Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 20:24 UTC
Legal Well, this was rather unexpected. As it turns out, Commodore USA's CEO Barry Altman isn't particularly pleased about the article I wrote earlier today in which I placed a considerable amount of scepticism with regards to Commodore USA and its business (and website). He (not his lawyer) sent us a threatening email demanding we take down the article, post a new correction article, the whole shebang. The entire email - as an image, you'll want the original formatting - after the break. Our reply? We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Thread beginning with comment 439094
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by alexandru_lz
by alexandru_lz on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 03:32 UTC
alexandru_lz
Member since:
2007-02-11

Being rather antisocial I don't post comments here too often, though I read OSnews every day.

But this is one particular case when I am finding it unable to meaningfully convey into words the copious amount of laughter I've had. This shit is incredible. If Microsoft had send a letter to every magazine or tech site that has ever had something negative about their software (or hell, even only about their business practices, or double hell, even only about their trials), the mere cost of printer ink and paper, or the medical insurance costs for the typists who would have developed severe arthritis from typing that much, would have driven them to bankruptcy.

Initially, I disagreed with Thom's assessment that Commodore USA looks like a con (sketchy website... meh, better sketchy than HP's mess). Now I agree; at best, they're probably a bunch of trolling lawyers who heard that there's money to be made from the Amiga trademark.

Edit: BTW, one thing is to be said in their defense -- the CEO, Barry Altman, is not entirely stranger to the electronics industry, so there is at least one member of the staff who doesn't only deal with paper pushing. But if it's one thing Commodore was good at (and we all know it wasn't marketing), that was their attitude towards hobbyists. Perhaps they should borrow it along with whatever trademarks they have.

Edited 2010-09-02 03:36 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by alexandru_lz
by vodoomoth on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 22:33 in reply to "Comment by alexandru_lz"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Can you imagine the "copious amount of laughter" I've had reading you?
Seriously, you should post comments more often. Moreover, I like your writing style, it taught me some things.

Reply Parent Score: 1

alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

Well, thanks :-) -- though I hope you will not be borrowing my incorrect grammar in the post ("had sent", not "had send"... meh, it was early in the morning).

There is one thing that has been going through my head, and now that I think of it, I think Thom is right in saying that at this moment, every Amiga business looks shoddy.

If a company came out with a great product that runs Amiga OS and can actually market it (i.e. send it to my corner of the world -- if they can send it here, chances are they can send some to the Klingons as well), that would be awesome even if it's not called Amiga <something>. Seriously, does anyone here actually care? If it looks like an Amiga, runs Amiga OS, but they can't call it Amiga because of the licensing -- well, as far as anyone is concerned, it's a new Amiga. Just go redneck-style, print a paper of the Amiga logo and stick it on it. If it worked on my coffee cup, it's going to work on my computer, too.

I'll be adding Rule #133 to my list of rules to follow in life: if a company begins by acquiring patents, trademarks and legal decisions before they actually have a damn office, they will hardly be able to screw a lightbulb, let alone build a computer. It's right after Rule #132, which says "our grandparents have been designing CPUs and computers for 60 years and all we got were these lousy x86_64 Dells."

Reply Parent Score: 2