"Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"

[number6]

@kolla

No change since I posted what these documents concern:
Source

#6

[number6]

@thread

update:

English

German

#6

[number6]

@Thomas Richter

A good model, if you ask me, would be to hand over control to a "board", with multiple interested parties on the board, then negotiating on such board what the direction should be, then drive the process from there.

In essence this is currently a method employed by ExecSG through their steering committee, with the obvious comparison of multiple visions being discusssed.

#6

[number6]

@Thomas Richter

This is not only about two competing companies (or "companies", in case of Hyperion)

I hate to ask, but are you assuming the casual reader of these affairs understands what you mean by putting "companies" in double quotes when speaking about "Hyperion"?

#6

[number6]

@Thomas Richter

Or do you mean AmigaOs 4? That is not even part of the discussion between the two.

The trademark is licensed. Granted the court documents show that licensing would continue if Cloanto prevails in the trademark case, which is currently "stayed".
But since Ben's goal is to own the trademarks as well, I'm not sure you can dismiss this as not being part of the discussion.

#6

[number6]

@Thomas Richter

Or even differently - I do not get the "business model" Cloanto has here

I am unaware of Cloanto doing much more than requesting feedback through their cloanto.org site.
If there is anything in print regarding plans/business model I'd appreciate a link so I can enhance my understanding.

The understanding expressed almost a year ago (and alluded to often since) was that amiga.com was to be used to discuss such things, but as we all know, the domain got drawn into the trademark lawsuit and the lawyers effectively prevented it's use for this purpose.

#6

[number6]

@cgutjahr

It's almost as if something regarding open source came up in the recent settlement discussions

Since open source has been talked to death on various websites, it certainly seems like more than a coincidence that it begins again in great fervor here...right after the most recent "round" of settlement talks resulted in no resolution whatsoever.

It would also make sense given classic (all variations) has long been acknowledged as Hyperion's best seller. Let's be honest...currently it is their -only- product that can raise (in Amiga terms) reasonable revenue. Given the extremely forthright statements from Thomas, it is apparent that this product would be in jeopardy without the backing of Thomas and the team.

Agree/disagree?

#6

[number6]

arnljot

the current court orders regarding the two lawsuits

Basically this entire thread took off right after this was made evident on page #1 of this thread.

#6

[number6]

If someone tries to rob you and you resist, that doesn't make you the aggressor.

Excuse for being confused, but who is robbing whom here? Let me recapitulate: Hyperion and a couple of folks start creating Os 4, while Amiga Inc. is trying its luck with AmigaDE, a "me, too" product of Java, and fails, quite unsurprisingly.

Then Amiga Inc. claims that AmigaOs 4 is their property, after Amiga DE fails. Hyperion goes to court, against AmigaInc, Amiga Inc. goes bankrupt, transfering ownership to Amigo (or what's is name), renaming this enterprise again to Amiga. Then Amiga and Hyperion settle, creating the settlement agreement for ongoing development of AmigaOs. Then, Amiga Inc. sells again its "property" to Cloanto. So I really wonder who is the thief in all this epic novel. If you want to point fingers, Amiga Inc. seems to be a much more suitable target for that, having two victims.

Amigo (or what's is name)? You mean Garry Hare's KMOS. And it was renamed back to Amiga Inc., not Amiga.
btw-you skipped all events from settlement 2009 until the recent sale.

#6

[number6]

@ronniebeck

I read the latest court papers and I am wondering why anyone thought this was close to being settled.

Because this thread's beginning was based on the WDC chief judge Martinez's statements in the court documents of January 31, and not the documents you just read from February.

Business representatives of Hyperion, Cloanto, and C-A Acquisitions, Inc. have been
engaged in several days of intensive face-to-face settlement discussions in Europe geared toward a
global resolution of all claims, including the claims alleged in Case No. 19-cv-00683-RSM.
Hyperion, Cloanto, and C-A Acquisitions, Inc. are finalizing changes to a negotiated term sheet,
which they anticipate will soon be executed.

Source

#6

Edit: changed "head" to "chief" for sake of accuracy in the judge's title

[number6]

@Thomas Richter

That's not the accusal, though. If Cloanto wanted to stop Hyperion selling 1.3 - IMHO correctly so - why not bringing this particular case - namely on 1.3 - to court?

From statement of the original case:

1. This is an action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair
competition, breach of contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the United States
Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119
and § 1125(a), based inter alia on Defendant’s unlawful appropriation, exploitation, and
commercial distribution and use of Plaintiff’s AMIGA Kickstart ROM, Version 1.3 computer
code (hereinafter “Kickstart 1.3”),

Just curious. Who told you this was never a part of the lawsuits?

#6

[number6]

@Thomas Richter
Just curious. Who told you this was never a part of the lawsuits?

I haven't said that it isn't *part* of the lawsuit, but it is not what the lawsuit is all about. Besides, there is not "the" lawsuit, but multiple, over trademarks, for example, is another one.
Cloanto could also have made a case just out of this, and accept the exclusive development license on the Hyperion side. They didn't do that.

Well what you quoted from me says "lawsuits" (plural), so I have no clue why you decided to respond by indicating I said something other than what I said ("the" lawsuit).
I'm obviously well aware of the trademark lawsuit, but that case is "stayed" pending resolution of the contract lawsuit.

#6

[number6]

Mike does not develop Amiga software right now.

And? Trevor himself doesn't program any software either. The comparison was that someone can indeed "waste" spare time and/or money for some hobby when his real job earns him enough money to do so. And as far as I know Mike did not state yet he does his C-A Acquisition endeavor for a living.

Please note: I don't claim the opposite either. I just considered it funny to totally rule out Mike could do this out of enthusiasm only while there's Trevor at the same time going around for several years now spending his money here and there.

I'm seeing a slight difference in the content of the last 2 documents from the court and a new document not mentioned yet by the court, which appeared a few days ago.
I'll repost the old links and the new one for you to compare:

the order to show cause ( the contract case)

Plaintiffs request the Court order the parties to participate in alternative dispute
resolution. Dkt. #86 at 6. The Court does not believe that such is required at this point, as the
parties have recently participated in settlement discussions and can continue to do so
voluntarily.

the order staying the trademark case

the Court hereby finds and
ORDERS that this matter is STAYED until Case No. 18-cv-381-RSM is resolved or until otherwise ordered by this Court. Upon the resolution of Case No. 18-cv-381-RSM, Plaintiffs are to file a status report in this case within fourteen (14) days.

Both of these sound somewhat vague as to the next court ordered deadline, no?

Yet the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board says:
 

The parties are allowed until thirty days from the date of this order in which to
inform the Board of the status of the civil action which occasioned the suspension of
this proceeding. If no response to this order is received from either party, the Board
will resume proceedings and reset dates, as appropriate.

Source 4 days ago

Giving a due date of 30 days for response sure sounds different than "until is resolved" imo.

#6

[number6]

Wild guess - the lawyers, like everyone else working for Hyperion... were not paid?

On August 12, 2019, Ms. Elsden advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that her firm had not
been retained to represent Hyperion in this action.
 Consequently, no appearance has been filed by anyone on behalf of Hyperion.

Source

So...official removal but not new really.

#6