What's the legal status of Atari hardware?

[Tickled_Pink]

The 1088XEL project got me thinking. What is the legal status of Atari hardware? Was any of it made available to the community? I'm sure the 2600 IP was bought by Hasbro and then Infogrames since they're still trying to milk that particular cow dry. But what about the 8-bit, 5200, 7800 and Jag since they've barely touched those platforms ... except Tempest 2000.

[Rybags]

The hardware, really is long obsolete and the IP doesn't much matter since you could use a RasPi or possibly even a PIC by now to just emulate the entire system.

On the other hand, the OS and software is relevant and matters so anyone reproducing it would be at risk.

[+DrVenkman]

The 1088XEL project got me thinking. What is the legal status of Atari hardware? Was any of it made available to the community? I'm sure the 2600 IP was bought by Hasbro and then Infogrames since they're still trying to milk that particular cow dry. But what about the 8-bit, 5200, 7800 and Jag since they've barely touched those platforms ... except Tempest 2000.

Rybags is correct. The only IP for the hardware that really still would be protected are the copyrights for the OS and BASIC, plus the films for making/producing the custom ICs. As the 1088XEL uses original chips, this isn’t an issue.

 

It does however use the U1MB but it’s up to the user whether to include copyrighted ROM files. After all, Altirra OS and BASIC are reverse engineered and free. Of course if the user owns genuine Atari OS roms and BASIC, he is within his rights in most countries to make copies so that takes care of most concerns.

 

The 1088XEL board designs themselves are Michael’s work, not Atari’s and he is free to make them freely available as he wishes.

Edited September 17, 2018 by DrVenkman

[gorgh]

that's a very interesting topic

[Heaven/TQA]

Jay Miner etc (I know he is RIP) dont own patents? So they are outdated?

[+davidcalgary29]

The hardware, really is long obsolete and the IP doesn't much matter since you could use a RasPi or possibly even a PIC by now to just emulate the entire system.

On the other hand, the OS and software is relevant and matters so anyone reproducing it would be at risk.

 

Many of the architectural design elements are iconic and still quite valuable today. The design of the 2600 (and perhaps 7800) is one of the central selling features of most of those Flashback units, and I'm sure that neither Atari nor Atgames would want random vendors releasing product lookalikes. Not that anyone's going to be releasing a new product in a 1050 case any time soon, but you never know. I would like to know if that company that co-opted Jaguar shells for dentistry equipment acquired legal rights to the design, though.

[Fred_M]

I did a quick google search and found several interesting pages (a.o. Atariage 2600 and Jaguar section). It is all about the patents Atari has and most of them have not expired.

 

This page on Digital Press is interesting: https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?72225-Do-all-systems-become-public-domain-20-years-later

[thorfdbg]

Jay Miner etc (I know he is RIP) dont own patents? So they are outdated?

 

First of all, there is a difference between IPs (intellectual properties) which are protected by patents, and copyright. "IPs" protect ideas. Copyright protects source code. Patents run out after 25 years. Copyright runs out after a couple of years of its creator (unless you are the Disney cooperation).

 

Concerning ownership: A rather typical agreement is that an inventor hands over the IP to his employer. Same for copyright. Depending on the country, not everything can be handed over to the employer (in Germany, for example, the "Urheberrecht" cannot be signed over, but only gives the creator the right to be named as the creator of the product, not much more).

 

Hence, Jay most certainly does not own the patents. Atari did.

 

One way or another, the Atari *patents* have long been expelled. 25 years after they have been filed, they are open. As far as the copyright is concerned, this is another story.

 

[+DrVenkman]

Jay Miner etc (I know he is RIP) dont own patents? So they are outdated?

Patents typically expire after a fixed term. Under US law, it used to be 14 years but not sure what the current time is. 41 years since the VCS was released and 39 since the 400/800, those patents are long expired.

 

That being said, reverse-engineering has been legal since forever. Remember the Coleco Gemini? They revere-engineered the TIA.

[thorfdbg]

That being said, reverse-engineering has been legal since forever. Remember the Coleco Gemini? They revere-engineered the TIA.

 

No - that is not true in general. "IP"s apply to ideas. If you reverse engineer a chip and use an idea that is covered by the claims in the patent, you are in trouble. No matter whether original or not. Same for software: If the software includes a clever (or not so clever) idea that is patented, it does not matter whether you reverse engineer the software or stole the original. You are in trouble.

 

Copyright is a bit different. Copyright applies to the code, not to the idea. That is, you can certainly write another software that works similar to an existing software. As long as you do not use the original code, no problem. However, in case of doubt you may have to defeat your claim that you did not use original code.

 

Hence, "IP" <> "Copyright".

Edited September 17, 2018 by thorfdbg

[+DrVenkman]

 

No - that is not true in general. "IP"s apply to ideas. If you reverse engineer a chip and use an idea that is covered by the claims in the patent, you are in trouble. No matter whether original or not. Same for software: If the software includes a clever (or not so clever) idea that is patented, it does not matter whether you reverse engineer the software or stole the original. You are in trouble.

 

Copyright is a bit different. Copyright applies to the code, not to the idea. That is, you can certainly write another software that works similar to an existing software. As long as you do not use the original code, no problem. However, in case of doubt you may have to defeat your claim that you did not use original code.

 

Hence, "IP" <> "Copyright".

I’m a lawyer, licensed for over 20 years. I was quite precise and accurate in my post. I also know very well the differences between patents, design patents, copyright, trademark, trade dress and “confidential business information.”

 

So you can save the misguided lecture.

[thorfdbg]

I’m a lawyer, licensed for over 20 years. I was quite precise and accurate in my post. I also know very well the differences between patents, design patents, copyright, trademark, trade dress and “confidential business information.”

 

So you can save the misguided lecture.

 

So at least I know which lawer to stay away from... Note well, the rule of the games changed from what it was 20 years ago. You do not get through with a patent violation these days just because "you reverse engineered".

[+DrVenkman]

 

So at least I know which lawer to stay away from... Note well, the rule of the games changed from what it was 20 years ago. You do not get through with a patent violation these days just because "you reverse engineered".

I’m also an engineer (and not some self-titled “software engineer” or something). In engineering terms, “reverse engineering” means something very specific. So again, save your lectures for someone else.

 

But more to the point, the A8 hardware designs have long passed out of any sort of IP protections except for the copyrights for the code (and since we’re being pedantic) the trademark protections for the logo.

[Tickled_Pink]

I’m also an engineer (and not some self-titled “software engineer” or something). In engineering terms, “reverse engineering” means something very specific. So again, save your lectures for someone else.

 

But more to the point, the A8 hardware designs have long passed out of any sort of IP protections except for the copyrights for the code (and since we’re being pedantic) the trademark protections for the logo.

 

Actually, thanks for that. I completed a law degree some 12 years ago and did IP law. I'd forgotten pretty much everything I'd learned about patents and for some reason was confusing them with trademarks. So it got me checking and in the UK, patents can only be registered for a maximum of 20 years.

 

It also explains to me why we're seeing so many clones of retro machines. The cartridge-based systems undoubtedly work around software licensing issues by having compatible firmware and not having the games built in. So the Vega/Vega+ could have been developed without using the Sinclair name. However, the Sinclair trademark is still held and being re-registered by Sky (who also hold the Amstrad trademark).

[Rybags]

Highly unlikely the patents were in the names of team members. They were paid employees so anything they created while on the clock would have had Atari's ownership. Though of course there were subsidiary companies for various reasons, I'd not be surprised if everything was owned by a 2-bit Cayman Islands outfit with Atari paying fat royalties to use something they invented in the first place as a big tax dodge.

[+DrVenkman]

Highly unlikely the patents were in the names of team members. They were paid employees so anything they created while on the clock would have had Atari's ownership. Though of course there were subsidiary companies for various reasons, I'd not be surprised if everything was owned by a 2-bit Cayman Islands outfit with Atari paying fat royalties to use something they invented in the first place as a big tax dodge.

 

Here you go:

 

"Atari" as the Assignee in U.S. Patent Applications.

 

Have fun.

[_The Doctor__]

lots of expired patents... nice

[+mytek]

Yep everything patent wise expired at least 15 or more years ago in all countries, including the US. The only thing of consequence are copyrights and trademarks. So you can duplicate and/or modify hardware (as we've done), recycle Atari VLSI chips into new hardware designs (as we've done), but you can't legally sell a new product with an Atari OS unless it's one that was authorized to be resold by Atari. You also don't have the right to use the Atari logo on anything without authorization to do so by Atari.

 

However with all that said, the likely hood of Atari coming after anyone in this hobby market is slim to none.

[Tickled_Pink]

Yep everything patent wise expired at least 15 or more years ago in all countries, including the US. The only thing of consequence are copyrights and trademarks. So you can duplicate and/or modify hardware (as we've done), recycle Atari VLSI chips into new hardware designs (as we've done), but you can't legally sell a new product with an Atari OS unless it's one that was authorized to be resold by Atari. You also don't have the right to use the Atari logo on anything without authorization to do so by Atari.

 

However with all that said, the likely hood of Atari coming after anyone in this hobby market is slim to none.

 

You are talking about THIS Atari, right? I wouldn't put anything past them. But this is why discussions like this are important within the hobby community. Know your legal boundaries and if a company accuses you of crossing them, you can just raise a middle finger to them.

 

I read the comments earlier this thread about reverse engineering. Where it pertains to hardware, it seems to be perfectly legal in most cases. Reverse engineering software is a different matter because they're usually forbidden by the EULA, which next to nobody reads. When I took a look at this last night, I came across an EU directive from 2009. Around 2007, I tried to sell a pack of Windows XP restore disks that came with a laptop I had, but which one of the kids ended up stepping on. After a few days, eBay pulled the listing because of a complaint by Microsoft. The 2009 EU directive deals with the reselling of software, amongst other things, and makes it clear that the rights holder's right to distribution ends with the first sale of the software. So, once it's been sold, the purchaser can do what they want with it. The only restriction that a rights holder has over the software is that they can still maintain rights over the hiring/rental of the software. The only problem is that it's a directive and not a regulation, so it's not legally binding on EU member states - it's really an agreement on how member states should unify a policy over software rights. It's up to each individual state as to how they implement that policy. So, some member states might already have implemented it in legislation. It's things like these that people should arm themselves with "just in case".

 

Most companies do ignore the hobby community, though. Several chips have, in the past, been reverse engineered. Most notably the Sinclair Spectrum and ZX81 ULAs, which have been reverse engineered and recreated using virtually nothing but logic chips.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Tickled_Pink

[+mytek]

I've noticed in all these kind of discussions that people confuse patent rights with copyrights. For hardware of the type that Atari used in all of these early machines, only patent rights apply. Any patents that did apply were done at a time when patent expirations were 17 years after issue date. So has already been stated and restated, those patents are no longer applicable. Or in other words the hardware now has no protection from being copied and sold as new either in the original configuration, or as part of a new configuration such as the 1088XEL. No clean room reverse engineering is required to do so.

 

Also keep in mind that patents can not be renewed. The whole idea behind the patent process is to allow the creator of something (the inventor) the chance to profit from their discovery, and to protect them for an initial period of time from competing manufacturers with deeper pockets from cashing in on the creators invention.

 

Also there is a slim window of opportunity in which to patent something. So for instance, you must do so before the invention is actually sold, unless you first file for a provisional patent that gives you one year protection before the actual patent is filed. This is known as patent pending. So once the invention is put on the market, the clock starts ticking, but only if the provisional patent was filed before doing so. This also precludes anyone else from trying to patent your idea as well, since once released it is now considered to be prior art and no longer patentable (unless a provisional patent was filed before hand).

 

So the only protection still in place is only for the OS and languages (Basic, ect.) which are software protected by copyright, which enjoys a much longer time span then a patent.

 

Now interestingly I could have possibly applied for a patent for my 1088XEL design if I could have shown its uniqueness to any other existing patent or prior art. But I doubt that I could have shown that to be true. None the less this does happen all the time, building upon previous designs whether patented or not (best if expired), adding a uniquely new idea, and then patenting just that uniqueness and nothing else.