NutsAboutAmiga, Templario
Templario: 1 min ago
NutsAboutAmiga: 3 mins ago
kamelito: 7 mins ago
OneTimer1: 7 mins ago
Jasper: 8 mins ago
ian-uk: 18 mins ago
Amiga Inc. Loses U.S. Trademarks Register To Post
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 Next Page ) FlatThreaded Oldest First Newest First
ppcamiga1
Re: Cloanto acquire Amiga Inc Trademark
Posted on 23-Jun-2019 10:56:26 [ #1001 ]
Even if we take the Paul C Clements analysis seriously.
Paul C Clements still has a problem with logic.
Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 MAY have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3 and in his conlusion that's why Hyperion has not rights to Amiga Os 1.3.
Paul C Clements is wrong ofcourse.
If Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 MUST have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3 he will be right.
In reality Amiga Os 3.1 was made on basis on 2.0 this on 1.3 and 1.3 is stil included in 3.1
Posted on 24-Jun-2019 6:45:08 [ #1002 ]
Joined: 5-Apr-2007
From: Zurich, Switzerland
@ppcamiga1
That's absolutely rubbish what you're saying... c'mon, please...
Sometimes we give people a lot of credit just because they're writing nice sentences even if it isn't adding up to much.
megol
Sorry: your thinker stinker.
Some big H haters have problems with work of some "expert" is wort nothig.
The point is, you are constantly writing things wich are completely wrong.
And then, you are against some great projects (I assume, because you lose business) and you do it without logic, without any facts.
I really don't like what you write in forums, because it's factually incorrect.
Re: Cloanto acquire Amiga Inc
Posted on 2-Jul-2019 23:59:43 [ #1006 ]
Joined: 6-Nov-2014
@umisef
What the Amiga parties are saying is "here is how we understood the terms of the agreement when we entered into it 10 years ago. And here is an expert in the field --- in fact, the very expert who wrote the very books providing the definition used in the agreement --- who states that that interpretation is reasonable". So Hyperion can either argue that that was the intended understanding in 2009, or Hyperion can argue that they had a different understanding of the terms. In the former case, the agreement has to be interpreted on those terms. In the latter case, there clear was no agreement, no meeting of minds. Thus, it is up to the court to determine which interpretation is reasonable --- and with the Amiga parties having provided not just an expert, but arguably the expert on the definition included in the settlement agreement, and Hyperion having provided zip, nada, nothing... well, if you were in their shoes, how would you decide?
Very impressed by this analysis. Would you perhaps consider giving a look at the court order from last May, which was brought up by Hyperion as some sort of big victory?
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Part
In my armchair lawyer understanding, the judge did indeed rule that Cloanto (but not Amiga/Amino/Itec) lacks standing to bring a breach of contract claim because Cloanto was not a party to 2009 Settlement Agreement. However, I don't see how this changes anything for Hyperion, because the same breach of contract claims were also brought up by the other Amiga parties, and the judge not only did not dismiss those, but reinforced them by saying that although Cloanto can't enforce the Settlement Agreement, any party can indeed rely on the Settlement Agreement to determine Hyperion's rights under copyright and trademark law (which the Amiga parties inclusive of Cloanto and C-A have raised): "This finding does not preclude Cloanto from pursuing other claims against Hyperion related to copyright or trademark infringement, or from relying on the terms of the Settlement Agreement to determine Hyperion's rights under copyright and trademark law."
I am inclined to interpret the same for the "Lanham Act" part: "The Court agrees with Hyperion that Plaintiffs have not shown that Cloanto has standing to pursue a claim for relief under the Lanham Act given the current arrangement." The "current arrangement" presumably having changed when C-A Acquisition Corp. joined the Amiga parties in filing its own lawsuit. However, again, I don't see how the Amiga parties' right to do the same (which they already did) has been prejudiced by this decision. Moreover, the judge seems to say that involving the Lanham Act is not even needed ("the Court disagrees with Hyperion... The Court has jurisdiction over the remaining contract claim between the Amiga Parties and Hyperion, and can rule that Hyperion has breached that contract without "scrutiny of the administrative acts of multiple foreign trademark officials."")
I can see a narrow prejudice for Cloanto if it were to act alone, which is however irrelevant because it affects claims also brought up by its other Amiga allies. But Hyperion claims that this judgment was a victory for them, to the point of repeating several times (in the recent counterclaims) that it affected its Amiga adversaries with some sort of "prejudice". Are they right, or is it some sort of Hyperion/Ben reality distortion field?
What is your opinion? Is the judge maybe trying to narrow the case to breach of contract for the incumbent Amiga parties (Amino/KMOS/Itec) who signed the settlement agreement, and trademark and copyright for the new Amiga parties (Cloanto and C-A)?
Last edited by aria on 03-Jul-2019 at 12:15 AM.
From: In the village
Filing of July 2, 2019 now available
Courtesy: Amiga Documents
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*
Posted on 15-Jul-2019 17:45:09 [ #1008 ]
Additional on-topic to:
Ben's new job from post #985 this thread
Artes group pics uploaded yesterday:
https://www.facebook.com/artes.law/
larger version
another larger version
Last edited by number6 on 15-Jul-2019 at 05:50 PM.
From: Trondheim, Norway
@number6
I see they are Antwerpen based, iirc, someone else is also in Antwerpen.
(Lovely city for beer btw, I hope Kulminator is still there)
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
@kolla
Apparently there is an Evert Carton in Antwerp too.
jorit2
Kulminator is still here. It's literally around the corner from where I live, say 200 meters. I walk past it almost daily.
I'm afraid it's about to disappear though.
The owner, whom I see walk around here, is in really bad shape. He's grown old.
Last edited by jorit2 on 15-Jul-2019 at 10:04 PM.
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --
@jorit2
eeeek! nuff said.
Re:post #946 this thread outlining the trademark case
C-A Acquisition Corp et al v. Hyperion Entertainment CVBA
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (now available)
From: France
Nonefornow
From: Greater Los Angeles Area
This document seems to include a fairly comprehensive recap of the situation and of the various legal actions, but, in my opinion, it really does not add any new information or facts for the court to consider.
Even though it was filed yesterday, it feels as if I read it before.
@Nonefornow
Brief recap of events:
Cloanto sought to enjoin C-A Acquisition Corporation in the main lawsuit.
Hyperion succeeded in preventing that action.
Ergo, C-A Acquisition Corporation had to file their own lawsuit.
As a result, it is mostly repitition atm.
Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A. et al v. Itec, LLC et al - is a contract case
C-A Acquisition Corp et al v. Hyperion Entertainment CVBA - is a trademark case
The other things going on at the bank are still termed legal proceedings, so not the same category as a lawsuit.
I see that Cloanto is mentioning they have provided some "Classic support" for real hardware as one of the uses of their trademarks/licences, but I don't remember them ever doing anything like that ? Maybe some patch 10 years ago anyone ?
From: Rhode Island
@Jose
Jose wrote:
https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-125
https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-120 note the large disk support that 3.1.4 thinks is a *new* feature...
https://www.amigaforever.com/classic/ppaint/
https://www.amigaforever.com/classic/pwrite/
https://www.amigaforever.com/classic/pfm/
https://www.amigaforever.com/classic/pfm-2/
https://www.amigaforever.com/classic/dirdiff/
yeah so nothing at all...
From: Toronto, Canada
interesting reading and very comprehensive indeed but all I care about is that both AmigaOS3.14 and AmigaOS4.1FE and related harwdware can continue to be sold and more importantly worked on and improved
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE
From: N-Space
Can someone explain paragraph 28?
28. Neither Kickstart 1.2 nor Kickstart 1.3 is part of, or contained in, the Software, and neither functions with the disk-based portion of the Software.
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner