AmigaOS 3.1.4 withdrawn from market after Amiga

[malko]

Originally Posted by Gorf

That would have been for Amiga Inc. to decide, but they did not object.
Now Cloanto has acquired all rights.

Still did not have read the document, but if it's correct : "Margolines* these guys, I'm telling you..." .

* deepl translation but not sure about this word in UK as the Oxford dictionary doesn't know it. In FR : "margoulin" (Individu peu scrupuleux en affaires).

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by Gorf

Now Cloanto has acquired all rights.

Bill McEwen has pulled another of his scams, this time on Cloanto, because nearly all Amiga Inc.'s IP was already exclusively licenced to Hyperion under the Settlement Agreement.

[Mr.Flibble]

Cloanto had been granted a lot of rights to support, including patching classic OS releases from the Amiga companies: (This is directly from one of the court documents.)

21. The various rights granted to Cloanto IT srl, and later transferred or licensed to
CLOANTO, can be summarized as follows:
(a) The right to market and sell software that allows modern hardware and
operating systems to emulate AMIGA hardware (“Amiga Emulation”), and to
run AMIGA operating systems 0.7 through 3.1, as well as updates, patches
and enhancements by Cloanto IT srl and other various third party developers
(“Enhancements”), and applications and games created for AMIGA operating
systems by third parties and Cloanto IT srl, which has been a prominent
AMIGA developer since the 1980s.
(b) Since 1997, the right to develop, market, and sell Amiga operating systems
and Enhancements for use on AMIGA hardware.

22. CLOANTO or Cloanto IT srl has exercised the rights under various licenses granted
to Cloanto IT srl without interruption from the following dates, by doing all of the
following:
(a) Since 1987, incorporating the disk-based portions of AMIGA operating
systems as they were released (first, in Amiga OS 1.1, and then each operating
system thereafter up to and including Amiga OS 3.1) into applications created
for those systems by Cloanto IT srl, and advertising, marketing and selling
those applications;
(b) Since 1997, advertising, marketing, and selling Amiga Emulation products;
(c) Since 1997, advertising, marketing, and selling Amiga OS 1.1 through 3.0 for
use in Amiga Emulation and on AMIGA hardware;
(d) Since 1999, advertising, marketing, and selling Amiga OS 0.7 through 3.1 for
use in Amiga Emulation and on AMIGA hardware;
(e) Since 2000, advertising, marketing and selling Amiga OS 3.X (which is a
version of Amiga OS 3.1 with certain Enhancements) for use in Amiga
Emulation;
(f) Since 2006, advertising, marketing and selling Amiga OS 3.X for use on
AMIGA hardware (because the 3.X version in 2000 could not operate on
AMIGA hardware);
(g) Since 1997, using the AMIGA mark, the “Boing Ball Mark,” and the name
and designation, AMIGA FOREVER in connection with its Amiga-related
activities; and
(h) Since 2011, owning the trademark, AMIGA FOREVER in connection with its
Amiga-related activities.

So yes, Cloanto had fully granted rights to develop 3.x, something which Hyperion was expressly forbidden from doing.

[Mr.Flibble]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Bill McEwen has pulled another of his scams, this time on Cloanto, because nearly all Amiga Inc.'s IP was already exclusively licenced to Hyperion under the Settlement Agreement.

Incorrect, the court documents as well as the press releases from Hyperion at the time of the settlement indicate they only had exclusive rights for development and marketing of Amiga OS 4+.


They had limited rights to the classic sources to ensure backwards compatibility in OS4+, not for wholesale ownership of all Amiga Inc's IP.

[number6]

Re:any linked articles not current or of personal opinion related to Commodore IP

If not entirely on topic, I apologize in advance, but since Commodore has been brought into these discussions so many times, it may be relevant.

Although I believe that adding any discussion of the C= side of things will merely distract from the current conversation here (and honestly it's a bigger can of worms), I decided to offer what is current.
Hopefully this clarifies anything you might have read in articles making contrary claims.

What happened here is that the court ruled on the particular trademark CBM and most folks didn't follow what occurred after that.
original filing and responses for reference

As I understand it, it is quite rare for someone to file suit against euipo itself for decisions it has made. Nevertheless, the next event in sequence illustrates that when euipo finally publishes who owns a trademark...that might not necessarily be the end of the process.

C = Holdings BV vs European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Then the following appeared:
...saves commodore registration

Hope this helps.

#6

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by Mr.Flibble

They had limited rights to the classic sources to ensure backwards compatibility in OS4+, not for wholesale ownership of all Amiga Inc's IP.

That's not what the Settlement Agreement says.

Cloanto's list of the dates they started doing things doesn't mean they necessarily had the rights to do those things, that's why there is a court case on.

[daxb]

Originally Posted by Gorf

until now they did not change the code, only the binaries.

Is there a different in you opinion? Code = Binary. If you use a compiler to produce the binary or use an hexeditor doesn't matter, right? Change is change.

[Don_Adan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Flibble

Cloanto had been granted a lot of rights to support, including patching classic OS releases from the Amiga companies: (This is directly from one of the court documents.)



So yes, Cloanto had fully granted rights to develop 3.x, something which Hyperion was expressly forbidden from doing.

What about Amiga OS 3.5/3.9? Which are included inside 3.X ROM? I dont see info about this.

[gulliver]

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.

[Mr.Flibble]

Originally Posted by Minuous

That's not what the Settlement Agreement says.

Cloanto's list of the dates they started doing things doesn't mean they necessarily had the rights to do those things, that's why there is a court case on.

Amiga Inc's agreements with Cloanto pre-date the settlement agreement and are entirely seperate.


There are statements corroborating Cloanto's rights from Amiga Inc, but I'm not about to go wading through all the documentation to find the relevent passages at the moment.

[hth313]

Originally Posted by gulliver

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.

I actually see it the other way around, this is a problem for Hyperion. They did not buy anything, they got compensation related to doing OS4 work, which basically granted them the work itself and everything related to be able to keep doing it. It did not give them ownership of anything from Amiga Inc, it gave them a unique position to continue work on OS4.

It is very clearly stated in that agreement that Amiga Inc is the owner.

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.

Now you lost me, what does aprons got to do with it? If you translate aprons to kickstarts, then it does not hold as both parties do sell kickstarts and OS 3.

I do not agree with you on that Cloanto gets the shortest end here, I rather think they will reach some sort of agreement.

[malko]

Originally Posted by number6

[...]
What happened here is that the court ruled on the particular trademark CBM and most folks didn't follow what occurred after that.
original filing and responses for reference

As I understand it, it is quite rare for someone to file suit against euipo itself for decisions it has made. Nevertheless, the next event in sequence illustrates that when euipo finally publishes who owns a trademark...that might not necessarily be the end of the process.

C = Holdings BV vs European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Then the following appeared:
...saves commodore registration

Hope this helps.

#6

Thanks for the links. Especially also because the EUIPO documents are in various languages ! No need to translate, it's officially done

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by daxb

Is there a different in you opinion? Code = Binary. If you use a compiler to produce the binary or use an hexeditor doesn't matter, right? Change is change.

It does matter.
In the settlement agreement both terms are explicitly defined as not being the same.
Code refers to a more human readable form often but not exclusively in a higher programing language.
Binary refers to the compiled code suitable for machine execution.

one may have different view or definition, but that is what the relevant parties here agreed on.

[gulliver]

Originally Posted by hth313

I actually see it the other way around, this is a problem for Hyperion. They did not buy anything, they got compensation related to doing OS4 work, which basically granted them the work itself and everything related to be able to keep doing it. It did not give them ownership of anything from Amiga Inc, it gave them a unique position to continue work on OS4.

It is very clearly stated in that agreement that Amiga Inc is the owner.

Well, then you need to read the court documents: Cloanto is the one challenging the agreement directly, and asking it to be invalidated.

All of Hyperion´s rights are based in that agreeement. They havent challenged it and will most likely never do it.

The problem is not who is the owner, the problem is who has rights to do certain things.

Originally Posted by hth313

Now you lost me, what does aprons got to do with it? If you translate aprons to kickstarts, then it does not hold as both parties do sell kickstarts and OS 3.

That is why you need to read the court documents: one of the most solid claims Amiga Inc has against Hyperion is the one of trademark infringement, which involves selling merchandise. Between the merchandise mentioned, there are kitchen aprons.

Originally Posted by hth313

I do not agree with you on that Cloanto gets the shortest end here, I rather think they will reach some sort of agreement.

It is okay that we do not agree.

And I hope you are right and they solve all disputes with an agreeement.
I just see them both prepared to destroy the other.

[Gorf]

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.

There is always context that needs to be taken into account. A sentence does not stand alone.
You can read this agreement both ways - and that is why it is taken to court now.

The intention of the settlement agreement was certainly not to grant Hyperion full rights to the modification and distribution of 3.x - at least not from Amiga Inc's point of view. And Hyperions press release directly after the agreement shows the Hyperion was very aware of this.
So why did they wait all this years? Why didn't they start to sell the (unmodified) kickstart right away?
Hyperion was obviously waiting for the "right time", hoping Amiga Inc. being defunct ore otherwise incapable to react. And without Cloanto they would have been.

[malko]

Originally Posted by gulliver

[...] I just see them both prepared to destroy the other.

Like this :

[alpine9000]

Surely a better way to resolve this dispute would be a winner takes all game of Sensible Soccer.

[Mr.Flibble]

Originally Posted by Gorf

There is always context that needs to be taken into account. A sentence does not stand alone.
You can read this agreement both ways - and that is why it is taken to court now.

The intention of the settlement agreement was certainly not to grant Hyperion full rights to the modification and distribution of 3.x - at least not from Amiga Inc's point of view. And Hyperions press release directly after the agreement shows the Hyperion was very aware of this.
So why did they wait all this years? Why didn't they start to sell the (unmodified) kickstart right away?
Hyperion was obviously waiting for the "right time", hoping Amiga Inc. being defunct ore otherwise incapable to react. And without Cloanto they would have been.

Indeed, if any of the recent contract disputes shows (RSI vs Crytek for example), the contracts are taken as a whole and the "meeting of minds" component is very important. You can't take something in isolation and use it to twist the whole contract into something it wasn't intended for.

Hyperions actions at the time show that they very well understood and agreed with the terms of the agreement, it's only recently they started to overstep their mark.

I suspect that the death of the Next-Gen Amiga pretty much killed OS4+ sales stone dead, and with Amiga Inc apparently dormant they thought they could get away with taking the resurgent classic market for their own, pretty much as you said.

Apparently Hyperion's 2017 sales totaled about 36,000 dollars - hardly a healthy business.

Even if people see Cloanto as evil or bad or greedy or lazy, at least they've shown a willingness to engage and talk with the community.

[gulliver]

Originally Posted by Gorf

There is always context that needs to be taken into account. A sentence does not stand alone.
You can read this agreement both ways - and that is why it is taken to court now.

I agree that sentences do not stand alone.

Context is provided withtin the document and court ruling, and language is clear.

Originally Posted by Gorf

The intention of the settlement agreement was certainly not to grant Hyperion full rights to the modification and distribution of 3.x - at least not from Amiga Inc's point of view. And Hyperions press release directly after the agreement shows the Hyperion was very aware of this.

The intention of the agreement was to pay a debt.

What Amiga Inc thinks now does not matter. It mattered when they agreed to the settlement, and they did not dispute it. In fact they agreed and signed. That is what matters.

Originally Posted by Gorf

So why did they wait all this years? Why didn't they start to sell the (unmodified) kickstart right away?
Hyperion was obviously waiting for the "right time", hoping Amiga Inc. being defunct ore otherwise incapable to react. And without Cloanto they would have been.

They did not wait: in fact, one of the strongest points of Cloanto´s claim is that Hyperion included unmodified AmigaOS 1.3 kickstarts in OS4 back when it was released.

Hyperion simply chose the path to what they believed was more profitable: delivering a next generation OS4 based on PPC hardware. And back then, that was a good move from a business point of view.

I dont see that profit strategy being good anymore for several reasons.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

Surely a better way to resolve this dispute would be a winner takes all game of Sensible Soccer.

In the Speccy scene, we solve our disputes in a similar manner - each party is assigned to an AI Wizard in Chaos, and then the game is played out until only one is left standing.

It really works.