@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Quote: No matter what happens in the case, Hyperion can't sell OS 4 without permission from the trademark owner. Hyperion can if its themselves in essence with a perpetual license, which with Amiga Washington's insolvency that peice of the IP may indeed be theirs to use indefinately. And if its not themselves but Amiga Washington, Amiga Washington is defunct, and then its creditors, like Bolton may get the IP if its shown that the asset should never have left there, and for all we know they'd (Bolton etc) be friendly to the idea of allowing Hyperion to use it for a licensing fee. If its Amiga Delaware then Amiga Delaware still needs to convince the judge to not view it as a buy-in, but a buy-out. Unfortunately, so far the judge refered to it by Hyperion's language. That does not bode well for Amiga Delaware. You were frustrated at the judge being previously "confused". How can you again be so sure that he will not be "confused" again by how you view the way the points of the case should be interpretted?

Here's an idea I've been pondering that no one else here seems to have thought about - What was in the contract that Amino signed with Gateway (aka Amiga Development LLC)? As I recall, Amino didn't buy the IP, they licensed the IP. Is my memory incorrect?

Did AInc(W) even have the right to transfer the rights to Itec? If AInc(W) went insolvent, would it totally nullify the OS4 contract? How much of the IP rights would revert back to Gateway?

_________________
Tony T.

People who generalize are always wrong.


1989 - 500 / 1991 - 3000 / 1997 - Genesis Flyer 1200T / 2003 - A1XE

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Hyperion can if its themselves in essence with a perpetual license, which with Amiga Washington's insolvency that peice of the IP may indeed be theirs to use indefinately.

As we have gone over at least a dozen times. That clause doesnt survive insolvency or Bankruptcy, even Ben was finally able to understand that.

Quote:

You were frustrated at the judge being previously "confused". How can you again be so sure that he will not be "confused" again by how you view the way the points of the case should be interpretted?

It has nothing to do with how I think the case should be interpreted. I think if the judge says the Arctic software agreement is about selling the OS for 25K, and it mentions neither 25K nor selling the OS, that the judge is confused. If you dont think he is confused, I have to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.