A McBill era Amiga history, long version

[Tension]

I thought Village Tronic made 3.1 for Amigas?  Where do they fit into this?

(Yes, I know 3.1 was on the CD32 as well...)

[arnljot]

@Tension

VT made the 3.1 kickstart chips

[number6]

cgutjahr said:

There are no licenses left from the Commodore days, the oldest licensee would be Cloanto - who got a license from Gateway.

rzookol said:

macrosystem had/has licence for amigaos3.1 (draco and cd version for cd32)

I think there is a misunderstanding.
Most comments prior to settlement regarding speculation on who owns what relate to the list on Cloanto's site:
Distribution of Amiga ROM and OS Files

But this thread should illustrate the difference that cgutjahr is speaking about:
Who owns what?

Note the absence of certain entities, such as Macrosystems in post #8.
Source is the settlement documents themselves.

#6

[cgutjahr]

I didnt  say it was abandoned, I'm saying the rights have vaporized

1. rights never "vaporize"
2. If rights would vaporize, they would have vaporized 13 years ago, not just now.

However, all this is based on the assumption that Amiga Inc. had ownership in the first place.

Correct. But you're the one claiming that "rights have vaporized" and that there are "real owners" out there (instead of AInc/Hyperion) - while I'm (at most) assuming things, you claim to know the real truth.

[cgutjahr]

You also say that they would just have to call their lawyer to get the papers.  Here in Michigan we have our lawyers with us when we go to court.  Could an executive really forget to take his lawyer to court with him?

You're missing the point: The executive in question had left the collapsing company twelve months before the judgement. The lawyers he would have called had run away from the company twelve months before the judgement. Actually, the whole company had ceased to exist eight (iirc) months before the judgement (it got later reinstalled as ESCOM GmbH or sth. like that).

It's entirely possible Escom never had more documents than the ones that were presented to the judge. But given the circumstances, and the fact that the bancruptcy trustee had already located a new buyer for Amiga Technologies *despite* the lawsuit, I wouldn't accept this as a fact so easily.

Thank you for making my point.  If you reported to the police that I had your car, they would first want to see your proof that it was yours.  

Nice try, but you're the one claiming that "according to the documents presented to sb." is the same as "it's a given fact". Well, according to the documents presented to me so far, you're not the owner of the car you're driving.

[dannyp1]

I still stand by my statement that the burdon of proof would be on Escom that they owned the rights if they went to court to try and stop somebody else.

If you claimed you owned the car I was driving and took me to court to force me to stop driving it, the burdon of proof would be on you.  Unless the German courts are completely different than American courts.

[TheMagicM]

That would have to be The MagicM and Argo.  They seem to be our legal scholars.

LOL.

I'm reading it but there's alot of reading to do.  I'm by no means a scholar and I'm assuming you're being sarcastic.  

My approach to piracy and AO is, everything is pirated unless someone tells me otherwise.  I'm not going to read that and come to the conclusion that its "ok" to post whatever you'all are wanting to post because that document may or may not state nobody owns the legal rights to source code or whatever.  Thats not my job.  I'd rather say dont post links on AO until some sort of legal document or the owner says "yes, its ok to disseminate my work".

-Alex

EDIT: whomever wrote that spent alot of time researching.  Kudos to the writer.

[Pyromania]

Site has been updated with new information and is easier to read now.