Correct.

Cloanto has full rights to sell ANY C64 and Amiga ROM / OS release for emulation. So I really don't see any problem here.

And not only that: Amiga Inc., which now is Amiga Corporation, had the rights to the Amiga name.

To sum all up, RGL can sell a "The Amiga 1200" embedding not only 3.1 ROMs, but even all previous Amiga OS ROMs, because Cloanto can give such ROMs and Amiga Corporation can provide "The Name".

On the other side (and always according to the 2009 settlement), Hyperion has no right at all to sell all ROMs, with the exception of the Amiga OS 3.1 ones and with solely purpose of producing the AmigaOS4.

On top of that, Hyperion has immediately (when such settlement arrived) published on its web site the news that it got the right to use such OS version for developing OS4. And nothing else.
Cloanto has provided a dump of such news in the documents attached for the currently pending lawsuit.

There's no nothing that Hyperion can do for stopping RGL developing its new project. And there's no way that Hyperion can sell the old ROMs, including developing new OS 3.x versions.

If I was Michele Battilana I would continue the lawsuit until it's finished, without seeking for some new agreement: Hyperion is purely wrong here, it's a question of time that it capitulate.

After that, I would make another lawsuit against all people which ILLEGALLY developed new OS 3.x versions, despite knowing the existing & pending lawsuit between Cloanto and Hyperion. Such arrogant people should learn that rights must be respected.

cdimauro Quote:

Correct. Cloanto has full rights to sell ANY C64 and Amiga ROM / OS release for emulation. So I really don't see any problem here. And not only that: Amiga Inc., which now is Amiga Corporation, had the rights to the Amiga name.

I believe what is now Amiga Corporation, purchased Amiga IP from Amiga Inc. This is not the same as Amiga Corporation purchasing Amiga Inc. They remain separate businesses which is an important distinction. I do not see any way Amiga Corporation becomes part of the "Amiga Parties" which is mentioned in the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF agreement as specifically Amiga Inc., Itec LLC and Amino Development Corporation in several places and have specific obligations and restrictions, the latter of which may not apply to Amiga Corporation. I am unsure if Amiga Corporation is a successor of Amiga Inc as Amiga Inc still exists as a separate business and "successor" is not defined in the 2009 agreement. I believe Amiga Corporation is an "acquirer" and "purchaser" under the 2009 contract agreement and likely signed exhibit 3, a successor/acquirer agreement form. This means that Amiga Corporation must "comply with all obligations of the Amiga Parties under the settlement agreement" which has many restrictions specifically for the "Amiga Parties" which they are not. Amiga Corporation may only be obligated to accept that the "Amiga Parties" have the restrictions.

cdimauro Quote:

To sum all up, RGL can sell a "The Amiga 1200" embedding not only 3.1 ROMs, but even all previous Amiga OS ROMs, because Cloanto can give such ROMs and Amiga Corporation can provide "The Name". On the other side (and always according to the 2009 settlement), Hyperion has no right at all to sell all ROMs, with the exception of the Amiga OS 3.1 ones and with solely purpose of producing the AmigaOS4. On top of that, Hyperion has immediately (when such settlement arrived) published on its web site the news that it got the right to use such OS version for developing OS4. And nothing else. Cloanto has provided a dump of such news in the documents attached for the currently pending lawsuit. There's no nothing that Hyperion can do for stopping RGL developing its new project. And there's no way that Hyperion can sell the old ROMs, including developing new OS 3.x versions.

"AmigaOS4" is very broadly defined in the 2009 agreement though.

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF agreement Definitions Quote:

d. AmigaOS4 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).

There is no limitation on the version of AmigaOS. I believe "developed by Hyperion" implies changes to the "Software" (AmigaOS 3.1) only and would not apply to any original Commodore AmigaOS, including AmigaOS 3.1, even though the agreement provides additional licensing for AmigaOS 3.1 specifically. In my opinion, the Hyperion developed 68k AmigaOS does not violate the 2009 agreement. I believe Hyperion violated the agreement by providing Amiga Kickstarts prior to AmigaOS 3.1 (e.g. 2011 AmigaOS4 RunInUAE support), challenged ownership of Amiga IP they did not own in several ways and that the agreement was illegally coerced under financial distress to begin with.

cdimauro Quote:

If I was Michele Battilana I would continue the lawsuit until it's finished, without seeking for some new agreement: Hyperion is purely wrong here, it's a question of time that it capitulate.

Michele should continue the lawsuits until he gets a renegotiated contract or a verdict. Negotiating is good for both sides as they both have much to gain from it. There is no benefit to a verdict that puts Hyperion out of business other than to end the 2009 agreement. Hyperion is broke and you can't get blood from a turnip.

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: cdimauro Quote: Correct. Cloanto has full rights to sell ANY C64 and Amiga ROM / OS release for emulation. So I really don't see any problem here. And not only that: Amiga Inc., which now is Amiga Corporation, had the rights to the Amiga name. I believe what is now Amiga Corporation, purchased Amiga IP from Amiga Inc. This is not the same as Amiga Corporation purchasing Amiga Inc. They remain separate businesses which is an important distinction. I do not see any way Amiga Corporation becomes part of the "Amiga Parties" which is mentioned in the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF agreement as specifically Amiga Inc., Itec LLC and Amino Development Corporation in several places and have specific obligations and restrictions, the latter of which may not apply to Amiga Corporation. I am unsure if Amiga Corporation is a successor of Amiga Inc as Amiga Inc still exists as a separate business and "successor" is not defined in the 2009 agreement. I believe Amiga Corporation is an "acquirer" and "purchaser" under the 2009 contract agreement and likely signed exhibit 3, a successor/acquirer agreement form. This means that Amiga Corporation must "comply with all obligations of the Amiga Parties under the settlement agreement" which has many restrictions specifically for the "Amiga Parties" which they are not. Amiga Corporation may only be obligated to accept that the "Amiga Parties" have the restrictions.

I don't recall now if Amiga Corporation has acquired Amiga Inc. or only the Amiga IPs.
Quote:

cdimauro Quote: To sum all up, RGL can sell a "The Amiga 1200" embedding not only 3.1 ROMs, but even all previous Amiga OS ROMs, because Cloanto can give such ROMs and Amiga Corporation can provide "The Name". On the other side (and always according to the 2009 settlement), Hyperion has no right at all to sell all ROMs, with the exception of the Amiga OS 3.1 ones and with solely purpose of producing the AmigaOS4. On top of that, Hyperion has immediately (when such settlement arrived) published on its web site the news that it got the right to use such OS version for developing OS4. And nothing else. Cloanto has provided a dump of such news in the documents attached for the currently pending lawsuit. There's no nothing that Hyperion can do for stopping RGL developing its new project. And there's no way that Hyperion can sell the old ROMs, including developing new OS 3.x versions. "AmigaOS4" is very broadly defined in the 2009 agreement though. 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF agreement Definitions Quote: d. AmigaOS4 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). There is no limitation on the version of AmigaOS. I believe "developed by Hyperion" implies changes to the "Software" (AmigaOS 3.1) only and would not apply to any original Commodore AmigaOS, including AmigaOS 3.1, even though the agreement provides additional licensing for AmigaOS 3.1 specifically. In my opinion, the Hyperion developed 68k AmigaOS does not violate the 2009 agreement.

That wasn't what was reported by Hyperion on his web site, just after the agreement, which was about developing OS4 for PowerPC.
Quote:

I believe Hyperion violated the agreement by providing Amiga Kickstarts prior to AmigaOS 3.1 (e.g. 2011 AmigaOS4 RunInUAE support), challenged ownership of Amiga IP they did not own in several ways and that the agreement was illegally coerced under financial distress to begin with.

There's also the copyright violation of the first batch of 3.1.4 ROMs. It was fixed after that some users noticed and made it public, but it was too late...
Quote:

cdimauro Quote: If I was Michele Battilana I would continue the lawsuit until it's finished, without seeking for some new agreement: Hyperion is purely wrong here, it's a question of time that it capitulate. Michele should continue the lawsuits until he gets a renegotiated contract or a verdict. Negotiating is good for both sides as they both have much to gain from it. There is no benefit to a verdict that puts Hyperion out of business other than to end the 2009 agreement. Hyperion is broke and you can't get blood from a turnip.

Better to have a verdict in favour of Michele.

If Hyperion goes bankrupt it could be acquired by someone else and new agreements could be made solely for the development of OS4 under Amiga Corporation control.

@cdimauro

Quote:

I don't recall now if Amiga Corporation has acquired Amiga Inc. or only the Amiga IPs

Quote:

C-A Acquisition Corp. renamed to Amiga Corporation In 2019 Mike Battilana (Cloanto) founded the C-A Acquisition Corp. and transferred the trademarks, copyrights and Internet domains had had acquired from Amiga, Inc. to this company.

Technically then Amiga Corporation didn't acquire, but C-A Acquisition did. And then it was renamed.

Amiga Inc. Delaware
possible ^

#6

Last edited by number6 on 24-Mar-2025 at 09:28 PM.

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

@matthey

Quote:

I believe what is now Amiga Corporation, purchased Amiga IP from Amiga Inc. This is not the same as Amiga Corporation purchasing Amiga Inc. They remain separate businesses which is an important distinction. I do not see any way Amiga Corporation becomes part of the "Amiga Parties" which is mentioned in the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF agreement as specifically Amiga Inc., Itec LLC and Amino Development Corporation in several places and have specific obligations and restrictions, the latter of which may not apply to Amiga Corporation. I am unsure if Amiga Corporation is a successor of Amiga Inc as Amiga Inc still exists as a separate business and "successor" is not defined in the 2009 agreement. I believe Amiga Corporation is an "acquirer" and "purchaser" under the 2009 contract agreement and likely signed exhibit 3, a successor/acquirer agreement form. This means that Amiga Corporation must "comply with all obligations of the Amiga Parties under the settlement agreement" which has many restrictions specifically for the "Amiga Parties" which they are not. Amiga Corporation may only be obligated to accept that the "Amiga Parties" have the restrictions.

In an asset sale, the buyer usually doesn't inherit the seller's pre-sale liabilities, unless they are specifically structured in a way that makes the buyer liable, such as a "de facto merger" or continuation of the seller's enterprise.

Exceptions to the General Rule
1. the buyer expressly or impliedly assumes the liabilities;
2. the transaction in substance constitutes a merger or consolidation of buyer and seller under state law (also known as a de facto merger);
3. the buyer is a mere continuation of the seller (subsequently expanded by some courts to include the lesser standard of a continuity of the seller’s enterprise); or
4. the transfer was fraudulent or intended to defraud creditors.
5. the buyer continues the same product line of the seller; and
6. the nature of the particular obligation, arising by virtue of a statute, is such that public policy demands a finding of successor liability.

Extra information can be found from
https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2020/06/the-art-of-the-bad-deal-successor-liability-in-m-a-transactions

AmigaOS related IP product is included in the agreement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion VOF.

Last edited by Hammer on 25-Mar-2025 at 12:27 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 25-Mar-2025 at 12:26 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@matthey

Quote:

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.

An interesting nitpick.


Quote:

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.

From https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/147/1.html
Under "Existing license agreements",

Cloanto Italia srl has sufficient rights to support Amiga Forever, including emulation modules.

Cloanto/RGL camp could release AmigaForever A1200 or AF1200.

"Workbench" can be reused, for example https://amigastore.eu/2933-thickbox_default/workbench-31-sd-hc-edition.jpg
Cloanto sells "Amiga Forever" and "Workbench 3.1" markings.

--------------------------
Before AmigaOS 3.1.4, I have used Cloanto's physical KickStart 3.X ROMs for my A1200 (with TF1260) and A500 (with Witcher 508i). I copied Cloanto's Amiga Forever Workbench 3.X distribution into flash IDE storage. My IDE flash storage devices are higher than 4GB.

My licensed KickStart 3.2 ROMs are not active due to CaffeineOS (AmigaOS 3.9 based distro)'s patched Kickstart version 45.57 i.e. custom 3.9 ROM is built by combining the files from the original Kickstart 3.1 ROM version, with the files from the AmigaOS 3.9 ROM update.

Last edited by Hammer on 25-Mar-2025 at 01:17 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I don't recall now if Amiga Corporation has acquired Amiga Inc. or only the Amiga IPs Quote: C-A Acquisition Corp. renamed to Amiga Corporation In 2019 Mike Battilana (Cloanto) founded the C-A Acquisition Corp. and transferred the trademarks, copyrights and Internet domains had had acquired from Amiga, Inc. to this company. Technically then Amiga Corporation didn't acquire, but C-A Acquisition did. And then it was renamed. Amiga Inc. Delaware possible ^ #6

Thanks. Then Michele has everything, at the end.

cdimauro Quote:

I don't recall now if Amiga Corporation has acquired Amiga Inc. or only the Amiga IPs.

One consequence of C-A Acquisition Corporation acquiring the Amiga IP instead of the Amiga Inc. business (de facto merger as Hammer calls it), is that no plaintiffs remained that had standing in the Cloanto Corporation, et al v. Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A lawsuit initiated in 2017 which was later joined by the Amiga parties (Amiga Inc./Amiga Delaware, ltec LLC, and Amino Development Corporation/Amiga Washington) after Hyperion sued Cloanto and the Amiga parties in response.

Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A. et al v. Itec, LLC et al
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2018cv00381/256770/141

Hyperion claimed a "sweeping victory" but the reason was lack of being able to add C-A Acquisition Corporation to the lawsuit in time to have standing, Hyperion dropped some claims to expedite the lawsuit, Hyperion did not win lawsuit fees from the plaintiff, the court determined that Cloanto could pursue copyright and trademark infringement claims, and the court found from the plaintiff 8th cause of action (count 8 in the document above) that it could rule that Hyperion breached the 2009 Settlement Agreement by applying for registration and registering trademarks to which it had not been granted rights. "The Court agrees that Cloanto is barred from bringing this claim by terms of the Settlement Agreement's Non-Aggression clause and that the material breach exception in that clause can not apply to Cloanto." I do not believe the Non-Aggression clause is absolute as it should only apply to "the Software or AmigaOS 4 or Hyperion's use of the Licensed Marks in connection therewith". In other words, disputing "AmigaOS" and "AmigaOne" would be prohibited but "Amiga Forever", "Workbench 1.3" and "Kickstart 1.3" would not and the way Judge Ricardo S. Martinez ruled, Hyperion can use any prohibited Amiga IP for "Hyperion's use, marketing, licensing or sublicensing of the Software or AmigaOS 4 without being sued. Regardless, it looks like only Amiga Corporation has standing to challenge that there has been a material breach in the agreement. The new lawsuits likely correct this mistake with the inclusion of Amiga Corporation/C-A Acquisition Corp.

C-A Acquisition Corp et al v. Hyperion Entertainment CVBA
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2019cv00683/272892

Amiga Corporation, Cloanto Corporation v. Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A.
https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91273487&pty=OPP&eno=11

A material breach of contract is a major breach of contract that should allow the termination or rescission of the contract as well as allowing claims of damage. Hyperion and A-Eon do not seem to be concerned with these prospects. A-Eon would likely lose the sublicense from Hyperion which may be a violation of the 2009 settlement agreement due to failure to sign an Exhibit 3 successor/acquirer agreement form when sublicensing.

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF Quote:

15. Confidentiality; Disclosure of Agreement... Any such acquirer or buyer after the date hereof must execute an agreement substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 3 at or prior to the time it completes or closes the acquisition or purchase. For purposes of this paragraph, "buyer" means and natural or judiciary entity that acquires either full ownership rights in the asset at issue, or a license or right to use the asset at issue.

The "asset at issue" is the Hyperion Amiga IP sublicensed to A-Eon which requires the signing of an Exhibit 3 form or the 2009 settlement agreement is violated.

cdimauro Quote:

There's also the copyright violation of the first batch of 3.1.4 ROMs. It was fixed after that some users noticed and made it public, but it was too late...

There should be more than enough violations of the 2009 settlement agreement for a material breach of the contract.



It was later changed to "Copyright 1985-2016 Hyperion Entertainment CVBA. Developed under license." which is still highly questionable as Hyperion does not own the copyrights back to 1985.




https://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php/news/1-latest-news/173-halloween-special-double-treat-for-the-classic-amigaos

These are mildly updated and AmigaOS 3.1 at least from 2011. Perhaps more troubling is "Special BONUS - AmigaOS Workbench 3.1 (v40.43) is supplied with a FREE updated licensed copy of AmigaOS Workbench 1.3.3 which incorporates the following changes: " and "Special BONUS - Kickstart 3.1 (v40.72) is supplied with a FREE licensed copy of Kickstart 1.3". No mention of Cloanto trademarks on the page or mention of who the freebies were licensed from. Hyperion was using versions of the AmigaOS earlier than AmigaOS 3.1 as mentioned earlier in this thread from 2009.

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.

Hyperion was licensing earlier AmigaOS versions than AmigaOS to businesses like iComp and Manomio Where the 2009 license agreement gives a license for AmigaOS 3.1 to Hyperion with no mention of any other AmigaOS version, an iComp contract with Hyperion gives a different definition.

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.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1KON22TueJ1ZovL3ASEx8JOdytvYQlGP8/edit iComp contract Quote:

DEFINITIONS "Classic Amiga OS" means the operating system exclusively licensed to HYPERION largely based on the operating system shipped with the Commodore Amiga line of computers sold in the 1980s and early 90s by inter alia Commodore Business Machines ("CBM") including (without limitation) Kickstart 1.2, Kickstart 1.3, Workbench 1.3 and Workbench 3.1;

Michele asked Ben about his licensing to which Ben responded with the following.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1KON22TueJ1ZovL3ASEx8JOdytvYQlGP8/edit Ben Hermans Quote:

Note that to this day even the latest version of AmigaOS 4.x contains code which is unaltered and goes back to the content of the first Commodore Kickstarts. It is therefore totally artificial to try and draw some kind of rigid line somewhere between the different versions of the operating system to carve out some kind of exclusivity for this party or another.

The rigid line was drawn with the 2009 settlement agreement which only allows starting from AmigaOS 3.1 to develop AmigaOS 4. Ben grossly moved the goal post violating the 2009 settlement agreement.

I have covered violations of the 2009 settlement agreement due to Hyperion sublicensing without an Exhibit 3 agreement from A-Eon and using earlier versions of the AmigaOS than AmigaOS 3.1 so far. Then there is the licensing of trademarks which challenges ownership.

file:///C:/Users/6300/Downloads/2021-03-18_hyperion-amiga-itec-cloanto-ca_filing-100_amiga-motion-partial-summary-judgment.pdf Quote:

Specifically, Plaintiffs ask this Court to find that Defendant Hyperion Entertainment CVBA (“Hyperion�) breached the Settlement Agreement entered into by Hyperion and the Amiga Parties in 2009 (hereinafter, the “Settlement Agreement�) by: (1) filing applications and obtaining registrations for the following trademarks: a. U.S. App. No. 87329431 for AMIGAOS; b. U.S. App. No. 87329448 for AMIGAONE; c. U.S. App. No. 87329469 for the “Boing Ball� design mark (“Boing Ball Mark�); d. Benelux Reg. No. 1019369 for AMIGAONE; e. Benelux Reg. No. 1019518 for AMIGA; f. Benelux Reg. No. 1354122 for the Boing Ball Mark; g. Benelux Reg. No. 1014998 for KICKSTART; h. Benelux Reg. No. 1010723 for AMIGAOS; i. Benelux Reg. No. 1009642 for AMIGA FOREVER; j. Benelux Reg. No. 1008486 for WORKBENCH; k. France App. No. D. 18 4475019 for KICKSTART; l. Germany Reg. No. 302017113262 for AMIGA; m. Italy App. No. 2018000027648 for KICKSTART; n. Spain App. No. M3718535(7) for KICKSTART; o. Poland Reg. No. 321752 for KICKSTART; p. EUTM Reg. No. 16745093 for AMIGA FOREVER; q. EUTM Reg. No. 16733024 for AMIGAOS; and r. EUTM Reg. No. 16732208 for WORKBENCH; (2) using the AMIGAOS word mark and Boing Ball Mark to commercialize, distribute and sell subsequently modified versions of the AmigaOS 3.1 Agreement, including but not limited to “AmigaOS 3.1.4�; (3) using KICKSTART and WORKBENCH to license, market, and sell versions of the Amiga operating system prior to AmigaOS 3.1; and (4) using AMIGAOS, POWERED BY AMIGAOS, and the Boing Ball Mark on notepads, stickers, posters, t-shirts, plush balls, inflatable beach balls, and other merchandise.

I agree with #1 and #3 with arguments similar to mine by the plaintiffs. I consider #2 to be allowable due to the 68k AmigaOS versions being based on AmigaOS 3.1 and variations of AmigaOS 4 which has a broad definition with no version or architecture limitations. I believe #4 should be allowed in order to "market" the "Software" and "AmigaOS 4" which is granted broadly but limited to the "Licensed Marks". I believe there is more than enough for a material breach of contract without succeeding on all the counts.

cdimauro Quote:

Better to have a verdict in favour of Michele. If Hyperion goes bankrupt it could be acquired by someone else and new agreements could be made solely for the development of OS4 under Amiga Corporation control.

AmigaOS 4 is practically worthless without a license from Amiga Corporation for the AmigaOS 3.1 foundation and "AmigaOS" trademark. Maybe it could be changed to use AROS or similar as a foundation but there are issues to overcome and additional work to perform. PPC AmigaOS 4 is dead and AmigaOS 4 needs changes and optimizations for the 68k. AmigaOS 4 only outperformed MorphOS on 2 out of 23 benchmarks.

Comparison: Performance between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
https://obligement-free-fr.translate.goog/articles/amigaos41_vs_morphos23.php?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr Quote:

Conclusion With 228.5 points for MorphOS against 164 for AmigaOS 4.1, the comparison clearly favors MorphOS. If we take the averages, this represents 9.93/10 for the butterfly system and 7.13/10 for the bouncy ball system. Almost all areas are favorable to MorphOS from a performance point of view (boot, USB, desktop, 3D, 68k emulation, WarpOS and Warp3D emulation, etc.). Contrary to what I initially wrote, AmigaOS 4.1 on Pegasos II is not in beta version. It remains nonetheless that this is the first version of this system for Pegasos II. Will AmigaOS 4.x improve on this hardware? Maybe or maybe not. In the meantime, it remains less optimized than MorphOS. Finally, it's worth noting that the performance of some tests is due more to the way the software was compiled than to the system itself.

Several of the benchmarks were due to very poor Warp3D poor performance yet no new Warp3D development is allowed by Ben's silent partner in lawfare.

cdimauro Quote:

Thanks. Then Michele has everything, at the end.

Amiga Corporation would not own AmigaOS 4 as a result of a material breach of the 2009 settlement agreement. Michele could likely make it worthless by using another Amiga like OS and renaming it AmigaOS though. It is really not wise to oppose the guy holding most of the cards. If I were Hyperion, I would be seeking a deal sooner rather than waiting until later when Michele may just as well wait for the lawsuit verdict.

Hammer Quote:

An interesting nitpick.

Not only does the 2009 settlement agreement specify "CBM" which did not develop, own or market AmigaOS 3.1 but the 2009 settlement agreement does not license the right to copy or duplicate AmigaOS 3.1 or AmigaOS 4. A literal reading leaves Hyperion with a useless contract. It is funny but not important?

Hammer Quote:

From https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/147/1.html Under "Existing license agreements", Cloanto Italia srl has sufficient rights to support Amiga Forever, including emulation modules. Cloanto/RGL camp could release AmigaForever A1200 or AF1200. "Workbench" can be reused, for example https://amigastore.eu/2933-thickbox_default/workbench-31-sd-hc-edition.jpg Cloanto sells "Amiga Forever" and "Workbench 3.1" markings. -------------------------- Before AmigaOS 3.1.4, I have used Cloanto's physical KickStart 3.X ROMs for my A1200 (with TF1260) and A500 (with Witcher 508i). I copied Cloanto's Amiga Forever Workbench 3.X distribution into flash IDE storage. My IDE flash storage devices are higher than 4GB. My licensed KickStart 3.2 ROMs are not active due to CaffeineOS (AmigaOS 3.9 based distro)'s patched Kickstart version 45.57 i.e. custom 3.9 ROM is built by combining the files from the original Kickstart 3.1 ROM version, with the files from the AmigaOS 3.9 ROM update.

Cloanto had sufficient rights to develop the AmigaOS so they should still be able to.

o Updated C/Version command (Y2K patch)
o Addition of Libs/workbench.library (for A-4000T 3.1 ROMs and 3.X ROMs)
o Updated S/Startup-Sequence (conditional SetPatch, for 3.X ROMs)
o Increased MultiView stack to 32768
o Installer script improvements
o Updated Installer (43.3 or 44.10, depending on CPU) and FastFileSystem 45.9 (to support larger disks)
o Installer itself is now part of the system installation (inside the Utilities directory)

Cloanto or Amiga Corporation may be able to continue with AmigaOS 3.9 development using the Amiga Corporation obtained Amiga IP. Amiga Corporation is not barred from development by the 2009 settlement agreement as they are not the Amiga Parties which is defined to be 3 specific businesses in the definitions. Only Cloanto or Amiga Corporation can legally provide RGL with the old Amiga Kickstarts for THEA1200 Maxi. I do not see what is missing for THEA1200 Maxi but there are some licenses that I have not read. It looks like Michele is proceeding very conservatively while Hyperion has proceeded with arrogance and thrown caution to the wind. A-EonKit is more careful and stealthy but not careful and stealthy enough. The corruption, shadiness and shenanigans needs to go for the Amiga to be successful. I expect road blocks to become road bumps but it would be best to get on board with Michele before it is too late.

@matthey thanks for the recap and great explanation!

I'm still of the option that Michele shouldn't make any agreement, rather wait for the verdict, because he has A LOT of strong points for getting a victory, as you've clearly reported.

The reason for that is that I want to see such arrogant people to completely go out of the Amiga business.

I've only some concern about the mentioned point #2 and #4, because the Hyperion announcement after the agreement, on its web site, reported that it was for developing OS4 for PowerPC. So, it excludes any 68k development (e.g.: using the 3.1 sources to continue this OS development).

@cdimauro/matthey

The end goal is resolution of -all- legal activity.

The real problem is that we're making more progress towards that in the forums than is transpiring within the various courts.

#6

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

cdimauro Quote:

@matthey thanks for the recap and great explanation! I'm still of the option that Michele shouldn't make any agreement, rather wait for the verdict, because he has A LOT of strong points for getting a victory, as you've clearly reported. The reason for that is that I want to see such arrogant people to completely go out of the Amiga business.

I understand the desire for justice and to punish the arrogant but Ben Hermans is gone from Hyperion and these court cases are slow and drain Amiga finances. There are remaining people at Hyperion who are arrogant, looked up to Ben and think Ben left them in a position of strength when the exact opposite is true. Ben has a good understanding of law but he is very unethical and gambles everything over and over again until he loses. The 2009 settlement agreement he wrote very much in Hyperion's favor and illegally coerced on the Amiga parties in financial duress was a boon for Hyperion but he did not stop there. I believe he understood exactly what he was doing when violating the 2009 settlement agreement, encroaching on Michele's retro business to make him financially weaker and trying to sue the Amiga Parties into bankruptcy so Hyperion could not just challenge ownership of Amiga IP but grab ownership as previously planned in the completely one sided 2009 settlement agreement. Ben went after the MorphOS and AROS competition with unsubstantiated claims and threatened lawfare as well. Ben has been caught abusing his legal degree in law firms he has worked for and in unethical business activities that are ruining his career and could send him to prison. Hyperion is already paying Ben's business management bills with the Ben Hermans BV bankruptcy and court appointed Hyperion managers and auditors.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=87329448&docIndex=1&searchprefix=sn#docIndex=1 Quote:

The costs and fees of the provisional administrator have already been charged to BV HYPERION ENTERTAINMENT

Ben's Hyperion stock in his Ben Hermans BV was not initially nullified either. I am still not certain that it was but it is possible it was done as punishment. If there is a material breach in the 2009 settlement agreement, not only will the contract likely go away leaving AmigaOS 4 practically worthless but Hyperion may be forced to pay damages for violations and Michele has receipts for amounts as I showed in my last post. There are more Ben shenanigans affecting Hyperion like not being in good business standing while doing business and perhaps illegally initiating law suits, failing to provide financial statements perhaps to cover up the financial position of Hyperion, potentially illegal secret agreements like the funding of the Hyperion lawsuit that led to the coerced 2009 settlement agreement and sublicensing of Amiga IP without 2009 settlement agreement exhibit 3 signing. I expect Hyperion is hiding Ben shenanigans not because they may incriminate Ben but because they could make it difficult for Hyperion to continue as a business and may weaken their position with licensed Amiga IP for AmigaOS 4. Yet in all this, there are people that continue to look up to Ben as a strong leader and to Trevor as their financial savior forever. Ben is the reason why Hyperion is in this position and Trevor's PPC AmigaNOne forever plan is the reason why they will dependent on Trevor until he stops or a Pentti Kouri episode results in more financial duress for Hyperion. Michele has more to offer Hyperion and he wants to proliferate the Amiga including with the 68k retro market Hyperion needs unlike A-EonKit who want to control the Amiga market for themselves including with road blocks as we have seen with Warp3D. Michele is reasonable but benefiting requires a change of heart from arrogantly believing Ben was a good leader that left them in a position of strength. Ben fooled and victimized people around him including smart lawyers, Trevor and employees of Hyperion. People need to take the blinders off and realize how much of a predator Ben is and that his way is the wrong way.

cdimauro Quote:

I've only some concern about the mentioned point #2 and #4, because the Hyperion announcement after the agreement, on its web site, reported that it was for developing OS4 for PowerPC. So, it excludes any 68k development (e.g.: using the 3.1 sources to continue this OS development).

Ben's announcement is less important than Evert Carton's deposition. Evert Carton testified that Hyperion had no plans for the 68k AmigaOS specifically but they were seeking broader use of the AmigaOS and for potentially other hardware architectures.

https://amiga-news.de/files/cloanto_amiga-parties_vs_hyperion/2021-07-14_hyperion-amiga-itec-cloanto-ca_filing-133-2_evert-carton-deposition.pdf

Lawsuit: Evert Carton on the settlement agreement from 2009
https://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2021-07-00053-EN.html

Lawsuit: Hyperion's response to Evert Carton's testimony
https://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2021-07-00078-EN.html

Hyperion was seeking broader licensing of the AmigaOS not just for the PPC AmigaOne hardware and desktop/hobby market but for the embedded market. The 68k Amiga retro/hobby market was not nearly as valuable back then so it was not on Hyperion's radar and Cloanto had rights to it anyway by 2009. Some people see Evert's testimony that Hyperion was not interested in the 68k Amiga specifically as reason for the 2009 settlement agreement not to have included it but my opinion is different due to the broad use sought and written into the 2009 settlement agreement which still does not include anything before AmigaOS 3.1. Ben saw Evert's deposition as a threat and other people will no doubt have other opinions which could result in a worse outcome for Hyperion with the current lawsuits.

@matthey

Quote:

Ben saw Evert's deposition as a threat

And after the deposition entered the court record, suddenly the case is decided by "wrong company filed" instead of the actual merits of the case.

Ben always has a plan "b" when on the edge of defeat. heh.

#6

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

#6 Quote:

matthey Quote: Ben saw Evert's deposition as a threat And after the deposition entered the court record, suddenly the case is decided by "wrong company filed" instead of the actual merits of the case. Ben always has a plan "b" when on the edge of defeat. heh.

It was a rookie mistake by Michele and his lawyers that wasted time and legal fees. Michele and his lawyers were likely more focused on maintaining compliance with the onerous 2009 settlement agreement, especially exhibit 3, as Amiga IP passed from the Amiga Parties to what became Amiga Corporation. The judge did not have compassion for the side that has continuously tried to maintain compliance while the other side has violated practically every obligation they had in it even though Ben wrote it in Hyperion's favor and controlled Hyperion who violated it with impunity. The court cases were not completely useless for the plaintiffs as they laid some ground work and certainly not "a sweeping victory" for Hyperion as Ben claimed. Hyperion has been given a second chance to wise up before the Amiga IP owner with standing has his day in court. Ben may have been too focused on the lawsuits and suffered too much under the resulting financial strain to properly manage his businesses resulting in the Ben Hermans BV bankruptcy and loss of Hyperion ownership and control despite the likely expected outcome of his continuous encroachment on the 2009 settlement agreement. That was not a rookie mistake by an experienced predator like Ben but the unsurprising result of a high stakes gambler. Gamblers that bet everything and lose usually do not get a second chance.

@matthey

Forum64 about 8 pages on the topic

Fascinating how much speculation has arisen and how varied it is.

#6

Added: btw, everyone seems to ignore this part:
Quote:

However, our manufacturing and retail partners have chosen to postpone the release of our full-sized machine until the legal situation is fully resolved

That would be Plaion.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 28-Mar-2025 at 12:53 AM.

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

@matthey

Quote:

Not only does the 2009 settlement agreement specify "CBM" which did not develop, own or market AmigaOS 3.1 but the 2009 settlement agreement does not license the right to copy or duplicate AmigaOS 3.1 or AmigaOS 4. A literal reading leaves Hyperion with a useless contract. It is funny but not important?

If the 2009 settlement agreement is enforced, the "CBM" entity is invalid since it wasn't a legal entity that developed operating system IP with Kickstart, Workbench, and AmigaDOS. LOL

https://archive.org/details/Commodore_AmigaDOS_V1.3_Enhancer_Software_1987_Commodore/page/n3/mode/2up
From Commodore AmigaDOS V1.3 Enhancer Software (1987)

Amiga is a registered trademark of Commodore-Amiga Inc.

Amiga 500, Amiga 2000, Amiga Workbench, Amiga Kickstart are trademarks of Commodore-Amiga Inc.

Commodore, the Commodore logo, and CBM are registered trademarks of Commodore Electronics Ltd.


The same for Workbench 3.0
https://archive.org/details/Workbech_3.0_Users_Guide_1992_Commodore/page/n1/mode/2up
"Amiga, AmigaDOS, Kickstart, Workbench, and Bridgeboard are trademarks of Commodore-Amiga Inc.

A simple look at Amiga's Workbench manuals wouldn't have the CBM mistake. This is clown show drama.

I have the physical Workbench 3.0 manuals for my A1200.

Quote:

Cloanto had sufficient rights to develop the AmigaOS so they should still be able to. o Updated C/Version command (Y2K patch) o Addition of Libs/workbench.library (for A-4000T 3.1 ROMs and 3.X ROMs) o Updated S/Startup-Sequence (conditional SetPatch, for 3.X ROMs) o Increased MultiView stack to 32768 o Installer script improvements o Updated Installer (43.3 or 44.10, depending on CPU) and FastFileSystem 45.9 (to support larger disks) o Installer itself is now part of the system installation (inside the Utilities directory) Cloanto or Amiga Corporation may be able to continue with AmigaOS 3.9 development using the Amiga Corporation obtained Amiga IP. Amiga Corporation is not barred from development by the 2009 settlement agreement as they are not the Amiga Parties which is defined to be 3 specific businesses in the definitions. Only Cloanto or Amiga Corporation can legally provide RGL with the old Amiga Kickstarts for THEA1200 Maxi. I do not see what is missing for THEA1200 Maxi but there are some licenses that I have not read. It looks like Michele is proceeding very conservatively while Hyperion has proceeded with arrogance and thrown caution to the wind. A-EonKit is more careful and stealthy but not careful and stealthy enough. The corruption, shadiness and shenanigans needs to go for the Amiga to be successful. I expect road blocks to become road bumps but it would be best to get on board with Michele before it is too late.

Cloanto's Workbench and Kickstart change list is from
https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-125 for KickStart 3.X ROM and https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-120 for Workbench 3.X distribution.

A600GS's Amibench using AROS to fill in the blanks is avoiding these entanglements.

Last edited by Hammer on 28-Mar-2025 at 01:29 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Mar-2025 at 01:22 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Mar-2025 at 01:21 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Hammer

Quote:

A600GS's Amibench using AROS to fill in the blanks is avoiding these entanglements.

It's a shame it's not enough to run Deluxe Music II though...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: It's a shame it's not enough to run Deluxe Music II though...

DTP music notation software is available on the Mac 68K via fake Mac methods.

Last edited by Hammer on 28-Mar-2025 at 05:00 PM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

#6 Quote:

Forum64 about 8 pages on the topic Fascinating how much speculation has arisen and how varied it is.

Mostly speculation. Someone seems to think THE A1200 Maxi will use an FPGA.

translation of post #694 Quote:

TheA500 Maxi will be announced tomorrow. Or this weekend at the latest. It will be priced at €189.95. A mouse and gamepad are included. It will be available in black, beige, and crystal clear. Unlike the TheA500 Mini, it will have a so-called "Classic Mode" that allows you to launch directly into Workbench 3.1. Internally, RGL isn't using an ARM processor this time, but rather an FPGA-based solution, which will make games like Jim Power 100% compatible. RGL also wants to officially apologize for not announcing anything new for so long (*).

A Maxi €189.95 price with working keyboard, mouse, gamepad and game bundle offers good value if true. A FPGA 68k CPU may actually be lower performance than THE A500 Mini but potentially more accurate and compatible. This info does not sound just made up but the FPGA use and low price are unexpected to me. I expected the same guts as THE A500 Mini which was disappointing like most cheap ARM SoC based hardware. The following comment concurs.

translation of post #818 Quote:

If RGL doesn't unlock more options on the TheA1200, it will be a questionable "looks great on the outside, but is terrible on the inside" product. It's kind of stupid (as always) when you finally flash better software or install a Pi, only to do things that RGL doesn't let you do.

The forum thread went on to discuss just using a cheaper RPi which is more flexible including I/O, more powerful and cheaper but lacks the Amiga nostalgia and out of the box experience without setup. THE A1200 Maxi could sell tens of thousands of units but it is still missing the "great on the inside" 68k Amiga SoC ASIC that is necessary to compete with the RPi and sell hundreds of thousands if not millions of units. We know "looks great on the outside" is possible while affordable but "terrible on the inside" has been getting worse with the AmigaOS dropping from 68020 to 68000 compiles, 68k compiler support diminishing with emulated 68k CPUs, less compatible and high latency JIT and chipset emulation, extended precision FPUs being castrated to double precision FPUs with a loss of compatibility, etc. Then there is the fighting over the Amiga IP to protect "terrible on the inside" products that are less competitive than the RGL Maxi instead of joining forces to solve the terrible on the inside issue.

#6 Quote:

Added: btw, everyone seems to ignore this part: Quote: However, our manufacturing and retail partners have chosen to postpone the release of our full-sized machine until the legal situation is fully resolved That would be Plaion.

Uncertainty kills investment. The stock market has been doing poorly lately as Trump tariffs and inconsistent policies and remarks have created uncertainty. Divided the Amiga misses opportunities and at some point, the opportunities will disappear.

@matthey

Quote:

Uncertainty kills investment.

Absolutely.

Your stock market example is on point.

Quote:

at some point, the opportunities will disappear.

True. I've witnessed several over the years that already disappeared.

Sometimes it seems like someone's plan...

#6

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