@MagicSN

Nothing prevents you from loading whichever operating system you wish, but that’s on you and not RGL. Bundling 3.2 would just increase the price and add little value to majority of the targeted market. Heck, many of us "die hards" don’t use 3.2 either.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@AmigaMac

Quote:

AmigaMac wrote: @kolla Oh, so 3.2 is based off 3.9?

Sort of, it’s 3.9 done over again. Many of the core components in 3.2 were indeed based on the 3.9 components.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

That’s not the issue. The issue is bundling with os3.x without licence.
They should just do the decent thing and get a licence.

@MagicSN

"Doing the decent thing" has been a known non-option with anything Amiga for 25 years.


But if this nonsense somehow manages to stop more crappy ARM-EMU boxes hitting the market I'd count it as a plus.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

kolla Quote:

I don't see why Hyperion would be involved in this, unless to stirr up som FUD. The emulated market of "official" AmigaOS 1.0-3.1 is clearly all Cloanto's anyhow.

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement Quote:

Definitions ... d. "AmigaOS 4" means the Operating System developed by Hyperion and based in part on the Software, including without limitation the Software Architecture of the Software as described in the Documentation, in any version (irrespective of version numbering e.g., AmigaOS 5). ... n. "Software" means AmigaOS 3.1, which is the Operating System (including without limitations its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation) originally developed, owned and marketed by Commodore Business Machines (CBM) for their Amiga line of computers in 1994. ... 1. Grant. (a) Hyperion acknowledges that the Amiga parties are the owner of the Software, without prejudice to any third parties with rights in said software. The Amiga parties acknowledge that Hyperion is the sole owner of AmigaOS 4 (with the exception of the Software), without prejudice to any third parties with rights in said software. (b) Without prejudice to any existing license agreement listed on Exhibit 1, the Amiga parties hereby grant Hyperion ...

Reading the 2009 settlement agreement literally and assuming it is still valid, the Amiga parties owned AmigaOS 1.0-3.1 and Hyperion owned AmigaOS 4 and any AmigaOS version they developed. The "existing license agreement" with Cloanto remained valid although I do not know the wording. Cloanto was distributing the AmigaOS with "AmigaOS" used already even though the settlement agreement grants Hyperion an exclusive license for the "AmigaOS" trademark. As far as I know, the Amiga parties accepted that this was allowed so it would still be allowed as an "existing license agreement" despite the exclusive license of "AmigaOS" to Hyperion. Cloanto may have some restrictions like including the AmigaForever emulator and may not be able to sublicense products though. Is it problematic to grant an exclusive license that is not exclusive?

It is interesting that the CBM version of the AmigaOS from 1994 is the one defined. CBM Ltd of Canada was defunct in 1976 and Commodore International Corporation of the Bahamas was created. Copyrights show Commodore Amiga Inc. with some Amiga IP copyright Commodore Electronics Ltd. but no signs of CBM. Commodore International declared bankruptcy on May 6, 1994 which is only about 4 months of 1994. If contracts were read literally, Hyperion could only use the AmigaOS Software "originally developed, owned and marketed by Commodore Business Machines (CBM) for their Amiga line of computers in 1994" which may be none.

If the "AmigaOS" IP is the only problem for Cloanto/Amiga Corporation, they can always rename the AmigaOS to AmiOS or call it "Workbench" as it was sometimes referred to in the beginning. I do not see the big holdup and it would be nice if Cloanto would clarify exactly what is needed to allow RGL to release THEA1200.

kolla Quote:

Yes, and with this A1200, they will be losing that trademark, which should surprise noone. All their trademarking of "all" Amiga models is pretty worthless as they will never manage to protect them, there are just so many cases to point at of these "trademarks" being in common use since long before AmigaKit trademarked anything. I have a few boxes with products named "A1200", such as for example the BitFrost A1200.

I am not sure A1200 could be trademarked in the US. Intel changed the name of the 80586 to Pentium because they could not trademark a number. Cyrix used 5x86 and 6x86 without problems but Intel sued them for using 6x86-P166+ so they changed to 6x86-PR166+ to avoid litigation but Intel may not have won without the Pentium name. It is problematic that the UK allows to trademark text as simple as "A1200" at all. If it can be trademarked, then THEA1200 may be problematic as it contains the trademarked string but not as problematic as AmigaKit, AmigaStore and Amiga Technologies which use the "Amiga" trademark name and maybe for the same trademark categories in some cases.

amigang Quote:

As I understand it Hyperion only have rights to AmigaOs3.1, so cant cloanto bundle AmigaOS 3.0 or previous OS with the system? Or if the AmigaOS name or code is in dispute, they could pull the same trick as Amigakit, and make Aros the OS, maybe even able to call it Workbench 4. That would annoy everyone!

Clause 1b of the 2009 settlement agreement states, "(ii) the Amiga parties may develop, market, license and sell Operating Systems that do not exhibit a Substantially Similar Software Architecture (including without limitation AmigaDE and AmigaAnywhere (under such trademarks)), so long as such Operating Systems do not use the Exclusive Licensed Marks (as defined below) or the phrase "Amiga Operating System,". It continues with restrictions for the owner of the AmigaOS and Amiga IP. It may not cover a free AROS, does not affect Cloanto's preexisting license and may not be transferable to a business that acquired the Amiga IP although Ben left a clause in that Hyperion has to approve of transfers of Amiga IP ownership. This is a predator Ben gifting Amiga IP to Hyperion and coercing the financially distressed Amiga Inc to sign it after Pentti Kouris death. Ask 10 business people who have no knowledge of the Amiga to read this agreement and ask whether they would sign it if Amiga Inc and 9 out of 10 would say hell no, what is in for me?

Last edited by matthey on 22-Mar-2025 at 01:10 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 22-Mar-2025 at 01:06 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 22-Mar-2025 at 01:04 AM.

@MagicSN

Hyperion has no rights to license out OS 1.0 - 3.1 components, especially not for emulation. Those rights were granted exclusively to Cloanto 30 years ago.

Last edited by kolla on 22-Mar-2025 at 11:00 AM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: But if this nonsense somehow manages to stop more crappy ARM-EMU boxes hitting the market I'd count it as a plus.

The disappointing part of those system is the cementing of AmigaOS as an 68k only system that became obsolete in 1995.

OK they are retro gaming boxes, a Vampire4SL on a budget and easier to use than ripping apart an old Amiga and installing a PiStorm.

But they don't bring anything new to Amiga, no SMP, no security, no USB drivers, nothing.

@MagicSN

they want a retro system. I am not sure if users really preferred 3.2 there. Propably 3.1 is better here

@AmigaMac

3.9 can no longer be licensed

@MagicSN

the lawsuit was decided in favor of Hyperion? Seems I missed that part

@thread

Plaion is doing so well with its other products (Atari/Spectrum/etc.) I can see why they wouldn't want to induce any risk. And they certainly are aware of "Amiga vs Amico" and all the public statements and interviews about Amiga companies involved in a
Quote:

pissing contest

And yes, if I have to link to ^ this I can do that. heh.

What I find interesting is the promotion prior to release of their products (for which RGL is a partner). This is followed up with actual release info and details of course as a project progresses.

Yet their -long- press page stretching back years has no mention at all of this current project.

They also have a new CEO taking over in April. It's possible he's less of a risk taker?

#6

Added: I also find it a bit odd that they don't mention Amiga:
Here

Apparently Amiga these days is only part of "and more"

Last edited by number6 on 22-Mar-2025 at 03:47 PM.

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

@thread

For what it's worth, a brief discussion of licensing from Darren Melbourne of RGL/lAntstream.

The entire video is RGL centric and centered also on the Mini and their other products, but this one part might interest some here:

time stamped 7:44

#6

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

@kolla

Or possibly your information is wrong.

But it‘s not us two to decide what will happen.

@thread

I've noted some comments around the internet that there never was really any mention of an Amiga in full size. Dunno where they got that.

Here's Darren again from last year talking about the great relationship he has with both Wade Rosen (Atari) and his distributor (Plaion) earlier in the video. But then he mentions Amiga:

timestamped 50:30

It seems obvious to me what the desire of RGL is here.

#6

Added: for most who won't watch entire videos, the point was made this would all culminate at the anniversary, which might explain why this issue has arisen now with some angst.

Last edited by number6 on 22-Mar-2025 at 06:31 PM.

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

@MagicSN

Why would it suddenly be wrong? If it was correct in 1997, why would it not be correct today? The only ones who ever claimed something else is Hyperion, and only after a few Vampire systems had been sold, before that they didn’t care squat about 68k. Damn parasite company.

Last edited by kolla on 22-Mar-2025 at 07:42 PM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

OneTimer1 Quote:

The disappointing part of those system is the cementing of AmigaOS as an 68k only system that became obsolete in 1995. OK they are retro gaming boxes, a Vampire4SL on a budget and easier to use than ripping apart an old Amiga and installing a PiStorm. But they don't bring anything new to Amiga, no SMP, no security, no USB drivers, nothing.

The 68k Amiga is a standard system which is very important for retro compatibility. Compatibility is extremely important for retro use but it should be possible to use a newer version of the 68k AmigaOS with bug fixes and removal of limitations may be necessary for larger drives for example. It is still beneficial to go back to specific AmigaOS versions for compatibility in some cases which WHDLoad allows. Will the 68k Amiga improve with EOL emulation and very high retro compatibility requirements after all these years of sabotage? No. Development of software and drivers is for ARM and x86-64 while the AmigaOS and compiler support moves backward as things like 68020 support, MMU support and extended precision FPU support are removed to make emulation easier. These Amiga factions are fighting over the end of the Amiga instead of cooperating to build a 68k Amiga standard system that could survive and improve. The ARM hardware virtual Amigas will saturate the 68k Amiga market, the market will be divided and nobody will make money which would be the end of the opportunity to produce affordable mass produced 68k Amiga hardware that could compete with the likes of the RPi and VisionFive2.

If you are expecting ARM, x86-64, PPC or RISC-V AmigaOS, AROS or MorphOS to ever succeed, then forget it. It has been tried and failed too many times already. Compatibility is too important to leave the 68k Amiga standard system. Reduced compatibility leaves users, developers, software, retro games and the retro market behind when the retro market is providing this opportunity for the Amiga to become viable and relevant again.

#6 Quote:

For what it's worth, a brief discussion of licensing from Darren Melbourne of RGL/lAntstream. The entire video is RGL centric and centered also on the Mini and their other products, but this one part might interest some here: time stamped 7:44

RGL stopped short of saying they performed due diligence with a lawyer to decide who owned the Amiga IP in your video link but they are licensing experts.

kolla Quote:

Hyperion has no rights to license out OS 1.0 - 3.1 components, especially not for emulation. Those rights were granted exclusively to Cloanto 30 years ago.

The 2009 settlement agreement may have given Hyperion the right to license AmigaOS 3.1 but it is most likely not exclusive despite the wording of an exclusive license for "AmigaOS" as I tried to explain in my previous post. Yes, previous existing licenses take precedence according to my interpretation of the agreement. How do you know the emulation rights were granted "exclusively" to Cloanto? Is the Cloanto contract available somewhere?

I do tend to believe you are correct about Cloanto having a broad license for emulation. The 2009 settlement agreement allows the "owner" of the Software (AmigaOS 1.0-3.1), Amiga, by their license to Hyperion, to use their "Software without software emulation".

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF 1(b) Quote:

(iv) Amiga may distribute the Software in Object Code form "as is" (i.e. in a form unmodified from that in definition "l", without additional functionality commonly associated with an Operating System) and whereby the User Interface of the Software is not exposed to the end-user, solely in conjunction with gaming content (e.g. joysticks), which are capable of executing the Object Code form of the Software without software emulation.

I expect the carve out for emulation is due to the existing Cloanto license for emulation. It is strange that Amiga Inc is limiting their own ownership of AmigaOS 1.0-3.1 in a license to Hyperion which is clear evidence of the illegal coercion of Amiga Inc in financial duress after the death of Pentti Kouri. It makes about as much sense as making a contract with yourself to limit what you can do with what you own. None of these restrictions apply to Cloanto and possibly not to Amiga Corporation buying the Amiga IP and not the Amiga Inc business.

MagicSN Quote:

Or possibly your information is wrong. But it‘s not us two to decide what will happen.

Read the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement. It is very problematic. Choosing to try to enforce the contract is associating with Ben Hermans and his tactics which is to bet the farm on shenanigans. Is Hyperion willing to bet the farm on Ben's shenanigans too or would it be better to negotiate a contract that is sustainable and beneficial to both sides of a new agreement?

Last edited by matthey on 22-Mar-2025 at 09:53 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

How do you know the emulation rights were granted "exclusively" to Cloanto?

Well, do you know of anyone else who got such a license? If it wasn’t exclusive in wording it certainly was exclusive in practice. I helped running a few services related to UAE and there were only two ways to legally get kickstart images - rip them from your own Amiga or buy them from Cloanto. For decades, Cloanto has been the only licensed distributor of the old 68k CBM variants of AmigaOS.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

kolla Quote:

Well, do you know of anyone else who got such a license? If it wasn’t exclusive in wording it certainly was exclusive in practice. I helped running a few services related to UAE and there were only two ways to legally get kickstart images - rip them from your own Amiga or buy them from Cloanto. For decades, Cloanto has been the only licensed distributor of the old 68k CBM variants of AmigaOS.

Yes. Data Storage Advisors AG, eGames Inc., On Broadband Networks LLC, Envizions Inc. and Ironstone Partners are listed in the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement as having licenses and most of them look like they are for emulated Amiga games. The Ironstone Partners license expired in 2015 while the others are for an indefinite term. Most of these licenses were for the "Kickstart" and it is not clear if other AmigaOS modules were possible. Cloanto's "Scope of Rights Granted" is listed as "Rights sufficient to support Amiga Forever, including emulation modules".

@matthey

the longer list

We are now in danger of losing our on topic focus.

#6

We could also revisit these assets?

Pluritas

#6

Added: Probably makes more sense with the cover sheet from:
Mark

Last edited by number6 on 23-Mar-2025 at 03:32 AM.
Last edited by number6 on 23-Mar-2025 at 03:15 AM.

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

#6 Quote:

the longer list We are now in danger of losing our on topic focus.

The preexisting license agreements are important to THEA1200 maxi as they are excluded from the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement. It looks like Amiga Corporation had to agree to be bound by the onerous 2009 agreement in order to accept the Amiga IP. If still valid, it means that they own AmigaOS 1.0-3.1 but can not distribute or develop any version of the AmigaOS or any OS like AmigaOS which includes AROS with only a very narrow exception that may be impossible. Ironically, this means that they can not provide AmigaOS 1.0-3.0 to Hyperion who has no right to the AmigaOS prior to AmigaOS 3.1 from the 2009 agreement. As part of the 2009 agreement, "Hyperion acknowledges that the Amiga Parties are the owners of the Software" which is defined as AmigaOS 3.1 only but is substantially similar to the previous version of AmigaOS 3 which they did not respect with the distribution of AmigaOS 4.1 Update 4 from December 22, 2011.

https://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:amigaos41update4&catid=36:amigaos-4x&Itemid=18 Quote:

The following new functionality and bug fixes are included in Update 4: o Introducing the new Emulation drawer with official AmigaOS 3.x ROMs and Workbench files. AmigaOS ROMs are provided for all classic Amiga models and the CD32 platform. o Added RunInUAE contribution to utilize the new Emulation drawer.

You pointed out this violation of the 2009 contract agreement in an Amigaworld.net post here.

https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30303&forum=2&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#644697

I challenge anyone supporting Hyperion to point out where in the 2009 agreement that Hyperion received any license or rights to any version of the AmigaOS prior to "AmigaOS 3.1, which is the Operating System (including without limitations its Software Architecture as described in the Documentation) originally developed, owned and marketed by Commodore Business Machines (CBM) for their Amiga line of computers in 1994" (never mind that CBM was defunct and did not develop, own or market the AmigaOS and that this only applies to 1994).

Cloanto is not bound by the 2009 agreement at all due to the preexisting license. Cloanto can continue selling all that it was selling before which likely includes all Kickstarts/ROMs and AmigaOS 1.0-3.1 as Amiga Inc had no complaints about them violating the license and if the details of the license are private then Hyperion would not know if there was a violation of the license anyway. Cloanto should be able to sell RGL digital copies of the Amiga Forever package which they can use for other emulators too. Amiga Corporation should be able to license Amiga IP even including "Amiga" to Cloanto to sublicense to RGL for an "Amiga 1200" if they wanted. I am not a fan of it because emulation is not faithful but I expect it would boost sales. Maybe "Amiga e1200" with an 'e' for emulation could be acceptable? Cloanto should be able to continue using "AmigaOS" as they were using it before as it can not become exclusive when already in use. This was pointed out in a previous Amigaworld.net thread.

https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=30303&forum=2&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0#527051 AmigaHeretic Quote:

The problem I see is that things like "Perpetual, exclusive world wide rights" What does that mean? How can it be exclusive when other people have rights to it? Hyperion and Claonto for example both have "rights" to 3.1 so basically the may have perpetual world wide rights, but it's obviously not exclusive. How many other people have perpetual rights to Amiga OS 1.x to 3.x ? How many can sublicense or modify or distribute it anyway they wany? And if a company started selling Amiga OS 3.1 disks and roms how would anyone know for sure (even Amiga Inc) if they have the right to sell it? Many (maybe most) of the companies with rights to Amiga OS predate Amiga Inc.

The 2009 agreement is not only troublesome but porous. It looks like Hyperion violated the contract by failing to follow the partitioning of rights that were very much in their favor already in 2011. I do not see what the holdup of the RGL Amiga maxi is either as it looks like Cloanto can sell the necessary Amiga IP and license other Amiga IP from Amiga Corporation for sublicensing. Together, Cloanto and Amiga Corporation can provide more Amiga IP than either can separately.

Last edited by matthey on 23-Mar-2025 at 05:39 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 23-Mar-2025 at 05:21 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 23-Mar-2025 at 05:11 AM.