Quote:

Given all the references in the Amino filing to the amended complaint by Hyperion, I'll repeat the link to that document for valid reference:
Hyperion amended complaint of April 12, 2018

#6

Quote:

WHAM!!! Hyperion started a fight they cannot win. Bad move by a desperate lawyer.

That would depend on what is in the settlement agreement, which Amino appears to be curiously clueless about.
Amino's opinion about what is enforceable isn't germane to the situation.

What it is going to come down to, is what exactly DID the parties agree to.
No question that Hyperion has the sole license to develop 3.1 into 4.0-5.0.
Did Amino assign any other rights to Hyperion?

Quote:

???? I think it was very clear to all parties that the only thing Amino/Amiga Inc. was giving to Hyperion Entertainment with the settlement, was the rights to develop AmigaOS4 from the 3.1 source code, plus the use of AmigaOne, AmigaOS, etc., only in connection with the development and marketing of AmigaOS4.

From where I sit, it appears that Amino has an excellent grasp of what is in the settlement, and it is Hyperion Entertainment who are trying to twist the interpretation of the settlement to include much more than was ever intended.

Your stance on this topic puzzles me Jim, can you give me some reasoning for why you feel this way?

No Dave, the statement is from Amino, and it's vague as to what other rights they might have assigned.
It does stated that if 1.3 was included, itvwasn't their intent.
But that wouldn't make it null and void.

It all comes down to what is presented to the judge.

Quote:

How about fucking YES, Jim.

> the statement is from Amino, and it's vague as to what other rights they might
> have assigned. It does stated that if 1.3 was included, itvwasn't their intent.

Actually, what's stated regarding 1.3 is anything but vague (as already quoted in my previous comment):

"The Settlement Agreement did not grant Hyperion the right to do anything with any Amiga software prior to Amiga OS 3.1, and permitted no use of Kickstart 1.3, which is not found in the source code of Amiga OS 3.1."

Quote:

Hyperion claim they have the rights (or at least, the rights to sell) to previous versions of AmigaOS from the settlement. Amino think different. From what I've always read from the settlement, I've never seen where Hyperion's claim comes from, yet they've always openly stated it since the settlement. Hyperion have then built that into a claim they have the rights to develop 3.x, which Cloanto and Amino are adamant they do not own.

They've been brought in to lend weight to Cloanto's claims that Hyperion are restricted in taking legal action against settlement partners. If that is upheld, Hyperion's case will be thrown out.

Of particular interest is the phrase "unclean hands", referring to a company that has acted corruptly, in bad faith or immorally. I guess that's how Cloanto and Amino see Ben's shoehorning of "We're allowed to develop OS4 from OS3" to "We're allowed to develop OS3.1 to OS3.1.4".

Quote:

Agan, Amino's opinion. What is actually in the settlement documention?
That is what is important.
The wording, whether "tricked" or not defines the rights and limitations of each party.
Not statements made years afterwards.

Amiga Documents hosts a copy of the settlement.

Here

I can't find any reference to previous versions of AmigaOS at all, beyond the statement that all other trademarks are unaffected.

Hyperion are explicitly stated to get exclusive ownership of OS4 and the AmigaOS 4 brand, but nothing else. Whoever 3.x and below belonged to before the settlement, they still do.

Edit: Made link a clickie because I keep forgetting MZ won't do that for me.

Edit 2:

Here's the relevant bit:

Quote:

[ Edited by KennyR 23.08.2018 - 02:00 ]

>>> the statement is from Amino, and it's vague as to what other rights they might
>>> have assigned. It does stated that if 1.3 was included, itvwasn't their intent.

>> Actually, what's stated regarding 1.3 is anything but vague [...]

> Agan, Amino's opinion.

Exactly. And what you claimed as Amino's stated opinion is certainly not what I read as their stated opinion.

Not vague by any existing definition of the word.

Thanks Kenny,
I'm still wading through this document, but the first thing I noticed was the prohibition of Amino/Amino Inc. from commercializing the software outside of existing licenses (except for emulation).
Sale of Amiga OS to Cloanto is definitely, if the intent is use outside of emulation, a clear violation this concept.
I haven't found anything specific to OS1.3, but the prohibition of release of substantially similar software (again, outside of emulation) would seem to affect Cloanto's ability to sell OS Roms for use in new hardware (whether that is a 1.3 or 3.1 rom).

Again, if you are confused by my insistence that Cloanto stance is weak, re-read my post #27, and then read through the settlement agreement.

The only thing it makes seem "null and void" is Amiga Inc's sale of the OS for commercial uses outside of emulation.

[ Edited by Jim 28.08.2018 - 21:39 ]

@Andreas_Wolf

If you can offer me an opinion on the following I would appreciate it.

the Amiga Inc. renewal of Amiga (euipo)

Yet the paperwork continues to get filed for Amiga (euipo), as well as continued paperwork regarding objections to these other filings for Amiga (euipo).

What possible reasoning do you think could be behind this?

links with filings as recent as today

#6

> @Andreas_Wolf
> If you can offer me an opinion on the following I would appreciate it. [...]

Sorry, I'm as clueless as the next person.

@thread

JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties

estimated Trial Days: 5

#6

Finally a trial.

Popcorn on the ready.

I, for one, am none too joyous over these events. At best, Cloanto might be able to secure some right to 1.3.
At worst, they could very well find that they were sold a bill of goods without value by AInc.

Hyperion's position doesn't look that bad. The inclusion of 1.3 in their OS4 packages may have been a mistake.
But the history of cooperation between the two entities will help bolster their claims, as will the text of the settlement document.

Mike is gambling here, and Ben isn't likely to lose much.

Again, it's my opinion that this will turn out suboptimal for those that aren't fans of Hyperion.

[ Edited by Jim 17.09.2018 - 08:34 ]

What are you talking about Jim? ”Secure some rights?” Cloanto’s copyright is even registered in the USPTO Copyright register...

Quote:

Copyright to a name used in vending an emulations package.
Big deal.
By taking this to court, Mike risks invalidating his right to to IP he thinks he purchased from Amiga Inc.
Not the smartest move when the company you have bought the assets from I'd known for shady business practices.

Again, read the detail of the settlement agreement. Amiga Inc. agreed to forego commercial use of Amiga OS outside of current licenses for emulation.
They were expressly forbidden from releasing products that compeated with Hyperion's.

That limitation isn't likely to be overlooked in this claimed tansfer of rights.

Again, Mike is risking losing the assets he paid for.
Not smart.

[ Edited by Jim 16.09.2018 - 11:49 ]

Quote:

True, only trouble is, all Hyperion rights come from the same source too.

> Copyright to a name

...is a (registered) trademark. A mere name usually lacks the threshold of originality to be copyrightable, even more so if it's a well known natural language word.

> By taking this to court, Mike risks invalidating his right to to IP
> he thinks he purchased from Amiga Inc.

By not taking this to court, he'd voluntarily forgo his rights to the IP he thinks he purchased from Amiga Inc. :-)

Quote:

That last statement is the Cruz of the biscuit.
And you seem to have a good grasp of what a trademark is,words or symbols, considered an asset, but not truly IP.

What this case centers on, is whether IP that is legally entangled in licensing agreements can be reassigned to a third party without regard to the limitations of those licensing agreements.

SO, whether you all care for Ben Herman's, or whatever your personal opinions are as to the people involved and the matters this case pertains to....
NONE of that matters what so ever.
This case will involve a strict interpretation of legal agreements in place, the order in which they were enacted, and the propriety of each agreement.

As I have said repeatedly, Amiga Inc.'s previous legally binding settlement and licensing agreements casts onto doubt the validity of Cloanto's claim to complete control of the IP.

I predict that that is is not going to end as well for Mike as it will for Ben.
At worst, Ben"s rights will be restricted to OS4 and all future variants of AmigaOS.

Whether Amiga Inc. can sell right to a product for commercial use outside of emulation is questionable.
Further, they are PROHBITTED from creating products that compete with products created by Hyperion with this IP.

Cloanto, in its attempt to secure further development right by purchasing the rights to Amiga OS has made the mistake of assuming that Amiga Inc. has the right to reassign ownership of those assets without limitation.

And so another person in our community is abused by being foolish enough to trust Bill McEwen.

All of you that take offense to my stance, your anger is misplaced as it should be directed at McEwen, not Hermans.

Mike has my sympathy, but in trusting Bill, he was a chump.

AND, if any of you care to challenge me in a logical argument based on the legal precedents involved in this case, keep in mind that my degrees are in business and business management, with a strong understanding of the legal aspects of business, and the constraints that legal agreements place on business relationships.

No one has presented an argument here, as of yet, that provides any significant counter to the positions I have have stated. Nor do I think any of you can.

As before, I have sympathy for Mike and Cloanto, but this is not going to end well for them unless the court is swayed by emotive argument.
And courts don't generally operate that way.

[ Edited by Jim 16.09.2018 - 15:37 ]

Legal arguments aside, it's better if Hyperion are kept out of the Amiga retro scene. They're absolute poison. Pretty soon they'd be doing everything they did in the NG: exploiting partners and acting in poor faith, making legal threats and spreading FUD in public, and generally making a fresh and friendly scene into the abandoned cultist-ridden shithole they turned NG into. Even more so, as they have a lot of debt they need to pay off, and that makes them even less pleasant than before. If that were indeed possible...

You heard them just last week pulling the old Hausserisms. "Don't buy AmiKit drivers because our drivers are better." Oh yeah, and when will those be released?

They weren't AmiKit drivers, they were drivers sponsored by Aeon/Amiga Kit.
And they very well may have a better way of resolving MAC addresses, that is yet to be seen as they are holding off releasing these drivers until an OS4 update is released.
I doubt you all forget that I consider Mark Olsen to be a friend and that of course I think his driver is likely to be superior to whatever Hyperion is contracting for.

My point was and is that Cloanto's claim to ownership of Amiga OS is threadbare at best.

Whether you want Ben Hetmans and Hyperion in the drivers seat or not is not the point.

This trial may do little except to cement Hyperion's claim to control of future development of those assets.

Again, this can ALL be laid at Bill McEwen's feet. He was a piss poor businessan, and the future of our legacy was handed to a fool who mismanaged it and through legal wranglings lost control of it.

Its time to get over it and focus on MorphOS and AROS, OR migrate to another platform.