Amiga Inc put that clause in to protect us in case they went to the wall, and Hyperion are ruthlessly exploiting it to steal their IP. I don't see how any of you can be OK with that.

If Hyperion win, I think we should remember that there is another clause - if Hyperion go bankrupt, ownership of Amiga OS reverts to the community, and it goes open source.

So it's in our interests to boycott Hyperion. Who's with me?

Not sure why people think this is necessarily a good thing for Hyperion. It doesn't mean they are likely to suceed.

In fact, from reading the document it is clear that even the judge thinks the contract is unclear, and badly defined. That means it would be very difficult for EITHER party to claim that their version is the correct version.

It all now comes down to AI and how they respond. If they can provide the missing documents then it won't necessarily matter about the bad wording. If they can provide the documentation to back them up, then they have a strong case.

I suspect that they might not have the documentation and that means a long fight between the two of them. I think they should now get together and create a new deal. If AI can spend $10 million on the Kent centre then by golly they can spend a few million $'s doing a full deal with Hyperion.

If fleecy or bill read these forums....PULL YOUR FINGERS OUT!!

@Plaz

Quote:

If there is not a clear transfer of assest from Amiga Inc W. to Amiga Inc D., my guess would be that Hyperion could argue that the IP remained with Amiga Inc Washington (who is now defunct) and because of clause 2.07, Hyperion now owns the OS. Total speculation on my part, but a reasonable guess of events if Amiga Inc decides to continue with the trial.

Yes, that is an obvious line of defence. Hyperion have some very good evidence in support of that, specifically McEwan's own declaration in another case that Amiga W was insolvent, and also his failure to pay employees. Additionally there is the lack of evidence that Hyperion ever consented to transfer of rights to Itec.

To that I personally would add A Inc's failure to honour that T-shirt/whatever deal, either then or following KMOS's purchase IIRC. In my view, that kind of bad faith alone should disqualify Amiga D as the legal owners, in a moral sense at least.

On the other hand, A Inc has the argument that Hyperion tacitly acknowledged Amiga D's right to ownership by their subsequent actions. That argument too might have some legs, so one can't predict the outcome. However it's obvious from this ruling that there is now a significant question mark over Amiga D's ownership of the Amga trademarks.

Quote:

Yes and No. The defeat of the injuntion doesn't determine rights, but Hyperion challenged Amiga Inc's rights as part of their defense against the injunction. Now that Hyperion has won and the Judge agrees there is a potential problem with rights, Hyperion may go on to contest the rights issue.Plaz

I'm sure they will assuming they have the money to do so.

@all

Some important take aways as I see them.

There was a lot of talk in these forums that the Judge would not even consider the insolvency issue due to no previous court declaring Amiga Washington insolvent or bankupt. Yet he, in this decision makes it clear, at least in my interpretation that he is very open to considering the possibility and beyond that is more concerned about what the term meant between the two parties than anything else. That does not bode well for Amiga.

He seems to be concerned about whether Amiga Delaware is truly the legal successor of Amiga Washington, he questions transfer proof as provided by Bill. If Amiga Delaware is not careful Genesi and Hyperion collectively through seperate actions could likely show the trademarks and IP as abandoned by Amiga Washington, and never transfered at all, with OS 4.0 at the least belonging to Hyperion, which is all Hyperion wants, and Genesi could then just license from Hyperion. Amiga Delaware's flagship product then becomes their Thunderbirds cell phone games. DE would not even be theirs potentially. And at this point DE in essence would end up in Bolten's hands likely as he has an open judgement against Amiga Washington. Huge risk IMHO.

He chooses to use "buy-in", not "buy-out", not even a neutral term, he uses "buy-in" in this ruling. If you are an Amiga lawyer thats a big "ouch".

Time for Amiga Delaware to settle IMHO.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200