Quote:

TRIPOS wrote: The document "301" that is linked to in post 1084 does a great job in explaining and arguing their standing point based on evidence after evidence. A masterpiece. Everyone should read that document.

I find most of the arguments weak. The first part introduces interpretation outside of the contract wording itself. The rights granted to Hyperion by the 2009 settlement are extremely broad, especially paragraph 1(b). I believe AmigaOS 3.1.4 is legal if the settlement contract is valid. Hyperion started with AmigaOS 3.1 and developed a new AmigaOS version. The contract does not require it to be for PPC or be called AmigaOS 4 or above.

Quote:

Without prejudice to any Existing License Agreements listed on Exhibit 1, the Amiga Parties hereby grant Hyperion (at Hyperion's sole expense) an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide and royalty-free, transferable right and Object Code and Source Code license to the Software in order to use, develop, modify, commercialize, distribute and market the Software in any form (including through sublicensing), on any medium (now known or otherwise), through any means (including but not limited to making AmigaOS 4 available to the public via the internet) and for any current or future hardware platform.

The settlement contract is so one sided in Hyperion's favor that there are very few requirements for Hyperion to violate which would constitute a "material breach" (while Amiga party contract requirements are numerous to the point of being oppressive). It appears the plaintiff's lawyer found one though.

Quote:

Hyperion agrees and covenants that it will not institute any action, claim or proceeding anywhere in the world . . . (B) challenging . . . (ii) ownership of the Licensed Marks by any Amiga Party or any successor . . . (a “Hyperion Prohibited Action”), unless the challenged activity constitutes a material breach of this Agreement, including but not limited to any material infringement by the Amiga Parties, by a successor to any Amiga Party, by a Purchaser or by a licensee of the licenses granted to Hyperion pursuant to this Agreement.

I believe this covenant was violated by Hyperion and could constitute a "material breach" of contract invalidating the whole contract. I have doubts that IP violations outside of those mentioned in the contract would be grounds for invalidating the contract even though they may be grounds for a separate lawsuit. I still wonder what Amiga parties obtained from this settlement contract. I can't see where they obtained anything they did not already have while they gave the keys to the castle to Hyperion for free. Where is the quid pro quo in the contract?

Last edited by matthey on 23-Mar-2021 at 07:29 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 23-Mar-2021 at 07:19 PM.