Yes but those parties would likely have to be consulted for intent because without record of communication dialog, this can be really hard to know intent from all parties. It's unclear if it was a mistake because as you know, Commodore 8-bit systems were end of life by the mid-1990s. Commodore's most valuable assets was AMIGA technology and the Commodore brand trademark. C64 wasn't retro at the time. So it might not have been a mistake but a matter that when it came to negotiating what assets will be transferred at whatever price ESCOM paid, it might have been excluded. If it wasn't excluded then ESCOM acquired. (Proof is in the court documents because the bankruptcy court and liquidation via numerous courts. You have to remember that it is verified already that ESCOM didn't buy all of Commodore's assets. Only some of it. ESCOM didn't get the MOS/CSG semiconductor fabrication plant/lab. They didn't get the old C= headquarters. They didn't get a number of things. Those were handled in multiple courts concurrently. If ESCOM did acquire the C64 copyrights, it must be remembered that ESCOM established two separate subsidiaries for C= and Amiga. ESCOM did very little if anything with the Commodore subsidiary. It was just holding onto the assets that were non-Amiga. ESCOM's subsidiary known as Amiga Technologies Gmbh lead by Petro Tyschtschenko was entirely centered around Amiga. By 1995, there was little intent or value in continuing the outdated 8-bit Commodore line when desktop computing had already moved up to superscalar pipelined 32 bit microprocessors clocked at speeds upwards of 100 TIMES higher clock frequency than the 1 MHz 6502. We really have to look into that more closely. This exercise is important to be thoroughly followed through and understood even for Cloanto's case because if someone were to challenge their claim of rights, Cloanto will have to support their claim of ownership because there is clearly many conjunctures where the copyrights relating to the Commodore 8-bit stuff never passed on to a successor. This can be argued sufficiently to compel a judge to demand the furnishing of records thoroughly documenting every transfer transaction because without it being accounted for, the right of Cloanto to sue a copyright violator of those copyrights can end. So this whole exercise can be more important for them to cover all the bases and not end up being in a position where they don't have the rights they thought. A judge may simply require a refund or money restitution from Bill McEwen of Amiga Inc. or whoever they got the rights from. It seems to have had something to do with Amiga Inc. (Bill McEwen's Amiga Inc.) It could mean they didn't buy the C= 8 bit intellectual property because it was commercially dead. You are getting what I was getting at. ESCOM didn't get C= HQ and MOS Technology plant. Had they even got just the C= HQ, they could have used TSMC's foundry for the chips. They just would only need the rubylith photomasks and all. They wouldn't need the MOS Technology plant so much and it was a good thing they didn't. The C= HQ with it's assembly line facility would have given ESCOM manufacturing capacity for Amiga and C=. That would have been too expensive for them acquire. That would have cost a lot of money. Don't forget there was also Commodore UK which ESCOM did get. By that point ESCOM was already hemorrhaging. > It could mean they didn't buy the C= 8 bit intellectual property because it was commercially dead. You are getting what I was getting at. ESCOM didn't get C= HQ and MOS Technology plant. Had they even got just the C= HQ, they could have used TSMC's foundry for the chips. They just would only need the rubylith photomasks and all. They wouldn't need the MOS Technology plant so much and it was a good thing they didn't. The C= HQ with it's assembly line facility would have given ESCOM manufacturing capacity for Amiga and C=. That would have been too expensive for them acquire. That would have cost a lot of money.Â > > Don't forget there was also Commodore UK which ESCOM did get. By that point ESCOM was alreadyÂ hemorrhaging. > On September 4, 2017 at 4:19 AM smf <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On 04/09/2017 11:17, email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > However, without proper records to show that the copyrights had be transferred through legal procedures in written & signed agreements at every transfer of rights have been made. This is the kind of case where you dot all your I's and cross all your T's. > > Sure, it's a remote possibility that someone made a mistake. However courts can demand that mistakes are rectified, if the intent of both parties is clear. i.e. if the wording was such that the contract didn't include something, where possession was actually transferred and there is evidence of consideration being given/received. > > However you seem to be saying that it's an almost certainty that a mistake was made that could not be rectified or someone purposefully with held the 8 bit rights and then you're having to take quite extreme stances against any evidence to the contrary as it invalidates your assertion. > > And you have produced zero evidence, only saying that there could be evidence out there somewhere. > > From the press reports and the copyright registrations it seems pretty clear on the face of it that everyone made it simple by transferring all copyrights. > > On 04/09/2017 11:17, email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > This may very well be part of why ESCOM never produced C64s. No C64 copyrights? No C64 patent transferred? They acquired inventory of Commodore-Amiga International which is why they were focused on Amiga. ESCOM did nothing with the ordinary Commodore trademark other than limited use of Commodore logo. There's probably a reason behind that. > I can think of some more obvious reasons why ESCOM didn't sell c64s. > > ESCOM came along in 1995, the C64 was commercially dead. > Commodore had everything in place to knock out the odd small run of c64's and still make money, ESCOM didn't. > The ESCOM shops wanted to sell PC's and they resented having to give up shelf space for Amiga's. Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2017-09-04 19:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.