> Nowhere in the settlement agreement is there a list or in any other way
> a specification of exactly what copyrighted materials are being granted
> for Hyperion to use under the license. [...] "the Settlement Agreement"
> lists no Source Code, no Object Code, and no other files in any shape
> or form. [...] "The Settlement Agreement" does not specify exactly what
> copyrighted 3.1 materials are to be licensed to Hyperion (no list of
> specific files, no specific sources)

The settlement agreement mentions an "Object Code and Source Code license to the Software" and defines "Software" as meaning Commodore's AmigaOS 3.1, which is a distinctive product. That's sufficiently clear. Why should all the files AmigaOS 3.1 is comprised of be listed separately (or even their source code be written down in or annexed to the agreement) for this license to be valid? This wasn't even done in the retroactively drafted software purchase agreements between Commodore, Escom and Gateway.

> the settlement agreement relies *solely* on Amiga "Software Architecture"
> in the definitions of "the Software" etc ("including without limitation
> its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation"), and most
> notably in the "Grant (b)" for the "[...] Object Code and Source Code
> license to the Software".

No, it does not. You may want to think a while about the meaning of the word "including". The fact that there is no such thing as source code or object code of the "Software Architecture" of AmigaOS 3.1 doesn't void the existence of the source code and object code of AmigaOS 3.1.

> this is what makes the settlement worthless for Hyperion,
> as testified by Paul C. Clements.

He testifies no such thing. I quoted his testimony from his "Summary of Findings" in comment #900 to you. You may want to re-read it and stop putting words in his mouth.

> Version numbers isn't the main thing here. [...] the main point
> is obviously not about version numbers at all

It is with regard to what Paul C. Clements thinks about what Hyperion did get and did not get out of the agreement, as testified by him in the quote referred to above.

> Hyperion may have thought about apples, but what they wrote
> in the contract was about oranges.

I think they more likely may have thought about fruits, but what they wrote in the contract was about apples (or oranges).

> "The Settlement Agreement" [...] relies entirely on the Documentation
> about the Amiga System Architecture for the description of this.

No, the alleged "Software Architecture" is irrelevant for the object code and source code license to AmigaOS 3.1. It simply means that Hyperion's object code and source code license to AmigaOS 3.1 doesn't extend to prior versions of AmigaOS just because they share the same "Software Architecture".

> this is actually the whole foundation the entire agreement relies on.

I think you severely misread the agreement. But then, you would not be the first to do so ;-)