I misinterpreted your first response.
My post was composed hastily and concluded poorly. This was partly due to the anziety I felt at seeing information quoted that insinuated that the MorphOS development team were somehow involved with Amiga Inc. and Bill McEswen.
With two AAS degrees and one BS degree and most of my class work in economics and business (as well as decades of working for/with numerous small corporations in my State) I have a jundiced view of contracts and the enforcability of business agreements in general.
I know you think very literally and believe that there can be devined a precise meaning in words, phrases and statements.
I however live in the most litegeous society in the world. Its a place where two parties can come to very different interpretations of even the most carefully worded document..
There is a common principal in contract law in the US that if one party of a contract believes that the other partiy's actions do not display the "good faith" intent to fulllfil their contractual obligations, that the first party may assume that their obligations are null and void while still holding the second party to their contractual obligations..
Does it sound complicated allowing business entities to make an assumption before a court ruling? Trust me, this precident is one of the reasons there are so many lawsuits in the US. Basically its due to in imprecise nature of language, interpretation, and basically the fair treatment of the other party in the contract.
What does this have to do with Amiga Inc and Hyperion? First, let ME be completely speculative (and in order to avoid be accused of slander let me remind you this IS entirely speculation).
Suppose when Hyperion's representatives met with Amiga Inc's representatives during the required non-binding arbitration meetings before Amiga Inc's lawsuit, Hyperion's lawyers stated their opinion that the contract that was originally in place between Hyperion and Amiga Inc was null and void because te transfer of the obligation between the four corporations holding the contract (Amino, KMOS, and both Amiga Incs) was not valid? They could also argue that the stipulations in the contract (ie time) were not met and finally argue that Amiga Incs claim to ownership of the IP in question was not valid or enforcable due to failure to properly transfer the property.
Were Amiga Inc's lawyers sufficently swayed by their opponent's arguement they might suggest to their client that it would be in both parties interests to settle the lawsuit before it went to trial.
Why would Hyperion agree to that? Because they would obtain legally documented evidence of Amiga Inc's agreement that they(and their developers) were the sole owners of AOS4,the only parties allowed to market products with the names ptreviously mentioned (AmigaOS, AmigaOne, etc), and the sole licensee of AOS3.1 to develop future versions of AOS. Avoiding a potential legal challenge Amiga Inc was able to continue tgo claim ownership of the IPs it claim to own.
Depending on how long ago the improper transfer can be proven to have occured the IP may be considered abandoned (Amiga Inc claim to it would not be valid unless it was properly transfered or the required time had lapsed for THEM to re-apply for control of the trademarks/IP, again as abandoned). Complicated? Hey, US law is what allowed there to be two different Amiga Incs in two different states claiming to be different entities but both holding the same IP (after several claimed transfers between all four corporations).
So my speculation icomplete. There is no way to verify any of the particulars of an out of court settlement except for the information the parties themselves agree to disclose.
In tis case, we have a settlement agreement (which is actually a contract) between Hyperion and Amiga Inc.
So why does this worry me? Since ther parties have agreed to forego the legal precedings and instead have come to a mutuallty agreed upon settlement, we only have the good will of both parties preventing a continuation of their dispute.
Should either Hyperion or amiga Inc feel that the other has failed to meet their obligations, they can then file a lawsuit claiming damages and perhaps (if they can argue their position before a judge) obtain a preliminary injunction against the other party (OR their associates) preventing use or distribution of goods and or services derived from the IP in question until the matter has completed litigation. I believe a similar situation occured once in the Amiga's history already (CD32 units maybe - I can't recall).
This unstable situation is why the developers of MorphOS should not allow themselves to be drawn into any busibness arrangement which could place them at risk of potential lawsuits.
I know everyone here would contend that MorphOS is a seperate, legally developed product.
But two things need to be kept in mind. First, that an entity only have a claim (not that they prove it) in order to file a lawsuit. Second, that in contactual or business relationships with another company (like Amiga Inc) the MOS developers need to be aware that if they assist Amiga Inc in the violation of a contactual agreement, that they too may become a party in further litigation.
Now I know all of you have an opinion on the legal obligations set by the agreement/settlement, but remember, tin order for all the involved paties to wind up back in court all that is required is that one of the two parties in the agreement believe that the other has failed to meet their obligations (and thus they file a lawsuit).
IAmiga Inc has apparently agreed that Hyperion has the sole right to use AOS3.1 develop successors to AOS3.1 (in the form of AOS4 andAOS5 but not limited to those products) even though MorphOS is a seperately developed product (that has been on the market for some time) Hyperion could argue that Amiga Inc's use of the product is intended to circumvent their agreement (rendering their obligation to Amiga Inc null and void)..
I know this may sound implausible, but MorphOS has BETTER compatibility with AOS3.1 than A
OS4 (the JIT compiler rendering it essentially compatible with binaries that don't depend on the direct addressing of legacy hardware. Hyperion could easily argue that a business relationship between Amiga Inc. and the MorphOS developers was an attempt to circumvent the agreement between both paties and initiate legal action against all parties involved.
I can't stress this enough, the last thing that MorphOS needs is to be involved in the legal morass that is the Amiga curse. It could be expensive and final decisions could be years after the suits were filed.
A little advice, you guys should issue astatement refuting this information and assertingb your independance from both companies.
Sorry for the length of the post and for any spelling errors or gramatical problems. I thought this matter was important enough to post this hastily and I promise to edit it tomorrow (if its still here)
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"