Evert Carton leaves Hyperion

[number6]

They (Evert/Hyperion maybe even Trevor) could have denied it by this time... it's been up for some time now. So it's probably genuine... The really interesting question is what really happend for him to leave?

Voila.

#6

[number6]

Mr Evert is of course famous for this unfortunate and misguided comment of AROS being "probably illegal".

Regardless, the project was renamed.

"AROS: Renaming project
According to Aaron Digulla, initiator of the open source code operating system AROS, the name "Amiga" will be deleted from the project name because of the legal steps of Amiga Inc. against Hyperion."

#6

[number6]

But where is the original transfer of that property to AInc?
Simple, it doesn't exist.
Prove me wrong.
You can't. Amiga Inc is a sham. It owns nothing. The only thing it could have acquired from past corporations is what Amino originally purchased, a license to use a trademark.

If Amino only purchased a license to use a trademark, then someone needs to correct the Gateway press release.

PC maker Gateway today sold Amiga's trademark and (etc.)

Apologies for further off-topic.

#6

[number6]

Actually, the article while informative (sort of) still gives us no clear idea who owns the OS.
It clearly does not mention anything other than trademarks being transferred to Amino. and it only mentions patents as being retained by Gasteway.
This leaves the status of the OS as an unknown.
And, as I've mentioned before, Amiga Inc. has never produced any documentation proving they own the OS.

Although a matter of curiosity for most, they could/would not supply proof to developers who required that proof either.

Jens Schoenfeld is one example from April 2007:

"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),"

This is a pretty typical response btw.

Also there is a war going on between John Grzymala, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of Hakia, Inc . and also  acting on behalf of the Kouri Family Trust vs McEwen, and that should surely be obvious to all at this point, since Itec is the first secured creditor of Amiga Inc.
 
"Garry: Itec has been an investor in Amiga since the purchase of the assets from Gateway. It remains an investor today. Itec is also the Senior (first place) Secured Creditor of Amiga Inc."

That complicates the speculation, since even if you determine Amiga Inc. owns something, then you have to discover which entity within Amiga Inc. you are talking about.

Oh the irony of the Pluritas site (supposedly selling the AI assets) being listed by google as "compromised". They touched Amiga Inc., and compromise should be expected. Heh.

#6

[number6]

Thanks 6,
This tends to reinforce my doubts that AInc. actual owns the property. And as far as licenses for patents are concerned, the OS is not patented it is a property.

The patents are irrelevant as they have expired and AInc has never offered proof of the contention that they licensed these either.

And does anyone know what Pluritas is selling? The only asset I am 100% sure of (outside of the trademarks) is AmigaDE, and that is not a particularly valuable asset.

Looking at the original press release, one could conclude that is the one item they intended to keep working on.

"Amiga Inc., who is also actively seeking investment capital to fund the ongoing development of their enabling technologies"

Source

If that's the case, then at the time they surely thought they had more to sell than that, imo.

btw, I would be shocked if you could contact Pluritas and just get your answer as to what is offered.
More likely you would be asked to supply a lot of information first.

#6

[number6]

It seems amiga inc hasn't been averse to some debt dodging in the past, so who knows.

Of course, there may also be a disconnect between what they think they own, and what they actually do own. As long as nobody challenges them on it, (and who would?) all is peachy for them.

You said a mouthful. Hence the war I mentioned. Not all parties who were a part of Amiga Inc. will see things the same way. You can bank on that.

Debts? I don't get involved in that, save where it concerns all the unpaid developers, who have been raped repeatedly by this bunch. Developers are often a mild mannered group of people in general and avoid the public fora to state how they have been treated over the years.
Although I've received hints at times to stop defending them, I see no valid reason why I should...
I'm not just talking about Bolton here. There is quite an extensive list.
I'm not content to accept the constant argument that what was done was legal and therefore there is no moral obligation in place that holds any water vs that.
And yeah, I've heard the argument about them knowing what they were getting themselves into as well. Irrelevant.

#6