> Cloanto are claiming that Hyperion committed a material breach of the
> 2009 settlement agreement with the inclusion of the 1.3 because it
> displays the word Amiga, which Hyperion do not have permission to use.
That's just the trademark part of the argument.
I realise that it's just part of the complaint. It does stick out because they are discussing a breach of the settlement agreement they were not party to. There obviously a reason they added it to there complaint but why and what do they expect to gain? I don't know if this has legs but it is the one part of the complaint that has the potential for wider consequences than just Hyperion having to pay damages to Cloanto.