Set the Amiga free... (kickstart)

[number6]

Although I would like to know who really owns it, just to finally know! My bets are on who ever bought gateway.

Like I said before, Pluritas has been engaged to sell the AI IP.

Potential buyer: "Before I bid, please tell me what I am bidding on"
Pluritas will either
(1)mention kickstart or
(2)not, which could indicate 2 things.

(1)It's not theirs to sell or
(2)They don't know either.

Mystery solved.

#6

[number6]

I didnt post your qoute, check comp for virus... anyways...

1. Selling boble air
2. Boble air with antivirus
3. Boble air with antivirus from mikrosoft
4. delete your system, reboot and reinstall.... bliiiip.

lol

Heh. True. But you had the same questions.
My fault for posting from an Amiga, something none of the IP holders/sellers seem to know much about.

#6

[number6]

Been wondering about that myself, wonder if they'll do what they did before changing the wording on their site and advise folk that they can find them freely on the internet or will they advise folk that they need to buy Cloantos Amiga Forever emulator in order to use their emulator...

Cos that only leaves them one option and that is to licence the roms from the copyright/IP holder, then as you say we will finally know...

What prevents C=USA from buying them outright? Do you know for a fact that kickstart is -not- part of the IP that Pluritas is attempting to sell on behalf of AI?

#6

[number6]

@ Number6

Well as it's never been legally proven just who owns exactly what, then CUSA could attempt to purchase them outright but the legal arguments over just who owns what and who has the right to sell what would most likely result in even more years of court cases, and I don't see CUSA being around that long...

Plus as I've already said it's all the biggest load of BS in computing history and if you and all the others who are so fascinated as to all the legal ins and outs about who allegedly owns the stuff then why don't you hire some good lawyers and find out once and for all instead of just posting opinions on it...

I've already said I couldn't give a toss about who actually claims to own any of it, as they don't seem to be bothered about it themselves anymore...

ok, then I won't complicate this further by asking why the C64 is now the C64x. Heh. We'll just tiptoe away from Ironstone Partners on this one...

#6

[number6]

Ok... don't ask... and I wont simplify things by telling you, I'll just stomp away noisily to watch Ironside on this one...

Ironstone Partners is one of the curious ones involved in the AI/Hyperion settlement. They licensed C64 from Tulip and their license is valid until 2015. You might notice some similarities in how they approached things:

source

a bit later on

fun stuff

#6

[number6]

@ number6 & bloodline

Sigh... you don't get it do you who cares about all the crap from the past, I sometimes wonder if certain folk who post here even use an Amiga or C64 anymore, they just seem to like quoting BS articles and legal documents from years ago that don't mean a thing anymore instead of enjoying the Amiga for what it was and still is....

It would be far more useful and helpful if these certain folk put a bit more effort into helping others out who post Amiga hardware/software problems and questions here...

But then maybe if it's been so long since they abandoned the Amiga they've either forget how to answer such questions or maybe they just never owned an Amiga in the first place and just come to these forums for something to do and re-hash the same old stuff over & over again...:rolleyes:

Actually Franko, I do get it. I'm posting from an amiga and I spend hours a day helping people in irc.
It's unfortunate these subjects of ownership keep coming up, but they are actually relevant to what you support.
I get asked constantly by devs of projects about the pitfalls/minefields they may be walking into and how to avoid them. You have no idea how many projects that actually could have been brought to the public have been destroyed by the confusion and legalities surrounding them.

If bringing up such things in public is disturbing, then I apologize.

#6

[number6]

@ Number6

It's not disturbing it's just pointless, until the day someone can finally & conclusively and with a shadow of a doubt prove who owns what...

Until then let the armchair lawyers like Dammy spout their unfounded and unproven legal views, in the meantime I'll just set the stuff free once again and see if anyone who can genuinely prove ownership of it comes forward and demands I stop...

Heh. Then you have more in common with Barry Altman than you wish to admit, since that's exactly what he did with the C= logo being placed on his site in order to find out who would complain, thereby determining who owned the license rights.

"Altman says he slapped the Commodore name and logo on his site in an effort to, well, locate the rights holder."

#6

[number6]

Wow, Franko is Barry's long lost brother!  Family reunion time! :rofl:

I'll throw in another example from 2006, so we don't focus on just the two above:

"Amiga Inc. do care. Just a few months ago, their lawyer ordered a German forum to remove a *video* showing a selfmade 3.9 Kickstart ROM." - cgutjahr

I'm not picking on anyone's methodology at determining ownership here, nor am I supporting it.
It's just a fact that (1)usage (2)wait for response
seems to be be in vogue these days.
Think about what this nonsense does from a developers standpoint.

#6

[number6]

Thought about it... and came up with ziltch...

Heh.

Since the point was about how confusion of ownership affects amigaland development, I'll give a Jens Schoenfeld example from April, 2007. There are many more, and I'm not implying things have not changed since this was posted.

"Bill McEwen, who hasn't been able to give any proof of ownership of the classic Amiga OS in the past 20 months, who wanted to send me contracts "by the end of the week" (that was in february)"

Surely you can draw the connection between ownership and development confusion here.

#6

[number6]

Bill McEwen is just a mad Scotsman, haven't you learned by now not to take anything a mad Scotsman gibbers seriously...

But I do see your point, although if you writing software or building hardware that doesn't include any code that's owned by whomever claims to own Kickstart or the OS then no-one can stop stop you from doing so and trying to sell it, so whomever does legally own it has no say in the matter...

Right, but what you just said should explain why not much was seen during the period 2007-2009.
Vaporware threads don't tell the whole story. Heh.

#6

[number6]

+1

& Yeees indeedy...

Different topic from the "we think we know who owns this one" file, released a few days ago:

http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-78940434.html

Perhaps a legal minded person can explain "Word Mark:

(NO WORD)". Does that mean we're talking about the picture only and not the term "boingball"?

#6

[number6]

number 6, you need to get your legal base straight, A trademark... HAS NOTHING to do with copyright or IP.

I'm only referring to the line:
"This trademark is owned by Amiga, Inc., New York, NY 10016" with my comment. I infer no more.

#6

[number6]

The "No Word" part of it means the logo doesn't contain any text, if you wanted a trade mark called for example "Amiga" using text then you can in theory apply for one but the text must not be an exact copy of any currently in use

eg: "amiga" and "AMIGA" could be registered as two different trade marks by two different entities providing the copyright office legal bods say that there is enough difference between the two fonts used to distinguish between them, but this can be challenged by either party in a court...

Just like you could use the boingball logo and add some text to it and provided you did not just use a direct copy of the original logo and there were enough subtle differences for the legal eagles to give it the go ahead as your trademark...

Thank you for the explanation. My "non legal" mind interpreted this incorrectly. When I saw "no mark", I concluded that the obvious image of a boingball was not connected to the obvious term, and nothing more.

#6

[number6]

If you really want to use the trademark "Amiga" it's legally available to register here...

Click on "Basic Word Mark Search (New User) "
then enter the word "amiga"
then see item number 17...

(sorry but whomever made that crappy site doesn't allow direct links to the results page, so you have to follow the above instructions...)

Amiga Tradmarks Live & Dead

But does anyone really want to go to the expense of owning it...

You would have to ask those directly who already contacted Pluritas, but surely NDA covers not discussing such things.

#6

[number6]

@thread

I've asked about this one in the past on various sites. Never got a response.
Can anyone summarize what this was all about for those of us not legally minded?

Amiga Development LLC v Hewlett-Packard Company

If it's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing, just indicate so.

#6