Hyperion trying to lay claim to the Amiga name?

[vpamicue]

You do not understand US Corporate Law. It has nothing to do with if AI Inc. said or did not say or prove in Washington, it never will. The action is filed in a different court against a different company. The only thing that that the present court can take into consideration is the present litigation facts. Under US law the company AI Inc. Washington does not exists. They may have closed because they where insolvent again under US law this is no problem as long as they stopped operating legally in Washington and start the new company legally.

The fact is the injunction being turned down is not a big deal. I will assume the AI Inc. is just wasting  the litigants legal costs. This is about the source code to OS 4.0 and who owns it in the US only. The rights and privileges of a US company under US law is dictated by settled litigation and those legislations set precedence in the court. You can of course go to a court where it has no priors. But the settled litigations will come into effect.

In most instances in Corporate law there is no guilt or innocence only intent and effect.

I would also like to point out that US laws covering Copyright and Patents is different than every country in the world except Japan (a result of US occupation after WW2. Even if AI Inc. where to go bankrupt and be a non existent entity they would still retain there rights unless allocated by the courts at dissolution.

[jkirk]

From claiming that without docs it couldn't be done,

i believe this has been mentioned before but the friedens never said it couldn't be done. what they did say is it wouldn't be done by them if they didn't have docs.

unless i missed something.

[bhoggett]

vpamicue wrote:
This is about the source code to OS 4.0 and who owns it in the US only.

Not exactly. Patent laws may differ a great deal, and those in the US are irretrievably corrupt IMHO, but ownership of the source code is a matter of copyright, and copyright is recognised by most countries in the world.

Hyperion can't own the source code copyright (to any of the original AmigaOS code they might have used or had access to) unless they somehow acquired it prior to Amiga Inc, Washington's insolvency. AFAIK any attempt to "protect" assets in this manner is effectively illegal and voided by insolvency proceedings as it would be cheating the other creditors.

As far as I can make out they also claim to own the trademark so that they can continue to market the product as AmigaOS. Again, this falls under the protection of assets issue. The truth is it's a messy case with none of the parties involved really telling the truth. Each is trying to use a murky situation (which they created in the first place) to get something for nothing from the other party.

[Haranguer]

Well, I've been here all along, and I understand why some people don't like Hyperion - I, for one, don't like them at all.

What I don't understand is why so many people blame Amiga Inc and Bill McEwen for the fact that Hyperion Entertainment failed to deliver the OS as they had contracted to do.  As far as I can see.

Hyperion have taken advantage of a clause that Bill McEwen put in the contract to protect us, the community, to steal Amiga Inc's intellectual property and trademarks.  And, lets face it, much of the reason for Amiga Inc alleged "insolvency" is that Hyperion failed to deliver on their contract.  I'm starting to think that was their intent from the beginning.

But fear not - what Hyperion do to others can be done back to them.  What goes around, comes around.

[AmigaMan]

While AI and Hyperion are fighting... Let's say, somebody with a lot of money wants to own the Amiga name etc., OS4 , all hardware developments, chipsets... everything.
Which way would be wise to go?