Mindfield
-
Content Count
7,716 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mindfield
-
-
No, you were right Mindfield - Cardillo is not a gamer and couldn't give a shit about games or the gaming community. After all, he didn't even know what a Sega Master System is. It's all about the money and his attempt to sound like he is "after all, fans of the brand and the games" was truly pathetic. Poor ColecoVision, you deserve so much better!!
I didn't know about the SMS thing. There's simply no way in hell you can ever call yourself a retro gamer that goes back to a console released in 1982 if you've never even heard of Sega's first commercially successful console that came after. (I'd excuse lack of knowledge about their SG-1000/SC-3000, those are fairly obscure, but the SMS was a global success. Not on the level of the NES, obviously, but it carved out more than enough market share that you'd have to have lived under a rock buried under other rocks not to have heard of it.)
Yeah, sorry, not buying that he's a fan of anything that isn't green and fungible.
-
1
-
-
I don't disagree with this, and as I said in my last wall-o-text response, then
WHY DID HE GO AFTER A FAN PAGE INSTEAD OF THE CREATORS OF SAID PRODUCTS?
The other question I have is: Why after more than a decade of Homebrews using those logos did they only decide it was an issue... NOW?
There is more to this story than just "trademark protection" as I don't buy that for a second. I still feel the real core behind a lot of this mess comes from origins of spite and jealousy. But of course there is no real way to prove that.
Yes, exactly. That's why I said he went way overboard, and his response to everything that happened after he went after the page has been abhorrent. As for why this is a problem suddenly now, we can only speculate, but I'd say the pending release of their Rainbow Brite games is a significant factor. It's possible they didn't know about the homebrew scene (or did not realize it was using the Coleco logo) back when the Flashback was released, or for that matter when the Chameleon was a thing. It's doubtful, but given that it's probably agreed that Cardillo et. al. are in this for the money, not because they truly give a shit about the community, it may be that they just never really looked into the community at large any deeper than was needed to get a scan scan of what their target market might look like. Hard to say -- both sketchiness and ignorance are equally believable answers when it comes to Cardillo.
-
1
-
-
Just to make a point here, the issue here is that a company is obligated to protect their trademarks, because if they don't actively pursue infringements, they will lose them. It doesn't really matter the degree to which a trademark is being infringed, if a company knows of an infringement being sold commercially, they are required to pursue action to see that such activity is stopped. If they don't, and it can be shown that the company knew of the infringement and failed take action, the USPTO can nullify their trademark claim. Most companies will simply issue a cease-and-desist order, and usually that does the trick, as most infringers know they're infringing and will stop once they're caught because it's expensive to fight things further, especially if they have no legal case for their usage of it (eg. fair use, parody). Not to defend the BS that Cardillo has been doing, but it's likely Cardillo, in his vigorous pursuit to protect the Coleco trademark just to make sure he can be shown to be making a serious effort should the USPTO call it into question, went well overboard and reacted abhorrently to the response.
Again, I am not defending what Chris has done here, but I wanted to point out that at the core here (which has been deeply buried under mountains of Chris' bullshit) is the protection of a trademark as is legally required in order for Coleco to keep it. Whether Coleco's claim is legit in the first place given the specimen they provided to obtain it is another matter.-
5
-
-
So is this another lie?
It states in the article that RWB/Coleco filed a photograph of something they didn't produce? So the new question is did Ben Heck have any deals in progress w/RWB? Personally I don't believe he did.
No. Ben doesn't produce anything like that commercially. He has done onesies and twosies for a few people on request for a fairly high price ($300-400+ or so for one of his custom portables) and with a lead time of several months, but it's a fun hobby for him, and a learning exercise, not an enterprise. So yes, the specimen Coleco provided is completely bogus.
-
1
-
-
Just because he gives an explanation on the bootleg figures, doesn't in any make it the truth. I will issue an apology if it turns out these are made legit with the blessing of Hasbro, but as it stands I don't see any evidence that they are, just the word of someone who has already proven to have poor moral character and be dishonest. At this point why should we believe his explanation on that?
What little dealings I've had with Hasbro makes me think that the statement he gave is mostly true with a good old fashioned lie in it.
Because, I do know that Hasbro, does approve of and does believe that it is good for the community for consumers to create their own original figures and customize their figures, but recasting of existing figures and selling them does not make them custom figures, even if you are using different parts from different figures. Using original product molds to make new castings of figures you don't have the rights to is bootlegging, even if you customize them.
The difference here is Hasbro is supporting you buying their figures and using those as a base for your customization, or sculpting your own original parts, or doing your own home recasting of PARTS to make your own personal figure, for your own personal use and not for resale.
It's like this, I'll put it in video game terms.
If I found some Amiibo that were owned by Nintendo, and decided to cast up my own figures, they would be bootleg. They would be bootleg even if I changed the colors. They would be bootleg even if I cut them up and glued them together with different arms and heads.
As a person who has been dealing with Chinese factories for years and had my own products made over there I can provide this little tidbit of info.
If it is made in China it is going to be bootlegged. The molds you own, you only think you own. When they make your run of stuff, they make a shit load extra and sell it as well. If you are a small time guy, your molds will get LOST, and yet you will see your product still getting made. If you are a big time guy who has the power to come get your shit and do something legally if they get lost, then your stuff is being recast for copies, so that they can be made when you take back your molds.
What I would think happened here, is when Hasbro told whatever company was doing their casting to destroy the molds, they just kept them and or sold them a few times to different people wanting to crank out bootleg figures.
It's a great scam, you track down where something was made and sometimes they still have the molds. They won't make the product unless you buy the molds, but they still own them, either it goes that way or you have to drop a lot of cash for a big production run up front. So, then someone wants to make the same shit, well they sell them the same molds too, and repeat. There are a lot of tiny game companies, and a few larger ones that learned the hard way that if you're not a big business you loose when you do business in China. I've seen several small companies have shut down or end up getting bought out by the company doing their casting. (Because they held back on the product being made until the company was in trouble, and kindly stepped up with some cash to help them out, while they worked out getting their product made), I've had and seen people get their orders pushed back in the que because a bigger company wanted something done and that was worth more money, even though you've already paid and have customers waiting. The list goes on and on.
The bottom line, having looked up those figures on line and chatted with Hasbro, I see no proof that they are being allowed to be made. Firstly, the ones that were lazily cranked out with still having all the company branding on them are unquestionable bootlegs. Secondly, anything made in a mold that was previously owned by Hasbro is unquestionable a bootleg, Thirdly, anything that is identical to any part of any figure the previously released is bootleg, this includes having created your own molds based off using one of their figures for a master.
When something from Hasbro, proven to be from Hasbro, is shown that addresses these specific castings as being acceptable fair fan usage, then I'll happily apologize.
Fair enough. I'm sure it's possible to obtain some proof of this. But I think the larger point here is that we shouldn't likewise be making accusations without our own proof to refute his. By all means ask -- Chris, or a more reliable source -- but if we flat out make the assertion without the evidence to back it up, then we're not really being any better than he is.
-
Chris,
I'm trying to be as impartial as I can be here. I am neither a Colecovision developer nor do I own one at this moment (much as I miss it) and only play games through emulators these days. One day I may get back into collecting. But that is neither here nor there.
You seem to spend a great deal of time dancing around the meat of the issues here, getting bogged down in the personal attacks (which I will address a bit later) without actually addressing the biggest issues here. To whit:
- You made TOS violation claims against images of games on the FB fan page. This was just wrong. Period. End of story. Holding your retractions for ransom pending agreement to any terms whatsoever is dumb. You were in the wrong here, and regardless of anything else, you should retract them wholesale and without reservation or qualification. Full stop. This issue is separate and unrelated to anything else. Colecovision Fan has no stake in anything posted there, and you have no say in what gets posted there. If you mistakenly thought otherwise, that's on you, but the absolute moment you were shown to be incorrect in your assumptions or the information you were given, you should have retracted your claims in their entirety.
- You want to control what software gets released for the ColecoVision. You can't. Full stop. That is not within your purview whatsoever. Stop trying. If you have a problem with unlicensed ports, take that up with the developers or report them to the IP holders whose copyrights and/or trademarks they violated. But unless they are violating Coleco's IP (and to the best of my knowledge Coleco Holdings do not have the rights to any of the original Coleco IP) or trademarks (where you likely do, in fact, have some say) then you have no standing to take any legal action yourself.
- You want to control what software gets publicized by forums, blogs, and fan sites. You can't. Full stop. See above. If you want editorial control, start your own site.
- You want to control what people say about you and Coleco/Coleco Holdings/RWB and where. You can't. Full stop. Unless it legally qualifies as slander or libel (and there is a very specific definition for each here), then you have no right to ask anyone to retract or take down anything said about you or Coleco/Coleco Holdings/RWB. You can ask, but nobody has to comply, and in the asking is the risk of damage to your brand's reputation. Clearly we're past that now, however.
- You want to control who uses the Coleco and ColecoVision logos. That, at least, is within your right, presuming your trademarks are legit, but only within the scope of protecting your trademark's specific third-party usage (its font and style) as it pertains to the potential for causing confusion in the marketplace and who gets to license its official use and under what terms. These are your only bargaining chips, and you seem to feel they give you more power to do more things than they do. Protect your trademark in ways the law says you should using common sense (go after the actual people directly responsible for infringement, not those giving them airtime). Give licenses to those you wish and dictate the terms of its use. Try to do anything outside of these and you're just stepping on your own dick -- and by what's happened up to this point, your dick has seen more foot traffic than Times Square. (Note: This is a quasi-humorous metaphor that's probably only funny to me, not a personal attack. For some reason I feel the need to spell out that I don't literally think your genitals are a busy trestle bridge.)
- You associate with someone who is known to the very community you hope to eventually market things to, to be a complete scammer. This is bad for your image. And don't try and deflect by accusing others of being guilty of associating with those who are similarly "bad" -- this is nothing to do with them. This is about you and the brand you represent. Like it or not, a brand is only as good as the people behind it, even those who are not on the payroll. This reflects on your brand. Keep that in mind.
- You make all of this personal. Don't. You're representing a brand. For God's sake, man, act like an adult professional. Ignore the personal attacks. Address issues about the brand in a professional, level-headed manner. Everything else is just noise that is irrelevant to the brand.
- You play the victim. Nobody has victimized you except maybe use the Coleco and ColecoVision logos where they were not licensed to do so. That is, and should always be, the beginning, middle, and end of your issue here, and they should be taken up with the parties directly involved. Full stop. Any damage done to the Coleco brand as it exists today was instigated by you. It all started with you. You are not the victim.
I think you owe CVF some retractions and at least a few people an apology.
Everyone else,
Ad hominems, physical threats (however hyperbolic or indirect), parody, and such are cathartic -- I get it. It's fun. It's entertaining. Bit it's not helping. Given Chris' behaviour, we should be holding ourselves to higher standards than that, at least while the issue is ongoing. Let's be the bigger people here. I know we've tried to be, and Chris hasn't exactly done anything to raise the level if discourse here in an effort to help make a bad situation better. But I think -- and I know this is going to be a terribly unpopular opinion -- that some few here owe Chris an apology, at least for accusing him of illegally selling bootlegs where he's explained that what he was doing was legit. Yes, Chris has been in the wrong here on numerous fronts, and he needs to address that if he wants to have any hope in hell of salvaging any shreds of his brand's reputation, but not everyone here has been in the right, either.
I love this community - the CV community and AA at large. I've been hanging around these forums for a long-ass time, though I haven't been around here for the past number of years for having dropped out of collecting. Still, I hate to see shit like this crop up when it really, really didn't need to get this bad. Yes, Chris started it, and frankly, Chris needs to be the one to finish it, hopefully without taking a weed whacker to the remaining shreds of Coleco's rep, but some here also need to big it up and offer an apology for false accusations and personal attacks as well. We're better than that. We've been here long before he was, and we'll be here long after he's gone. But if this is to go away without leaving too much lingering anger and frustration, those in the wrong need to own it and apologise for it and move on. Chris can go and do whatever it is Chris is supposed to be doing, and we can go back to enjoying the hell out of the wicked-awesome things being done for long-dead systems that we love keeping alive for our own pleasure.
-
22
-
-
Holy Shit! Eric! How you doin' man?
I'm doing pretty good, thanks! I've been gone from here a good long time now. Got out of collecting, though still have a core Atari 2600 system with my favourite games and some accessories. Sadly I just don't really have the time to pull it out and play with it. I do log time in emulators occasionally though.
I got sucked back in by this thread from Facebook though, and ... well, dammit, I miss AA. So I came back. 
-
3
-
-
Not really. Yes tell the truth. Always a good choice. But not for business. That's why there's CEO school, to undo that training.
This is a stupid concept. I'd have mad, mad respect for any company that got in front of a mistake, admitted it, and apologized, all of its own volition, before the media got wind of it and made them look like they're only sorry because they're getting bad publicity. It's the ones who deflect and evade that I hate most and tend to avoid.
-
2
-
-
OMG
RWB was acquired last year by a company called Dormitus http://dormitus.com
They have a stupendously pompous/dorky advertising concept... old brands are "sleeping giants" like dormant volcanoes that "hold a sacred place in our consciousness" and they will "breathe new life into these brands that never died"
I am not making this up
Their portfolio:
Cingular
Coleco/Colecovision
Brim
Cross Colours
Aiwa
Underalls
Handspring
Spuds McKenzie
What a motley assortment. Aside from Coleco, we have an absorbed wireless company nobody has any fond memories of, a 70s/80s brand of coffee nobody wanted to fill to the rim anymore, a 90s Benneton-wannabe fashion brand, an middling 90s electronics company which was absorbed by Sony, then died when Sony's rebranding failed hard, a 70s/80s brand of pantyhose of all damn things (do women still wear these?), an early 2000s PDA/smartphone brand that got absorbed by Palm, and the late 80s gormless bull terrier mascot for Budweiser that MADD accused Anheuser-Busch of using to market the beer to kids. For the most part, properties that died for a reason and should stay dead.
-
4
-
-
As a developer we understand that you may see the words ‘Licensed’ as ‘pay me’ , but we are more concerned with content of the games. Chances are that if you are simply developing a game for the use on the ol’ system, then we would not request much more than the ‘ability to buy the game from you at cost,’ or ‘ability to produce the same games.’Wait. Hold on. You would, for example, allow a developer of homebrew games to use the Coleco mark if they sell you the game at cost? So the developer makes no money? Or you get permission to reproduce the games yourself, again, giving the developer no money?
I know homebrewing is a labour of love, but this is just balls-out arrogant and stupid. What possible incentive would any developer have to do any business with you at all? Do you really think this is the way to get back into the community's good graces?
I think the appropriate response here is, "Dig UP, stupid!"
-
6
-
-
You have copyright laws on one side, but in addition you have Patents Law above that.
For instance Konami could have patented the way they are doing their scrolling in their games. If it is the case, even if you create your own game with your own routines and accidentally you use the same way of doing a scrolling , you could be sued!
Unless you can prove prior art or obvious functionality -- and if you have the means and time to deal with it in court.
-
1
-
-
Still doesn't make sense to me. What if instead of copying Mickey Mouse onto paper with a drawing I used a different medium to copy Mickey Mouse to? For an example, I burn(draw) a Mickey Mouse movie(drawing) on a DVD(paper)? Did I commit copyright infringement with the paper, DVD, or both?
If CollectorVision doesn't own the rights to Kung Fu Master then is an act of copyright infringement(piracy) taking place when creating Kung Fu Master for the ColecoVision? If no then why not? If yes and I choose to sell copies of Kung Fu Master for the ColecoVision then wouldn't I be committing copyright infringement against other copyright infringers(a pirate taking the plunder of other pirates)? And would CollectorVision going after me for it be like someone calling the cops because someone stole their car even though they also stole the car from someone else?
I'm not fluent in copyright law or anything, and it can be incredibly complicated to navigate, but from what I understand (and I may be wrong here), there are multiple things at play here:
1. The copyright of the original work and whether the remake qualifies as a derivative work irrespective of other copyrightable or trademarkable considerations.
2. The trade dress of the work being copied/ported. This is your "likeness" or "look and feel" situation and falls in to the category of a type of intellectual property. This includes specific, copyrighted characters (such as your Mickey Mouse example).
3. The nature of the work's usage. (Private, personal use only, public exhibition (as art), commercial sale, etc.)
4. The name of the work (trademarked names, et al.)
5. The nature of the license(s) to use any of the above.
For 1, a port would be considered derivative as the code is going to be significantly different (i.e. it is unique to the platform it is being ported to since it will not run on any other platform).
For 2, see 5.
For 3, if you're just making a drawing for yourself or to show friends and family, that is not a violation of any copyrights or trademarks. Public exhibition and commercial sale are a different matter and require a license for the specific purpose. There are exceptions (particularly with respect to art), such as fair use laws for the purpose of criticism or parody, however, but that can be a fine line to walk. For example, the image that was ubiquitous years ago of Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) pissing on the Ford logo (and similar uses) did not qualify as fair use, and Bill Watterson was notoriously against them.
4 is obvious.
5 is about how the issue is licensed. An example given in a previous message is Atari licensing the Pac Man brand for the Atari 2600. The nature of the license was that Atari was given a license specifically to bring Pac Man to their home systems (Atari 2600, and later, the 5200 and 8-bit computers). They did not have a license to publish it anywhere else or merchandise it in any other way. So licenses can be specific, it just depends on what the developer works out with the license holder.
This is all as I understand it, and again, IANAL etc. so I may be wrong in some of this.
-
2
-
-
So I've been following this thread and the one on Facebook. I've been trying to remain as impartial as I could, despite my own personal attachment to ColecoVision. I wanted to give Coleco Holdings the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe this was a mistake on their part -- a dumb error or miscommunication or something. But the more I read and find out, the more I feel like Coleco Holdings is just being a trademark squatter (the trademark equivalent of a patent troll) and trying to appear arrogantly magnanimous in its "generous" support for the homebrew community and its "looking the other way" when it sees homebrewers engage in what they see as trademark or copyright violations.
To whit, they have some points with regard to the use of the Coleco name on homebrews that are clearly remakes of IP that the developer did not secure the rights to. Don't get me wrong, I love that these things exist, and had I still a ColecoVision and the money, I'd be buying this stuff up, because it's awesome. But I am under no delusion that many of those arcade-to-CV ports are using the IP without permission. So there is a legal point to be made there.
But the more I read, the more I believe that that isn't really what this is about. Occam's Razor tells me that this seems to be more about Coleco Holdings coming out of the woodwork after all this time and trying to assert its legal muscle where, by all apparent accounts, it has no standing. (I came to this lack of legal standing position early on when I was shown what they submitted as their specimen to secure the word mark on the ColecoVision brand.) I don't begrudge a company its right to protect its marks or its IP, that's sort of what it has to do if it wants to retain the exclusive rights to use them as they see fit, and to prevent others from using it in ways they did not approve. But their intent to use was filed nearly ten years ago, and they haven't really used it.
Also, RWA's methods smack of trademark squatting with many other trademarks -- they engage in things similar to the way patent trolls do, but without the same degree of strong-arming that should be considered extortion.
Worse, they want to try to control the content that homebrewers bring to the console whose trademark they debatably own. That right there is unpolished bullshit for any number of reasons.
So yeah, like pretty much everyone else here, if they were to actually make use of the ColecoVision name in a future product, they won't be able to count on me to support them in their endeavors. Screw them and the troll they rode in on.
-
11
-
-
This is all confusing. So they're strong-arming due to using 'Colecovision' in a Roman Type true-type font vs the original ColecoVision font?
From what I understand, the first (abandoned) one is a code 5, known as a design mark, which limits the registrant to owning that specific combination of characters in that specific style, format, and typeface. A code 4, known as a standard character mark or word mark, is more broad, and encompasses the brand name itself in any style, format, or typeface, thus the specimen need only be generic (i.e. just the name to be trademarked), not the specific style or format or typeface that is intended to be used. In other words, the first in that image only trademarks that logo in that specific style, not the ColecoVision brand used in any other form, while the latter trademarks the ColecoVision brand in any form that it takes.
-
Sold
-
Got some things I need to take care of that I can't quite afford otherwise, so I need to sell my iPad to finance them. So, here's what I've got available:
- 1G iPad, 32GB WiFi/3G (MicroSIM not included)
- Screen protector (applied)
- Apple protective case/cover/stand
- Wall charger with USB cable
No box, manual or anything. Close to a year old, still in excellent condition (always used in its case, always had the screen protector applied), no dead pixels, no touch issues, works flawlessly, never had a single issue with it. Will be hard reset with latest firmware installed.
Asking $400 CAD FIRM for everything. Any questions, please feel free to ask. Serious inquiries only. Pickup in south Brampton available or buyer pays shipping anywhere in Canada or ConUS.
-
-
Did someone ever post the original hi-resolution version of this video?
I remember somebody doing this at one time but can't remember where I saw them. I think it was something like 300+ MB in total.
Thanks in advance,
Trem
I'm not sure where it was uploaded originally, but I'm sending it to my own server at the moment. When it's finished uploading you'll be able to download it with this link. IT's 287MB in MPG format, stitched together from the original 3 parts.
-
2
-
-
Dell Netbook + iPhone 3GS Bundle
Hi,
I am selling a VERY SLIGHTLY used Dell Mini9 Netbook thatis practically mint. There are no dents, chips, cracks or scratches. Purchased in March 2009.
I am also including a *FREE* Mario netbook case =)
Details:
- Inspiron Mini 9
- Intel Atom Processor N270 (1.6GHz/533Mhz FSB/512K cache)
- Genuine Windows XP Home Edition
- Color Obsidian Black
- Memory 1GB DDR2 at 533Mhz
- Glossy 8.9" LED Display (1024x600)
- Intel Graphics Media Accelerator GMA 950
- 8GB Solid State Drive
- Wireless 802.11g Mini Card
- 32WHr Battery (4 cell)
$200US OBO
Also up for grabs:
Apple iPhone 3GS bundle
iPhone 3GS (Rogers), white, 32gb, boxed, latest iOS 4 installed.
Near mint condition, always used in a case.
Includes original box, never-used Apple earbuds, sync cable, mini USB wall charger, manual, SIM tool, box.
Bundle also includes:
- Apple 3G/3GS dock (boxed)
- Mophie Juicepack Air (black) extended battery case with box, manual, and a longer micro-USB charge/sync cable than the one that came with it. Nearly doubles the iPhone's battery life. Features manual power switch (keep it off when not in use so the iPhone doesn't draw more power) and battery check button with 4-LED charge indicator. iPhone can be automatically synced while in the case. Some light scuffing on the back.
Asking us$460
Pics available on request.
Please do not PM lowball offers; those will be round-filed. Well-packaged shipping is available at buyer's expense, and pickup is available to anyone wishing to pay a visit to the Brampton area (Hurontario & Steeles, in the immediate vicinity of Shopper's World mall). Sorry, delivery is not possible as I do not drive.
Payment accepted via PayPal, E-Mail Money Transfer, or cash on pickup. Sorry, I'm not looking for any trades at the moment.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask, but please don't ask questions that have already been answered in this post.<br clear="all">
-
-
up for grabs is a 1 year old Used Aspire 6930 Core 2 Duo 16"widescreen Laptop
ASKING : $350 OBO
THe laptop itself is in good shape with few scuff marks on the lid , the only problem it has is
only 2 USB ports are working .
Please do no lowball offers.
shipping is available at buyer's expense, and pickup is available to anyone wishing to pay a
visit to the Brampton area (Hurontario & Steeles, in the immediate vicinity of Shopper's World
mall). Sorry, delivery is not possible as I do not drive.
I alss have lot of feedback for online sales
Payment accepted via PayPal, E-Mail Money Transfer, or cash on pickup. Sorry, I'm not looking for
any trades at the moment.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask, but please don't ask questions that have
already been answered in this post
pic's on request
specs:
Acer Aspire 16.9 Laptop
CPU: Intel Core?2 Duo processor T5800 (2 MB L2 cache, 2.0 GHz, 800 MHz FSB, 35W)
Chipset: Mobile Intel? GM45 Express Chipset
Bus Speed: 1066 MHz FSB
Video: Intel? Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD
LCD: 16" HD CineCrystal? TFT LCD
RAM: 3 GB DDR2 (upgradeable to 4GB)
HDD: 320GB
Card Reader: 5 in 1 Card Reader
ODD: 8x DVD - Super Multi DL
Modem/Lan: 56K, Gigabit Ethernet 10/100/1000 BASE T
Wireless: 802.11a/b/g/Draft - N WLAN
Express Card: 1 ExpressCard?/54 slot
Sound: True 5.1-channel surround sound output, High-definition audio support, S/PDIF support
Pointing Device: Touchpad
Keyboard: Full, incl. Numeric Keypad
Battery: 48.8 W 4400 mAh 6-cell Li-ion battery pack
External Ports:
2 USB 2.0 ports
HDMI? port with HDCP support
Consumer infrared (CIR) port
External display (VGA) port
Headphone/speaker/line-out jack with S/PDIF support
Microphone-in jack
Line-in jack
Ethernet (RJ-45) port
Modem (RJ-11) port
OS: Windows 7 Professional
also come with a case sleeve
All other documentation and the original box & receipt is included.
-
up for grabs is Linksys NAS200 Network Attached Storage HDD Enclosure, SATA Interface, 2 HDD Bays, 2 USB Ports, Built-In Media Server.
Also comes with 2x 1tb Western Digital SATA Drives
i got this new about 6mths ago and never used it so i'm letting it go for
$200US Shipped SOLD
works great
infor on the nas here: http://www.linksysby...products/NAS200
Payment accepted via PayPal, E-Mail Money Transfer,
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask
-
Yeah, it's a beast. First time I ever laid eyes on a 2-slot video card was when I bought the 7950GX2 a few years back. Damn thing was a brick, and they haven't changed.
-
Got a BFG GTX 295 up for sale. I've switched over to an ATI, so I don't have any use for this card anymore.
Card is in perfect working order, been used for about 6-8 months or so. 3DMark Vantage score (w/ Phenom II 265, 8GB DDR3-1600 RAM) is 20,022 using all default settings. Card has never been overclocked.
You can see a 30-minute stress test run recently through OCCT here:
Boiled down, the graph shows idle temps of around 43C and peak stress temps of 95C, which is right around the normal range for these cards. (Ignore the "overclock" stat in the graph; that refers to current CPU speeds at the start of the test, which this CPU automatically ratcheted down to 802MHz because it was idling at the time.) The graph for GPU2 is pretty much identical so there's no point in showing that graph. Note, the first minute and last 4 minutes are warmup and cooldown periods OCCT does before and after the stress test to get a good temp reading and let it cool down at the end to test cooling. Test was done with manual fan setting at 75%.
SOLD, which is pretty damn cheap for this card.
Includes original box, never-used baggie of accessories (DVI-to-VGA adapter; 8-pin-to-2x6-pin adapter; 2x4-pin-to-6-pin adapter; Quick Start guide; driver CD, though you'll want to download the latest drivers yourself. HDCP HDMI is supported but they don't include the cables with these cards.)
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask, but please don't ask questions that have already been answered in this post.
First come, first served.
Pictures:
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Coleco strong-arming homebrew publishers and fan sites
in ColecoVision / Adam
Posted · Edited by Mindfield
Sega won the initial case, but Accolade won on appeal, with the court ruling that the percentage of copyright code used was insignificant (20-25 bytes of copyrighted code used in a work consisting of as much as 1,500,000 bytes) and thus Accolade's works were overwhelmingly original content, and that disassembly of a functional copyrighted work for the purpose of gaining access to it in order to develop software for it was fair use.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/segaenters-accolade-9thcir1992.pdf
Bear in mind however that all of this was before the DMCA.