> ”the 3.1.4 update.” ?!?? :-o WTF?!?? A three-digit version number! That’s Unix
> or whatever! :-o The Commodore Reference Manual *specifically* specify how
> Amiga uses a *two-digit* version number, every true Amigan knows this!

You mean like Commodore used for Workbench 1.3.1 to 1.3.4? ;-) The external OS version numbers (1.0 to 3.9 for m68k, 4.0 and 4.1 for PPC) do not count as version numbers in terms of the Commodore guidelines anyway, so they don't matter in this context. For the internal OS version.revision numbers following the Commodore guidelines and used for queries by developers, see the first link in number6's comment #41. This link has some more recent numbers (interestingly, Cloanto's 3.X and 3.9 are both V45). Btw, the internal MorphOS version number has been V50 for all MorphOS releases so far.

> There is still MorphOS!

Yes, indeed, MorphOS 1.4.1 to 1.4.5 or MorphOS 3.5.1 for instance ;-)

> Perhaps you can help explain this to me

I can try :-)

> Amiga Inc. is making the admittance (above) that it was not their right

I don't think that's what was said. As I see it, the key to interpret Fleecy's statement is two-fold:

1. Fleecy's mention of "this area" refers to Asemoon's mention of "UAE emulation" (including Amiga ROMs, obviously), not just "Amiga ROMs".
2. Fleecy's mention of "established and legal" really means both "established AND legal" (i.e. AND-combined). While Amiga Inc. could have legally included Amiga ROMs, they never had an established* product "in this area" (see above), contrary to Cloanto, whose product has been both "established AND legal".

(*) This only came several years later in 2007 and surely wasn't what could be called "established", but came bundled with Amiga Kickstart ROM files (and Vulcan and Cinemaware games) as their Amiga "Classic Game Player" for Windows.

> Hyperion [...] managed to secure an agreement with AInc. that included a bankruptcy
> clause...which they exercised in order to obtain the sole ownership of OS4

I don't think Hyperion ever properly exercised or even tried to properly exercise that clause before litigation. It only became relevant after Amiga Inc. revoked the license due to Hyperion's alleged breach of the 2001 agreement and then sued Hyperion for ignoring the revocation. It took until the litigation that Hyperion started their attempt to leverage the bankruptcy clause by declaring that Amiga Inc. had been bankrupt for a while (and delayed filing) ...and/or that Amiga Inc. (Delaware) did not properly obtain the Amiga IP and 2001 agreement from Amiga Inc. (Washington) ...and/or that Amiga Inc. did not manage to fully pay the required 25000 USD in time, ...and/or that... ;-)

> 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). [...] AmigaInc. Delaware [...] 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.

Yes, but by signing the 2009 settlement agreement, Hyperion acknowledged that the IP transfer took place and Amiga Inc. (Delaware) became the rightful owner of said IP. Thus, there was no need to have the transfer challenged in court. Regarding the Cloanto vs. Hyperion litigation, it is obvious that no involved party can have any interest in arguing against a proper transfer as it forms the base for the claims of both parties. Put another way: If Amiga Inc. (Delaware) has never been the rightful owner of the IP, Hyperion do not have a valid license either.

> the KMOS, AmigaInc., Hyperion settlement.

At the time of the settlement agreement, KMOS had been 4½ years gone (i.e. renamed to Amiga Inc.) :-)

> Here I'd tend to side with TMHGM. There's no real threat to OS4 here

Btw, I was the first one in this thread to say that this lawsuit is not aiming at OS4 proper (see comments #4 and #13) :-)

> eliminate infringing material from their current [...] stock of CDs

It should prove interesting how Hyperion would go about this ;-)

> I doubt Hyperion wants to base OS3.X on OS3.0 or earlier.

3.X is a Cloanto product :-)

> Cloanto could help Hyperion sell some copies of OS4 for emulation.

In fact, Cloanto was selling OS4.1 for PowerUP for months.

>>>> the AmigaOne came with UAE and a full install of OS3.1 was included

>>> Commodore binaries or Olsen binaries?

>> it was the Commodore binaries.

> it makes sense, the variant TMHGM keeps calling the 'Olsen' version
> is obviously more recent.

More recent than the original Commodore version, yes, but years older than the AmigaOne. After all, OS3.5 released in 1999 is based on it.

> Some here have said that Hyperion's rights are limited to OS4, but that quote mentions
> OS4, OS5, and subsequent versions of AmigaOS "without limitation".

There's no OS5 or higher, that's why. And of course, Hyperion could release an update to the current AmigaOS 4.1 FE Update 1 and call that "AmigaOS 5.0". This would be well within their rights. Nobody has disputed that.

Quote:

First, let me thank you for your concise and clear explanation in post #113.

As regards the 4.1 FE sales through AmigaForever, it is my understanding that sales of 4.1 FE had been the highest through that particular sales avenue.

In addition, I've started to notice comments concerning the Ben Hermans' interview in AF appear on various sites.
Source

Apparently the takedown order was mentioned (Avangate). It's all part of this sequence of events concerning vanishing products from Hyperion, Cloanto, and AOTL.

#6

> HYPE's laughable statement in response to the lawsuit in which they claim
> to be sole owners of all AmigaOS versions

Do they? Let me quote from the actual statement:

"Hyperion [...] reaffirms unequivocally that [...] it has the worldwide exclusive right to distribute and sublicense AmigaOS on a standalone basis or bundled with hardware (OEM license), either on a physical medium (such as a ROM or DVD) or electronically (digital download)."

> Only a couple years back they were bankrupt and had to be bailed out
> by a white knight investor.

Anything to back this up? Who was this investor?

Quote:

Sounds to me like an assumption built upon:
(1)bankruptcy declaration +
(2)fact that Hyperion is still here =
(3)someone must have bailed them out

I've never heard anything about such a scenario, but that's just me...

#6

Quote:
For the sake of completeness, it might be worth pointing out a rather significant ommission in the quoted statement. There is no claim that Hyperion Entertainment has any supposed exclusive rights to distribute AmigaOS as part of software bundles. It strictly refers to hardware bundles or standalone versions only.

Examples of software bundles would be the various Amiga Forever editions that have been sold for years and contain versions of AmigaOS. Furthermore, if the forementioned statement regarding exclusive rights were to be accurate, any offering that combines AmigaOS with another virtual (non-hardware) element, which could be as simple as a "checkmark" wallpaper, would not be affected...

> Sounds to me like an assumption built upon:
> (1)bankruptcy declaration +
> (2)fact that Hyperion is still here =
> (3)someone must have bailed them out

Well, back then, Ben Hermans claimed that Hyperion's bankruptcy wasn't declared by Hyperion itself but by a third party. He didn't say who but it was probably a creditor or someone regarding himself as creditor. According to Hermans, the declaration was unjust so he got it annulled by the authorities.

"Hyperion Entertainment CVBA is not in a state of bankruptcy. Due to an unfortunate set of cirucmstances, the company was temporally listed as "bankrupt" despite the fact that the conditions for bankruptcy were never met and that in the eyes of the law, the company was never bankrupt."
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php/news/38-corporate/160-clarification-of-current-situation

Quote:

For clarity my (1) refers to court declared bankruptcy, not Hyperion's comments on that topic.

Quote:

#6

> my (1) refers to court declared bankruptcy, not Hyperion's comments on that topic.

I know. I just remember that in the discussions following the incident it was said that in Belgium (or EU?) a court can declare a company bankrupt upon instigation of a third party like a creditor (that's what I meant in my previous comment, sorry for my imprecise wording). This wouldn't require the consent of the company. I wouldn't know the prerequisites (presentation of supporting paperwork etc.) that have to be shown to the court in order for it to rule, though.

Quote:

Perhaps? on-topic. It's unusual for this many posts to be made on the english side of Amiganews, but...

Source

Oh, and I've often wondered about the validity of information given in an earlier post on Amiganews also in english only.

Source

Added link.

#6

> Source
> Source

I read those too. Interesting ones indeed.

Quote:

Thanks Andre,

I know that you always try to remain fair (as opposed to my hot-headed approach).
That IS a very good point.
And if proven correct, it negates Cloanto's right to distribute ROMs.

It also could be used as an argument excusing that messy situation of Hyperion's bundling of Workbench 1.3 with OS4.

And, hopefully, you all understand that I'm not an apologist for Ben Herman's (in a choice between him and the Bill Buck/Genesi/MorphOS side...I'd always favor team blue), BUT I'm trying not to let sentiment color my perceptions.

>> There is no claim that Hyperion Entertainment has any supposed exclusive rights
>> to distribute AmigaOS as part of software bundles. [...] Examples of software
>> bundles would be the various Amiga Forever editions that have been sold for years
>> and contain versions of AmigaOS. Furthermore, if the forementioned statement
>> regarding exclusive rights were to be accurate, any offering that combines AmigaOS
>> with another virtual (non-hardware) element, which could be as simple as a
>> "checkmark" wallpaper, would not be affected...

> That IS a very good point. And if proven correct, it negates Cloanto's right to distribute ROMs.

Huh? How do you arrive at this idea from the quoted conclusion that Hyperion's license to bundle AmigaOS with other software might not be exclusive? How would this negate Cloanto's "right to distribute ROMs"?

> It also could be used as an argument excusing that messy situation of Hyperion's
> bundling of Workbench 1.3 with OS4.

That's not how I read it.

> in a choice between him and the Bill Buck/Genesi/MorphOS side...I'd always favor team blue

"Bill Buck/Genesi/MorphOS side" is so last decade :-P

>>> There is no claim that Hyperion Entertainment has any supposed exclusive rights
>>> to distribute AmigaOS as part of software bundles. [...] Examples of software
>>> bundles would be the various Amiga Forever editions that have been sold for years
>>> and contain versions of AmigaOS. Furthermore, if the forementioned statement
>>> regarding exclusive rights were to be accurate, any offering that combines AmigaOS
>>> with another virtual (non-hardware) element, which could be as simple as a
>>> "checkmark" wallpaper, would not be affected...

>> That IS a very good point. And if proven correct, it negates Cloanto's right to distribute ROMs.

>Huh? How do you arrive at this idea from the quoted conclusion that Hyperion's license to bundle AmigaOS with other software might not be exclusive? How would this negate Cloanto's "right to distribute ROMs"?

If Hyperion has the exclusive right to deliver AmigaOS with hardware...a ROM IS hardware, not just media.

>> It also could be used as an argument excusing that messy situation of Hyperion's
>> bundling of Workbench 1.3 with OS4.

>That's not how I read it.

IF they can prove they have the right to distribute AmigaOS variants (other than 3.1) with hardware, it at least negates the CDs that were shipped with hardware (a fairly high % I'd imagine).

>> in a choice between him and the Bill Buck/Genesi/MorphOS side...I'd always favor team blue

>"Bill Buck/Genesi/MorphOS side" is so last decade

Well...that would actually bring me a LOT more up to date, as I'm still spending a lot of time hacking 6809 and 68K based hardware.

Anyway, we've seen from posts quoting Herman's that indicated he thought his settlement granted him use of alternative ISAs.

The question for me is this, is Hyperion's right to create new variants of AmigaOS limited to OS4 and above or is it anything beyond OS3.1?

> If Hyperion has the exclusive right to deliver AmigaOS with hardware...a ROM IS hardware,
> not just media.

Alright, I was just thinking of ROM image files, not physical ROMs. But then, a ROM is just a storage medium, just like a CD or DVD (which also can contain ROM image files).

> we've seen from posts quoting Herman's that indicated he thought his settlement granted
> him use of alternative ISAs.

Yes, and having read the settlement agreement myself, I think he is correct. Problem is that Hyperion doesn't own most of OS4 but the individual, non-paid developers do, who Hyperion likely just got an object code (PPC) license (as opposed to source code license) from.

> is Hyperion's right to create new variants of AmigaOS limited to OS4 and above or is it
> anything beyond OS3.1?

I'm not sure about that, but seeing as Cloanto didn't put anything about Hyperion's OS3.1.x attempts in their "prayer for relief"...

>> is Hyperion's right to create new variants of AmigaOS limited to OS4 and above or is it
>> anything beyond OS3.1?

>I'm not sure about that, but seeing as Cloanto didn't put anything about Hyperion's OS3.1.x attempts in their >"prayer for relief"...

Now that is interesting. So they don't even intend to address the gray areas.
Then they might just win this.

It will all come down to Ben's contention that he has a right to include early variants of Workbench bundled with his software. And I've seen no proof of that statement.

Again, I have to wonder what the outcome of this all will be.

Your analysis of this situation has been very helpful.
No overtly emotional response, just research and thoughtful consideration.

>> Cloanto didn't put anything about Hyperion's OS3.1.x attempts in their "prayer for relief"

> Now that is interesting.

And it didn't become less interesting since I mentioned it in comments #12 and #56 ;-)

Quote:

Hmm...short term memory loss w/o pot, must be age.

According to the description on his site, Jens' new Buddha IDE card will come with OS version 1.3, 2.1 and 3.1 licensed from Hyperion. This appears to expand upon the March 2013 license agreement which granted Individual Computers to include Kickstart 1.3 and 3.1 with accelerator cards for A500, A1000 and A2000 computers.

https://icomp.de/shop-icomp/en/produkt-details/product/buddha-ide.html

Quote:

It seems piracy is only bad when Ben isn't the one doing it. Lest we also forget his C64 cracking ventures.

@rob

That's interesting, thanks.

Apparently (in the context of Cloanto's case against Hyperion) we are not only talking about past and present tense but also future products not even on the market yet. Does the fact that this is happening in Europe prevent Cloanto from using it as meaningful evidence in the *current* case?

It almost appears as Hyperion has replaced their by now most certainly non-existent OS4 business with a scheme where they practically are selling Cloanto's *entire IP portfolio* to everyone and his dog without Cloanto's consent. Is there anything more of it they can sell? Any other Commodore stuff? Together with their Workbench trademark infringement, as well as them trying to register Cloanto's since long "AmigaForever" and "Workbench" trademarks, this sure shows the true colors of Hyperion Entertainment.

Quote:

Once a pirate, always a pirate...