@thread
Some of this has been posted before, but since I see discussion here about everything from trademark to patent to "reality":
You can read fairly up to date info on trademark here:
http://aminet.net/search?query=trademarkAs cgutjahr and others mentioned on AW, trademark registration is not a requirement for use.
@freqmax
Seems like the chain is Commodore -> Escom -> Gateway -> Amino Development.
It's a more extensive chain of names than that actually.
@psxphill
You'd have to go through the contracts, for example Amino may only have licensed the software and not transferred ownership of the copyright from Gateway.
There is still no evidence to prove that the company now known for the nth time as Amiga Inc. is classified as anything but an exclusive licensee.
Since this is fairly close to the claim of "ownership", people often ask what the difference is in reality.
Nate Downes answered that on this site years ago and others concur. It's about transfer of rights without the owner's approval. I'll let you decide if the theory is valid.
You could probably instruct a lawyer to contact the relevant parties though.
And that's not a problem. The contacts are known by those who wish/need to make contact. The issue is that you can not accept the words of the attorneys as fact. I'll let you decide if that is due to expressing rights in terms of the interests of their clients or if they really just do not know. In the end, only a test in court determines these rights, or so I am told.
If there is one line from the freeamiga website worth remembering, it is this:
In a way, the new "Amiga" companies got what they wanted: complete confusion.
More info on the Commodore end of the history:
Nedfield#6
