Intellivision Adaptor For The Colecovision?

[Tempest]

I just read this in the Wiki entry for Colecovision:

 

Coleco prototyped an expansion module to provide compatibility with the Mattel Intellivision, but never released it.

 

This is the first I've ever heard of this. I suppose it is plausable, but I've never seen a hint of such a thing existing. Anyone know more about this?

 

Tempest

[ninjarabbit]

Wiki isn't the most reliable source of information

[jbanes]

Wiki isn't the most reliable source of information

982631[/snapback]

 

Neither are many magazines and journals we read every day. That's why it pays to check the references. In this case, Wikipedia provided us with their references. Following the link to the "Article at Dot Eaters" nets you this text:

 

There is also an adapter planned to allow the ColecoVision to play Intellivision cartridges, but this apparently never makes it off the drawing board.

 

The link to the Classic Gaming site nets this text:

 

Coleco had plans for an Intellivision adapter, and even produced working prototypes, but never released it.

 

The semi-official Coleco FAQ also lists this info:

 

Intellivision Adapter by Coleco.

 

    Coleco had plans for an adapter that would play Intellivision cartridges. Supposedly there are several working prototypes of this adapter that were shown at electronic shows. If Coleco would have only gone through with production, the ColecoVision would have been able to play Intellivision, 2600, and ColecoVision cartridges! - JC

 

Unfortunately, I think the adapter was lost to the sands of time. AFAIK, No actual hardware has ever surfaced. Then again, I don't know very much, so you may want to poke around a bit.

[else]

I've seen this "supposed" Intellivison adapter mentioned before also. I frankly don't believe it.

 

It's one thing to reverse engineer the 2600, which is strictly hardware based and generally pretty simplistic. This is legal. It is quite another to reverse engineer the Intellivsion because it also includes a more complex firmware component. I'm not sure if this is even legal.

 

This firmware aspect is basically the argument that Apple has used to kill off any company that has ever attempted to clone it's hardware. Remember the Macintosh hardware emulators from the early 90's that supplied you with all the hardware _except_ for the ROMs, which you had to supply yourself? Coleco would have had to ship the Intellivison adapter without ROMs too!

 

Given this, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Coleco would have wasted time and money on a product that it could never legally produce (at least with the Intellivision ROMs in it)....

 

The wikipedia article needs fixing, imho.

Edited December 14, 2005 by else

[jbanes]

It is quite another to reverse engineer the Intellivsion because it also includes a more complex firmware component.  I'm not sure if this is even legal.  I mean, this firmware aspect is basically the argument that Apple has used to kill off any company that has ever attempted to clone it's hardware.

982697[/snapback]

 

This is a pretty tricky question. In the case of the PC BIOS, the courts decided in favor of COMPAQ, stating that the reverse engineering was legal. OTOH, courts found that AMD's use of Intel's microcode was not acceptable. (AMD later cross-licensed the code.) As a result, the question of firmware remains up in the air as it's very case specific.

 

Of course, you must consider that the COMPAQ reverse engineering would have occurred about the same time Coleco would have considered making an Intellivision adaptor. The entire case may have scared Coleco away from the idea. Or perhaps Coleco was never able to emulate the machine well enough to make it a commercially viable product. One way or another, I can believe that Coleco worked on such a device, but ditched it before release. Keep in mind that they're not the only ones who did such emulations. For example, the Spectravideo had an adaptor for emulating the Colecovision!

 

The wikipedia article needs fixing, imho.

 

How about you first fix the perception that the device existed (which would require proving that it didn't exist), THEN fix the encyclopedias of the world?

Edited December 14, 2005 by jbanes

[else]

How about you first fix the perception that the device existed (which would require proving that it didn't exist), THEN fix the encyclopedias of the world?

982717[/snapback]

 

How would _I_ go about changing everyone's perception? That's a big task and I do have a day job after all. Besides, I don't see the big deal in changing this:

 

"Coleco prototyped a..."

 

to this:

 

"It is rumored that Coleco prototyped a..."

 

Is that really going to cause an uproar around the world? I mean even the FAQ that you reference uses the word "supposedly", but the Wikipedia article doesn't. So how can you even argue that Wikipedia is correct if it drops this key word???

Edited December 14, 2005 by else

[jbanes]

How would _I_ go about changing everyone's perception?  That's a big task and I do have a day job after all.  Besides, I don't see the big deal in changing this:

 

"Coleco prototyped a..."

 

to this:

 

"It is rumored that Coleco prototyped a..."

 

Is that really going to cause an uproar around the world?

982739[/snapback]

 

It might. The Coleco FAQ states unequivacally that the device was planned. Only the existence of prototypes is left as an open question. So if you want to change Wikipedia, you should probably change it to be more in line with the Coleco FAQ. e.g.:

 

"Coleco had plans to create an adaptor that would allow the Colecovision to play Intellivision games. It has been rumored that prototypes of this device were created but never released."

 

Adding the FAQ as a reference would also be a good idea.

[Vic George 2K3]

I'd still wonder how they would have had the CV controllers work with an INTV system adapter...or whether they would have bothered at all with such and just went with making custom compatible controllers for it.

 

Personally, some INTV games definitely need a joystick -- even if it's the stumpy and klutzy CV hand controller knob.

[jsoper]

I'd still wonder how they would have had the CV controllers work with an INTV system adapter...or whether they would have bothered at all with such and just went with making custom compatible controllers for it.

 

Personally, some INTV games definitely need a joystick -- even if it's the stumpy and klutzy CV hand controller knob.

982772[/snapback]

You could use a CV controller, but the 16 intv directions would be reduced to the standard 8 (like the genesis controller adapter does). And you'd need the super-action controllers if you wanted the third intv fire button (but few games use this).

 

I wonder how hard it would be to mate the 2600 adapter to a intv2 motherboard? There are a lot of other projects I'd rather do instead.

[SteveW]

I don't think the Intellivision's ROM, the EXEC, was all that hard to reverse engineer. When the Intellivision II came out, it contained an updated EXEC that blocked third-party cartridges from playing, essentially not executing the game program if a copyright wasn't located in the right spot in the code. Eventually, Coleco figured it out and started getting around it. So they had to be able to get into the EXEC to work that out. So they had already reverse engineered the EXEC for that anyway. The rest of the Intellivision hardware was just off-the-shelf General Instruments components. Buy the parts, slap in a newly written compatible ROM, and you're pretty much set.

[Bill Brasky]

I don't really consider these add-ons "adpaters" as they're just complete, working systems that simply rely on the CV for power and output the video through the CV instead of itself. You could make your own Intv "adapter". Just take a regular Intv unit and wire it up to the CV expansion port for power and send the video signals back through the exp port as well.

[else]

I don't think the Intellivision's ROM,  the EXEC, was all that hard to reverse engineer. When the Intellivision II came out, it contained an updated EXEC that blocked third-party cartridges from playing, essentially not executing the game program if a copyright wasn't located in the right spot in the code. Eventually, Coleco figured it out and started getting around it. So they had to be able to get into the EXEC to work that out. So they had already reverse engineered the EXEC for that anyway. The rest of the Intellivision hardware was just off-the-shelf General Instruments components. Buy the parts, slap in a newly written compatible ROM, and you're pretty much set.

982796[/snapback]

 

That's one possibility, but not the only possibility. Other ones include:

 

1) Someone inside Mattel leaked the information to Coleco about how to get around it.

2) Coleco got lucky and stumbled on how to get around it accidentially (it doesn't sound like it was all that tricky of a lock-out feature).

 

But again, as Apple has shown in court -- the question not whether it is hard or easy. It is a question of whether it is legal.

[else]

The Coleco FAQ states unequivacally that the device was planned. Only the existence of prototypes is left as an open question.

 

Well, I'm not going to sit here and argue back and forth with you on this. If you think the FAQ is the 100% beyond any shadow of a doubt correct, you're entitled to your opinion. I like to think that it was created by humans who are not perfect and from time to time make mistakes. In this case, I think it is very suspect....

 

So if you want to change Wikipedia, you should probably change it to be more in line with the Coleco FAQ. e.g.:

 

"Coleco had plans to create an adaptor that would allow the Colecovision to play Intellivision games. It has been rumored that prototypes of this device were created but never released."

 

Adding the FAQ as a reference would also be a good idea.

 

I don't know, that sounds dangerous. I wouldn't want to go messing with the world's encyclopedias before I have convinced everyone that this is the case. Wait -- where have I heard that before? Oh yea -- FROM YOU!

Edited December 15, 2005 by else

[Tempest]

What I wonder is if it was legal to reverse engineer the Intelli. Since the EXEC rom was Mattel's property, how could Coleco replicate it? The 2600 was mostly off the shelf components, it would be prefectly legal to reverse engineer it.

 

Tempest

[jbanes]

I don't know, that sounds dangerous.  I wouldn't want to go messing with the world's encyclopedias before I have convinced everyone that this is the case.  Wait -- where have I heard that before?  Oh yea -- FROM YOU!

982935[/snapback]

 

You previously said that Wikipedia should be "fixed". I only suggested that if you're worried, you can clarify it to be in line with the reliable references. If you don't buy into the references, bring it up on the discussion page.

 

What I wonder is if it was legal to reverse engineer the Intelli.  Since the EXEC rom was Mattel's property, how could Coleco replicate it?  The 2600 was mostly off the shelf components, it would be prefectly legal to reverse engineer it.

982943[/snapback]

 

Copyright law actually has exceptions for reverse engineering. Even the fearsome DMCA has holes for reverse engineering. The decision of the court in the IBM vs. COMPAQ case was that COMPAQ did not use any proprietary information to reverse engineer the BIOS, and that their replication of the code was free from IBM copyrighted code. Thus COMPAQ was found to be in the clear.

[Tempest]

In the end I suppose it didn't matter since the Intellivision fan base wasn't that large. Having a 2600 adapter made sense since it was a huge seller with hundreds of games, but an Intellivision adapter...

 

Assuming the 2600 had half the gaming market back then and Colecovision and Intellivision had the other 50% (yeah I know the actual numbers were different but bear with me, this is an example), the number of people who would want to play Intellivision games AND owned a Colecovision would be tiny (a quarter of a quarter). I suppose there would be those poeple who wanted to play Intellivision games but didn't want to buy a system, but that would only add a hand full of people. It probably didn't make economic sense to bring out such an adapter.

 

Tempest

[JB]

I'd still wonder how they would have had the CV controllers work with an INTV system adapter...or whether they would have bothered at all with such and just went with making custom compatible controllers for it.

 

Personally, some INTV games definitely need a joystick -- even if it's the stumpy and klutzy CV hand controller knob.

982772[/snapback]

If the module was designed at the right time period, you could just use INTV2 controllers. I assume since htey were socketed that replacements were either available on store shelves or were intended to follow shortly after system launch.

[opcode]

What I wonder is if it was legal to reverse engineer the Intelli.  Since the EXEC rom was Mattel's property, how could Coleco replicate it?  The 2600 was mostly off the shelf components, it would be prefectly legal to reverse engineer it.

 

Tempest

982943[/snapback]

 

I think it would be easy to duplicate the EXEC routines without exactly copying them. However, how about the pre-defined graphic characters? Weren't they inside the EXEC ROM? How Coleco could legally copy them?

 

Eduardo

[else]

I don't think the Intellivision's ROM,  the EXEC, was all that hard to reverse engineer. When the Intellivision II came out, it contained an updated EXEC that blocked third-party cartridges from playing, essentially not executing the game program if a copyright wasn't located in the right spot in the code. Eventually, Coleco figured it out and started getting around it. So they had to be able to get into the EXEC to work that out. So they had already reverse engineered the EXEC for that anyway. The rest of the Intellivision hardware was just off-the-shelf General Instruments components. Buy the parts, slap in a newly written compatible ROM, and you're pretty much set.

982796[/snapback]

 

That's one possibility, but not the only possibility. Other ones include:

 

1) Someone inside Mattel leaked the information to Coleco about how to get around it.

2) Coleco got lucky and stumbled on how to get around it accidentially (it doesn't sound like it was all that tricky of a lock-out feature).

 

But again, as Apple has shown in court -- the question not whether it is hard or easy. It is a question of whether it is legal.

982924[/snapback]

 

Oh yea, and I left out the most likely scenario that occurred:

 

3) Coleco dumped out the old ROM and the new ROM. Then they did a simple diff on the two files and noticed that 99.999% of the code was the same, except for one or two instructions. Next they simply figured out what the changed instructions were doing and BINGO! -- they were back in business. Probably took somebody less than a day to figure out....

 

But of course Coleco couldn't have simply turned around and burned this code in to their own ROM. I'm sure that wouldn't have been legal.

Edited December 15, 2005 by else

[Bruce Tomlin]

Copyright law actually has exceptions for reverse engineering. Even the fearsome DMCA has holes for reverse engineering. The decision of the court in the IBM vs. COMPAQ case was that COMPAQ did not use any proprietary information to reverse engineer the BIOS, and that their replication of the code was free from IBM copyrighted code. Thus COMPAQ was found to be in the clear.

Right. The point was that Compaq had gone to the trouble of a "clean room" process, with two groups. One group reverse-engineers the chips and produces a specification, the second group writes code to that specification, and then the first group tests the result and tells them what is wrong, and why, but not how to fix it.

[joeybastard]

Perhaps they did make protos but then canned it because of the legal hassles they would entail if released? That seems possible at least.

[else]

Copyright law actually has exceptions for reverse engineering. Even the fearsome DMCA has holes for reverse engineering. The decision of the court in the IBM vs. COMPAQ case was that COMPAQ did not use any proprietary information to reverse engineer the BIOS, and that their replication of the code was free from IBM copyrighted code. Thus COMPAQ was found to be in the clear.

Right. The point was that Compaq had gone to the trouble of a "clean room" process, with two groups. One group reverse-engineers the chips and produces a specification, the second group writes code to that specification, and then the first group tests the result and tells them what is wrong, and why, but not how to fix it.

983286[/snapback]

 

And lets not forget that Coleco's Atari adapter was ruled illegal too. Coleco then had to work out a deal with Atari so that the could continue to sell them.

[jbanes]

And lets not forget that Coleco's Atari adapter was ruled illegal too.  Coleco then had to work out a deal with Atari so that the could continue to sell them.

983310[/snapback]

 

Wait. Are you talking about the same Colecovision as the rest of us? From the Coleco FAQ:

 

The Atari 2600 expansion kit caused a flurry of lawsuits between Atari and Coleco. After the dust cleared, the courts had decided that it was acceptable for Coleco to sell the units. As a result of this Coleco was also able to make and sell the Gemini game system which was an exact clone of an Atari 2600 with combined joystick/paddle controllers.

 

From the Emulation FAQ:

 

Atari 's argument was that any product derived from a unique one already on the market was by default the intellectual property of the original producer.  The courts determined that Atari's videogame technology was too generic to be considered unique, and the concept of a videogame was also generic and therefore could not be used to establish the uniqueness of Atari's product.

 

What you may be thinking of is this part:

 

As a result, the two eventually settled out of court.  Coleco was allowed to continue the manufacture of its product, and later "thanked" Atari for the attention by marketing the Gemini - a perfect and cheaper clone of Atari's 2600 videogame console.

 

Atari NEVER would have let Coleco produce its adaptor if they had a choice. (Which they didn't.)

[else]

As a result, the two eventually settled out of court.

 

Yep, this is exactly the part I am talking about. Okay, maybe it wasn't ruled illegal, but a settlement was reached nonetheless....

 

And since I know you don't believe anything unless it is written in a FAQ or book, see this link:

 

Settlement

 

There you go -- it's written in an actual physical book. That must make it true, right?

Edited December 15, 2005 by else

[jbanes]

As a result, the two eventually settled out of court.

Yep, this is exactly the part I am talking about. Okay, maybe it wasn't ruled illegal, but a settlement was reached nonetheless....

 

Settlements are almost always reached. A judge will actually encourage two parties to reach a settlement that is equitable to both parties so that he doesn't have to decide a much nastier resolution.

 

Take, for example, the case of USL vs. BSDI. USL sued BSDI for using copyrighted Unix source code. BSDI not only won the case, but also won a counter suit against USL for their use of BSD code. The final resolution was a settlement that gave BSDI perpetual rights to the Unix source code.

 

And since I know you don't believe anything unless it is written in a FAQ or book, see this link:

 

Settlement

983335[/snapback]

 

1. If you'd rather, I can stop citing references and fall back on the traditional "You're wrong luser! Make your time! HAHAHAHA!" Why should you believe anything I say if I don't back it up?

 

2. You stated (and I quote) that "Coleco's Atari adapter was ruled illegal too." The fact that they settled has nothing to do the fact that the judge still found in Coleco's favor. Thus the case is still used today as precident, since it wasn't settled before the judge produced a ruling.