You are correct. I remember following this case when it was announced.
AFAIK, and I'm rarely wrong (humble aren't I?) Aminos got the right to the name, but Gateway retained ownership of patents. Frankly the new "Amigas" seem to lack all the novel hardware that makes an Amiga an Amiga. Haynie was right in one regard: they are more or less just PPC-based PC's.
I have long wondered on this forum why so few people are aware of the ruling of the German court which really seemed to imply that Gateway only thought they bought the full Amiga rights.
Since nobody challenged Gateway's ownership (and in fact people were happy to see a monied owner come along) it seems that the complications of international law (not to mention patents and the complexities of fledgling IP laws and precedents) have kept Gateway shielded from legal challenges.
For all we know, Gateway found out after the fact that they really didn't have everything. But they're in the US, and who in Germany has the interest and money to make an international challenge? For all we know Aminos/Amiga/whomever knows they don't have an actual ownership to the OS and are desperately hoping nobody figures it out.
Frankly I've often wondered by various interests haven't just hired a lwayer backtrack the various post-CBM "IP" transfers and find out where it all stands. If Deloitte and Touche liquidators screwed up it may well be that at least the OS is floating around out there, actually unowned in a grey netherworld (legally).
I don't see why the pios or bPlan guys or AROS or whomever don't just run with the ball once they confirm what the German court ruled. Confirmation wouldn't be very hard.
Since nobody has protected a legitimate onwership of the OS, a judge might just give it to whomever asks first, or just consider it in the public domain due to lack of an interested/actual owner. Continued ownership of trademarks requires demonstration of protection of that trademark and an orphaned OS might be treated similarly.
