>>> 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.

Quote:

It's black and white - not ownership, but rights. Cloanto were granted the licence by the legal license holders. Hyperion have no ownership of AmigaOS at all, and theirs only covers the entity known as "AmigaOS 4" and never had any other rights.

> AmiKit drivers

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=11137&start=514
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=11137&start=569
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=11137&start=574

;-)

It's a typo. Keep your panties on.

Quote:

No Kenny, Cloanto was a licensee that claims they purchased ownership of AmigaOS after Hyperion had secured exclusive license to develop Amiga OS from Amiga Inc.

Its not at all clear cut except for the fact that Cloanto's rights to a license for emulation was supported in the previous agreement, and Amiga Inc. granted an exclusive to Hyperion to develop Amiga OS.

So Amino/Amiga Inc.'s attempt to sell an unfettered IP to a previous licensee is likely to have little affect on Hyperion's previous binding legal agreement.

To simplify, Amiga Inc. cannot not transfer more rights to Cloanto than it has itself. Get it?

No I understand your sentiment, and acknowledge the hard feelings of many in the community.
But courts don't rule based on what might be best, rulings are based on laws, legal precedents, and binding agreements.

It simple, Hyperion is the only entity legally entitled to develop from Amiga OS 3.1 source code.

Previous versions of Amiga OS muddy the issues surrounding this case, but nothing changes the fact that Hyperion secured its rights before Cloanto tried to purchase the product.

> 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.

Depends on who "they" is actually ;-)

@Jim, you are passionate about this issue, I’ll give you that, but you are confused and don’t even know the difference between key concepts like trade marks and copyrights, or ownership and “license to use” for that matter, and you have for some reasons swallowed all Ben Hermans imaginary clauses and interpretations of “the agreement” whole, so it’s kind of pointless to discuss this issue with you. Could you please tone down the TL;DR posts on this a bit? What you say doesn’t get more true with more words.

Ownership of copyrights is ownership period.

IANAL but I'm inclined to agree with Jim's assessment of the situation.

The Settlement Agreement gave Hyperion a broad set of rights and placed many responsibilities and restrictions on Amiga Inc. Amiga Inc.'s subsequent deal with Cloanto seems to be invalid as it contravenes many of the terms of that agreement.

>>>> Cloanto's claim to ownership of Amiga OS is threadbare at best.

>>> not ownership, but rights. Cloanto were granted the licence by
>>> the legal license holders.

>> No Kenny, Cloanto [...] claims they purchased ownership of AmigaOS

> Jim, [...] you [...] don’t even know the difference between key
> concepts like [...] ownership and “license to use” [...]. [...]
> Ownership of copyrights is ownership

To me it doesn't read like Jim is the one who doesn't know this :-)

Quote:

Thank Andreas, I'm pretty sure I have a grasp of the situation, and no grandama I haven't had a glass of Herman's koolaid.

I'm just trying to put this in a historic perspective for you.
Herman's managed to secure a really good settlement and licensing agreements that even acknowledges that Amiga Inc. has obligations to other licensees, particularly for emulation.

The problem is that that document also places restrictions on Amiga Inc.'s rights in regard to Amiga OS moving forward.

The Amino/Amiga Inc. deal with Cloanto occurs AFTER that settlement agreement is in place, and again, Amiga Inc. cannot legally transfer rights it does not have.

Specifically the right to commercialize Amiga OS.

Cloanto, as a previous licensee can assert the right to distribute Amiga OS for emulation, but it can't buy the ownership of an encumbered IP without regard to the restrictions placed on the current IP holder.

I have no love of Ben Herman's, but Mike should have researched this purchase better or contacted a lawyer before he made the mistake of giving money to a con man.

Again, he got chumped.

Quote:

No, not really. Cloanto's license dates back to Escom, a real company with a real legal department. Cloanto has allowed Hyperion to exist out of goodwill.

The way I see it Hyperion is risking losing everything. Personally I hope they do lose everything. Cloanto is a better guardian of Amiga classic than Hyperion, and it is not even close. All Cloanto has to do is sell Amiga Forever and nothing else, and it would be insanely better than HYPErion's scorched earth policy trying to destroy every other company it ever interacts with.