View Single Post
Old 07 February 2019, 16:55   #749

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 42
Posts: 2,139
The problem from Cloanto┬┤s point of view is that the settlement agreement is not a simple contract between two parties, but the payment for a debt Amiga Inc had with Hyperion due to the OS4 port, recognized by a court judge.

As said, this agreement is ratified by a judge and was not challenged when it was possible. So it legally stands in court. It is now a public document.

In the agreement Amiga Inc. recognizes the limited rights other parties had to their IP, including Cloanto, and grants certain specific rights to Hyperion as a form of payment.

Cloanto knows this, and they just argument that the agreement does not say what it says literally. They said that the intentions of the agreement where other, and that they somehow got badly expressed on paper. Of course, Hyperion disagrees.

When it comes to contracts/agreements, what matters legally is what it literally says, not what you or me, or my neighbour┬┤s cat want to believe it says. More even when it is written in clear and simple language.

Not only that, but Cloanto is trying to get the settlement agreement invalidated, which would be certainly very difficult, because it holds little to no explicit obligations towards Hyperion (it was expected to be like that since it was a payment for a debt). No obligations means little to no penalties.

Trademark infringements and IP missuse if proven, cannot cause the settlement to become invalid. They can only cause other non related consequences/penalties (like separate trials/fines/compensations for those specific events). And yet, these companies will have to prove proper IP/trademark ownership and licensing (there is no publicly available known legal document that state this, only claims), whilst Hyperion already has their rights proven by a judge under the settlement agreement, and this document is public.

And then how much compensation can you ask for someone selling aprons, when you do not sell anything yourself? Where is your loss of revenue? You can only argument damage of your brand, but then it will be difficult to prove that since you dont sell anything yourself.

So if it is based on arguments alone, I see Cloanto getting the shortest end of the stick in this matter. But then, many times lawsuits are won by technicalities and not by the core arguments.
gulliver is offline  
Page generated in 0.05416 seconds with 11 queries