: Amino/AIW -> Itec LLC -> KMOS/AID (with claiming "Itec LLC, later acquired by KMOS, Inc." being a sheer lie, as was KMOS' later claim to have acquired Amino/AIW).

> They could also argue that the stipulations in the contract (ie time) were not met

...by themselves. According to the original contract, a first version of OS4 should have been done within 4 months time (and based on the WarpOS kernel, running on Amiga PowerUP hardware and Escena's vapour AmigaOne).

> US law is what allowed there to be two different Amiga Incs in two
> different states claiming to be different entities

Yes, both Amino/AIW and KMOS/AID existing concurrently using "Amiga" as company name from 2005 to 2007.

> after several claimed transfers between all four corporations

Three companies really, see above.

> There is no way to verify any of the particulars of an out of court settlement
> except for the information the parties themselves agree to disclose.

Yes, we mere mortals can only refer to the public settlement agreement.

> I believe a similar situation occured once in the Amiga's history already
> (CD32 units maybe - I can't recall).

Yes, CD32:

"a deadline was reached for Commodore to pay a patent royalty to Cad Track for their use of their XOR patent. A federal judge ordered an injunction against Commodore preventing them from importing anything into the United States. Commodore had built up CD32 inventory in their Philippine manufacturing facility for the United States launch, but, being unable to sell the consoles, they remained in the Philippines until the debts owed to the owners of the facility were settled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_CD32#Release

Similar thing happened in the very early Amiga days:

"Tramiel immediately used the situation to countersue Commodore through its new (pending) subsidiary, Amiga, which was done on August 13, 1984. He sought damages and an injunction to bar Amiga (and effectively Commodore) from producing anything with that technology. The suit tried to render Commodore's new acquisition (and the source for its next generation of computers) useless and do to Commodore what they were trying to do to him. Meanwhile at Commodore, the Amiga team [...] was sitting in limbo for nearly the entire summer because of the lawsuit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Corporation#History

> even though MorphOS is a seperately developed product (that has been
> on the market for some time) Hyperion could argue that Amiga Inc's use
> of the product is intended to circumvent their agreement [...]
> Hyperion could easily argue that a business relationship between Amiga Inc.
> and the MorphOS developers was an attempt to circumvent the agreement
> between both paties

Yes, that's how I read the agreement too.

> you guys should issue astatement refuting this information

Again: What information? Where did it come from?

@Andreas_Wolf

Regarding Thom and OS news, he is writing some responses:

here

#6


[ Edited by number6 on 2010/11/4 11:12 ]