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

[orb85750]

and what about earlier versions: 1.x and 2.x ?

[orb85750]

"Does Hyperion own the rights to OS 3.1, 3.5, 3.9, and what about earlier versions: 1.x and 2.x ?"

No.

They don't.

They don't even own 4.0 or 4.1.x.

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=587420&postcount=159

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

[orb85750]

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.

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?

[orb85750]

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.

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.

[orb85750]

So far, everything I've found online indicates that the full Amiga IP was transferred from Escom to Gateway, then from Gateway to Amino.  Maybe I don't know where to look for the dirty details indicating ambiguity with the overall OS ownership.

EDIT: I certainly have not made up my mind.  My mind is open, but where specifically is some of the info to which you refer?

[orb85750]

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).

It would seem very bizarre if Gateway (or someone else along the line) transferred the IP with the *exception* of the OS.  That's an extraordinary claim -- requires extraordinary proof.  Anyone?

[orb85750]

Is there any verifiable proof that Gateway transferred any IP at all to McEwen or his various shell companies?

Well, you might as well have asked: Is there any *proof* that the IP was transferred to Gateway in the first place?  Of course the documents exist.  Do you expect to find all such legal business documents on the internet?

So Gateway decided to hold onto the Amiga OS and kept it a secret?  What are you saying?

[orb85750]

Isn't that more or less what you've demanded of others here though?

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.

[orb85750]

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. :-)

[orb85750]

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

German company Escom bought the remainders of Commodore in April 1995. They soon got into a legal battle with another German company (VillageTronic, IIRC - I think the argument was about VT distributing 3.1 Kickstart ROMs). In 1996, Escom went bancrupt.

In July 1997, a German appeals court ruled in the Escom-VillageTronic litigation, that the (long defunct) Escom had not provided evidence that they actually bought the AmigaOS copyrights from Commodore, not just the trademarks and patents. Escom's bancruptcy trustee tried to repair the situation by creating new contracts between two (defunct) Commodore entities and Escom - and signing them for all three parties. He was entitled to sign contracts for Commodore under certain circumstances, but if he was entitled to sign this particular contract in the name of Commodore is another unanswered question.

That's the story about the open questions regarding AmigaOS ownership - we don't know if Escom ever owned the copyrights, so we don't know if any of their successors ever owned them. Anything else (hello Gulliver) is more or less daydreaming or wishful thinking. Of course there's no proof that "Amiga Inc ever acquired AmigaOS rights from Gateway", because we never saw the contracts between Amiga Inc. and Gateway.

Are you saying that *nobody* knows whether Escom owned the copyrights in the end?  And if they did not, then ? Is Amiga OS public domain? (my wishful thinking)

[orb85750]

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.

Yes - plausible point.  For if Amiga Inc. somehow doesn't own it, I suppose that someone (other than any of us) does own it, so respecting copyrights is probably sensible even in this case.