Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28
From: Delaware, USA
Quote:number6 wrote:
Quote:Andreas_Wolf wrote:
> [...] which makes ”the settlement” kind of worthless.
Apparently, Cloanto considers the settlement agreement so worthless that they use it to make their points in 19 of the total 72 paragraphs (i.e. more than a fourth) of the complaint
I'm obviously missing some obvious explanation here. Perhaps you can help explain this to me...
Quote:
10) Asemoon: Will the classic Amiga ROMs ( v1.0-3.1) be included on the AmigaOS4 CD for UAE emulation?
Fleecy: We are looking into this but no decision has been made. It is likely that we will work with Cloanto since they are the only ones with an established and legal product in this area.
SourceSince it's already been proven in this thread that 1.3 was included with 4.1...
SourceHow did this right get to Hyperion if Amiga Inc. is making the admittance (above) that it was not their right (and therefore obviously not their right to transfer via a settlement agreement with Hyperion)?
#6
Confusing, isn't it?
When it was in AInc.'s interests to offer licenses for AmigaOS, it did.
That's where H&P came in until OS4, development of which was transferred to Hyperion, which managed to secure an agreement with AInc. that included a bankruptcy clause...which they exercised in order to obtain the sole ownership of OS4 and, in a settlement resolution were awarded the sole right to develop from OS3.1 source code.
Its convoluted, but as 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).
AND that the former holders of the IP, and AmigaInc. of Delaware, and Hyperion mutually agreed that a license for the sole right to develop from OS3.1 was conferred to Hyperion.
I don't think Delaware courts will invalidate this settlement, as it involves all the related parties, while the Cloanto agreement is only between Cloanto and AmigaInc. Delaware, a company that 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.
SO, anyone not with my logic here? You don't have to agree with it, but between the you and me, I probably have more experience and education dealing with Delaware business law than most of you.
[ Edited by Jim 04.01.2018 - 14:11 ]"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
