Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
17 crawler(s) on-line.
 152 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 dirkzwager

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 dirkzwager:  20 secs ago
 clint:  6 mins ago
 vox:  12 mins ago
 Gunnar:  15 mins ago
 pixie:  23 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  28 mins ago
 zipper:  1 hr 3 mins ago
 Templario:  1 hr 9 mins ago
 RobertB:  1 hr 28 mins ago
 GPTNederlands:  1 hr 44 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 22 Feb 2008)
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Next Page )
PosterThread
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 14:58:31
#201 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:
I'd strongly disagree, I'm fairly sure that the word Amiga is used as part of marketing and distribution of OS 4.0.
-Tig


Thats what the 2001 Agreement says. The use of the Trademarks is for the amigaone products.


Yes and once you cancel the contract, they cant use the Trademarks anymore.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 14:59:51
#202 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:
You seemt to not understand that Amiga cancelled the 2001 contract on Dec 21, 2006, then sued after Hyperion refused to send the OS, despite the additional $8850 they sent them, and continued to use there trademarks even though the contract had been cancelled.


A big legal question is do Amiga(D) have the rights to cancel the 2001 contract as they are not a party to it nor assignees to it.


Its a question that Hyperion should have fought years ago instead of what they have been doing if thats what they believed.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Spectre660 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 15:58:50
#203 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 4-Jun-2005
Posts: 3918
From: Unknown

@Tigger

Amiga(D) are the ones who now say that they were never assignees to the 2001 contract but had another " 2005 arrangement" with Hyperion.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 16:20:11
#204 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote:
@Tigger

Amiga(D) are the ones who now say that they were never assignees to the 2001 contract but had another " 2005 arrangement" with Hyperion.


And since we've seen the 2004 arrangement says they are going to treat Hyperion and Eyetech as they would have under the 2001 agreement, your point is? And it was Hyperion in there first statements that said Hyperion had not approved KMOS being the successor of the 2001 contract.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 04-Feb-2008 at 04:22 PM.
Last edited by Tigger on 04-Feb-2008 at 04:21 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
damocles 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 18:16:50
#205 ]
Super Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2007
Posts: 1719
From: Unknown

@Tigger

Quote:
And since we've seen the 2004 arrangement says they are going to treat Hyperion and Eyetech as they would have under the 2001 agreement, your point is? And it was Hyperion in there first statements that said Hyperion had not approved KMOS being the successor of the 2001 contract.


Because it wasn't convient for them back then, now it is.

_________________
Dammy

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
HenryCase 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 18:41:39
#206 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 12-Nov-2007
Posts: 728
From: Unknown

@thread
I'm not going to pretend I understand all the legal stuff here, but it seems to me that if Eyetech joined with Hyperion against AInc, Hyperion would have a stronger case. Is there any way Eyetech could be resurrected?

Also, do we know what clauses were put in the AmigaOne partners contract in the eventuality that one of the parties dropped out?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 19:52:54
#207 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@HenryCase

Quote:

HenryCase wrote:
@thread
I'm not going to pretend I understand all the legal stuff here, but it seems to me that if Eyetech joined with Hyperion against AInc, Hyperion would have a stronger case. Is there any way Eyetech could be resurrected?


Since Eyetech has sued Hyperion in another case apparently, (Doc 35 Exhibit P) I dont think Eyetech showing up is going to help Hyperion, its more likely going to put Hyperion under especially if Alan explains why the contract really says insolvent.

Quote:

Also, do we know what clauses were put in the AmigaOne partners contract in the eventuality that one of the parties dropped out?


There are no such clauses, but Ben's a legal genius, just ask him so apparently they didnt need any. Personally I think Hyperion should have taken over the aspects of Eyetechs part of the business and continued on, but I dont think they wanted to actually give AI money, because the plan from the beginning was to bankrupt AI and get the license.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmigaPhil 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:08:55
#208 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2005
Posts: 563
From: Earth (Belgium)

@umisef

Quote:
Just because a partnership is formed (which for the granting of trademark licenses it undoubtedly was --- the trademarks were licensed to a collective, not to individual entities)


2.07 is not about giving away trademark ownership, but about granting a perpetual licence.
AFAIK, nothing prevent a company to give a license to as many individuals as they want, without the need to join them into a collective entity. I don't see what would be the point to do that for the 2001 agreement.

Quote:
On the other hand, Hyperion's challenged counterclaims are over trademark rights --- and the trademark rights, *any* trademark rights, under the contract were handled by the AmigaOne Partners. 2.01, 2.07, 2.08 are all about AmigaOne Partners. So unless Hyperion can show not only how the license to use somehow turned into ownership, but also how ownership by the AmigaOne Partners turned into ownership by Hyperion, Hyperion, individually, does not own the trademarks.


Agree on this part.
Trademark ownership is not the same as trademark license. While there can be several independent owners of a license over the same trademark, there can be only one owner of the trademark itself.

I don't know why and how Hyperion can pretend to be the owner of the trademarks, but I think his strategy was something like this:
The last legal owner of the trademarks was Amiga Washington (yes, it was AW at that time). AW became insolvent, so the Amiga One Partners were granted an exclusive and perpetual license for the trademarks. Somehow, because there was no more any owner of the trademarks (?) - those trademarks were not assigned to Amiga Delaware -, and because Hyperion was the last legal user of them, they became de facto the new owner. (?)
What happened then is that a few days after Hyperion brought their claims to the court, Amiga Delaware appeared as a (pending) registrant of the trademarks.

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 04-Feb-2008 at 10:53 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmigaPhil 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:19:18
#209 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2005
Posts: 563
From: Earth (Belgium)

@samface

Quote:
Any legal entity or person is always responsible for their own actions, regardless of whom they might be doing it together with. Amiga Inc. doesn't need to join all companies and/or people they think is infringing their trademark under one lawsuit and charge them as one.


It's not a question as to whether Eyetech has infriged their trademarks or not, but because AInc now insists that regarding their trademarks, Hyperion is not a party, Amiga One Partners is.

Quote:
However, in their defense, Hyperion is claiming to be acting under the rights granted to the AmigaOne partners in the license agreement, for which Amiga Inc. says would require Eyetech's participation. You see, even if Hyperion is an AmigaOne partner, they can't act on their own as such since Eyetech can for all we know disagree to Hyperions actions.


Agree on this.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmigaPhil 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:32:44
#210 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2005
Posts: 563
From: Earth (Belgium)

@Tigger

Quote:
But in reality as document 60 and 61 show us they are registered to Amiga Inc, Delaware.


I don't remind the dates precisely, but it was a few days only after Hyperion's lawyer revealed that there was no entry filled for Amiga Delaware as the registrant or assignee of the Amiga trademarks.

If hyperion can prove that they have indeed been the sucessor of the Amiga trademarks (don't know if this is possible or even if Hyperion planned to demonstrate this, just speculating), then the later registration for Amiga Delaware to the US PTO will probably be cancelled. (?)

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 04-Feb-2008 at 10:48 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Spectre660 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:33:18
#211 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 4-Jun-2005
Posts: 3918
From: Unknown

@Tigger

Quote:
And since we've seen the 2004 arrangement says they are going to treat Hyperion and Eyetech as they would have under the 2001 agreement,


Have you seen a "2004 arrangement" document ?.
Nobody else seems to have seen it.
Not even Hyperion .

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmigaPhil 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:37:29
#212 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2005
Posts: 563
From: Earth (Belgium)

@Tigger

Quote:
You seemt to not understand that Amiga cancelled the 2001 contract on Dec 21, 2006


That is contested by Hyperion. The status of the 2001 agreement is still in litigation.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmigaPhil 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:47:13
#213 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2005
Posts: 563
From: Earth (Belgium)

@HenryCase

Quote:
Also, do we know what clauses were put in the AmigaOne partners contract in the eventuality that one of the parties dropped out?


According to AInc now, the 2001 agreement IS the document that sealed a "Amiga One Partners" partnership. So maybe article 6.03 is the one you are looking for (see quotes in post #184).

Last edited by AmigaPhil on 04-Feb-2008 at 10:52 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
damocles 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 22:53:17
#214 ]
Super Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2007
Posts: 1719
From: Unknown

@AmigaPhil

Quote:
Quote:
You seemt to not understand that Amiga cancelled the 2001 contract on Dec 21, 2006


That is contested by Hyperion. The status of the 2001 agreement is still in litigation.


Which Evert opened a hole can of worms when they attempted to sue Amino. I still say that is going to back fire on him. But then again , Itec's case is solid enough, Evert has to be desperate to try this Hail Mary play.

_________________
Dammy

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 23:10:20
#215 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:
You seemt to not understand that Amiga cancelled the 2001 contract on Dec 21, 2006


That is contested by Hyperion. The status of the 2001 agreement is still in litigation.



Actually it wasnt contested. AI sent a cancellation notice with 30 day period to negotiate and Hyperion didnt contest it. In fact they actually arent contesting it now, now they are just arguing that they dont need the contract, that because of the contract they have a perpetual exclusive license.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 23:45:46
#216 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:
And since we've seen the 2004 arrangement says they are going to treat Hyperion and Eyetech as they would have under the 2001 agreement,


Have you seen a "2004 arrangement" document ?.
Nobody else seems to have seen it.
Not even Hyperion .


I believe everyone on this website has seen it, it was posted on here, we just didnt realize what it was.
-Tig



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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
samface 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 23:53:11
#217 ]
Super Member
Joined: 10-Apr-2003
Posts: 1161
From: Norrköping, Sweden

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote:
@samface

Quote:
Any legal entity or person is always responsible for their own actions, regardless of whom they might be doing it together with. Amiga Inc. doesn't need to join all companies and/or people they think is infringing their trademark under one lawsuit and charge them as one.


It's not a question as to whether Eyetech has infriged their trademarks or not, but because AInc now insists that regarding their trademarks, Hyperion is not a party, Amiga One Partners is.


That's not what they are saying. They are saying that with regards to whom has been granted a license for using their trademarks by the contract, Hyperion is not a licensee, the AmigaOne partners is. As for whom is in violation of the agreement, Amiga Inc. is accusing Hyperion rather than the AmigaOne partners as a collective. These are two seperate issues and neither one contradicts the other.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 4-Feb-2008 23:54:52
#218 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1714
From: Melbourne, Australia

@AmigaPhil

Quote:
AFAIK, nothing prevent a company to give a license to as many individuals as they want, without the need to join them into a collective entity. I don't see what would be the point to do that for the 2001 agreement.


You should ask Ben what the point was. He drafted the contract. Badly.

However, it is undeniable that "AmigaOne Partners" is "Hyperion and Eyetech, collectively", and that the ordinary license granted by the contract is to the AmigaOne Partners.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 5-Feb-2008 0:01:49
#219 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote:
@Tigger

Quote:
But in reality as document 60 and 61 show us they are registered to Amiga Inc, Delaware.


I don't remind the dates precisely, but it was a few days only after Hyperion's lawyer revealed that there was no entry filled for Amiga Delaware as the registrant or assignee of the Amiga trademarks.


If you read documents 60 and 61 which are from someone at Compumark, and which are posted after Hyperions rather crazed original claims, you will seem a step by step transition in some cases all the way from Commodore to KMOS. All the of the copyrights are owned by KMOS, noone who knows anything about copyright law is going to second guess a Compumark back trace of the copyrights from the original assignee to the current owner and say I think Hyperion should be the new owner. We've seen transfer papers dated 2005 to KMOS, we've seen the official documents from the USPTO site verified by Compumark, its silly to think they have chance of them owning the Trademarks.
-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tigger 
Re: Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF (update 31 Jan 2008)
Posted on 5-Feb-2008 0:06:22
#220 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-May-2003
Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA

@AmigaPhil

Quote:

AmigaPhil wrote:
@umisef

Quote:
Just because a partnership is formed (which for the granting of trademark licenses it undoubtedly was --- the trademarks were licensed to a collective, not to individual entities)


2.07 is not about giving away trademark ownership, but about granting a perpetual licence.
AFAIK, nothing prevent a company to give a license to as many individuals as they want, without the need to join them into a collective entity. I don't see what would be the point to do that for the 2001 agreement.


Actually it grants the AmigaOne Partners an exclusive license (ie they the only licensee) thats why thy both need to be there (its also why it wont ever stand up in court).

-Tig

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle