Dumping here instead of making a new thread.

Number6, you know anything about this?

Quote:

Source

I asked Fiery Phoenix where he got this information in that thread. I don't follow these things like you do. Does Cloanto own most Commodore 8bit IP these days? Logos, trademarks? Is there still another entity giving out licenses?

Quote:

I can only comment on the trademarks, since that is what I looked into for years. You'll recall the older history...C=Holdings B.V. prevailed in their lawsuit against Asiarim and Asiarim's licenses to Manomio and CommodoreUSA were terminated as part of the result.

Since then:

2 links at bottom should bring us current

3 links at bottom relate to who filed this action

It is entirely possible that C=Holdings B.V. and/or Polabe Holdings N.V. have since licensed their trademarks. I haven't looked into that.

#6

> Does Cloanto own most Commodore 8bit IP these days? Logos, trademarks?

In the course of Escom's demise, the Commodore trademarks were split from the rest, i.e. the Commodore copyrights and patents and the Amiga trademarks, copyrights and patents. The Commodore trademarks went to Tulip whereas the rest went to Gateway. Cloanto and C-A Acquisition inherited through numerous stopovers from Gateway (bar the Amiga patents), so they do not own the Commodore trademarks. As to the current state of the Commodore trademark lineage, number6 posted various comments/links in this thread (and possibly others).

@redrumloa

re:your post 876

Commodore talk will take us a bit far off-topic, nevertheless I stumbled onto this in relation to your post and links referring to Steve Wilcox and Elite Systems.

interesting read

The entire escapade from all the companies either marketting apparel, claiming rights or stating their intent to market is quite ludicrous, imo. Clearly it is open season on abuse of both Commodore and Amiga IP these days.

Oh, now there is this too:
Source

#6

Quote:

Document now available

#6

I don't know if Cloanto can win on the argument of Ben using Monard, but it's going to hurt Monard in the pocket if every potential client can google them and find what they've been up to.

He never should have gotten Hyperion and Monard mixed. He never should have tried to take on Amiga Inc. He should have given up when OS4 flopped. He never should have signed anything with Amiga Inc. He should have given up when PPC Linux gaming flopped.

But he didn't.

> Document now available

What's "Kickstart 3.1.3" and "AmigaOS 3.1.3" mentioned on pages 11 and 17, respectively?

Quote:

A mistake, surely. There is no such version.

Quote:

Agree.

But page 8 is still a curiosity to me. It is the 1st time I've seen the checkmark mentioned as an asset owned by Amiga. In fact, postings by those with more knowledge than I would mention quite the contrary. Referred to in the doc as:
Quote:

#6

I have no idea about the checkmark. Amiga Inc and Hyperion pushed the Boingball so aggressively I always assumed the checkmark was owned by no-one and so generic as to be not actually trade-markable.

It isn't very Amiga specific either. The 3.1 disks had a rainbow (and later standalone ones had a falling block check pattern). The 2.1 and 3.0 disks had a funny colour paint smear in a square thing. AmigaOS 1.3 didn't have anything AFAIR, just the Commodore chicken lips. It was only older 2.04 disks that had the rainbow checkmark, as far as I know - although it apparently varied between country, Amiga model, and source.

Who owned any of that? No idea.

>> What's "Kickstart 3.1.3" and "AmigaOS 3.1.3" mentioned on pages 11 and 17, respectively?

> A mistake, surely.

Yes, but what is it supposed to mean considering it reads (emphasis mine) "Without permission from the Cloanto Parties or their predecessors-in-interest, Hyperion has used and/or registered AMIGA, AMIGAOS, KICKSTART, WORKBENCH, POWERED BY AMIGA, AMIGA FOREVER, and the Boing Ball Mark, among others, in connection with the distribution, sale, and/or licensing of various products, including New Hyperion 3.1 Kickstart ROM, AmigaOS Workbench 3.1, Kickstart 1.2, Kickstart 1.3, and Kickstart 3.1, “Kickstart 3.1 (40.72) for desktop Amigas,” AmigaOS 3.1.3, the 3.1.4 Products (i.e., “AmigaOS 3.1.4), and various articles of merchandise." on page 16/17?

> The 3.1 disks had a rainbow (and later standalone ones had a falling block check
> pattern). The 2.1 and 3.0 disks had a funny colour paint smear in a square thing.
> AmigaOS 1.3 didn't have anything AFAIR, just the Commodore chicken lips. It was
> only older 2.04 disks that had the rainbow checkmark, as far as I know - although
> it apparently varied between country, Amiga model, and source.

Yes, there seem to have been variations. This is what Greg Donner's Workbench Nostalgia shows:

rainbow checkmark/tick: 1.0, 1.1
rainbow: 2.04, 2.05, 3.1
colour paint smear: 2.1, 3.0

The rainbow checkmark was in all the Kickstart boot images post v1.3, in fact the "boing ball" was never used here at all until Hyperion did so very recently (and highlighting the switch in the feature list of updates).



I'd say that the rainbow checkmark is very much associated with Amiga. Many demos, much graphics, etc, throughout history testifies of this. Especially among people using the *Commodore* Amiga's (and then left), who will probably remember and put the checkmark design mark at a similar brand recognition level as the C= or Atari's logotype. Those people will probably recognize the boing ball as well, but not necessarily as an Amiga design mark, but perhaps more because of the historical A1000 demo. The "boing ball" as a design mark is more associated with post-Commodore (especially 3.5/3.9 boxes, "Powered By Amiga" stickers etc) and "NG" stuff in general I would say, and (today) Hyperion's OS4 in particular.

In fact, the "Amiga History" website even show the post-Commodore "Amiga Technologies" using the design mark on manuals...



...and only with the later "Amiga International" the boing ball was introduced.



The Commodore (or rather Village Tronic Marketing) manuals didn't use neither the rainbow checkmark (though a "rainbow" is kind of there) nor the boing ball, but instead seems to be focusing on the mark "AMIGA" written in ITC Garamond Italic (?) font...



...but again, the checkmark has been in the boot-screen since 1991(?)...


The "Amiga.org" logo kind of sums it up I think...

BTW, the 2.0-3.1 (using the check-mark in the KS boot-screen) has been real products on the market the whole time, and continue to be so today.


Edit:
Oh, of course, the rainbow checkmark was also on the very front of the first Amiga made, the A1000. On the front cover of the actual product, on the cardboard box, on the floppy disks, and on the user manual. Doesn't get more "original design mark" than that, right?




Rainbow checkmark and boing ball from the same original machine. But the checkmark as a design mark used on actual products, and the boing ball merely as a tech demo for a show.

Quote:

I'm glad to finally see Tortious Interference invoked. Maybe it has before, but first time I have seen it. This is one of the angles they REALLY need to go with.

Never give Cloanto a licence to bundle your software with theirs, because they will then claim that they own all rights on your software.

Quote:

False claim with no basis in facts, or evidence to back up such a slanderous claim. You obviously have an emotional grudge against Cloanto, or are being paid by Hyperion Entertainment, to spread such FUD over and over again (or both). Show me one piece of licensed software that Cloanto has bundled, and then the software author has claimed that Cloanto has claimed to own their software, without first negotiating the purchase of that software.

@amigadave:

AmigaOS, obviously. And they also have a habit of referring to WinUAE as "their emulator" as though Mike Battilana wrote it instead of Toni Wilen etc. Their product is basically just a bundle of two things they didn't even write, UAE + AmigaOS. In the case of AmigaOS they have also taken deliberate actions to prevent further development of it.

But of course to point out any of this means I have to be being paid by Hyperion out of their secret bucketloads of money, apparently.

[ Edited by Minuous 12.06.2019 - 06:12 ]

Quote:
This is not my experience.

Mike personally contacted me to ask for a permission to include some of my software, even though I had explicitly placed the software in public domain. I also get full credit for my work, too, even though for it being in public domain (and such crediting thus would not be necessary at all).

In fact in my experience is that Cloanto is taking licensing extremely seriously, something which is really rare in Amiga world these days. Cloanto and Mike are the good guys in my books.

> my experience is that Cloanto is taking licensing extremely seriously

See comments #30 and #108 for converse experience :-)

Meanwhile, here's how Hyperion stole my work: https://sintonen.fi/amigaos-sdk-copyright-infringement/

The documentation included in the AmigaOS SDK is still clearly based on copypasting my work. Some words have been changed by search & replace.

[ Edited by Piru 12.06.2019 - 02:45 ]

Quote:

Hyperion has a habit of referring to OS4 as "our operating system" despite never paying most of the developers who wrote it. The same developers that actually own the code too, Hyperion owns pretty much nothing other than rights to publish it and the name and that's looking like they will lose that too.

As for UAE, I'll let the authors of the licence it's developers CHOOSE to release it under educate you on using and selling it. (You know, just like your beloved Hyperion sell GPL software too)

https://gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Hah. Anyone who's going to try to convince us that anyone has worse business practices than Hyperion has a pretty hard sell on their hands. I don't think even the fanboys believe that any more.

@thread

New filing.

Author of crucial definition in 2009 Amiga-Hyperion Settlement Agreement takes stand for Amiga Parties

#6

Quote:

Wow!

And with that I’m not talking about the rate this guy is charging (given the time spent on browsing through the RKRM’s and writing that document, it’s not impossible that the Cloanto/Amiga parties spent more on this document than some other entities spent on Reaction and P96 combined), no, I mean that they have actually produced a real authority in the field, one of the guys that helped defining the terms scientifically that the whole “agreement” (or at least Hyperion’s case) rests on, the agreement text is even using wordings and definition from his books albeit mixed up in a confused manner. And here he is, dismissing the “agreement” completely, step by step and from several approaches in a very easy to follow manner, arriving at the conclusion that the agreement simply never granted Hyperion what they are arguing for. Slam dunk!

> the guys [...] helped defining the terms scientifically that the whole “agreement”
> (or at least Hyperion’s case) rests on [...]. [...] he is [...] dismissing the
> “agreement” completely, [...] arriving at the conclusion that the agreement
> simply never granted Hyperion what they are arguing for.

I don't think that this is true in the broad sense you think it is. The dismissal and conclusion refer to a very specific point (emphasis mine):

"the inclusion of the term “Software Architecture” in the definition of “Software” in the Settlement Agreement cannot give [...] Hyperion [...] any rights in or to the object code or source code of Amiga operating systems prior to version 3.1. [...] If a party were to believe that the term “Software,” because its definition says “including without limitation its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation,” gave that party the right to source code from an earlier version of that program or any other program, that party would be categorically mistaken."

Besides, the fact that the Amiga Parties signed this "tautological", "absurd" and "nonsensical" crap in 2009 speaks volumes :-)