> The problem is that selling a "Amiga" named PC with an amiga-like OS
> seems to result in legal problems. Now i would like to ask: Where the hell
> is the difference in selling those with Linux + AmigaForever? huh? This
> mix should be more harmful to Hyperions business..

I think Hyperion and A-Eon aim to offer the one and only true official AmigaOS solution. Unfortunately, they only have the 'AmigaOne' name for the hardware, not the 'Amiga' name. This means that a relatively cost-effective (compared to the X1000 that is) 'Amiga' computer with an AmigaOS-like native OS like AROS would pose real competition to Hyperion and A-Eon's offering. By contrast, an 'Amiga' computer, albeit cost-effective as well, with an AmigaOS-unlike native OS like Linux running an Amiga emulator running old AmigaOS 3.x (or even AROS/m68k one day) wouldn't be regarded as a true AmigaOS solution by most people who like to use an AmigaOS-like OS (as opposed to just running old Amiga games on the emulator), so this wouldn't pose real competition anyway. And I highly doubt that Commodore USA's solution will be as integrated as Amithlon, which is also based on Linux. In fact, it's arguable whether an Amithlon-like solution on an 'Amiga' computer would be subject to the "Substantially Similar Software Architecture" clause.

@thread

http://www.trademarkia.com/company-amiga-inc-72446-page-1-0

Lots of abandonment notices filed Monday, September 19, 2011..

#6

What does it mean basically, that you can buy an Amiga trademark just like that?

Quote:

It does not really mean all that much. All we know for sure is that Amiga Inc. did not bother to fill out certain paperwork in time.

You do not have to have an actively used trademark listed in the USPTO database to benefit from legal protection for it. However, if you are trying to sell a brand name, this type of formality may be useful because it usually enhances the perceived professionalism of the seller.

> http://www.trademarkia.com/company-amiga-inc-72446-page-1-0
> Lots of abandonment notices filed Monday, September 19, 2011..

Now also reflected by Christoph Gutjahr's list of Amiga trademarks:

http://aminet.net/package/docs/misc/Amiga-Trademarks

Update:

>>> From Pluritas LLC's press release:
>>> "Amiga Inc. [...] is also actively seeking investment capital to
>>> fund the ongoing development of their enabling technologies"

>> What "enabling technologies" are they talking about?

> My guess is AA2.

Seems there has some enablement been going on with AA2:

"Amiga can bring Classic applications written for the Amiga platform to life on Blackberry devices that don't have the same user controls on the platform. Amiga Anywhere2's Virtual Classic Controls fill the gaps on Blackberry devices and allow users to control games similar to the way they were controlled on Amiga computers."
http://www.amiga.com/news/2012-amiga-blackberry.php

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:
Sense or no sense, stupid or not, that was also as I recall them happening, with the difference that it was Hyperion bringing up the clause where Amiga couldn't have a computer running a similar OS to AmigaOS, which in practice would exclude AROS and not UBUNTO for example. This clause exists, and it's in the final agreement between Hyperion and Amiga Inc, so it was expected.

>>> It seems some Wikipedia author is attempting to rewrite history:
>>> "CommodoreUSA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to be bundled
>>> with their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly discarded by CEO Barry
>>> Altman, due to litigation issues with Amiga Inc. who as legal licensors of the closed
>>> source Amiga Workbench interface did not like the idea of AROS (being open source)
>>> being developed for Commodore USA's x86 range of computers, in particular the
>>> Amiga range."
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA#Controversy
>>> And he even gives a posting of yours as alleged source for this nonsense:
>>> http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=578528&postcount=183
>>> As far as I can see, your posting says nothing like what's claimed in the quoted part from
>>> Wikipedia. It wouldn't even make sense to not be allowed to ship AROS due to its open
>>> source nature but then be allowed to instead go to another open source OS that is
>>> Ubuntu. That's really a contradiction in terms.

>> Fortunately, someone with a sense of reality has removed the stupid claims.
>> It now reads only:
>> "Commodore USA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to be bundled with
>> their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly discarded by CEO Barry Altman."

> that was also as I recall them happening

Really? You recall litigation issues between CUSA and Amiga Inc. because Amiga Inc. not liking the idea of AROS being developed for CUSA's "Amiga" computers due to its open source status? If yes, I'm quite sure that you and that confused Wikipedia author are the only people recalling that.

> with the difference that it was Hyperion bringing up the clause

Exactly. And with the further difference that it had nothing whatsoever to do with AROS being open source. Hence my Ubuntu example for an open source OS that is allowed to be distributed with CUSA's "Amiga" computers.

> where Amiga couldn't have a computer running a similar OS to AmigaOS

...when that computer is named "Amiga", yes. I'm well aware of that clause. In fact, I was the first one to bring up the exact wording of the clause in this very thread. So no need to lecture me about it, really.

> which in practice would exclude AROS and not UBUNTO for example.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. So what is your point? AROS and Ubuntu are both open source, so in contrast to what that Wikipedia author was claiming, being open source can't be the reason why AROS isn't allowed.

> This clause exists, and it's in the final agreement between Hyperion and Amiga Inc

I know that. My whole argumentation is based on that fact. It's that Wikipedia author who was pretending the clause wouldn't exist, not me. So your point being?

> so it was expected.

What that Wikipedia author was claiming was *not* expected, and it's also not what happened.

Andreas_Wolf,

Quote:
is more valid the the more sensible version Quote:
I read a part that I saw and remembered up till the first quote, and then subconsciously I assumed it to be as I remembered. My bad. If you see my justification even goes against it...

> "CommodoreUSA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to
> be bundled with their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly
> discarded by CEO Barry Altman, due to litigation issues with Amiga Inc."
>
> is more valid the the more sensible version
>
> "Commodore USA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to
> be bundled with their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly
> discarded by CEO Barry Altman."

As I said, I don't recall any "litigation issues" between CUSA and Amiga Inc., and I'm quite sure there weren't any regarding AROS. So I still think the latter version is the more valid one and the former version is just plain wrong.

> I read a part that I saw and remembered up till the first quote

I ask you once again: You remember "litigation issues" between CUSA and Amiga Inc. regarding AROS?

Quote:

When it's said 'due with litigation issues with Amiga Inc.' It doesn't necessarily means CUSA has them with Amiga Inc. it may mean that Amiga Inc. has their own litigation issues, see Hyperion vs Amiga Inc. case. Anyhow, that's my interpretation of it.

In this case MORPHOS or AROS would be out of reach for CUSA due to Amiga Inc. litigation issues (with Hyperion).

I think AROS was out of reach for CUSA since it'd require them to do any actual work...

> with the difference that it was Hyperion bringing up the clause

Here you said it yourself: There's actually a *difference* between what the Wikipedia author claimed and what happened for real.

> When it's said 'due with litigation issues with Amiga Inc.' It doesn't necessarily
> means CUSA has them with Amiga Inc.

I think it does, because of how the sentence continues:

" [...] who as legal licensors of the closed source Amiga Workbench interface did not like the idea of AROS (being open source) being developed for Commodore USA's x86 range of computers, in particular the Amiga range."

To me it's clear that the alleged "litigation issues with Amiga Inc." do refer to what's written in that second part of the sentence, i.e. that CUSA wanted to use AROS but weren't allowed to because Amiga Inc. denied it due to its open source status.
If that's still not convincing for you, feel free to read some more of those crap statements from said Wikipedia author:

"I was a little saddened by Amiga Inc's stance against CUSA in not allowing AROS to be used and ported over to a modern PC machine bearing the words 'Amiga' [...]. Perhaps if Amiga Inc. had taken a stake in the AROS project, it could have saved both companies. Amiga Inc. should learn to be more flexible I feel business-wise and not be so stubborn..."
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=670279

"Amiga Inc. had other ideas about how AmigaOS should be used (only on Motorola CPUs and issued legal warnings to CUSA if they went Aros way) and as a result there was bad vibes received on both sides and why CUSA is now looking to Linux instead as a platform..."
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=670612

"CUSA's [...] current agreement with Amiga Inc. says they cannot have an 'Amiga OS' like system on their machines as their base OS if it has not been endorsed by Amiga Inc. (which says it all really)."
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=686920

> it may mean that Amiga Inc. has their own litigation issues, see
> Hyperion vs Amiga Inc. case. Anyhow, that's my interpretation of it.

That's not what the author meant. See above.

> I think AROS was out of reach for CUSA since it'd require them to do any actual work...

...or alternatively to spend money to get their hardware supported.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:
He seem to think that Amiga Inc. still has a somewhat active role in all this shenanigans...

Your interpretation seem to be the correct one, I just saw for the words written, not its full context.

[ Edited by pixie 30.09.2012 - 23:14 ]

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:
There's that as well, but most people running a business will do some research before jumping in with grandiose claims.

And in the end, what they were after was something with zero cost and zero effort. I doubt they have contributed (let alone created) a single line of code back to the Mint/Linux ecosphere after they selected that as their choice.

I guess it all doesn't matter much now though.

> most people running a business will do some research before jumping in with
> grandiose claims.

Apropos, look at those grandiose claims:
http://www.os4online.com/2013/06/os4-line-of-products-becomes-amiga.html

As it seems, "Amiga" was changed back to "OS4" only one day later:
http://www.os4online.com/2013/06/our-new-logos.html

Related amigaworld.net thread:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=37810&forum=17


Edit:
http://www.os4online.com/2013/06/a-message-to-amiga-community.html
http://www.os4online.com/2013/06/new-options-to-hardware.html
http://www.os4online.com/2013/06/amiga-openlinux-amiga-enterprise-linux.html

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 19.07.2013 - 17:49 ]

Update:

> Seems there has some enablement been going on with AA2:
> "Amiga can bring Classic applications written for the Amiga platform to life on
> Blackberry devices that don't have the same user controls on the platform. Amiga
> Anywhere2's Virtual Classic Controls fill the gaps on Blackberry devices and allow
> users to control games similar to the way they were controlled on Amiga computers."
> http://www.amiga.com/news/2012-amiga-blackberry.php

"Consultant
Amiga
Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Computer-Software industry
December 2012 – Present (7 months)
Working with Amiga Inc. to bring classic games written for the original Amiga hardware to life on Blackberry devices via the new Amiga Anywhere platform."
http://www.linkedin.com/in/darrendebono

>51-200 employees

really?

>> 51-200 employees

> really?

Most likely not :-)

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

No, it does seem unlikely, but its always good fun seeing a web of lies created with Bill somewhere in the middle.
I imagine RIM executives are cringing at this stuff.
They have gotten enough bad press recently.

[ Edited by Jim 26.06.2013 - 02:38 ]

Quote:


Hi Jim!

Success story confirmed:

10 is not a hit; stock nosedives 26%

#6

Poor buggers.
They really used to be popular.
Chances of them surviving don't look good.
But hey, Bill's giving them old Amiga apps!

I dont even see how anything left could have any value. The patents have to be just about all expired, and if not they will be in two or less years.

Quote:

I'm confused.
Do you mean Amiga Inc.'s patents or RIM's?