@Colin_Camper

Quote:

Colin_Camper wrote: @Thread Re: #114 I must admit I am starting to find this whole law suit saga baffling. Here we have two companies, both with virtually none or no income stream, fighting tooth and nail and hammer and tong for IP far less valuable than - say Michel Schulzes AROS-64 or PPC-AROS. Very strange and bizarre.......

If your company had gotten millions of dollars in cash as an investment from a public firm in 2005 yet you make almost nothing (at least visibly) would you really want the public perhaps finding out all your business through the course of a lawsuit? Especially when some of the public may be shareholders in the public firm that handed over those millions of dollars? Maybe you are doing nothing wrong, but then instead it might tip your hand on something like AA2 which you are trying to paint as revolutionary and mess up marketing plans, or it might show how advanced you are on the OSX killer OS5 is supposed to be (or how non-existant, or perhaps behind it is - take your guessing pick). Would you want free info out there for your enemies like Bolton and Genesi that also might come to light that they could possibly tangibly use against you (maybe fairly - maybe not)? Would you want the city of Kent to have any info that they may use to sue you with at a later date since they have been unable to find another sponsor for their arena and the burden will fail on their taxpayers if they don't. Whether you believe they are very legit and working on some amazing products behind closed doors or that they are not legit. In either scenario they would'nt want a lot out there. And unless they have burned through the Prokom money in the last three years the legal fees should not be very expensive to them.

As for Hyperion this is their flagship product, and so they have one local lawyer instead of some legal team from NYC like Amiga does. So I'm not surprised they are trying to fight for it.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Jul-2008 at 09:35 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@-Sam-

Quote:

Guess none of them own Amigas.

Truth could be stranger than fiction here. Has any one seen the documents transfering Amiga IP from Gateway to Amino? Anyone have a link?

If I claim to own a house or car, and later some one disputes my ownership of the property, the first thing that going to be ask for is the title or paper work supporting my claim. Does Amino/Ami-D/Ami-W/Kmos have all the proper paperwork? Maybe Hyperion is counting that they don't.

Plaz

@Plaz

Quote:

Truth could be stranger than fiction here. Has any one seen the documents transfering Amiga IP from Gateway to Amino? Anyone have a link?

There is at least evidence that Amiga Inc. holds Amiga trademarks. You can check it out from USPTO (United States Patents and Trademark Office) or PRH (National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland) for example.

Last edited by itix on 29-Jul-2008 at 11:38 PM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: @Plaz Quote: Truth could be stranger than fiction here. Has any one seen the documents transfering Amiga IP from Gateway to Amino? Anyone have a link? There is at least evidence that Amiga Inc. holds Amiga trademarks. You can check it out from USPTO (United States Patents and Trademark Office).

I think Plaz's point is that stuff like that could go all down the drain if it were to be shown that a proper transfer was never completed. If that happened the USPTO would have to consider recinding listing them as the holders. Not saying thats going to happen. But I think what you are saying isn't really relative to the point Plaz is trying to make. This is part of the reason Hyperion has filed an objection with the USPTO on a least one of the marks.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Jul-2008 at 11:38 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

I think Plaz's point is that stuff like that could go all down the drain if it were to be shown that a proper transfer was never completed. If that happened the USPTO would have to consider recinding listing them as the holders. Not saying thats going to happen. But I think what you are saying isn't really relative to the point Plaz is trying to make. This is part of the reason Hyperion has filed an objection with the USPTO on a least one of the marks.

Nonsense. Amiga trademark has been alive over 20 years and there is no way Amiga Inc. could have registered Amiga trademark if it was owned by someone else.

If proper transfer was never completed then OS4 is illegal based on stolen source code. Not very convincing.

Also if Hyperion knew about illegal activities of Amiga Inc. should not they report that to respective authorities? Using stolen goods, when you know it is stolen, is not very convincing either.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

This is part of the reason Hyperion has filed an objection with the USPTO on a least one of the marks.

At least by a quick look I could not find information about that. I know that it used to have text about Hyperion's objection but it is no longer there.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: @Plaz Quote: Truth could be stranger than fiction here. Has any one seen the documents transfering Amiga IP from Gateway to Amino? Anyone have a link? There is at least evidence that Amiga Inc. holds Amiga trademarks. You can check it out from USPTO (United States Patents and Trademark Office).

The problem is that the trademarks lapsed, and they didn't regain them until part-way through the current legal proceedings.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: This is part of the reason Hyperion has filed an objection with the USPTO on a least one of the marks. At least by a quick look I could not find information about that. I know that it used to have text about Hyperion's objection but it is no longer there.

This is all that I could find about the objection by Hyperion.

Hans

EDIT: If you dig a bit deeper on that link you'll see that Amiga Inc. and Hyperion agreed to suspend proceedings till October while they attempt to negotiate a settlement.

Last edited by Hans on 30-Jul-2008 at 12:01 AM.

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@itix

Quote:

Nonsense. Amiga trademark has been alive over 20 years and there is no way Amiga Inc. could have registered Amiga trademark if it was owned by someone else.

Double nonsense. Amiga was originally registered by Commodore. That's the only way it's been around 20 years. Amiga Inc has not been awarded a new trademark yet. As mentioned, it was contested by Hyperion. I can easily fille my own trademark application with any name I like. How about itix, youtube, motorola? If no one were to check or challenge and I was some how awarded the trademark then what? Trademarks have been awarded, challenged and revoked before. I don't say that will happen here, but to think there isn't enough lack of paper work, evidence or doubt to challenge Amiga Inc on the issue is not nonsense.

Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 30-Jul-2008 at 12:06 AM.
Last edited by Plaz on 30-Jul-2008 at 12:05 AM.

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

I think Plaz's point is that stuff like that could go all down the drain if it were to be shown that a proper transfer was never completed.

I said as much in other threads. Amiga Inc has a mish-mash of poorly done documentation and their undelivered promises. Without knowing more about what actually exist, I can't say Amiga Inc has enough evidence to show they are the sole legal owner of any thing. Just becuase they say so isn't enough for most courts and Hyperion has decided to call them on it.

Plaz

@Hans

Quote:

The problem is that the trademarks lapsed, and they didn't regain them until part-way through the current legal proceedings.

It is irrelevant as long as Hyperion Entertainment is not designated as an assignee of Amiga trademarks.

USPTO also shows that Amiga Inc., WA was an assignee of original CBM trademarks which suggests that at least trademarks were transfered to Amiga Inc., WA. There indeed seems to be a mess with Amiga trademarks (both Amiga Inc., WA and Amiga Inc., DE are there...) but since Delaware company seems to own Amiga trademarks internationally.

But to make it again short: Hyperion is not an assignee of any Amiga trademarks.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: I think Plaz's point is that stuff like that could go all down the drain if it were to be shown that a proper transfer was never completed. If that happened the USPTO would have to consider recinding listing them as the holders. Not saying thats going to happen. But I think what you are saying isn't really relative to the point Plaz is trying to make. This is part of the reason Hyperion has filed an objection with the USPTO on a least one of the marks. Nonsense. Amiga trademark has been alive over 20 years and there is no way Amiga Inc. could have registered Amiga trademark if it was owned by someone else. If proper transfer was never completed then OS4 is illegal based on stolen source code. Not very convincing. Also if Hyperion knew about illegal activities of Amiga Inc. should not they report that to respective authorities? Using stolen goods, when you know it is stolen, is not very convincing either.

Obviously you have not read a good portion of the court docs since what your are saying has no connection to what was actually alleged by Hyperion in their countersuit. That trademark has moved around a bit since Gateway, to Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino and KMOS turned Amiga (DE). Hyperion is questioning the legality of the transfer from Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino to KMOS turned Amiga (DE). But obviously with them saying that they did not know things were amiss at the time, but that they know better now from more recently obtained information. Basically they say they were purposely duped. Plaz was taking it one step further asking if anyone even had proof of the Gateway to Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino transfer. But since Gateway announced it too I doubt thats worth pursuing. As for the source code, well Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino never had it and was not able to give it to Hyperion as contracted. Hyperion has to legally obtain it elsewhere for their work, and they did.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2008 at 12:17 AM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Obviously you have not read a good portion of the court docs since what your are saying has no connection to what was actually alleged by Hyperion in their countersuit. That trademark has moved around a bit since Gateway, to Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino and KMOS turned Amiga (DE). Hyperion is questioning the legality of the transfer from Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino to KMOS turned Amiga (DE).

I stopped reading long ago because nothing new has surfaced in recent years. I know about Amiga shell game. Amiga Inc. has been frauding Amiga users since the beginning.

Quote:

As for the source code, well Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino never had it and was not able to give it to Hyperion as contracted. Hyperion has to legally obtain it elsewhere for their work, and they did.

That means nothing. Sometimes goods get lost. Sometimes it is the source code. Hyperion could use that source code only because they were developing OS4 under license from Amiga Inc. If it appears that Amino did not have rights to that source code then Hyperion can not have rights either.

Btw do we have proof that Gateway owned Amiga source code in the first place? All evidence I have seen is about trademarks and patents. It could explain why Amino did not have source code available But I recall stories of Amino sending all kind of old junk from Commodore times to Hyperion when they started developing OS4 in the 2001/2002. Amino really had some stuff which they acquired from Gateway. Unfortunately I have lost all my IRC logs.

Last edited by itix on 30-Jul-2008 at 12:59 AM.
Last edited by itix on 30-Jul-2008 at 12:58 AM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@number6

Seems like they want the documents hidden from public eyes. Very interesting yes, i wonder if they are planning to submit source code or something, they also seem to have consulted a law firm,

Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. | Seattle Law Firm

Cairncross & Hempelmann is a Seattle-based law firm that advises companies and individuals in Corporate Finance & Business Transactions, ...

So hyperion has the upper hand?

Last edited by mike on 30-Jul-2008 at 01:17 AM.
Last edited by mike on 30-Jul-2008 at 01:15 AM.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

@mike

Quote:

Seems like they want the documents hidden from public eyes.

Please see:
#35

Regardless of her ^^ opinion I'll offer mine:

"Seems" in an understatement. This is a "gag order".
Not unlike what was seen during the Garry Hare affair.
Not unlike what still exists over the Bolton Peck affair.

I should add that some of the posts above are not relevant to the civil action.
Judge Martinez already used the term "troubling" in regard to the "shell game", but that would be an issue for an entirely different court.

Quote:

While the Court finds these inter-relationships potentially troubling, they do not provide any basis

etc.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 30-Jul-2008 at 01:39 AM.
Last edited by number6 on 30-Jul-2008 at 01:30 AM.

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

@number6

So we might be kept totally in the dark from now on? Gee that might just be enough to cause a riot ^^

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

As for the source code, well Amino turned Amiga (WA) turned Amino never had it and was not able to give it to Hyperion as contracted.

Except we know that happens not to be true, because Olaf himself sent a copy of the 3.1 source code to Amino.

Quote:

Hyperion has to legally obtain it elsewhere for their work, and they did.

Considering that Olaf had no right to have OS 3.1 source code in the first place, much less a right to license it (rather than his improvements) to somebody else, you really need to get over this stupid "Hyperion bought the OS 3.1 source from Olaf" nonsense.

Hyperion bought Olaf's improvements to the 3.1 source code. In the delivery, they also received the original 3.1 source code, which was fine by Olaf (seeing as Hyperion was supposed to have a 3.1 source license from Amiga), Hyperion (because they didn't care where they got their source, as long as it had Olaf's improvements), and Amiga (because while they were a bit miffed about Olaf having the code in the first place, it (a) removed the need to deliver it to Hyperion themselves, which they otherwise would have had to do, (b) gave Hyperion a head start on the OS which Amiga was going to make money from, and (c) got Olaf to shut up about being paid for his time).

None of that applies at all if Amino did not own the 3.1 source in the first place. Of course, even if that were so, neither party in this lawsuit would have the slightest interest in pointing that out, because it would leave OS4 co-owned by whoever owns 3.1, and thus in unusable limbo.

@itix

Quote:

I stopped reading long ago because nothing new has surfaced in recent years. I know about Amiga shell game. Amiga Inc. has been frauding Amiga users since the beginning.

Well it makes no sense then for you to comment on Hyperion's legal strategy if you aren't going to read their arguments in the case.

Quote:

If it appears that Amino did not have rights to that source code then Hyperion can not have rights either.

Case in point, what you say here. Hyperion is not saying this. Hyperion showed it was promised in the contract and not produced. They aren't saying Amino had no rights to it. They point it out as a breach of said contract. Where they are arguing about rights when it comes to Amiga branding and Amiga branded assets is in the transfer to Amiga (DE) from Amiga (WA) a.k.a. Amino. They argue that Amiga (WA) went insolvent first and that that fact was covered up. And thats relevant to them because the contract with Amiga (WA) says that if Amiga (WA) were to become insolvent that they get a perpetual Amiga OS license to sell, market, distribute the AOS 4.0 product.

You don't need to agree or disagree with the argument, but you should understand what the actual argument is before making baseless comments on the case, unless you just want to needlessly muddy the waters in forum discussions.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2008 at 02:52 AM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@umisef

Quote:

Except we know that happens not to be true, because Olaf himself sent a copy of the 3.1 source code to Amino.

So you are saying Amino willfully withheld the code needlessly from Hyperion even though they had a contractual obligation to produce it? I did not know that. That would be even worse. BTW your use of the royal "we" is most amusing. LOL!

Quote:

you really need to get over this stupid "Hyperion bought the OS 3.1 source from Olaf" nonsense.

I see you haven't lost your condescending tone. Your loss in life. We are talking about the arguments made in the case. Hyperion says they had to pay out of pocket for the sources from 3.1 thru 3.9 needlessly when Amiga (WA) was contractually tasked with that and could not produce. Whether you want to use your personal knowledge from the time to dissect the real world truthfulness of that is your own business. I wasn't around then. Bottom line is there is a difference between discussing the legal arguments and discussing what might have really happened in the real world.

Quote:

None of that applies at all if Amino did not own the 3.1 source in the first place. Of course, even if that were so, neither party in this lawsuit would have the slightest interest in pointing that out, because it would leave OS4 co-owned by whoever owns 3.1, and thus in unusable limbo.

I'm not arguing that. When it comes to source code the only argument Hyperion made that I read about was the breach in terms by Amiga in not producing it as required and them talking about the expenses and hence delays incurred by Hyperion to then have to get it on their own. You can call that hogwash in reality and you may be very well right. But it dosen't change a damn thing about the argument having been made in court and existing on paper in the related documents.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2008 at 03:06 AM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@number6

Quote:

Judge Martinez already used the term "troubling" in regard to the "shell game", but that would be an issue for an entirely different court.

Which doc was that and where in it #6?

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200