Does Hyperion own the rights to OS 3.1, 3.5, 3.9?

[Gulliver]

Things are not as easy as they seem:

Amiga Inc. claimed to inherit the 1.0 thru 3.1 back from Gateway. Wheter this is true, has been a subject of discussion a long time before. The results are inconclusive, there are no proofs of anything, only claims.
Amiga Inc. partnered with Haage & Partner to produce 3.5 and later 3.9. Basically all the funding and developer effort was managed by Haage & Partner, who signed a contract in which Amiga Inc could buy back the 3.5/3.9 code which was based on 3.1. Fact is Amiga Inc. never bought back the 3.5/3.9 code.
Then as part of these more recent lame trials between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion, Amiga inc. agreed to grant Hyperion exclusive worldwide distributor rights for AmigaOS 3.1

So to sum up:
1.Amiga Inc. claims to have legally inherited all AmigaOS development upto 3.1
2.Haage & Partner + Amiga Inc (That is, in the exclusive case of Amiga Inc, if you believe point 1 is true) both own 3.5/3.9
3.Amiga Inc granted Hyperion a worldwide exclusive distribution rights for AmigaOS 3.1 (The validity of this right depends on point 1)

[Gulliver]

It is not really that important to be "Official".
We can extend the life of 3.9 as much as we can, but then there is no future in it, and every step we go forward is getting more difficult and slow.

What is more important than extending the life of 3.9 with huge coding efforts, is to empower AROS guys to deliver an open, modern and freely available 68k operating system for our beloved Classics.

For this, I keep my fingers crossed, my hopes high, and pray for them every night before I go to bed.


PS: But, just in case AROS devs cant deliver, I will still try to keep pushing 3.9 forward.

[Gulliver]

I don't understand the scenario under which the OS was not properly transferred to AInc in the first place.  What?

Well basicly many former CBM/escom greedy marketing guys created a bunch of empty shells, better known over here, as ghost companies, to resell the remaining assets of CBM/Escom. In a certain point in time, they claimed they had legally acquired all the Amiga´s remaining IP. And suddenly Amiga Inc appeared shouting they own those IPs.

There is not a single proof that any of such IP was transferred.
It really seems that the real Amiga IP owner, now probably some big dog that absorved Gateway, doesnt give a rat ass about the Amiga both as a brandname, and regarding the IP it holds.
So whoever shouts louder now and has plenty of money to spend with lawyers can claim that brandname and IP.

[Gulliver]

Where is this possible scenario documented?  And if it's really so unclear who owns the OS, then why is Cloanto paying, and others (such as Natami) paying attention to copyrights?

Where?
It is history, just take a look at it, use google, or the wayback machine. Or ask an old enough really involved Amiga user.

Why?
Simple, they have a business to run, and as such they dont want to have troubles with lawyers, they only want to make money with products, not with lawyers.

Besides, Cloanto has a license way before the dreaded Amiga Inc. days.

No one, that is expecting to have a business these days, wants to risk troubles with their corporative image.

[Gulliver]

You are telling me to use Google because you don't know where such a history exists?  (That is a question, not a statement.)   Also, it seems that repeatedly paying somebody for something that they don't actually own is even worse than dealing with lawyers.  And dealing with Amiga Inc.? -- well, you be the judge of that.

I wont try to change your views. I not only suggested google (There is also http://www.amiga.com old executive updates, Amino, Itec, Gateway, and Escom bankrupcy and lot more entities involved in this history. Plus ask an old enough Amiga user that was really living those times, and they will tell you), but then if you are keen on believing something else, it is of no use for me to try to tell you otherwise, so that you understand the story is not so simple and straightforward.
So really if you want to know, investigate for yourself, with an open mind.

Bottomline, if you think Amiga Inc. is/was the legit owner of the Amiga IP/brandname, then it is upto you.

[Gulliver]

The ambiguity is that there is no factual proof that the "full" IP was transferred to Amiga inc. There are only claims made by Amiga Inc (which of course are biased, being the interested party).

[Gulliver]

No, the implication is that Amiga Inc. has been fooling the entire community for years, including those that are paying them for OS?  Such views are the ones that need to be backed with something other than opinion and speculation that the IP was not transferred to them along with the trademarks, etc.

Well, it is a prooved fact that Amiga Inc. has been fooling the entire community. Do you at least know about the Coupon/T-shirt scam they made?
More than two hundred Amiga users were robbed, in that epic scheme designed exclusively by Amiga Inc.
Just ask, many of them are still probably lurking in Amiga forums, and hopefully wont feel embarrassed enough to step in, and tell you how they were scammed by Amiga Inc when they thought they were doing something good for the future of the Amiga.

[Gulliver]

Guys, those that need the OS for their current projects are being very, very careful to do so legally without stealing Amiga Inc IP.  A bunch of gullible fools?  I think not.  Yes, McEwen has quite a history of dishonesty, but that's beside the point.  T-shirts, hockey stadium, etc. are quite funny, but the craziest thing of all would be if Amiga Inc doesn't actually own the IP.  That would dwarf everything else.  Anything is possible in the world of Amiga, but c'mon. :-)

I see your point, but then see it this way:

Does anyone know with certainty who owns the, lets call it original AmigaOS?
No, not really. But then, there is a company that is named Amiga Inc. that is the only one that is claiming that IP is theirs, and is even considering granting some licenses for a fee.
 
So, in the worst of scenarios, you pay money to that company for this license, and then if they really, legally dont own it, and somebody steps in as the legit owner, we can allways pledge that we were inocently fooled by Amiga Inc, but that we acted in good will by buying those alledged rights.
So, no charges may be filled against us, only an order to cease and desist from the rightfull owner, and maybe even an offer from them for a real license.
 
So, it is not so stupid, you see, it is in fact, a good business tactic when you want to make businesses with IPs apparently no one is interested in enforcing/marketing them. At the end, the company granting those licenses takes the blame, and not the one that was "fooled" into this scheme.

[Gulliver]

I'm sorry, but perhaps you should "use google or the wayback machine or ask an old enough really involved Amiga user" yourself.

Anything else (hello Gulliver) is more or less daydreaming or wishful thinking.

But I'm sure you got that covered in your lengthy and detailed analysis of the situation regarding AmigaOS 3.

@cgutjahr
Hello
Why do I feel this thread turned into something personal for you?

Just chill, this is just (or I hoped) a friendly conversation. If you have another view, then it is okay with me. I never said I knew everything there is to know, I just have my own view about the subject, much like you do have your own.