Amiga technology and patents ownership ?

[boing]

You are correct.  I remember following this case when it was announced.

  AFAIK, and I'm rarely wrong (humble aren't I?) Aminos got the right to the name, but Gateway retained ownership of patents.  Frankly the new "Amigas" seem to lack all the novel hardware that makes an Amiga an Amiga. Haynie was right in one regard: they are more or less just PPC-based PC's.

  I have long wondered on this forum why so few people are aware of the ruling of the German court which really seemed to imply that Gateway only thought they bought the full Amiga rights.

  Since nobody challenged Gateway's ownership (and in fact people were happy to see a monied owner come along) it seems that the complications of international law (not to mention patents and the complexities of fledgling IP laws and precedents) have kept Gateway shielded from legal challenges.

 For all we know, Gateway found out after the fact that they really didn't have everything.  But they're in the US, and who in Germany has the interest and money to make an international challenge?  For all we know Aminos/Amiga/whomever knows they don't have an actual ownership to the OS and are desperately hoping nobody figures it out.

  Frankly I've often wondered by various interests haven't just hired a lwayer backtrack the various post-CBM "IP" transfers and find out where it all stands.  If Deloitte and Touche liquidators screwed up it may well be that at least the OS is floating around out there, actually unowned in a grey netherworld (legally).

  I don't see why the pios or bPlan guys or AROS or whomever don't just run with the ball once they confirm what the German court ruled. Confirmation wouldn't be very hard.

  Since nobody has protected a legitimate onwership of the OS, a judge might just give it to whomever asks first, or just consider it in the public domain due to lack of an interested/actual owner.  Continued ownership of trademarks requires demonstration of protection of that trademark and an orphaned OS might be treated similarly.

[boing]

>with Amiga Inc in... well, whatever state they are in
>... there is no one defending any of this.

 Exactly.  I doubt they could weather a legal clash over the rights or ownership of the AmigaOS, let alone trademark.  Gateway might (if they felt it was worth it- and if you're not stealing any patents, they may not) but I suspect by now they (Gateway) too suspect they might not actually have actual legal ownership of the OS.  And don't expect them to admit to it easily.

Wayne, do you know what constitutes defense of a trademark for legal purposes?  I think it's up to Amino to find and slap down the infringement. I notified Petro about Play's illegal use of the Boing ball, which helped keep it viable as a logo/ttrademark. I'm sure you would help your case, and help set some precedent if you sent registered mail to Amino.




> I'd imagine that Gateway would have done thier
>homework. I think there is little chance that the
> corporate sharks, er, I mean, lawyers would have
>over-looked something as obvious as that.

 This was international legal wrangling combined with language obstacles, multiplied by complex technical documents.  And tons of paperwork with a complicated history.  Who knows how it happened.  What matters "uncharted", is not your idle opinions, but what the courts found.

 And based upon the posting on page 1, it is clear that the patents were transferred, but not the ownership of the OS. Looking at the "new Amiga" hardware proffered now, little or no Amiga hardware is present so those patents are not likely an issue.  I think at best the OS would be considered a copyright issue, but am unsure.  Remember, software patents are a new (and IMHO, insane) concept.  The AmigaOS existed and CBM went under almost a decade before such absurd software-patent legislation was passed.  So it should remain under a copyright not a patent.  And we don't see anything about Escom having legal ownership of it to actually sell to Gateway do we?


>Therfore Escom lost the law suit.

Which again makes me wonder why anybody believed that Gateway/Amino ever had legal right to AmigaOS.  We need a class action.


If anybody says the patents are expired, show your evidence.


> Patents only last 10 years, so anything that C= had is
>no longer patented.

You keep on believing that.  :-)



>Hyperion licenced Amiga OS rights (

Ah, but licensed from WHO?  If Escom didn't have full exclusive rights to it, then Gateway couldn't possibly have bought it from them.  So you have to wonder if Hyperion should have checked the court records more closely.


Speaking of insanity, what ever happened of the sales of the Pan-Asian Amiga rights to Lotus-Pacific?  Huh?  There's a can of worms for Gateway and Amiga/Amino :-) if anybody wanted to dig around.