Jim, there is a difference between the ”Checkmark Branch” 3.1 and the ”Boing Ball Branch” 3.1.

Some tries desperately to ignore this historical fact, but that doesn’t make it less true.

Cloanto are the registered owners of Commodore Copyrights, 0.7-3.1. They do what they want with it, as they have been doing with ”Workbench 3.X” since... what, 1.5 decade? Longer? Currently 3.X is largely what AmigaOS 3.9 was.

What Hyperion has been using (with permission) is Olsens ”3.1” sources, whose main feature is that it largely is a port/rewrite for more modern programming languages and toolchains. Just like AROS and MorphOS it provides 3.1 API using source code and toolchains that *does not* compile the Commodore 3.1 binaries, but is cleaned and more suitable for further development. Main difference is that MorphOS/AROS is clean room while Olsen had access to the Commodore sources while writing/porting it, which ”polluted” it with Commodore IP. The implications of this is yet to be seen.

But please be aware that there are two ”3.1”; the ”Checkmark Branch” and the ”Boing Ball Bramnch”.

Cloanto fully owns the first one.

Olsen and Cloanto owns the second one.

Amiga Inc owns nothing.

Quote:

Commodore binaries or Olsen binaries?

Quote:

The original settlement made no mention of multiple OS3.1 variants.
And if 'Olsen's' 3.1 variant is a cleaned up version of the original, then Cloanto's claim to IP control may violate the basic terms of the 2009 agreement.

IF it could be determined which source the agreement references.

If its the original Commodore version, Cloanto would stand to lose even more by pushing this.
And if its 'Olsen's' code, even compromised by some legacy 3.1 code inclusion, it would be better to leave that to Hyperion.

SO, let me guess, Cloanto uses Olsen's work for its 3.x variant...right?

Looks like BOTH parties have erred.
Herman's never should have included Kickstart 1.3 with OS4, and Cloanto should never have assumed that their purchase of assets from AmigaInc. negated the IP rights assigned to Hyperion.

BTW - Copyrights, at least in the US, are generally for intangible assets of value (names, trademarks/logos, audio, video, other IP, etc.) distributed by tangible or intangible means.
That definition does cover computer software, but in no way would a prior licensing agreement be voided by a copyright transfer.

And if the assignee in the first agreement was given a license to exclusive use of source code before Cloanto obtained said copyrights from the SAME source, but later, then Hyperion would appear to have a good position to fall back on.

So far, the only major point I can see in Cloanto's position is the clear violation of their IP rights to Kickstart 1.3.
Their IP rights to 3.1 were already limited by AmigaInc's past obligations.

Cloanto probably does have the right to distribute unaltered versions of 3.1, but new one?
Nope.

Should Hyperion care to, they could realistically enhance their current work and relabel it OS4 for the 68K.
Then the controversy would be even more threadbare.

[ Edited by Jim 04.01.2018 - 16:22 ]

Quote:

I don't see why it's relevant but it should be fairly obvious that it was the Commodore binaries. The actual source was the Magic Pack, the rest of the software was also included as part of the Amiga OS3.1 install.

Quote:

That's interesting, but it makes sense, the variant TMHGM keeps calling the 'Olsen' version is obviously more recent.

So, if "Hyperion is granted an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide right to AmigaOS 3.1 in order to use, develop, modify, commercialize, distribute and market AmigaOS 4.x (and subsequent versions of AmigaOS including without limitation AmigaOS 5) in any form, on any medium and for any current or future hardware platform under the exclusive trademark “AmigaOS”, 1n 2009, then how could Amiga Inc transfer the rights to the same software to Cloanto three years later?

Some here have said that Hyperion's rights are limited to OS4, but that quote mentions OS4, OS5, and subsequent versions of AmigaOS "without limitation".

OMG, Jim!

You surely have Ben Hermans venom pumping into your veins intravenously. Why?

What has the Amiga ever done to hurt you this much?

The world doesn't revolve around Hyperion's "the settlement", there are many more things to take into account, and you obviously aren't aware of more than *a fraction* of it.


Quote:

That "Olsen" version you are mentioning I call the "Boing Ball Branch"...


(Click!)

...and its 3.1 was merely an obvious part in Hyperion's current war plan (that I was honestly surprised that Olsen was a part of, perhaps (hopefully so) out of naive ignorance) and it was quickly retracted from market for trademark infringement!

Search the forums for more info before responding!

I would be *very* surprised if Olsen and Richter would allow Hyperion to publish *anything* new (read: this) until this matter is settled.

That would *seriously* be burning bridges and sending the Amiga legacy into a black hole!



[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 05.01.2018 - 01:24 ]

>'read this'?

I got to this comment.

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=833125&postcount=23

I'll have to look at the rest later, but Olsen seems to be indicating that there's very little overlap.

> I am pretty sure Cloanto won't give a f!ck about Hyperion continue to develop
> and sell their OS4 to all 80 or so owners of €3000 AeonKit PPC motherboards.

...or to users of UAE or, even better, Cloanto's AmigaForever, which, as you sure remember, still contains files required for running OS4 :-)

> Cloanto is as old as Commodore Amiga.

Not quite.

Quote:

Perhaps not, but quite...

Quote:

”Everything that's in the box directly comes from either the original Commodore code base”

-> The Checkmark Branch




”or from material licensed for inclusion in the AmigaOS 3.5/3.9 updates”

-> The Boing Ball Branch




BTW: ”the 3.1.4 update.” ?!?? WTF?!?? A three-digit version number! That’s Unix or whatever! The Commodore Reference Manual *specifically* specify how Amiga uses a *two-digit* version number, every true Amigan knows this!

What’s next?

The inclusion of a mediocre .so system? (That was a rhetorical question )

BTW, it seems that Olsen has *concisely* joined the dark side... “Open letter” my a$$...



Ah well. It was only the Amiga.

There is still MorphOS!

[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 05.01.2018 - 03:06 ]

I'm surprised there are people here suggesting this will be resolved in mediation amicably, with Cloanto and HYPErion holding hands walking off into the sunset. That is not going to happen. Clearly Cloanto has been trying to resolve HYPE's piracy without litigation for years and that didn't work. Cloanto also is not an insolvent company run by a clown conman that HYPE can outlast in court. OTOH Herman's ego won't let him admit defeat and settle the case in a manner that admits infringement. You can tell this by HYPE's laughable statement in response to the lawsuit in which they claim to be sole owners of all AmigaOS versions.

Cloanto is the actual owner - Irresistible force
HYPErion is in the wrong but run by an egomaniac - Immovable object

HYPErion is not going to survive this lawsuit either directly or indirectly. Only a couple years back they were bankrupt and had to be bailed out by a white knight investor. HYPE can't afford legal fees from a prolonged legal battle and considering they have no chance at a judgement in their favor, they cannot afford to pay damages. I also think there is probably ZERO chance that a white knight investor bails them out once again.

I also see likely collateral damage. Most likely A-Eonkit liquidates their PPC boards at a major loss and tries to survive focusing on the Amiga Classic market. The zombie that is OS4 is finally put down for good.

[ Edited by redrumloa 04.01.2018 - 21:35 ]

> ”the 3.1.4 update.” ?!?? :-o WTF?!?? A three-digit version number! That’s Unix
> or whatever! :-o The Commodore Reference Manual *specifically* specify how
> Amiga uses a *two-digit* version number, every true Amigan knows this!

You mean like Commodore used for Workbench 1.3.1 to 1.3.4? ;-) The external OS version numbers (1.0 to 3.9 for m68k, 4.0 and 4.1 for PPC) do not count as version numbers in terms of the Commodore guidelines anyway, so they don't matter in this context. For the internal OS version.revision numbers following the Commodore guidelines and used for queries by developers, see the first link in number6's comment #41. This link has some more recent numbers (interestingly, Cloanto's 3.X and 3.9 are both V45). Btw, the internal MorphOS version number has been V50 for all MorphOS releases so far.

> There is still MorphOS!

Yes, indeed, MorphOS 1.4.1 to 1.4.5 or MorphOS 3.5.1 for instance ;-)

> Perhaps you can help explain this to me

I can try :-)

> Amiga Inc. is making the admittance (above) that it was not their right

I don't think that's what was said. As I see it, the key to interpret Fleecy's statement is two-fold:

1. Fleecy's mention of "this area" refers to Asemoon's mention of "UAE emulation" (including Amiga ROMs, obviously), not just "Amiga ROMs".
2. Fleecy's mention of "established and legal" really means both "established AND legal" (i.e. AND-combined). While Amiga Inc. could have legally included Amiga ROMs, they never had an established* product "in this area" (see above), contrary to Cloanto, whose product has been both "established AND legal".

(*) This only came several years later in 2007 and surely wasn't what could be called "established", but came bundled with Amiga Kickstart ROM files (and Vulcan and Cinemaware games) as their Amiga "Classic Game Player" for Windows.

> Hyperion [...] managed to secure an agreement with AInc. that included a bankruptcy
> clause...which they exercised in order to obtain the sole ownership of OS4

I don't think Hyperion ever properly exercised or even tried to properly exercise that clause before litigation. It only became relevant after Amiga Inc. revoked the license due to Hyperion's alleged breach of the 2001 agreement and then sued Hyperion for ignoring the revocation. It took until the litigation that Hyperion started their attempt to leverage the bankruptcy clause by declaring that Amiga Inc. had been bankrupt for a while (and delayed filing) ...and/or that Amiga Inc. (Delaware) did not properly obtain the Amiga IP and 2001 agreement from Amiga Inc. (Washington) ...and/or that Amiga Inc. did not manage to fully pay the required 25000 USD in time, ...and/or that... ;-)

> there is more than a little valid proof that the entity that owned AmigaOS
> never properly completed transfer to the new AmigaInc. in Delaware (with
> whom Cloanto has their contracts). [...] AmigaInc. Delaware [...] may not
> even have the right to confer that IP, which has in any case previously
> assigned rights to license that product to another company.

Yes, but by signing the 2009 settlement agreement, Hyperion acknowledged that the IP transfer took place and Amiga Inc. (Delaware) became the rightful owner of said IP. Thus, there was no need to have the transfer challenged in court. Regarding the Cloanto vs. Hyperion litigation, it is obvious that no involved party can have any interest in arguing against a proper transfer as it forms the base for the claims of both parties. Put another way: If Amiga Inc. (Delaware) has never been the rightful owner of the IP, Hyperion do not have a valid license either.

> the KMOS, AmigaInc., Hyperion settlement.

At the time of the settlement agreement, KMOS had been 4½ years gone (i.e. renamed to Amiga Inc.) :-)

> Here I'd tend to side with TMHGM. There's no real threat to OS4 here

Btw, I was the first one in this thread to say that this lawsuit is not aiming at OS4 proper (see comments #4 and #13) :-)

> eliminate infringing material from their current [...] stock of CDs

It should prove interesting how Hyperion would go about this ;-)

> I doubt Hyperion wants to base OS3.X on OS3.0 or earlier.

3.X is a Cloanto product :-)

> Cloanto could help Hyperion sell some copies of OS4 for emulation.

In fact, Cloanto was selling OS4.1 for PowerUP for months.

>>>> the AmigaOne came with UAE and a full install of OS3.1 was included

>>> Commodore binaries or Olsen binaries?

>> it was the Commodore binaries.

> it makes sense, the variant TMHGM keeps calling the 'Olsen' version
> is obviously more recent.

More recent than the original Commodore version, yes, but years older than the AmigaOne. After all, OS3.5 released in 1999 is based on it.

> Some here have said that Hyperion's rights are limited to OS4, but that quote mentions
> OS4, OS5, and subsequent versions of AmigaOS "without limitation".

There's no OS5 or higher, that's why. And of course, Hyperion could release an update to the current AmigaOS 4.1 FE Update 1 and call that "AmigaOS 5.0". This would be well within their rights. Nobody has disputed that.

Quote:

First, let me thank you for your concise and clear explanation in post #113.

As regards the 4.1 FE sales through AmigaForever, it is my understanding that sales of 4.1 FE had been the highest through that particular sales avenue.

In addition, I've started to notice comments concerning the Ben Hermans' interview in AF appear on various sites.
Source

Apparently the takedown order was mentioned (Avangate). It's all part of this sequence of events concerning vanishing products from Hyperion, Cloanto, and AOTL.

#6

> HYPE's laughable statement in response to the lawsuit in which they claim
> to be sole owners of all AmigaOS versions

Do they? Let me quote from the actual statement:

"Hyperion [...] reaffirms unequivocally that [...] it has the worldwide exclusive right to distribute and sublicense AmigaOS on a standalone basis or bundled with hardware (OEM license), either on a physical medium (such as a ROM or DVD) or electronically (digital download)."

> Only a couple years back they were bankrupt and had to be bailed out
> by a white knight investor.

Anything to back this up? Who was this investor?

Quote:

Sounds to me like an assumption built upon:
(1)bankruptcy declaration +
(2)fact that Hyperion is still here =
(3)someone must have bailed them out

I've never heard anything about such a scenario, but that's just me...

#6

Quote:
For the sake of completeness, it might be worth pointing out a rather significant ommission in the quoted statement. There is no claim that Hyperion Entertainment has any supposed exclusive rights to distribute AmigaOS as part of software bundles. It strictly refers to hardware bundles or standalone versions only.

Examples of software bundles would be the various Amiga Forever editions that have been sold for years and contain versions of AmigaOS. Furthermore, if the forementioned statement regarding exclusive rights were to be accurate, any offering that combines AmigaOS with another virtual (non-hardware) element, which could be as simple as a "checkmark" wallpaper, would not be affected...

> Sounds to me like an assumption built upon:
> (1)bankruptcy declaration +
> (2)fact that Hyperion is still here =
> (3)someone must have bailed them out

Well, back then, Ben Hermans claimed that Hyperion's bankruptcy wasn't declared by Hyperion itself but by a third party. He didn't say who but it was probably a creditor or someone regarding himself as creditor. According to Hermans, the declaration was unjust so he got it annulled by the authorities.

"Hyperion Entertainment CVBA is not in a state of bankruptcy. Due to an unfortunate set of cirucmstances, the company was temporally listed as "bankrupt" despite the fact that the conditions for bankruptcy were never met and that in the eyes of the law, the company was never bankrupt."
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php/news/38-corporate/160-clarification-of-current-situation

Quote:

For clarity my (1) refers to court declared bankruptcy, not Hyperion's comments on that topic.

Quote:

#6

> my (1) refers to court declared bankruptcy, not Hyperion's comments on that topic.

I know. I just remember that in the discussions following the incident it was said that in Belgium (or EU?) a court can declare a company bankrupt upon instigation of a third party like a creditor (that's what I meant in my previous comment, sorry for my imprecise wording). This wouldn't require the consent of the company. I wouldn't know the prerequisites (presentation of supporting paperwork etc.) that have to be shown to the court in order for it to rule, though.

Quote:

Perhaps? on-topic. It's unusual for this many posts to be made on the english side of Amiganews, but...

Source

Oh, and I've often wondered about the validity of information given in an earlier post on Amiganews also in english only.

Source

Added link.

#6

> Source
> Source

I read those too. Interesting ones indeed.