Is Amiga Inc's claim to AOS valid?

[Fraggle1]

Joining this debate late, but here goes .....
First let me say I agree with Franko, who's point (I think) is "who REALLY owns the copyrights/IPs, etc. & not who THINKS they own them." Like he says, we'll never know until it's tested properly.
Personally, I rather fancy the idea of this being tested in the Scottish courts, who are known for their commonsense & "robust" decisions. ;-)

In my view, that those who claim to hold the various copyrights/IPs are simply squatting on them in the hope that they will be worth a lot of money someday. I just hope they're not holding their breath. ;-)
As Digiman says, they have no product for sale, which rather undermines the large values that they put on the copyrights & IPs, as does the fact that no one seems able to run a profitable business off the back off them.

Defending the rights to various kickstarts & defunct OS versions seems to me like claiming copyright over the Ox drawn plough - It might still have it's uses, but you're never going to make money from selling them.

[Fraggle1]

Glad to oblige, Franko.  :-)  Maybe I understand you better than most because my family are from your part of the world & consequently I speak fluent Glaswegian. (Ach, awa & bile yir heid, ye wee sumf !) LOL. ;-)

Ismart - I take your point & I admit I could have worded that better. By "defunct" I meant that they are no longer in development, have no 'future', & are of interest only for their use in emulation of an obsolete machine. (and Yes, I DO own/use a number of Amigas)
Also, I didn't mean that they have no value, but that the figures that AI & others have placed on that value is (IMHO) far in excess of their real commercial worth.
However popular Amiga Forever may be, I'm willing to bet that no one at Cloanto could live for a month on the money they make in a year from AF, hence it might be a nice hobby job, but you'd hardly call it "profitable", a factor which largely determines something's commercial value.