@TRIPOS

i have skipped on the whole os4 story happily utilizing amigas and not even knowing they have been renamed "classics" as long as i stayed off the forums. in that whole time never ever have i heard of "amigaos" or the like, especially being referred to as a product. not from users i knew, not from dealers, not from magazines, at least as far as i can remember.

the "amigaos" name plot is just another made up argumentation, meant to be mindlessly repeated while wishful thinking. just as when recapping an adopted brand name (not even sure it was reserved or not) as "AMIGAone" for better resemblance. os4 and its following would be certainly better off not continuously trying to claim an exclusive amiga legacy for themselves with those made up arguments, everybody sees through but themselves.

Last edited by wawa on 04-May-2015 at 10:02 AM.

@blizz1220

I have to lean towards your assessment here, assuming Cloanto's pre-existing rights were limited to emulation (although it seems a bit grey until the courts rule otherwise. )

Cloanto ownership transfer from Amiga Inc would not grant them any rights that Amiga Inc themselves did not have (which would seem to be curtailed by the settlement agreement), although as owners it would of course give them the power, and more incentive, to challenge any disputed limitations.

An afterthought: might ownership alsogive them the ability to reactivate, or indeed reassign, any contract formerly considered terminated such as for 3.1, 3.5 or 3.9?

Last edited by Boot_WB on 04-May-2015 at 10:09 AM.
Last edited by Boot_WB on 04-May-2015 at 10:08 AM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

In case of Hyperion no but they can modernize all of them
should they want to "court statement said in future version
too excluding OS4 and it's legal successors).

They are the only ones that can legally offer Kickstart ROMs
and Workbench disks but for emulation.Go above that and it's
the same legal case as A.Inc. vs Hyperion.So if they wanted more
rights guess who'll be their first mark :)

@blizz1220

Quote:

blizz1220 wrote: @cgutjahr Quote: t's not my claim, it's Cloanto's claim. And, please repeat after me: The claim is that the copyrights have been assigned to them. Yes, that also means legal access to source code. It's completely unneccessary to even mention it, because owning the copyright means it's totally your baby. They have license to use source code and modify them for the purpose of developing Amiga Forever.

Cloanto is T-H-E O-W-N-E-R of "all works created by the Commodore/Amiga companies up to 1993", which includes all versions of the operating system up to version 3.1, all documentation, all Commodore owned publications, all media, all videos, all advertisements. Everything. Like the RKRM books describing the API, the source code, and the binaries.

It's their property! They can do what they want with it!

The third party deal Hyperion has with Amiga Inc DOES NOT CONCERN Cloanto.

I mean, come on! What legal grounds would Hyperion have to say anything whatsoever to Cloanto? What would they say?

(Knock, Knock) (Door opens) Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "We have a settlement agreement with Amiga Inc saying that we should have an exclusive right to sell 3.1 and derivative work based on it, so you must stop! You must cease and desist! ".

Cloantos roaring: "You little man, you have some nerve! We don't give a f!ck what 'license deals' you might have with Amiga Inc, none of that is of any concern to us. We never signed a deal with you. Take it up with THEM if you are unhappy. In the meantime, we will happily O-W-N the 3.1 that now B-E-L-O-N-G-S to us."

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "Eehh, no but you don't understand, I have a license with Amiga Inc..."

Cloanto: "SHUT UP, read my lips, any deals you might have with whomever except us does not concern us. We are the OWNERS of 3.1, we do what we want with it!"

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "I'll take you to court, hi hi hiii".

Cloanto bending down so he can look Ben Hermans straight in the eyes, whispering: "See you there". Closing the door.

The day of the court proceedings arrives. The judge hammers his club, saying: "OK Mr Hermans, present your case"

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "OK, you see, we have an exclusive license from Amiga Inc for using a product to develop our own..."

Judge Dredd: "Stop, wait a minute, what product do you have a license for?"

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "The Amiga OS 3.1. So we can use it to make our OS 4.0."

Judge Dredd: "And this "OS 3.1" is the property of Amiga Inc?"

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "Eeehh..."

Cloanto roars: "No, the OS3.1 is OUR product. We own it!"

Judge Dredd: "And you can prove this?"

Cloanto: "Of course"

Cloanto claps his hands three times, the door opens, and a long line of assistants bringing in huge piles of documents and places them in front of the judge.

Cloanto: "Here is a complete paper trail proving that WE are the owners of the 3.1 product"

Judge Dredd faces Ben Hermans, looks him straight in the eyes while addressing Cloanto: "This little man here claims that he uses your product to make his own, is that right"

Cloanto: "Yes it is, the AmigaOS 4 is a derivative work from my property"

Judge Dredd: "And you as the legitimate copyright holder allow this?"

Cloanto: "Well, I wasn't really going to make a fuzz about it, but I mean, here we are, in court..."

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "AAAH! No! Wait a minute"

Judge Dredd: "Mr. Hermans, I see in my paper that you have special lawyer super powers, shouldn't you be able to distinguish between the implications of 'a license to use' and 'ownership'?"

Ben Hermans squeeky voice: "IIIhh, this isn't happening!"

Judge Dredd continues: "...and shouldn't your lawyer super powers tell you that an agreement between party A) and B) can not concern the property owned by the third party C) without him actually being part of the contract?"

Ben Hermans cries openly now: "Noo! Please stop! Please make this nightmare go away!"

Judge Dredd swings his heavy club repatedly in his desk while roaring: "You have been wasting my time with false claims, you are building a derivative product from property that you have no right to use, you have no deal with the PROPER and LEGITIMATE owner to allow you this. I hereby order you to cease and desist, and I strip you of all your lawyer super powers!"

-# BLAM! #- A flash strikes Mr. Hermans, leaving just a pair of shes with smoke coming up from them.

And the Amiga Community lives happily ever after!

@TRIPOS

Quote:

Edit 2: The section "AmigaOS history before AmigaOS 4.x" in the amigaos.net/content/10/history-amigaos page needs to be corrected, "1994 Workbench 3.1 released. This is the last AmigaOS released by Commodore" should better read: "1994 Amiga OS 3.1 released. The last release made by Commodore but released by Village Tronic after Commodores liquidation. And: "4 December 2000 Workbench 3.9 released by Haage & Partner" "18 October 1999 Workbench 3.5 released by Haage & Partner" should of course be changed to "4 December 2000 Amiga OS 3.9 released by Haage & Partner" "18 October 1999 Amiga OS 3.5 released by Haage & Partner" And at the top of this section, the following addition: "30 October 2014 Workbench 3.1 update released by Cloanto"

Actually, when I think of it it should be more appropriate to write:

"1994 Amiga OS 3.1 released. The first release made by Amiga Technologies"

Because officially, this was the first 3.1 release without any legal doubts...

@TRIPOS



Well law is strange ... No more than contracts of Cloanto
with Amiga Inc. can influence those settlement with Hyperion.
Also Bill never could sell to Cloanto "more than he owns him-
self" only same or less.

Not to mention he claimed not to have sources (felony if
he knew he had them / or could get their location) ...

So it's restricted even worst then Amiga Inc. unless smart
CEO forgets that he sold his rights to Cloanto and starts
making ports to androids using emulation (if that's the case).

So just reverse roles : Ben Herman is Bill McEwen in this story
and Cloanto is just as same as it is.

We don't even know what Cloanto got except (all works of Commodore)
that is to say even my Amiga1200 :) I guess I have to give it back now ...

@cdimauro

Quote:

No. Where have you read it?

http://www.haage-partner.de/amiga/aos39/faq/installtips.html

@cgutjahr

Quote:

They're claiming they own the copyrights, you really need to look up what that means.

Fine then.

Quote:

Yes, that also means legal access to source code. It's completely unneccessary to even mention it, because owning the copyright means it's totally your baby.

Not, if they gained it from Amiga.Inc after 2009.

@pavlor

Quote:

Not, if they gained it from Amiga.Inc after 2009.

word "if" noted, which would apply both to year and company as written so it's a double "if". (evil grin)

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

so it's a double "if"

Of course...

@pavlor

I'd like your opinion on something. Let's start with something we can call a groundwork fact or admission.

Despite all the negativity surrounding the IP attributed for a variety of reasons, people still talk about the "name" and the notion that the name still has value.

(1) If something truly IS worth only what someone pays for it, then can't we conclude that those who sought and acquired use of the name saw value in it?
(see:CUSA/IContain/etc. regardless of the outcome from a success standpoint)

(2) Since the parent company who supposedly has the right to license this trademark (it's only real asset supposedly) is known to be in deep financial trouble in terms of past debts yet to be paid...

(3) Please explain why we don't read about any more licensing attempts.

In simpler terms...company has an asset people want, company needs money, money can be obtained by licensing that asset.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 04-May-2015 at 03:42 PM.

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

@number6

Quote:

In simpler terms...company has an asset people want, company needs money, money can be obtained by licensing that asset.

Bill is not young anymore, maybe he sold anything of value to build retirement fund...

@pavlor

ok. fair enough.

And despite my post #4 you believe Darren B. Cohen doesn't have a say in all this?

#6

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

@TRIPOS

Quote:

It's their property! They can do what they want with it! The third party deal Hyperion has with Amiga Inc DOES NOT CONCERN Cloanto.

I beg to differ, or at least, that's not how I see it, just looking at one document, the settlement agreement, taking it at face value.

The settlement agreement does mention Cloanto as a lien, "having rights sufficient to support Amiga Forever, including emulation modules". That's obviously not in line with Cloanto's current claim of ownership.

So either the statement in the settlement agreement is erroneous/incomplete (at the time of writing), either Cloanto has acquired additional rights since that agreement.

Assuming the latter, Cloanto would be bound by the same terms as Amiga Inc ,constrained by the same restrictions.
Not only does this make sense, this possibility is also explicitly taken into account in the settlement agreement, and the necessary provisions for this eventuality, someone acquiring the "Collateral", are made in the settlement agreement.

Assuming the settlement agreement was not erroneous, one has to conclude that Cloanto has acquired ownership after the settlement agreement, and, hence, the agreement Hyperion had with Amiga does concern them very much. For one, they certainly cannot do whatever they want with it.

Evert

Last edited by jorit2 on 04-May-2015 at 08:08 PM.
Last edited by jorit2 on 04-May-2015 at 06:50 PM.

_________________
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --

@jorit2

What you just stated kinda falls in line with my comment about the content of the initial news being intentionally vague.
It would also support cgutjahr's earlier statement about fear (of repercussions).

But my bottom line would have to be (again)...we've dwelt in vaguery for 15 years as to "who to contact to do what?" (based on rights).

This analysis of the true meaning just serves to continue the plague a step further. This is NOT a healthy atmosphere for anyone wanting to do business. Period.

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

In simpler terms...company has an asset people want, company needs money, money can be obtained by licensing that asset.

I think main reason is field where trademark is registered
that is to say hardware (computer like devices would do).

In that field you deal with Sony , Philips and companies that
wouldn't touch it and unless some products are licensed
then trademark will be lost.

I suspect IContain and BlackBerry just didn't see any harm
of using license for experiment to see if it will boost sales.

Hobby projects from the scene are probably not of interest
to Amiga Inc. (petty cash) unless they can get money
by lawsuit later.

On the note of attorney , it's not strange for one attorney who
handles trademarks to re-register many of them for different
clients (especially if he did it before for that trademark).

Last edited by blizz1220 on 04-May-2015 at 08:06 PM.

@blizz1220

Quote:

On the note of attorney , it's not strange for one attorney who handles trademarks to re-register many of them for different clients (especially if he did it before for that trademark).

Yes, and he does.

But that doesn't change the fact that you go through Darren, not Bill.
That's the process. I don't expect those who have done this will confirm it, because everyone is too afraid to say what they are doing or have done.

Oh wait...Robert Dohnert did say that, but since he's been judged and convicted as a liar here, it must not have happened. erm...there are others...

#6

Last edited by number6 on 04-May-2015 at 08:22 PM.

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

@number6

Maybe D. Cohen has more authority assigned to him and
they "way to Amiga Inc." is guarded by that seasoned legal
warrior because some contacts might be unfriendly.

I could try asking Roberto but at this point I think he is
pretty much giving up on the whole story after he realized
that Linux running AmigaOS4 Apps would be harder in more
ways than one , and it's in competition with AEROS now.

@blizz1220

Quote:

Maybe D. Cohen has more authority assigned to him and they "way to Amiga Inc." is guarded by that seasoned legal warrior because some contacts might be unfriendly.

Possible, but as watchdog for the Kouri estate (family) and that being part of the debt (at least at that time), he's more mandatory as first contact for that reason, imo.

#6

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

@jorit2

Quote:

I beg to differ, or at least, that's not how I see it, just looking at one document, the settlement agreement, taking it at face value.

The Amiga Inc < - > Hyperion settlement contract is between Amiga Inc and Hyperion. Nobody else.

Quote:

The settlement agreement does mention Cloanto as a lien, "having rights sufficient to support Amiga Forever, including emulation modules".

Again, this is an agreement between Amiga Inc and Hyperion.

Quote:

That's obviously not in line with Cloanto's current claim of ownership.

Of course not, Cloanto now owns the OS, not Amiga Inc. Back then it was different.

Quote:

So either the statement in the settlement agreement is erroneous/incomplete (at the time of writing)

The settlement agreement is probably complete and correct (it is if both Hyperion and Amiga Inc are happy with it). But it's between Amiga Inc and Hyperion.

Quote:

either Cloanto has acquired additional rights since that agreement.

Dang Dang! Give the man a Cigarr!

Acquire complete ownership does constitute as "additional right", huh?

Amiga Inc = Not the owner anymore! The goods left the building!

Cloanto = 100% the new owner!


Quote:

Assuming the latter, Cloanto would be bound by the same terms as Amiga Inc ,constrained by the same restrictions.

Only if Cloanto signed an agreement with Amiga Inc and/or Hyperion stipulating this. Maybe they did, I don't know. Maybe they signed a contract as part of the deal to honor Amiga Inc's previous promises to various parties. Or maybe they didn't. I don't know. IIRC it was pretty obvious that the people at Amiga Inc really hates the people at Hyperion, and what they did.

But you see, the settlement agreement between Amiga Inc and Hyperion was a contract regulating the state of affairs between... ... well, you guessed it: Amiga Inc and Hyperion!

Quote:

Not only does this make sense, this possibility is also explicitly taken into account in the settlement agreement, and the necessary provisions for this eventuality, someone acquiring the "Collateral", are made in the settlement agreement. Assuming the settlement agreement was not erroneous, one has to conclude that Cloanto has acquired ownership after the settlement agreement, and, hence, the agreement Hyperion had with Amiga does concern them very much. For one, they certainly cannot do whatever they want with it.

A promise made by party A) to party B) saying "I promise not to let anyone else than you ride this red bike" can never be a liability to a third party C). That's a fundamental fact in any legal system, only the involved parties can be bound by a contractual agreement, not anyone else. If party B) is unhappy with party A) not keeping his promises, he can only sue party A), not party C) since they are not bound by any agreement between the two former entities. It would be a bizarre world if that would have been the case, don't you think? A world impossible to live in! Well, as it turnes out, Party C) now owns the red bike now, not party A).

Maybe Amiga Inc made Cloanto agree to honor the Amiga Inc < - > Hyperion settlement. If so, I'm sure they will honor it. Cloanto is probably the least "crooks" in the entire Amiga community, they are the definition of honesty and good will.

In any case, the settlement agreement only regulates certain agreements between Amiga Inc and Hyperion. If Hyperion is not happy with Amiga Inc not keeping its promises? Well, sue Amiga Inc! No third party is responsible for anything Amiga Inc or Hyperion has agreed upon. That's not how things works...