@number6

Hi Number6,

Pluritas is a broker, and from the other links provided (the quote from CUSA about having an exclusive license), I imagine they didn't manage to "broker" any significant deal and as such - Amiga Inc have licensed the trademarks to CUSA.

Here is my take on that license (I am assuming here that CUSA's comments here are true - http://www.commodore-amiga.org/forum/2-welcome-mat/11285-some-more-good-news-to-end-2011?lang=en#11285):

1. If the license is fully exclusive, this tells me that Amiga had very few other options. The name is about all Amiga Inc has left of any value, an exclusive license in the fields CUSA describes basically cuts off Amiga's options to do anything else (if the "exclusivity" is worth it's salt).

2. The fact they have also given CUSA right to enforce is big, either Amiga Inc was poorly advised or they have no intention of enforcing the rights themselves. Normally, even in the case of exclusive licenses the rights owner maintains the right to enforce the marks. It's just good business practice for a number of reasons.

Bottom line - to sign away the rights to the AMIGA name in: "Form factors include, but are not limited to Desktop, HTPC, Tower, AIO/ Keyboard etc. " (CUSA's quote) is really something that saddens me. CUSA isn't a major company with significant revenue, and the fact that is the best option Amiga Inc had is really indicative of the value of the "Amiga" name these days.

I can only hope they got a nice big upfront payment, as opposed to a per unit royalty.

@AmigaFromAfar

(copied some over from off-topic thread)

Quote:

1. If the license is fully exclusive, this tells me that Amiga had very few other options.

Essentially this is what happened with the Commodore license as well. Asiarim, at the time had no other viable options.
Now that the licensor (Asiarim at that time) is being sued and their licensing arm has been declared bankrupt by the courts, the outcome of the Commodore end is uncertain officially.

Quote:

2. The fact they have also given CUSA right to enforce is big, either Amiga Inc was poorly advised or they have no intention of enforcing the rights themselves.

Most people would interpret the Amiga Inc. vs Hyperion VOF settlement agreement as assigning that right to Hyperion, not CUSA. That is yet another matter of contention or perhaps just poorly defined.

Quote:

Pluritas is a broker, and from the other links provided (the quote from CUSA about having an exclusive license), I imagine they didn't manage to "broker" any significant deal and as such - Amiga Inc have licensed the trademarks to CUSA.

Actually the Icontain license mentioned previously, which occurred -after- Pluritas agreed to handle the divestiture was handled by Itec LLC on behalf of the estate of Pentti Kouri, deceased investor in Amiga Inc. So...you have an entity within Amiga Inc. proper involved as well. I do not believe it has been publically stated whether the license to CUSA was arranged through the same person and/or whether it was done on behalf of Kouri or Amiga Inc. proper.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 11-May-2012 at 01:14 AM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*