> I think this just says when the transaction of the Amiga patents and title
> occurred, the contract didn't make reference to OS 3.1.

Yes. To quote the web page where this document is originally linked from:

"a German appeals court (Oberlandesgericht Celle, judgment 13 U 97/97), after a review that included the contracts between the "Commodore-Amiga Group" and ESCOM AG, and while recognizing that for example patents were transferred between Commodore-Amiga and ESCOM, also concluded that there was no indication that any copyrights for the Amiga operating system itself had been transferred to ESCOM."

> Now did the lawyers in 1997 just FORGET to put that in there,
> or was there a REASON they didn't put that in there?

I guess you mean 1995 here, not 1997. Taking into account that Hembach acted as the bankruptcy trustee during both the transaction from Commodore to Escom (1995) and the transaction from Escom to Gateway (1997), and further regarding the fact that he was the one who in 1998 (after the Celle court findings) drafted and signed those nifty $1 contracts in order to subsequently repair the mess for Gateway, we *may* conclude that the omission of the rights to AmigaOS in the contract between Commodore and Escom was just an oversight. If someone can come up with a plausible conspiracy theory I may change my opinion though ;-) What's not making things easier however is that nobody can ask Hembach anymore since he passed away in August 1999.

> should OS 3.1 be naturally included as patent rights, whether
> or not it is expressly named?

Probably not. Else Hembach wouldn't have considered his $1 contracts necessary in 1998.

> I think there were later legal attempts by entities seeking the OS
> rights to fix this situation, and I don't know about those.

Yes, see link there:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7824&start=27
(it's where the court judgement you linked to is originally linked from)