In court docs: Hyperion states AROS "probably illegal"

[Piru]

"Workbench" - even though a registered trademark - can be used if it is required for interoperability. Basically it need to be, as applications can try to lock public screen called "Workbench". Similarily some older apps might strcmp the window->ScreenTitle to detect the Workbench screen, so IMO use of the it is legimate in this context, too.

Same goes for "intuition.library", it must be called that or the library cannot be found. Intuition isn't listed in the amiga trademarks, however, or at least i could not find it from my AmigaOS 3.5 manual.

[Piru]

The AROS repository is running on a password protected SVN server, which means that you need to apply for access to it to be able to collaborate in the development. At the request of Amiga Inc., anonymous read-only access to the repository has been disabled.

Indeed that looks bad, and I've never understood what the heck that was all about (why should Amiga Inc have ANY say about this?). In worst case Amiga Inc could use that as some sort of leverage against AROS (yes, that's far fetched).

IMHO they should have just blatantly ignored any Amiga Inc communication as irrelevant.

[Piru]

So how about adjusting that statement to indicate the real reason for the limited access?

[Piru]

Actually the patent was about menu multiselect IIRC, or at least that is the relevant part.

I think this is the bit:

"A further object is to provide a system of the type described in which multiple menu items can be selected simply and expediently through the use of particular mouse button actuation sequences."

and specifically:

"Still further in accordance with the invention, multiple menu items can be selected during the same menu session by using a pair of mouse buttons to generate a sequence of selection commands which are utilized by unique system software to accumulate plural item selections without terminating the menu operation."

My understanding is that rest of the thing was so generic and with prior art so that it was unenforceable.

The patent in question was filed July 18, 1986, and thus expired July 18, 2006.