Atari legal actions against emulators continue

[Retro Rogue]

"So again, the chain of ownership of the IP is very clearly laid out. Myself and Curt have of course worked with Atari Interactive in the past and Atari Interactive's legal department, we're very familiar with who owns what. "

 

Ok, who owns the game rights, etc.

 

Which games? I already laid out both above.

 

Atari Interactive owns all the Atari Consumer Division IP (already spelled out earlier), as well as all Atari Corporation IP.

 

Warner Bros. Entertainment owns all the Atari Games IP.

[Atari8bitCarts]

Thanx, I guess I was looking for a one-stop shop for all the games (Atari 8-bit XE/XL). I guess those rights might be difficult to get summarized. I.E. Big Five's, Miner, Sirius, etc. I was looking to find specifically a game called 'Guzzler'. I'd love to see that ported to Atari 8-bit.

[Retro Rogue]

Thanx, I guess I was looking for a one-stop shop for all the games (Atari 8-bit XE/XL). I guess those rights might be difficult to get summarized. I.E. Big Five's, Miner, Sirius, etc. I was looking to find specifically a game called 'Guzzler'. I'd love to see that ported to Atari 8-bit.

 

Third party titles would be owned by the third party companies or whoever they sold out to. As far as Big Five, they're still around -

 

http://www.bigfivesoftware.com/

 

 

Interceptor Software/Interceptor Micros made Guzzler. They were UK based and went out of business in the early 90's. You'd have to check and see what happened to it's IP. Either it was sold off or it stayed with the founder who's been sitting on it all this time (which is what happens a lot of times I've found out).

 

For games specifically developed and published by Atari Inc. for the 8-bit platform, that would be owned by Atari Interactive.

[Atari8bitCarts]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but what I'd do for an arcade quality port to Atari for Guzzler. They did a C64 and Intellivision version, actually maybe just a sega version. I wonder how hard to port it. Thanx.

Edited January 12, 2012 by chrislynn5

[Atari8bitCarts]

Actually I think you have the wrong game, Guzzler. This is the one, and the only one I knew about (made by Tehkan):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guzzler

[GroovyBee]

A version exists for the Commodore plus 4 so you have a 6502 based machine to "port" from.

[Retro Rogue]

Actually I think you have the wrong game, Guzzler. This is the one, and the only one I knew about (made by Tehkan):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guzzler

 

I had found the C64 port, which is the one I was talking about:

 

http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/games/details.php%3FID%3D1126

 

Tekhan (Tecmo) is still around as Tecmo Koei. You'd have to check with them about clearance for an Atari 8-bit port.

[Atari8bitCarts]

That isn't the same game. One water, one mouse

[José Pereira]

C64 and C16 are the same game and that isn't the Arcade one.

On Wiki the C16 version isn't the version (it's wrong, they just put the name there but didn't, for sure, confirm that it is the same as C64 version)

 

It exists only for SEGA-1000 console and MSX computers.

I could find SG-1000 version:

guzzler Sg-1000.bmp

But I cannot find MSX version.

 

It seems a fun game on the Arcades:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As4r0eQJgEo

A sort of Pac-man

[Atari8bitCarts]

Oh, it is a great game. You shoot water after drinking it. Highly additive, I played it a lot in the old arcades in the 80's.

Sorry for diverting the post subject. I really wish there was a way to split of a thread, leaving a note in the original.

Edited January 13, 2012 by chrislynn5

[griz]

I'm curious.

 

Old Atari games likely define one of the original origins of abandonware.

 

Is the original copyright holder allowed to suddenly start selling the same binaries decades later on a new platform?

 

Could this mean Adandonware doesn't really exist?

[Rybags]

Abandonware never existed legally.

 

It's just a term invented and popularised just because people started sharing old software without any action from the owners.

[Curt Vendel]

If there is no BIOS/OS/ROM included with the emulator and it is just an emulator alone, there is nothing they can do about it, especially given the IC chip patents long since expired (not different then the 2600)

 

Case in point - Sony v. Connectix lawsuit... Connectix look to win the suit and it was until it was found that its emulator contained original BIOS from the actual Playstation did Sony gain the upper hand in the suit and then settled by actually licensing the technology in a deal with Connectix.

 

If there had been no BIOS in the Connectix emulator, Sony was in a losing position on that suit. So without any Copyrighted code within the emulator, there is no legal standing against the emulator. So if you are making an emu - make it with one of the 3rd 8bit based OS versions and don't use the Atari OS rom.

[JohnBuell]

If there is no BIOS/OS/ROM included with the emulator and it is just an emulator alone, there is nothing they can do about it, especially given the IC chip patents long since expired (not different then the 2600)

 

Case in point - Sony v. Connectix lawsuit... Connectix look to win the suit and it was until it was found that its emulator contained original BIOS from the actual Playstation did Sony gain the upper hand in the suit and then settled by actually licensing the technology in a deal with Connectix.

 

If there had been no BIOS in the Connectix emulator, Sony was in a losing position on that suit. So without any Copyrighted code within the emulator, there is no legal standing against the emulator. So if you are making an emu - make it with one of the 3rd 8bit based OS versions and don't use the Atari OS rom.

 

Licensing? I thought they took the whole thing over, since it included their IP. Anyway, then Microsoft got their hands on Virtual PC, and Connectix really didn't have any products left.

[Thorsten Günther]

I'm curious.

 

Old Atari games likely define one of the original origins of abandonware.

 

Is the original copyright holder allowed to suddenly start selling the same binaries decades later on a new platform?

 

Could this mean Adandonware doesn't really exist?

 

Abandonware is not a legal term, it's a colloquial term to describe the behaviour of companies and programmers to lose interest in their copyrighted material after a certain time - e.g. after the hardware platform went obsolete and no further money could be gained or after the game flopped. Atari do have the right to persecute copyright infringements of their games and ROMs, but if you leave out ROMs (the 2600 doesn't even include a ROM), emulators (without games - other than freeware titles - bundled) do not infringe their copyright. And of course they can not revoke the permission they gave to Darek Mihocka, so there already is a source for legal OS ROMs on the web.

 

The copyright to intellectual property usually expires several years after the author's death.

 

Thorsten

[carmel_andrews]

If there is no BIOS/OS/ROM included with the emulator and it is just an emulator alone, there is nothing they can do about it, especially given the IC chip patents long since expired (not different then the 2600)

 

Case in point - Sony v. Connectix lawsuit... Connectix look to win the suit and it was until it was found that its emulator contained original BIOS from the actual Playstation did Sony gain the upper hand in the suit and then settled by actually licensing the technology in a deal with Connectix.

 

If there had been no BIOS in the Connectix emulator, Sony was in a losing position on that suit. So without any Copyrighted code within the emulator, there is no legal standing against the emulator. So if you are making an emu - make it with one of the 3rd 8bit based OS versions and don't use the Atari OS rom.

 

 

 

 

Actually, no one won the court case, they settled out of court

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/15/sony_buys_playstation_emulator/

 

Also there is no bios file that came with the emulator, the bios is part of the emulator code (somewhat like the 98/2000 versions of PC xformer, where the systems bios is part of the emulator code)

[Retro Rogue]

If there is no BIOS/OS/ROM included with the emulator and it is just an emulator alone, there is nothing they can do about it, especially given the IC chip patents long since expired (not different then the 2600)

 

Case in point - Sony v. Connectix lawsuit... Connectix look to win the suit and it was until it was found that its emulator contained original BIOS from the actual Playstation did Sony gain the upper hand in the suit and then settled by actually licensing the technology in a deal with Connectix.

 

If there had been no BIOS in the Connectix emulator, Sony was in a losing position on that suit. So without any Copyrighted code within the emulator, there is no legal standing against the emulator. So if you are making an emu - make it with one of the 3rd 8bit based OS versions and don't use the Atari OS rom.

 

 

 

 

Actually, no one won the court case, they settled out of court

 

That's what he just said. They wound up having to license.

 

 

http://www.theregist...ation_emulator/

 

Also there is no bios file that came with the emulator, the bios is part of the emulator code (somewhat like the 98/2000 versions of PC xformer, where the systems bios is part of the emulator code)

 

That would be included with the emulator. Whether it's a separate bios file or integrated in the code, it was still proprietary code that was included without a license.

[NuY]

"So again, the chain of ownership of the IP is very clearly laid out. Myself and Curt have of course worked with Atari Interactive in the past and Atari Interactive's legal department, we're very familiar with who owns what. "

 

Ok, who owns the game rights, etc.

 

Which games? I already laid out both above.

 

Atari Interactive owns all the Atari Consumer Division IP (already spelled out earlier), as well as all Atari Corporation IP.

 

Warner Bros. Entertainment owns all the Atari Games IP.

So with this in mind, and to clear it up in my head, does Warner own all coin-op stuff from both before and after the split?

 

And if that is the case, what gave Infogrames Atari the right to go after the Asteroids et al "infringers" earlier in the year?

[Retro Rogue]

"So again, the chain of ownership of the IP is very clearly laid out. Myself and Curt have of course worked with Atari Interactive in the past and Atari Interactive's legal department, we're very familiar with who owns what. "

 

Ok, who owns the game rights, etc.

 

Which games? I already laid out both above.

 

Atari Interactive owns all the Atari Consumer Division IP (already spelled out earlier), as well as all Atari Corporation IP.

 

Warner Bros. Entertainment owns all the Atari Games IP.

So with this in mind, and to clear it up in my head, does Warner own all coin-op stuff from both before and after the split?

 

No. They own all the Atari Games (that's an actual company that existed from 1984-2003, that's not stating "Atari games" in general) properties -

 

http://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=archive&db=videodb&name=&year=&manu=378&source=&submit=Search+the+Archive

 

And they have the rights to all the pre-split games in coin-op format only.

 

And if that is the case, what gave Infogrames Atari the right to go after the Asteroids et al "infringers" earlier in the year?

 

Because they have the rights for all the pre-split titles on home/computer/mobile. I.E. all consumer rights.

[NuY]

<snip>

 

No. They own all the Atari Games (that's an actual company that existed from 1984-2003, that's not stating "Atari games" in general) properties -

 

http://flyers.arcade...rch+the+Archive

 

And they have the rights to all the pre-split games in coin-op format only.

 

And if that is the case, what gave Infogrames Atari the right to go after the Asteroids et al "infringers" earlier in the year?

 

Because they have the rights for all the pre-split titles on home/computer/mobile. I.E. all consumer rights.

That's interesting, there's a couple of high profile licenses still in that list - I was wondering if they would work their way through the back catalogue and start with stuff like Gauntlet, Super Sprint, Hard Drivin etc., but they won't be able to I guess.

 

Not that there's really much that would use those IPs I guess, but still, they seem to be throwing a lot of mud to see what sticks in the last 6 months or so.

[Retro Rogue]

<snip>

 

No. They own all the Atari Games (that's an actual company that existed from 1984-2003, that's not stating "Atari games" in general) properties -

 

http://flyers.arcade...rch+the+Archive

 

And they have the rights to all the pre-split games in coin-op format only.

 

And if that is the case, what gave Infogrames Atari the right to go after the Asteroids et al "infringers" earlier in the year?

 

Because they have the rights for all the pre-split titles on home/computer/mobile. I.E. all consumer rights.

That's interesting, there's a couple of high profile licenses still in that list - I was wondering if they would work their way through the back catalogue and start with stuff like Gauntlet, Super Sprint, Hard Drivin etc., but they won't be able to I guess.

 

Not that there's really much that would use those IPs I guess, but still, they seem to be throwing a lot of mud to see what sticks in the last 6 months or so.

 

Well, they could always license the games from Warner I guess if they wanted to go that route.

[KLund1]

So the moral of this story so far is that we all should make several backups of all emulator install, OS Rom's files there might be 'around', because we won't be able to download them any longer, store them in remote locations for future use, as needed? Yes/no?

[Fox-1 / mnx]

So the moral of this story so far is that we all should make several backups of all emulator install, OS Rom's files there might be 'around', because we won't be able to download them any longer, store them in remote locations for future use, as needed? Yes/no?

 

No. You can just dump the O.S. yourself from your own 800XL/130XE/Whatever.

[esplonky]

Let me summarize this:

 

When your name is Atari and you hunt for copyright violators you are evil?

 

When your name is <certain atariage visitors> and you hunt for copyright violator KJMANN you are behaving normal?

 

I do not get that. Seriously.

 

 

the thing about it is, in 1984 Atari was sold off, then again later, and now today, "Atari" isn't even the real Atari, nobody there worked there in the 80's, everyone there thinks they can dictate what we do with something they didnt make. it's like Stalin coming in and trying to run the Nazi party after Hitler killed himself.

 

us on the other hand, we arent going to sell our accounts off, albert hasn't sold off atariage, and we are all individuals, not a big corporation.

[Retro Rogue]

Let me summarize this:

 

When your name is Atari and you hunt for copyright violators you are evil?

 

When your name is <certain atariage visitors> and you hunt for copyright violator KJMANN you are behaving normal?

 

I do not get that. Seriously.

 

 

the thing about it is, in 1984 Atari was sold off, then again later, and now today, "Atari" isn't even the real Atari, nobody there worked there in the 80's, everyone there thinks they can dictate what we do with something they didnt make. it's like Stalin coming in and trying to run the Nazi party after Hitler killed himself.

 

us on the other hand, we arent going to sell our accounts off, albert hasn't sold off atariage, and we are all individuals, not a big corporation.

 

That makes zero legal or logical sense. a) Its IP and facilities were split up and sold. b) There is a clear chain of that IP from then to now. Atari Interactive has 100% legal right to dictate what to do with all copyrights and trademarks they own, whether or not they "made" the original IP.