>> What's "Kickstart 3.1.3" and "AmigaOS 3.1.3" mentioned on pages 11 and 17, respectively?

> A mistake, surely.

Yes, but what is it supposed to mean considering it reads (emphasis mine) "Without permission from the Cloanto Parties or their predecessors-in-interest, Hyperion has used and/or registered AMIGA, AMIGAOS, KICKSTART, WORKBENCH, POWERED BY AMIGA, AMIGA FOREVER, and the Boing Ball Mark, among others, in connection with the distribution, sale, and/or licensing of various products, including New Hyperion 3.1 Kickstart ROM, AmigaOS Workbench 3.1, Kickstart 1.2, Kickstart 1.3, and Kickstart 3.1, “Kickstart 3.1 (40.72) for desktop Amigas,” AmigaOS 3.1.3, the 3.1.4 Products (i.e., “AmigaOS 3.1.4), and various articles of merchandise." on page 16/17?

> The 3.1 disks had a rainbow (and later standalone ones had a falling block check
> pattern). The 2.1 and 3.0 disks had a funny colour paint smear in a square thing.
> AmigaOS 1.3 didn't have anything AFAIR, just the Commodore chicken lips. It was
> only older 2.04 disks that had the rainbow checkmark, as far as I know - although
> it apparently varied between country, Amiga model, and source.

Yes, there seem to have been variations. This is what Greg Donner's Workbench Nostalgia shows:

rainbow checkmark/tick: 1.0, 1.1
rainbow: 2.04, 2.05, 3.1
colour paint smear: 2.1, 3.0

The rainbow checkmark was in all the Kickstart boot images post v1.3, in fact the "boing ball" was never used here at all until Hyperion did so very recently (and highlighting the switch in the feature list of updates).



I'd say that the rainbow checkmark is very much associated with Amiga. Many demos, much graphics, etc, throughout history testifies of this. Especially among people using the *Commodore* Amiga's (and then left), who will probably remember and put the checkmark design mark at a similar brand recognition level as the C= or Atari's logotype. Those people will probably recognize the boing ball as well, but not necessarily as an Amiga design mark, but perhaps more because of the historical A1000 demo. The "boing ball" as a design mark is more associated with post-Commodore (especially 3.5/3.9 boxes, "Powered By Amiga" stickers etc) and "NG" stuff in general I would say, and (today) Hyperion's OS4 in particular.

In fact, the "Amiga History" website even show the post-Commodore "Amiga Technologies" using the design mark on manuals...



...and only with the later "Amiga International" the boing ball was introduced.



The Commodore (or rather Village Tronic Marketing) manuals didn't use neither the rainbow checkmark (though a "rainbow" is kind of there) nor the boing ball, but instead seems to be focusing on the mark "AMIGA" written in ITC Garamond Italic (?) font...



...but again, the checkmark has been in the boot-screen since 1991(?)...


The "Amiga.org" logo kind of sums it up I think...

BTW, the 2.0-3.1 (using the check-mark in the KS boot-screen) has been real products on the market the whole time, and continue to be so today.


Edit:
Oh, of course, the rainbow checkmark was also on the very front of the first Amiga made, the A1000. On the front cover of the actual product, on the cardboard box, on the floppy disks, and on the user manual. Doesn't get more "original design mark" than that, right?




Rainbow checkmark and boing ball from the same original machine. But the checkmark as a design mark used on actual products, and the boing ball merely as a tech demo for a show.

Quote:

I'm glad to finally see Tortious Interference invoked. Maybe it has before, but first time I have seen it. This is one of the angles they REALLY need to go with.

Never give Cloanto a licence to bundle your software with theirs, because they will then claim that they own all rights on your software.

Quote:

False claim with no basis in facts, or evidence to back up such a slanderous claim. You obviously have an emotional grudge against Cloanto, or are being paid by Hyperion Entertainment, to spread such FUD over and over again (or both). Show me one piece of licensed software that Cloanto has bundled, and then the software author has claimed that Cloanto has claimed to own their software, without first negotiating the purchase of that software.

@amigadave:

AmigaOS, obviously. And they also have a habit of referring to WinUAE as "their emulator" as though Mike Battilana wrote it instead of Toni Wilen etc. Their product is basically just a bundle of two things they didn't even write, UAE + AmigaOS. In the case of AmigaOS they have also taken deliberate actions to prevent further development of it.

But of course to point out any of this means I have to be being paid by Hyperion out of their secret bucketloads of money, apparently.

[ Edited by Minuous 12.06.2019 - 06:12 ]

Quote:
This is not my experience.

Mike personally contacted me to ask for a permission to include some of my software, even though I had explicitly placed the software in public domain. I also get full credit for my work, too, even though for it being in public domain (and such crediting thus would not be necessary at all).

In fact in my experience is that Cloanto is taking licensing extremely seriously, something which is really rare in Amiga world these days. Cloanto and Mike are the good guys in my books.

> my experience is that Cloanto is taking licensing extremely seriously

See comments #30 and #108 for converse experience :-)

Meanwhile, here's how Hyperion stole my work: https://sintonen.fi/amigaos-sdk-copyright-infringement/

The documentation included in the AmigaOS SDK is still clearly based on copypasting my work. Some words have been changed by search & replace.

[ Edited by Piru 12.06.2019 - 02:45 ]

Quote:

Hyperion has a habit of referring to OS4 as "our operating system" despite never paying most of the developers who wrote it. The same developers that actually own the code too, Hyperion owns pretty much nothing other than rights to publish it and the name and that's looking like they will lose that too.

As for UAE, I'll let the authors of the licence it's developers CHOOSE to release it under educate you on using and selling it. (You know, just like your beloved Hyperion sell GPL software too)

https://gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Hah. Anyone who's going to try to convince us that anyone has worse business practices than Hyperion has a pretty hard sell on their hands. I don't think even the fanboys believe that any more.

@thread

New filing.

Author of crucial definition in 2009 Amiga-Hyperion Settlement Agreement takes stand for Amiga Parties

#6

Quote:

Wow!

And with that I’m not talking about the rate this guy is charging (given the time spent on browsing through the RKRM’s and writing that document, it’s not impossible that the Cloanto/Amiga parties spent more on this document than some other entities spent on Reaction and P96 combined), no, I mean that they have actually produced a real authority in the field, one of the guys that helped defining the terms scientifically that the whole “agreement” (or at least Hyperion’s case) rests on, the agreement text is even using wordings and definition from his books albeit mixed up in a confused manner. And here he is, dismissing the “agreement” completely, step by step and from several approaches in a very easy to follow manner, arriving at the conclusion that the agreement simply never granted Hyperion what they are arguing for. Slam dunk!

> the guys [...] helped defining the terms scientifically that the whole “agreement”
> (or at least Hyperion’s case) rests on [...]. [...] he is [...] dismissing the
> “agreement” completely, [...] arriving at the conclusion that the agreement
> simply never granted Hyperion what they are arguing for.

I don't think that this is true in the broad sense you think it is. The dismissal and conclusion refer to a very specific point (emphasis mine):

"the inclusion of the term “Software Architecture” in the definition of “Software” in the Settlement Agreement cannot give [...] Hyperion [...] any rights in or to the object code or source code of Amiga operating systems prior to version 3.1. [...] If a party were to believe that the term “Software,” because its definition says “including without limitation its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation,” gave that party the right to source code from an earlier version of that program or any other program, that party would be categorically mistaken."

Besides, the fact that the Amiga Parties signed this "tautological", "absurd" and "nonsensical" crap in 2009 speaks volumes :-)

Quote:

I always assumed they were forced into it by the court, under the threat of any party refusing to settle losing the case.

It’s not so much about wether the contract was signed or not, but about interpretation about what it means, what the agreement covers. Hyperion want it to mean *a lot* more (and different things) than their counterpart ever intended when signing the contract, which is a fact already established in another filed document, while *this* expert testimony speak volumes about what the agreement factually *can* mean, and more importantly, what it *can not* mean. And the conclusion is not drawn from one point but from many points together, and it’s not about version numbers either. Hyperion wants it to be about apples, but the basis in the agreement for their reasoning about this is a confused (and erroneous!) stipulation about oranges. This is what the testimony sets straight.

> I always assumed they were forced into it by the court, under
> the threat of any party refusing to settle losing the case.

I'm sure they were allowed to point out the actual flaws to the court and have them corrected or provided a corrected proposal prior to signing. To me it seems that the Amiga Parties did not actually read *and* understand what they were signing, probably because nobody got paid by Kouri any longer for doing so.

> It’s not so much about wether the contract was signed or not

Signing it in its known wording has entailed the disaster unfolding only years later. The flaws should have been apparent to a competent person and the agreement should have been redacted prior to signing.

> *this* expert testimony speak volumes about what the agreement
> factually *can* mean, and more importantly, what it *can not* mean.

Indeed, the testimony clarifies that the "Software" term as defined in the agreement really just means AmigaOS 3.1 and no other version (despite the nonsense about its allegedly documented "Software Architecture"), so that it's just AmigaOS 3.1 that Hyperion has obtained an object code and source code license to.

> the conclusion is not drawn from one point but from many points together

As said, it's drawn in reference *to* a very specific point, i.e. the agreement's definition of the "Software" term.

> it’s not about version numbers either.

It's about the source code and the object code of a specific AmigaOS version released with a specific version number.

> Hyperion wants it to be about apples, but the basis in the agreement for their
> reasoning about this is a confused (and erroneous!) stipulation about oranges.

A better analogy is that Hyperion wants it to be about fruits, but it's just about apples (or oranges).

> it's going to hurt Monard in the pocket if every potential client can google them and find
> what they've been up to. He never should have gotten Hyperion and Monard mixed.

Indeed.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11939&forum=3&start=12

2009 agreement leaves A inc games which is big part of amiga market.
They are pathetic idiots because instead of earn milions on amiga in a joystick, they waste time on fight with H.

3.1 was not made from scratch. It is obvious that 1.3 is included in 3.1.
And Hyperion has rights to sell 1.3.

> 2009 agreement leaves A inc games

This would require proper licenses from the copyright owners of the games.

> they waste time on fight with H.

The Amiga Parties had no choice because they were drawn into the litigation by Hyperion. Or do you mean Cloanto and C-A Acquisition?

> 3.1 was not made from scratch. It is obvious that 1.3 is included in 3.1.

Many components were completely rewritten between 1.3 and 3.1, for instance almost all BCPL-based components.

> Hyperion has rights to sell 1.3.

I don't think so. Hyperion's source code and object code license for 3.1 does not entail a license to the 1.3 source code or object code.

before batiliana start this court crap a inc sell him assets.
They are idiots because instead of earnings milions on amiga in a joystick, they hook with batiliana.

1.3 is used for games only. Nobody use 1.3 for productivity software.
What is used ? exec and maybe trackdisk.
Sources of 3.1 leaked few years ago. Everybody may check that exec and trackdisk where almost not changed since 1.3.
everything for what 1.3 is used is still in 3.1

> exec and trackdisk where almost not changed since 1.3.
> everything for what 1.3 is used is still in 3.1

You are mistaken if you think that a license granted/obtained for a specific version of a software automatically extends to prior versions of that software, just because the licensed code is built upon the older code. That's not how copyright works, at least not in EU and US. And if it's "almost not changed", as you say, then why not simply use exec library and trackdisk device of licensed 3.1?

Quote:

Nonsense. exec.library v40 is completely different to exec.library v34. Just look at the autodocs.