> "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?