Commodore Phoenix questions

[the_leander]

I am going to buy a Commodore Phoenix Pro edition but someone said it wouldnt install Amiga OS 4 ?

If this is what you're on about, no, it won't. It's basically an X86 PC using laptop parts without the benefits of a screen.

OS4 will only run on PPC.

--edit--

To be clear - none of the computers on the commodoreusa site will run OS4.

At best you'll only be able run AROS or OS3.1 via UAE.

[the_leander]

Is Commodore USA even legal?

IANAL, but probably not. They claim they have permission to use the logo, "pending licensing rights". Make of that what you will.

The question is, does Commodore Gaming care enough/have enough cash to smoosh Barrys little enterprise?

Unless they take formal legal action to stop him, he can in principle do whatever the hell he likes with the logo and name.

[the_leander]

But a lot of plans are on hold UNTIL things are sorted out regarding the trademark.

And those things won't be sorted until they have negotiated and agreed to a deal.

Of course there are no PUBLIC documents available that show that Commodore USA can use the Commodore trademark legally.

That would be because they, by the websites own admission, have no such licence.

As such, any sale of C= branded machines by this company is illegal until there is a valid licence held.

 I am sufficiently convinced that their usage of the trademark is legal pending negotiations for a long term license.

Then you are an even bigger tool than I took you for. If you require a licence, then until you have one, you are operating illegally. This isn't rocket science.

This agreement is an internal business matter, as it should be, and not for public consumption.

I've played this game before. Until there is a public statement to the effect agreed by both parties, CommodoreUSA's business should be considered infringing.

Yes, in some countries consumer protection laws will save your butt should it turn out that Barry has been BS'ing us all, but that does not apply to all countries.

The phrase Caveat Emptor could not be made in a better situation.

Commodore Gaming is just a licensee and not the OWNER of the Commodore trademarks, even though they seem to have represented themselves in that way to many people, which has led to a lot of misinformed speculation regarding trademark legality by the gadget press.

Citation needed. Now.

Because what you just said amounts to an accusation of criminal fraud.

Choose your next words very carefully sir.

[the_leander]

It's illegal use when and only when the C= IP owners say it is.  Verbal agreement is fine between them until the owners say it's not.  

And Bernd Korz of Yellowtab totally had an agreement with Palm regarding the licensing of Be Inc IP.

Right up until Palm turned around and pimp slapped him when they decided that the direction he was taking wasn't to their liking...

Unless it is in writing, there is no proof of an agreement. And with regard use, it is technically illegal if you aren't licensed to trade under a brand not your own. As you say however it would require the owners to act before it would be enforced unless it was a big ass company whose brand you were selling under.

As someone who got stung by Korz, I would never, ever again knowingly place myself in a situation of buying potentially infringing products.

Until Barry gets a licence sorted. Steer well clear.

[the_leander]

Oh yeah, because if Commodore USA lose the temporary right to use the Commodore trademark

Any customer who has been suckered into purchasing infringing equipment can pretty much kiss goodbye to any support post a C&D.

Honestly, just because someone goes through a divorce doesn't necessarily mean marriage is bad for everyone. Get a grip.

I don't know why you're shilling for this guy, perhaps you are Barry, I don't know or care tbh. But until a genuine licence is in place, consumers are utterly at the mercy of the IP holders.

That is not a good place to be.

[the_leander]

More nothing.

Sorry, but I don't believe you, to quote the great chan saying: Dox or GTFO.

The name calling is uncalled for. You don't think I asked these sorts of questions?

I don't give a crap if you have or not. At no point has there been any evidence to back up your claims. "Trust me" simply does not cut it.

I have personally seen the e-mails between the various parties that have extended the negotiation period and the usage of the trademark from the TRUE Commodore trademark owners. This was shown to me in confidence, and to my knowledge Barry has been compliant with the licensor requests.

Again, Dox or GTFO. You repeating this line is so much smoke and mirrors.

No, this is not rocket science. That you cannot fathom that temporary licensing deals can be struck between two or more parties, that have nothing at all to do with you, without advising you first, is really mind blowing.

Verbal contracts are worthless in the real world.

They've been selling these things for 3 months or so and it's been all over the gadget press. I can assure you that the trademark owners know all about it. are excited about it, and are getting royalties, but probably have no official website where they can acknowledge that the negotiations are actually taking place to your satisfaction.

Possibly the single most convoluted pile of tripe I've ever read.

The fact of the matter, sir, is that you don't know what you are talking about, which is quite understandable, as you do not have the information I have at hand, and my dilemma is that I can't share it with you.

Of course not, we're all simply supposed to accept you at your word. None of us has the faintest clue who you are, but hey no worries, it's the internet! It must be true! :rolleyes:

[the_leander]

@the_leander
Fine. Don't believe me. I'll leave you to your ignorance I suppose.

Well perhaps if you provided Dox to back up your claims, I wouldn't be "ignorant", would I?

You can't have it both ways.

[the_leander]

Unless you're the artist, then why would anyone care anyway?

Because apart from anything else, it shows a complete lack of scruples. As a consumer, I go out of my way to avoid people who blatantly flout the law to sell their wares.

I know, strange, huh?
 

It's pretty much impossible to make a load of money legally.

What utter rot. Then again I suppose if you're giving C= as the example I could almost understand where you're coming from.

C= were completely and utterly incompetent on every level. They couldn't have sold water to people dying of thirst in a desert.
 

Right now CUSA looks like some crazy kid with delusions of grandeur, but that is what you need for a startup these days.

No, what startups need is well thought out business models with decent products that fulfil a need within a given market, or even create their own.

Delusions of grandeur? See Merlancia.