> it's not impossible (it's rather probable) that after some 10+ years the license
> has simply expired.

This may of course be. But note that Hyperion's license is/was with the developer Metropolis (bought by CD Projekt in 2008), not with the publisher TopWare which has its employees writing in that Steam thread.

http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php/news/37-games/93

> their thread says at least that HE didn't renew it.

Can you quote that statement? The way I read it, TopWare isn't even aware of the old license agreement regarding Linux and AmigaOS ports in the first place, which is somewhat understandable considering it wasn't with them.

Btw, the 2002 Mac port published by e.p.i.c./Runesoft was done by Hyperion as well:

http://anna.amigazeux.org/comments2.php?show=1071783886&number=11#comment

> the entity that once issued Hyperion some kind of license a decade ago does no longer
> seem to exist

Metropolis was bought by CD Projekt in 2008, so they would be Hyperion's licensor since then, unless the license has expired that is.

> the owner of the entire IP including copyright and trade mark has not granted or
> approved Hyperion to develop, use or sell anything based on their property.

That's what the publisher says. We haven't heard yet what the developer's legal successor has to say on the topic.

> It also seems like Hyperion will sell that IP

Hyperion has announced to sell copies of a game, not IP.

I thought it was the owners writing in the Steam thread. If not, my second assumption is invalid.

Quote:

Yes, let's not jump on the 'Hyperion is guilty of theft' bandwagon just yet.
One thing Ben does seem to be knowledgeable in is legal issues.

[ Edited by Jim 06.10.2015 - 07:24 ]

Quote:

"we own ... all rights to the game title"

>> note that Hyperion's license is/was with the developer Metropolis (bought by CD Projekt in
>> 2008), not with the publisher TopWare which has its employees writing in that Steam thread.

> I thought it was the owners writing in the Steam thread.

The publisher claims it owns Gorky 17 lock, stock and barrel. This would mean the developer's legal successor owns nought of it. We don't know whether this is true. And even if it's true (for instance due to the developer having sold all rights to the publisher at one point in the past, but after negotiating the license with Hyperion), this doesn't automatically mean that Hyperion's license is void.
And I still can't see where the publisher (aka alleged owner) says that Hyperion didn't renew its license, which wouldn't even make sense when they straight out deny there ever was a license granted to Hyperion. How do you renew a non-existing license anyway?

Quote:

TopWare is not the "legal successor" (whatever you mean by that) you say? Is that something you just invented yourself, som kind of "teh reeel!!1!" ownership as opposed to "normal" ownership? Well, at least *they* feel certain enough about being the legal owners, and since they seem to be one of the companies in the busines of vaccuuming the market for old a-dime-a-bucket crap games like Gorky 17 and port them to modern platforms, I would actually presume they have their paper work in order, since this is a core part of their business.

I guess we will see how this unfolds...


Quote:

Exactly.


Quote:

If Hyperion had a deal concerning this particular IP with an entity that no longer exists or aren't the owners anymore, and the legal owners of the IP is of the opinion that Hyperion has no right to sell products based on their IP, but Hyperion does this anyway, then there is definitely a possibility that this will be tried in court. And in that case, I would bet my money on the IP owner winning...

But it does seem like a very odd thing to do from Hyperions side. They may have the code, but since they have a lawyer and everything it seems like step one to check if their license is still valid or not. Game publishers, unlike the tiny NG software market, usually have enough cash to go to court about these kind of things (though the publishers seems to want to make a deal instead).

Quote:

Metropolis is the name of the original developer. They were later bought by CD Projekt before they were shut down. This is whom Andreas_Wolf referred to when he mentioned the "developer".

TopWare is the name of the former publishing partner, who claims to own all rights to the game. Interestingly enough, the original TopWare company went bankrupt. The previous owners then founded the legally distinct company Zuxxez, which bought some IP from the former company and was eventually renamed to TopWare.

Quote:
Considering they were not even aware that "proper" Linux and Mac ports had existed, I highly doubt that they have their paper work in order regarding Gorky 17. TopWare has shown a staggering level of ignorance regarding the development history of Gorky 17 on the Steam forums.

At this stage, it is anybody's guess who is at fault here. Either way, there is simply not enough information to throw stones at anybody.

> TopWare is not the "legal successor" [...] you say?

Yes, TopWare is not the legal successor of Metropolis, the legal entity that Hyperion negotiated the license with. I already provided source for the information on who is the legal successor of Metropolis.
Metropolis' legal successor sells the game there: http://www.gog.com/game/gorky_17

> whatever you mean by that

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22legal+succession%22

> Is that something you just invented yourself

No, legal succession is an existing juridical concept, also existing in Poland (both Metropolis and CD Projekt were/are Polish companies):

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukcesja_%28prawo%29

> som kind of "teh reeel!!1!" ownership as opposed to "normal" ownership?

Legal succession is not a kind of ownership but can be the cause for ownership. And ownership can indeed be partial between legal entities.

> I would actually presume they have their paper work in order

They can't even find Hyperion's address on their website, so... ;-)

>> The publisher claims it owns Gorky 17 lock, stock and barrel. This would mean the
>> developer's legal successor owns nought of it. We don't know whether this is true.

> Exactly.

Indeed :-)

> If Hyperion had a deal concerning this particular IP with an entity that no longer exists

...and got bought by another entity...

> ...or aren't the owners anymore

Then the question would be how they lost (partial) ownership.

> and the legal owners of the IP

Sole owners? (I know they claim it, but this doesn't automatically mean it's true.)

> I would bet my money on the IP owner winning...

...unless Hyperion's license is still valid. Temporally unrestricted licenses or licenses before expiration date do not simply go up in smoke when the licensor is bought by another legal entity.

We shall see how this unfolds...

Addendum:

> the 2002 Mac port published by e.p.i.c./Runesoft was done by Hyperion as well:
> http://anna.amigazeux.org/comments2.php?show=1071783886&number=11#comment

"the development company, which made the native Mac port for Runesoft made some mistakes, which results in errors in the game logic. That's why we decided to make a Wine port and do not use the native port."
http://steamcommunity.com/app/253920/discussions/0/520518053453566327/#c483366528923895209

;-)

Addendum:

> If we are to believe Hyperionmp, "Ben Hermans & family" are the sole owners of Hyperion
> Entertainment CVBA (and thus De Groote and Mincea its 2 non-owning employees). Thing
> is, a CVBA needs at least 3 shareholders [...] This means the 3 current, publicly known
> directors may all be shareholders. And as Mincea joined only recently, he may either have
> replaced a former, unknown shareholder or there may now be at least 4 of them. ...or,
> Hyperionmp tells the truth and Hyperion Entertainment CVBA is owned by Ben Hermans
> and 2 or more members of his family.

Thomas "Thor" Richter claims Hermans is not an owner of Hyperion any longer:

http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=947013 (German, sorry)

Unfortunately, he doesn't provide any evidence for his claim.

Quote:

Still listed as a manager / administrator: Belgian Company Registy

> Still listed as a manager / administrator

As far as I can see, these are the director positions, not necessarily the owners/shareholders. These two don't have to occur in personal union (and according to Hermans they don't in case of De Groote at least). "Director" can also be an employed position.

Quote:
Of course. But you may want to consider the original statement in its full context: "Hyperion Ben Hermans gar nicht mehr gehört, sondern das Management ein anderes ist..."

I am not the one who started to conflate the directors with the owners...

> I am not the one who started to conflate the directors with the owners...

Indeed, that's what Thor did. And there is also another statement by him where he calls Hyperion a two-man outfit and mentions Timothy (De Groote) afterwards (implying Mincea as the second man):

http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=947132

But as I wrote earlier, a CVBA needs at least 3 shareholders. As per your link, the directors are still Hermans, De Groote and Mincea. Confusing, and I wonder what Thor's agenda is with regards to Hyperion and his attempt at making it seem as if Hermans was out of the picture.

Quote:
Not everybody has a hidden agenda. Some people are just mistaken

> Not everybody has a hidden agenda. Some people are just mistaken :-)

Assuming he doesn't have an agenda and he's not just making things up, he must have drawn his conclusion of Hermans not being an Hyperion owner anymore from something. I wonder what this something could be. And we know he has been in at least sporadic contact with Hyperion (P96 licensing, layers.library).

Addendum:

>> That is a little unclear from previous statements made by HyperionMP.

> If we are to believe Hyperionmp, "Ben Hermans & family" are the sole owners
> of Hyperion Entertainment CVBA (and thus De Groote and Mincea its 2 non-owning
> employees). [...] I guess we won't know for sure until someone purchases these
> information from the Belgian company register :-)

cgutjahr over at amigaworld.net claims that Hyperion director De Groote is also co-owner/shareholder the company.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=40683&forum=32&start=140#787476


Edit: Statements from an interview with Timothy De Groote over there.

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 09.05.2017 - 00:30 ]