Who owns AmigaOS?

[number6]

In essence: I don't think anybody can give a 100% accurate picture of the ownership situation.

It's a mess.

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=616011&postcount=199


Your freeamiga link is not Inquisitor's most recent writings, in case you did not know.

More current

#6

[number6]

@number6:

Please stop linking to tmhg postings, my head hurts.

@all:

The situation is like this: If Gateway ever properly acquired AmigaOS (there are doubts about this, see inquisitor's excellent "Amiga Docs" report), and if we pretend that the current incarnation of Amiga Inc. can indeed provide all the paperwork to prove that the AmigaOS rights were properly transfered from Gateway to them somehow (Hyperion itself made quite some interesting points about that particular story before they settled with AInc), the settlement between Amiga and Hyperion defines the current situation like this:

Amiga Inc. owns AmigaOS 3.1. They did, however, license most of the things you can do with a software product to Hyperion - exclusively. Amiga might own the OS, but they're not allowed to call it "AmigaOS" and they're only allowed to use it in places nobody will ever get to see it (like an Amiga-in-a-joystick remake, that's mentioned as an example in the settlement). The settlement always refers to "AmigaOS 3.1". It is unclear - to me, at least - if this means "this particular version of AmigaOS" or "all versions of AmigaOS up until 3.1". I tend to assume the latter.

Hyperion has an (exclusive) license to distribute, modify, market etc. AmigaOS (not just OS4, we're talking AmigaOS in general). They have an (exclusive) license to call it AmigaOS. And they do own AmigaOS 4 - except for the code parts that are still left over from AmigaOS 3.1, obviously. They also have an (exclusive) license to the term "AmigaOne".

The settlement also contains a clause that stops Amiga from competing with Hyperion in the OS departement. I assume that's why Hyperion alleges that Amiga can't license the "Amiga" name to CUSA if the latter are distributing AROS - because that would actually be competition.

The "Workbench" trademark has been registered in the US by Cloanto years ago - Amiga are trying to stop the registration from becoming valid. This particular litigation is still going on, but Amiga's performance matches those in their previous legal disputes (i.e. it's abysmal). Let's wait and see who wins that one.

In agreement with your summary, even the bit about your head hurting.
Your specific comment relating to Amiga OS4, also explains to some degree why "Amiga OS", the more general term is still referred to at amiga.com
One bit maybe worth mentioning for those who question why those in authority do not post. The AI/Hyperion non-agression pact, also from the settlement probably precludes this.

#6

[number6]

And ExecSG. Hyperion licenses ExecSG from the Friedens. The Friedens even had to sue Hyperion to keep Hyperion from claiming it was their product.



Hyperion has no say in what CUSA does. Ben Hermans thought he had a case when he first heard about CUSA, saying "you can bet we'll look into this". But there is no lawsuit, no cease-and-desist, he had to go sit back down in his corner and shut up. AInc. swatted his chubby little fingers away.

The Euro lawsuit is well documented elsewhere. It had nothing to do with any grievance of the developers with Hyperion.

I won't comment n Amiga Inc's ability to swat, since cgutjahr is absolutely correct when he describes their won/lost legal record as abysmal.

#6

[number6]

And last but not least, the agreement specifies exactly how a bancruptcy of any of the "Amiga parties" would have to be handled.

You're referring to the leins?

#6