Consequences of the AmigaOS 3.1 source code "leak", one year after?

[psxphill]

This is clause 1d) of the agreement. One way or another, this copyright hand-over never happened, and Amiga Inc. is still registered at the US copyright office. See above for the link.

The US hasn't required registration since it joined the Berne convention in 1989 (not requiring registration is one of the requirements of signing up to the Berne convention). You CAN register with the copyright office if you want everyone to know who to contact. However in terms of copyright ownership, it's largely irrelevant. You don't need to have registered your copyright to issue a DMCA takedown. Supposedly to get awarded damages in court you need to have it registered, but that goes against the Berne convention (especially for owners outside the US).

Neither Hyperion or Cloanto are US companies. So they are unlikely to worry too much what the US copyright office or supreme courts say especially as I don't think Hyperion or Cloanto are going to take anyone to court in the US to get damages from them, while their agreements and previous case rulings are enough to protect themselves in court.

Amino were willing to relinquish most of their IP for $1?

It's hard to transfer legal ownership without consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law

If two parties are suing each other and want to escape from the court case then they will often do deals like this where property changes hands. A famous example is DEC suing Intel and when they settled in 1997 and Intel agreed to buy StrongARM from DEC for $700 million https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-digital-settle-suit/. The money was essentially damages for the technology that Intel stole, but DEC also got to offload StrongARM as they weren't able to make money out of it. Intel kept it going for a while, but in 2006 they sold it to marvell for $600 million.

Amiga Inc agreed to sell it to a specific person for as part of a bigger deal, a random stranger wouldn't have been able to jump in and offer $2.

[Gulliver]

The essential issue is that Amiga Inc. never had rights to CBM/Escom property, they only had rights regarding the brandname. So for example, they could build/sell/license cellphones or tablets with the Amiga name, but that was it (they had no rights regarding any former software or hardware design asset).

The CBM/Escom property still belongs to Gateway (well, to the series of companies that bought Gateway). This property was never transfered to Amiga Inc. and probably is now a dossier in some archive room in a technology company that doesnt give a damn about the Amiga, and worst of all, doesnt even know it has it in the first place.

At the time, there was concrete evidence of the brandname transfer from Gateway to Amiga Inc. I remember that the Amiga community was screaming out loud and complaining that AmigaOS and its 68k hardware designs were not transfered and Bill Mc Ewen, who was a man hungry for the quick buck, saw the opportunity to capitalise on this market, and then rectified former statements and claimed they also got the software and hardware design rights. It was just his unsubstanciated claim, nothing else, and no real evidence of property transfer ever surfaced. So Hyperion can claim the favourable court judgement, but Amiga Inc. had no rights regarding AmigaOS 3.1 to begin with. It is only  just a contract judgement due to unfullfilled obligations of a party but not a proof of ownership whatsoever.

Cloanto only had a licence to distribute AmigaOS for emulation purposes. Nothing else despite their claims and attempts to register every Amiga related jargon as a brandname of their property. They certainly dont have rights to sell burned kickstart roms for real hardware, or floppies for real Amiga systems, but then who is going to challenge what they are doing?

Both CBM and Escom based their business around selling hardware. AmigaOS was, from a businees point of view, seen just as a hardware accesory or even as an additional feature, not their main revenue income by far. Getting a license to build and redistribute AmigaOS during those days was pretty easy and affordable for the average developer. If I remember well enough, as a developer you could get a license to redistribute AmigaOS with your own software by paying CBM just $50 a year. So it was not an issue.

[wawrzon]

okay, so since the situation is completely unclear and none has proven their rights to whatever part of it with enough certanity, then its simply public domain and everybody can mess with it at will. fine with me, please proceed. simply dont take all these court cases apart yet again, it is sooo boring to witness..

[guest11527]

okay, so since the situation is completely unclear and none has proven their rights to whatever part of it with enough certanity, then its simply public domain

No, it does exactly not mean that. Public domain means that somebody - the rights holder - had waived his rights. It requires an explicit declaration to do so. But as you neither know who the rights holder is, nor whether he has or has not waived his rights, it remains at worst an abandoned piece of software. But that does not mean that you have the right to modify it, or derive works from it.

It means that you can be hit on the hat quite hardly should the rights holder could attempt at any time to execute his rights.

[guest11527]

The essential issue is that Amiga Inc. never had rights to CBM/Escom property, they only had rights regarding the brandname. So for example, they could build/sell/license cellphones or tablets with the Amiga name, but that was it (they had no rights regarding any former software or hardware design asset).

Where do you know this from? At least in the Cloanto contract, a chain of ownership is provided which goes from CBM Electronics to ESCOM, from ESCOM to Amiga, and from there to Cloanto. How valid and correct all these papers are I cannot judge (IANAL), but at least, there is more than nothing.

The CBM/Escom property still belongs to Gateway (well, to the series of companies that bought Gateway). This property was never transfered to Amiga Inc. and probably is now a dossier in some archive room in a technology company that doesnt give a damn about the Amiga, and worst of all, doesnt even know it has it in the first place.

There seems to be other evidence here. How do you know? Any traces?

Cloanto only had a licence to distribute AmigaOS for emulation purposes.

That might be then another contract I do not see. What I see here is something that claims transfer of copyright from Amiga to Cloanto, unrestricted, not limited to emulation.

[guest11527]

The US hasn't required registration since it joined the Berne convention in 1989 (not requiring registration is one of the requirements of signing up to the Berne convention). You CAN register with the copyright office if you want everyone to know who to contact.

I do not know - probably. However, one way or another: Something makes me very suspicious here: You can check for the assets mentioned in the Cloanto-Amiga deal, that is, Kickstart 1.3, Kickstart 2.02, Kickstart 2.04 and some other random junk, including VC-20 and C64 manuals. If you check for *those* at the US copyright office, you'll find that they have all, indeed, been transfered to Cloanto. The entries have been properly updated, see my link above. There is, however, at the same office also an entry for AmigaOs 3.1 - and for this particular entry, Cloanto *is not* listed.

Is that just coincidence?

At least, it should make you scratch your head.

Neither Hyperion or Cloanto are US companies.

Not so. The transfer goes, according to these papers, from Amiga Inc, a US based company in Delaware, to "Cloanto Corporation", a US based company in the state of Nevada, and from there again to Cloanto Italia, srl.

The settlement with Hyperion, indeed, seems to be between the Belgium Hyperion and the US Amiga Inc in Delaware.

If two parties are suing each other and want to escape from the court case then they will often do deals like this where property changes hands.

I do not doubt that, but that doesn't make the deal less valid in any particular way. A contract is a contract.

Amiga Inc agreed to sell it to a specific person for as part of a bigger deal, a random stranger wouldn't have been able to jump in and offer $2.

Oh, certainly. Nobody can force them to sell anything, but as it seems, they are at least potentially still the copyright holders of 3.1 (and not Cloanto), and if they sold everything to Cloanto for $1, let's just double the price for 3.1 and see where that goes... (-; The costs for the attorney for this trade where also pretty reasonable, so anyone wants to jump on this?

One way or another, the whole story is pretty hilarious.

[kolla]

Yes, the current copyright scheme is hilarious, and very little about what copyrights were originally about. First of all, originally you had to be a person to hold copyrights, companies were not in position to do so. And copyrights were originally for a _much_ shorter time. The draconian system currently in place is there very much because of Walt Disney, who had no second thoughts about taking public domain fairy tales and turn them into Disney property, or even screwing people over regarding copyrights (from the top of my head, Milne over Winnie-the-Pooh and Barrie over Peter Pan.) It is still possible AFAIK within the Berne convention and treaty of Rome, possible to not recognise companies as legal entities who can have copyrights. I know this was the case for Russia for a long while after USSR broke up.

[OlafS3]

@Thomas   Would that not mean you could be hit legally even if you would have agreements with Cloanto and/or Hyperion?  That would mean that Aros Rom Replacements are the only legal safe way to use?  I know that you prefer to use 3.1 as base f.e. for Vampire/standalone devices but would your preferred way not be very risky for any commercial vendor?

[kolla]

That would mean that Aros Rom Replacements are the only legal safe way to use?

It is not at all legally safe for anyone who worked on any original AmigaOS to work with AROS.

[polyp2000]

It is not at all legally safe for anyone who worked on any original AmigaOS to work with AROS.

I will just leave this here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

[OlafS3]

It is not at all legally safe for anyone who worked on any original AmigaOS to work with AROS.

 Yes who did?  Me not  I do not know anyone who worked with AmigaOS and now with Aros. Reimplementation without using original sources or looking in those just based on behavior is legal.

[guest11527]

@Thomas   Would that not mean you could be hit legally even if you would have agreements with Cloanto and/or Hyperion?

Yes, such a risk exists, in principle. It all depends on whether Amiga Inc was ever in posession of the copyrights (likely, but not necessarily), and even then,  a permission from Hyperion might mean nothing if Cloanto is the owner on 3.1 (it does not seem so, but who knows?), and a permission from Cloanto means nothing if Hyperion is the owner (which is currently my most plausible assumption, but who knows?). Then we have components that were developed under contract of H&P, which means that H&P may have some rights, and components developed for H&P under 3.9 for which the rights may or may not have went back to the individuals that contributed.

So, at this point, I'm completely unclear where the rights for FFS or SetPatch are located. The headers say "(c) Heinz Wrobel". It was done for 3.9, so is it "(c) H&P"? Or did Heinz regain rights on them after a two years period? Or did Hyperion bought the rights for that from H&P? It all depends on the individual contracts that had been negotiated between parties back then, and into which I do not have any insight.

So yes, it is complicated.

That would mean that Aros Rom Replacements are the only legal safe way to use?  

No, certainly not. If you bought your system with 3.1, you can use those ROMs without any danger. If you bought the 3.1 ROMs back then in a shop, copyright was fairly clear, and there is no danger either.

If you buy a 3.1 ROM from Cloanto these days... well, who knows? If you buy a 3.1 ROM from Hyperion these days... well, who knows?

It is highly unlikely that any of these players will reach out to individuals as there is no money to be made, so no worries. But if you *distribute* masses of such ROMs, you may become a problem. That is, either stand alone, or as part of another product, you may be in trouble - potentially.

So, for example, the vampire depends on 3.1 ROMs from Cloanto. Do they have actually rights on this ROM? Honestly, I do not know, but at least their copyright is not registered (which is likely not necessary), but it's at least a bit strange that the copyright for all other Kickstarts *are* registered for Cloanto, and you may wonder why.

I know that you prefer to use 3.1 as base f.e. for Vampire/standalone devices but would your preferred way not be very risky for any commercial vendor?

I would not call it "very risky", especially the "very" part, but at least there is a potential risk given the highly unclear situation.

Then again, has any individual contributing to AROS has ever had a look at the Amiga Os sources? If so, please add the "risk part" here, too. Not the "very" part.

[Thorham]

I wonder what the REAL truth is...

[guest11527]

I wonder what the REAL truth is...

Well... as often in legal matters, the question is whether something like this even exists. Everybody of course believes that his believe is right, and unless a decision is made in court, you do not know who is right. Even then, it is only a decision, and not a "truth".

[nicholas]

Well... as often in legal matters, the question is whether something like this even exists. Everybody of course believes that his believe is right, and unless a decision is made in court, you do not know who is right. Even then, it is only a decision, and not a "truth".

Lawyers seldom care about truth, only whatever they can away with passing off as 'truth' without getting caught.

Probably the main reason I don't trust a word Hyperion ever say.

[Pat the Cat]

It is not at all legally safe for anyone who worked on any original AmigaOS to work with AROS.

It's totally safe. They just can't receive money for working on AROS. That would be unsafe.

You cannot legally stop somebody from doing voluntary work without breaching their civil rights ("freedom of expression"), and any contracts signed with CBM are long, long void.

A right cannot be forfeited. A privalege can be forfeited, but NEVER a right. They are non-removable. 1689, Bill of Rights. This goes back to even before America was born.