I've been reading the court papers but not analyzing as deeply as some. I see Hyperion with two points to their defence. First.... we've done nothing that gives Amiga Inc the right to pull our license.
Hyperion had a 30 day period to reply when AI yanked their license to seek mediation, they chose to do nothing. That's definently not going to help their case.
Delay of product would be a good example of violating their license/contract with Amiga Inc. If this had been in any other software vender case, we would be laughing at six years to do a port they said would only take a few months to do. Keep that in mind. Then there is Hyperion dancing around ever release with a new catagory name in order to avoid calling it a proper release of OS4. That shows bad intent on Hyperion's part. Accepting the $25K from Itec as apart of the buy back option that Amiga Inc executed and then failed to release the source code and object code rights to Amiga Inc is another prime example of Hyperion's bad faith.
since than whole AmigaWest/Itec/Kmos/AmigaEast thing was invalid, we hold perpetual license anyway. Any experts reading this please forgive my massive simplification.
Judge complained about lack of paper trail. How hard would that be for the owners to do? As long as the seller and who purchased it sign a statement it did occure on a given date, then the judge has a signed, under oath, statement that the IP was transferred. It's like two companies trading equiptment or one company giving equiptment to another settle a debt.
Lets say that AI WA is still the owner. It has five years after the state disolves the corp to reform. Then where does that leave Hyperion? Point I'm trying to make here is the chain of ownership can't be broken, someone has to own it, and if no one does, the state has ownership.
That signed second contract with Itec (or was it KMOS?) for a port job again clearly shows Hyperion believed the succession of corps to be the true owner of IP they licensed. Else why would they sign that second contract? It would be a sign of bad faith if Hyperion knownly signed a contract with someone that they did not have a license to share AI's IP with. Are they showing bad faith now by claiming a falsehood of saying Itec was not the appropriate license holder of AI's IP when they believed it then or are they showing bad faith by entering into a contract that they knew was not apart of their orginal license of AI's IP which would transfer AI's IP to a unlicensed third party?
Dammy
