@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @T_Bone Don't you remember? After having acquired Amiga Inc., KMOS changed their name to Amiga Inc., effectively making Amiga Inc. and KMOS the one and the same.

Hmmm, I guess so, I never followed the entire KMOS thing as closely as I should have I guess.

I still don't know why he'd start KMOS, buy Amiga, then just walk away from it, unless it was purchased from him, unless he never had to pay for it in the first place. I haven't done my homework on KMOS I guess.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

Quote:

jkirk wrote: btw iirc the reason to be concerned is the same reason that landowners need to know exactly where their land lines are. did you know if a person puts up a fence around his yard and crosses somebody elses land in the process. and the other person does not notice or care that he did that. after 5 years the land becomes the property of the person that put up the fence.

Hi jkirk

The law allows for "truth" to "change"?

It's truely f*'ed up, ain't it?


For instance, even though YOU own a PATENT, if YOU can't take a bigger corporation to court because YOU don't have enough money to, THEY can take it.

What kind of rule of law is THAT?????


I REFUSE to believe in god because the USA government is running an UNJUST society. That ain't any kind of god I'm willing to tolerate, even if "it" (god creature) exists.

@Atheist

From what I know, it's just like that. If you don't have fat paychecks for lawyers, you won't enforce your rights against big players. If you're lucky they will buy you out with your assets and give you some job in mid-managment.

_________________
OpenWindows Initiative. Port PS3 hardware to bananas. For free. Join today and receive expired $50 cupon from AI!

@T_Bone

About that, we can only speculate. However, to get to the most interesting question for this topic (which is not if Amiga Corporation is infringing on Amiga Inc's trademark or not, mind you), namely who is their *new* CEO? Considering that Bill McEwan seems to have been their Vice President throughout Garry's time in office, he is ironicly enough a not at all unlikely candidate. I'd say it's either him, or if their investors arranged for a replacement for Garry somehow. Time will tell...

Last edited by samface on 23-Oct-2005 at 09:12 AM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @T_Bone About that, we can only speculate. However, to get to the most interesting question for this topic (which is not if Amiga Corporation is infringing on Amiga Inc's trademark or not, mind you), namely who is their *new* CEO? Considering that Bill McEwan seems to have been their Vice President throughout Garry's time in office, he is ironicly enough a not at all unlikely candidate. I'd say it's either him, or if their investors arranged for a replacement for Garry somehow. Time will tell...

Who are their investors anyway? Is there anybody who knows that?

_________________
AmigaOS or MorphOS on x86 would sell orders of magnitude more than the current,
hardware-intensive solutions. And they'd go faster.-- D.Haynie

@Atheist

Quote:

For instance, even though YOU own a PATENT, if YOU can't take a bigger corporation to court because YOU don't have enough money to, THEY can take it.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

That is ridiculous, if you own a patent and you don't have enough money to enforce it, someone can't just "take" it from you.

@Darth_X

Quote:

By the way, I just want to point out that I look like my avatar. Do you guys look like your avatars?

Yes, i do!

_________________
Proud Amigan since 1987

@Twin

Say that you have a patent for something. A company uses it and you can't sue them due to the lack of money. Then, after a year or so, a smaller company uses it and you decide to sue them. You will go to court and probably lose due to the fact that you hadn't enforced the patent earlier.

_________________

@AMiGR

Quote:

AMiGR wrote: @Twin Say that you have a patent for something. A company uses it and you can't sue them due to the lack of money. Then, after a year or so, a smaller company uses it and you decide to sue them. You will go to court and probably lose due to the fact that you hadn't enforced the patent earlier.

Patents don't necessarily need to be enforced, Trademarks do.

If you have a patent, you have established legal ownership of the IP already, trademarks are much looser, and must usually be proven by use/enforcement in the market, sometimes even if registered, which is optional.
...or something to that effect.

Last edited by T_Bone on 24-Oct-2005 at 05:57 AM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 24-Oct-2005 at 05:35 AM.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote: For instance, even though YOU own a PATENT, if YOU can't take a bigger corporation to court because YOU don't have enough money to, THEY can take it.

You can't take a patent without suing someone for it. You can try using it and seeing if you get away with it, but you don't suddenly become the patent owner because you violated someone elses patent.

Trademarks are a different story though. If you use someone's trademark for a reasonably long enough time that you've established it as a name that no longer specifically identifies a product, it becomes almost impossible for the original trademark user to legally argue that the consumer identifies that brand with his own product only.

e.g. it would be difficult for IBM to suddenly claim that nobody can use "PC" anymore to refer to non-"IBM PC" computers, as the cat is out of the bag already and a "PC", even though once an IBM trademark, is now in common generic use. However, with "patents", violations are violations, no matter how many times it's been violated.

Quote:

I REFUSE to believe in god because the USA government is running an UNJUST society

You're more religious than I am apparently, I'd be as much as a God skeptic no matter how the US was run.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@all

Poor companies who's IP/patents/trademarks are being violated arn't the sitting ducks they seem...

It's actually a good way to make an otherwise poor company suddenly appear as an attractive investment. If [Rich Software Company] started calling it's OS "AmigaOS4", you can bet your arse hyperion/Amiga Inc/ whoever would suddenly see a flood of investment offers from VC's in anticipation of a winnable case against a cash happy resource!

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@Manu

Investors:

Netventures

GAPVC press release mention Amiga Inc:

GapVC

Mr Bill McEwen mention Invisible Hands / Kouri Capital (related to Quantum Hedge Fund / American Heritage Fund).
Invisible Hands and Kouri Capital are both BANKRUPT.

@AMiGR

Quote:

Say that you have a patent for something. A company uses it and you can't sue them due to the lack of money. Then, after a year or so, a smaller company uses it and you decide to sue them. You will go to court and probably lose due to the fact that you hadn't enforced the patent earlier.

That is incorrect, as T_Bone mentioned there is no law which states you must enforce your patent rights. It is up to you when and who you enforce your rights against.

@Atheist

Quote:

It's truely f*'ed up, ain't it?

yes it is.

Quote:

I REFUSE to believe in god because the USA government is running an UNJUST society. That ain't any kind of god I'm willing to tolerate, even if "it" (god creature) exists.

sorry christianity was not started by the u.s. so don't go slinging that B.S. around.
FYI there are a lot of unbelievers or believers of different religions in the u.s. maybe more than christians.

besides i don't understand why religion has to be brought into every topic you post on.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@Twin

Quote:

Twin wrote: @AMiGR Quote: Say that you have a patent for something. A company uses it and you can't sue them due to the lack of money. Then, after a year or so, a smaller company uses it and you decide to sue them. You will go to court and probably lose due to the fact that you hadn't enforced the patent earlier. That is incorrect, as T_Bone mentioned there is no law which states you must enforce your patent rights. It is up to you when and who you enforce your rights against.

in a sense it is right. if you can't sue someone for patent infringement due to them having more money or you not having enough. they essentially get to use your property for free. when/ if you find out a smaller company you can go after this will be brought up that you have not enforced your patent with the larger company. even though you legally don't have to go after the larger company it will look bad and influence the verdict when you enforce against the smaller company.

now if you tried to enforce the patent with the large company and lose. your patent becomes unenforcable against anyone.

in essence you have lost your patent.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@jkirk

Y do inventors bother patent things then ?
Seems completely poinless, if it's that easy for someone else to use it ?

_________________
Dark Lord Design Wicked Solutions For Damned Problems

@treblesix

Gary hare or just scared rabbit

@treblesix

well it ain't quite as easy as i described it. the litigation can be tied up for years or even longer. while that is going on the patent holder has the right to ask a judge to prohibit the marketing of said product until the end of the trial. there are no guarantees the judge will do this though. anyway during that amount of time the company being sued can develop a replacement for the offending product and decide to end the litigation with a settlement. or if their goal is to render the patent invalid they could continue until the end of the trial/ retrials.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@Mikey_C

Quote:

No, it wasn't a reasonable question, I mean, why post that on here and not via email? No one really cares what Ryan whatsisname is doing or up to.

I care.. And i think it was a reasonable question to ask.

Quote:

No, it wasn't a reasonable question, I mean, why post that on here and not via email? No one really cares what Ryan whatsisname is doing or up to.

He could just say that he did not know the answer to the question or even ignore it by not repsonding.. Dont see why this should wind up anyone, as from what i understood, it was just a question and t-bone never claimed that he knew the facts.

I sure am hell interested in why Ryan registered a company under the Amiga name, and i am also wondering why no one had commented or done anything about it.

These questions might however be a bit offtopic to this thread though..

Last edited by Tomas on 25-Oct-2005 at 07:10 PM.

@Atheist

Quote:

For instance, even though YOU own a PATENT, if YOU can't take a bigger corporation to court because YOU don't have enough money to, THEY can take it. What kind of rule of law is THAT?????

It is sad indeed