>> That's just the trademark part of the argument.
> It does stick out because they are discussing a breach of the settlement agreement
> they were not party to.
They are also discussing a breach of the settlement agreement in the copyright part of the complaint:
"16. The Settlement Agreement did not grant to Defendant any right in any AMIGA software created or distributed prior to 1994.
24. Upon information and belief, section 2 of the Settlement Agreement did not intend to expand the grant of rights to Defendant by allowing Defendant to market, license or sublicense Amiga OS 3.1. [...]
30. Defendant’s copying, distribution and sale of Plaintiff’s Kickstart 1.3 also constitutes a breach by Defendant of the Settlement Agreement."
The question is what bearing does this have on the main argument. Did Cloanto add it to proceedings simply to strengthen their argument or is the intention to strip Hyperion of all rights granted to them in the 2009 settlement. I thought that the Amiga parties with have to get a court to rule on this but having read the termination clause again, it doesn't specify who has to obtain a ruling of a material breach.
Are Cloanto actually going after financial compensation or is the real goal to get OS development rights and associated branding? As far as I can tell, they are the only things left on the list for Cloanto and I doubt Hyperion has any actual money they can hand over in the event of an outcome favourable for Cloanto.
This is all speculation and we don't know where this will actually go. People thought the case between Amiga Inc and Hyperion was pretty much cut and dry. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of another settlement that maintains the status quo. It may even be remotely possible that Cloanto have just shot themselves in the foot.
One thing that is certain is that the lawyers will get richer and there'll be plenty of fat for us to chew in the coming months, possibly years.