A McBill era Amiga history, long version

[cgutjahr]

is it correct to conclude that today the AmigaOS 3.1 copyright holder is non existant?

No. Even if Escom (and all its follow-ups) really could not prove the acquisition of the AmigaOS rights, somebody still owns them.

What is more important to you is that Hyperion now thinks it has many of these rights (including the right to prosecute people pirating the AmigaOS IP) - and Hyperion is not exactly known for being shy about legal battles.

So actually there is no proof of ownership or copyright holder

The German judge stated that "in the documents presented to him", he couldn't find proof for the acquisition of the Amiga rights by Escom. That's not the same as "you don't own these rights" or "there is no proof". Somebody claiming that Escom/Gateway/Amiga Inc. never owned these rights would still have to prove that in court.

only valid licenses that some few companies have since the time of Commodore

There are no licenses left from the Commodore days, the oldest licensee would be Cloanto - who got a license from Gateway.

[cgutjahr]

the real owners

I don't think you're in a position to judge who owns what. I'm certainly not - and in contrast to you I speak German and are actually able to read the judges's decision and reasoning.

Also, what would Hyperion have to gain on such a battle?

I'm not a Hyperion spokesperson, so I can't answer that. I was just trying to point out that m68k-amigaos might not be as abandoned as you think.

And what did that last settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion say about who's owning rights to what again?

Perhaps you should reread it? Especially the part that grants Hyperion the rights to prosecute IP infringements on their own?

seriously, rights to this software has vapourized over the years, and the only sensible thing is to pretend noone owns it and tackle who-ever pretends to have those rights as they show up.

That's wishful thinking, nothing else. You don't get rid of the (quote) "piracy stigma" just by pretending it's not there.

[cgutjahr]

I would also say that somebody had better come up with some more documentation quick if the judge says that he can't see where Escom ever acquired the rights.

The judgement is dated July 1997 - Escom declared bancruptsy 12 months earlier and Amiga Technologies had been handled by a bancruptsy trustee during that period. Yes, somebody should have come up with some more documentation, but we're not talking about a working company where some experienced executive just has to phone his lawyer and ask him to fax the relevant documents.

cgutjahr also says "  That's not the same as "you don't own these rights" or "there is no proof". "  To me that is exactly what the judge is saying going by the papers in front of him.

I have no proof here that your car is really yours. Please hand your keys over to Kolla.

(yeah, finally a car analogy )

[cgutjahr]

I didnt  say it was abandoned, I'm saying the rights have vaporized

1. rights never "vaporize"
2. If rights would vaporize, they would have vaporized 13 years ago, not just now.

However, all this is based on the assumption that Amiga Inc. had ownership in the first place.

Correct. But you're the one claiming that "rights have vaporized" and that there are "real owners" out there (instead of AInc/Hyperion) - while I'm (at most) assuming things, you claim to know the real truth.

[cgutjahr]

You also say that they would just have to call their lawyer to get the papers.  Here in Michigan we have our lawyers with us when we go to court.  Could an executive really forget to take his lawyer to court with him?

You're missing the point: The executive in question had left the collapsing company twelve months before the judgement. The lawyers he would have called had run away from the company twelve months before the judgement. Actually, the whole company had ceased to exist eight (iirc) months before the judgement (it got later reinstalled as ESCOM GmbH or sth. like that).

It's entirely possible Escom never had more documents than the ones that were presented to the judge. But given the circumstances, and the fact that the bancruptcy trustee had already located a new buyer for Amiga Technologies *despite* the lawsuit, I wouldn't accept this as a fact so easily.

Thank you for making my point.  If you reported to the police that I had your car, they would first want to see your proof that it was yours.  

Nice try, but you're the one claiming that "according to the documents presented to sb." is the same as "it's a given fact". Well, according to the documents presented to me so far, you're not the owner of the car you're driving.