Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 4692 from 2009/1/28
From: Delaware, USA
> 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.
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 ]
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"