The legal future of "Amiga"

[dammy]

by orb85750 on 2008/12/1 21:25:32

Well, I realize that it may be looked down upon by some to care about the lawsuit, but I for one do care about the Hyperion/Amiga Inc battle because it may very well determine the future of Amiga. Particularly, if Hyperion wins the suit, the question is whether they could legally contract out a hardware builder to put the term "AmigaOS" on the hardware itself. If so, Hyperion would effectively become the new Amiga computer company. Amiga Inc doesn't seem to be serious about releasing actual Amiga computers anyway.

I really don't see Hyperion winning much in this case.  At best, they keep their own code and call it HyperOS or whatever and move on.  They do not own the name "Amiga" and assorted copyrights and trademarks related to "Amiga" and no judge is going to award it to them either.  It's been estimated Hyperion (Evert) is about $2M in the hole in what is owed on OS4 to developers, I don't Evert making enough on sales to catch up to that $2M for a very long time if ever.

What I'm betting, Evert is attempting to get paid off by Amiga Inc so he can pay off his devs and then he'll move on.  With this downward spiral of the global economy, I don't think AI will pay what Evert wants and is willing to sit and wait for the trial.  If AI loses, they will appeal it and then your talking years and years as it goes through the appeals courts.

Dammy

[dammy]

by orb85750 on 2008/12/2 17:23:00

If Hyperion's use of the term "Amiga" were so obviously illegal, then the court would have issued an injunction against the current sale of AmigaOS4 a long time ago, right?

No, AI failed to show catastrophic harm being done if Acube is selling OS4 for their SAM440.  Judge stated that things can be repaired by damages being awarded.  See the Judge's ruling.


Dammy

[dammy]

Please reread the document. If Amiga Inc. becomes insolvent (and that seems to be the main bone of contention), then Hyperion is entitled to market OS4 under the AmigaOS trademark, which is exactly what they're doing now.

Problem for Hyperion, Evert never bothered to go get a court order awarding of OS4 and associated IP to Hyperion when/if they thought AI was insolvent.  Bigger problem for Hyperion, AI never went insolvent by definition of US Code.  Of course Hyperion signing that paid in full to Itech for OS4 makes things look even worse for Evert's case.

Dammy

[dammy]

by orb85750 on 2008/12/2 21:05:40

Please reread the document. If Amiga Inc. becomes insolvent (and that seems to be the main bone of contention), then Hyperion is entitled to market OS4 under the AmigaOS trademark, which is exactly what they're doing now.

Good luck with that, not going to happen as AI was not insolvent under US Code.  They have enough receipts that show what they bought, what they have sold stock for, Evert is going to have a heck of a time convincing the Jury of that. Then the appeals circus starts.  :roflmao:  Jan is almost here, then we may have a hard trial date.  Even if Evert wins this entire court case, he'll have to go back to court to force AI to turn over the trademarks, in Federal court.  Yeah, right.

Dammy

[dammy]

by Dandy on 2008/12/8 13:57:51

The contract didn`t require them to be insolvent under US Code - just to be insolvent - that leaves room for speculation...

This is Federal Court, only US Code enforced.

Dammy

[dammy]

by persia on 2008/12/9 10:10:17

This is a civil case not a criminal case.

Does not matter, it's about Federal venue.

There are so many shades of grey in civil cases that it's difficult to say what the judge will do. Hyperion can argue that Amiga Inc's shady tactic of dumping the corporation and transferring the assets to another shell could be insolvency according to the contract.

Question is what WA state law or US Code did they violate in doing so?  Just because it appears shady does not mean it's a violation of any law.

Would a reasonable person hearing Amiga Inc's story believe them to be insolvent? Yes. So Hyperion's case hase merit. But Amiga Inc still exists in a way, hence their case has merit. The judge will have to weight the two sides and come up with a solution.

Only if the reasonable person is a Hyperion fan.  Reasonable person will ask who contracted who, who failed initially to full fill a meaningful portion of the contract.  Then a reasonable person will ask why didn't Hyperion go to court when they thought AI was insolvent and ask the court to award them the code and trademarks instead of making a new deal with KMOS and then sell OS4 to Itec for $25K.  Does that sound to a reasonable person like Hyperion automatically assumed they had full rights to IP and trademarks?  I don't think so.  

Dammy