Mindfield
-
Content Count
7,716 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mindfield
-
-
The game you're thinking about is Off The Wall's hillarious yet buggy effort known as Prime Time. I rather liked it, though their followup title, Big Business, was much better IMHO.
-
So basically, $5 would have been a steal. I sort of figured as much. *sigh* I think I'll make a point of attending the next auction, just on the off chance that something interesting might spring up...
-
Damn. My wife just informed me that at a recent auction she attended with her mother, they were auctioning off an immaculate condition boxed heavy-sixer with some 20 or more games, many of which were NIB. Mostly commons, I think, but still...
It ended up selling for $5 CAD. $5!! She apparently told her mother to make a bid (since she went empty-pocketed) but she wouldn't 'cos, frankly, her mother is completely without any idea what good it would have been. *sigh*
Just outta curiosity, what _would_ such a set been worth, assuming the games were mostly commons?
-
Exactly what are the dimensions for the standard Atari boxes? I'd like to edit the preliminary box art I did for the Airworld project so that it is at the very least accurate. :-)
-
I keep getting a connection refused when trying... but I'd love to get a look at that site.
I'll probably be adding an ads section on EmulationNET when we finally get it going. My collection's far too large to host on our website so it'll probably come straight from my FTP server... hopefully that'll work out okay.
-
Xonox did release a few "single-ender" carts, which were basically the same as the double-enders, but only one "end" was present; in other words, it was one cartridge with one game. Is this what you're referring to?
-
Okay, here's the rough draft of the "Silver2" style box for Airworld. I've shrunk it down to screen res for display purposes (the original artwork is humungous and because the Pegasus-and-Rider pic looks utterly revolting blown up as large as it is (which is considerably larger than the original "Silver" style box). At any rate, as I said, it's a rough draft, but I think I did well enough with what I had to work with.
And I can't find that "Avant Garde Medium" font on my system, so I had to make do with Arial. :-/
Swordquest: Airworld Box Art (Silver2) - Front
By the way, anyone know what the exact dimensions of those boxes are? I guessed here, but I know it's too tall...
-
Woohoo! More to add to the collection. These are deffinitely rather cool. Now, if only he could offer special large high-quality MPEGs for download... :-) I already have the Centipede commercial in MPEG, but the rest would be cool to find so...
[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
Well, admittedly I do like the style, but in fact I was using the Fireworld art as my reference point, as, at the time, I didn't have the Waterworld box to work with. (That only just recently saw the light of day on AtariAge) Alteration probably won't require much; the "Atari" and "2600" are TrueType fonts and so are easily scalable; the Swordquest logo, too, is large enough to be easily scaled down or, if necessary, up, if I get rid of the print screening with a filter. (Not much more though, as that'd soften the edges... I think it's large enough as it is tho)
As for making them smaller -- if you save the files, then double-click 'em to load them into your default pic viewer you should be able to zoom out to 25% or so and see the whole box easily enough. Obviously these were never meant for web viewing. :-)
I'll see what I can do to alter it to the Waterworld spec.
Christopher:
I have Avant Garde Medium, I beleve; I'll try the "26OO" trick and see how that pans out. Thanks. :-)
[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
Okay, I've done box front mockups for the 2600 and 5200 versions of Airworld. Before I post the links, a few things:
1) Yes, I know, the picture below the Swordquest logo looks like utter crap. It's been enlarged 4x and more from its original, so, um ... yeah. It's about the best I can do. :-P
2) The boxes are identical except of course for the colour; red for 2600, blue for 5200.
3) The "2600" and "5200" aren't exact 'cos although I have an actual Atari font, I can't seem to find one to match the numbers used in the originals. :-P
4) Thees are large (just about 400k apiece) so it may be slow to display. The links open up in new windows.
Other than that everything's more or less okay. Let me know what you think.
Swordquest: Airworld (2600) Box - Front
Swordquest: Airworld (5200) Box - Front
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
The methods of reaching it are probably unintentional -- in all likelihood, he didn't test it out enough to find them (which obviously isn't something one would even have thought about given how long it took to even find it in the first place :-) The areas that increase time and score are also probably incidental -- random appearances of things the game interprets as legitemate bonuses found elsewhere in the actual level data.
-
I don't really think it will come to that. Infogrames just want the AtariLabs.com domain because it coincides with their newly formed division. I don't think they care all that much if other domains they have no interest in exist because they are not yet a direct threat. Infogrames aren't, I think, interested in militantly protecting the Atari name from the slightest threat of dilution or derision. (That job belongs to Nintendo. :-) Infogrames just seems to resolutely go after what they want. And unfortunately they want the domain owned by a small-time fan site run by someone who has always had a deep and abiding love for the Fuji. :-/
-
What I'd love is a better (bigger) scan of the one on Dutchman's page. I've thus far redesigned the box art from scratch, but that scan on Dutchman's page is ... um ... tiny. It has to be enlarged to about 4x its size to even fit on the box art... Crossbow's scan has been invaluable, and the rest is easy, it's just that one pic. :-) Oh, and box top/bottom/side scans would be cool, too.
-
Well, if ever a commercials area pops up here, I've got many, many ads and promo spots to contribute. :-)
-
Well, I haven't exactly done it from scratch, but I _have_ done a sort of mockup using the other box scans and retouching them here and there, plus adding the artwork on your page for AirWorld, replacing the text with a real Atari font for smoothness, and altering the name 'n stuff.
I've already done the fronts for both the 2600 and 5200 versions if you wanna take a look at 'em... they're probably not good enough for a print run, but what the hell. :-)
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
The original ST debuted at a cost of around $799 US -- pretty rich for most people's blood, though comparable systems at the time generally costed much more. Nevertheless couple that cost with a colour monitor (around $499) and you had a system that approached the price of, say, the Mac Plus or PC Jr. at the time. So Atari added RF ports for the less-than-well-to-do to hook it up to a TV. It made medium res blurry and difficult to read on even modern televisions that didn't have a horizontal resolution of 640 pixels, but it worked after a fashion. I used a television for the first while when I got my first ST in 1990.
-
Wrong Fansi... heh. I wrote the Atari ST ANSI art program by the same name (Well, similar gramatically - FANSI!, all caps with the exclamation point. :-) To the best of my knowledge it's still the only full colour, 80-column ANSI editor for the ST. Not that this has any relevance anymore. :-)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Rhindle The Red:The main problem that I see for Mr. Wright would be the weaknesses in his arguements. Although he took the time to divide his letter into an impassioned plea and a legal defense, his defense seems mostly to be of the "go on, let him off, it's a lovely day..." kind of thing.
Well, while his argument are a little weak, they are nevertheless still defensible. It's also not like Infogrames' own argument is any stronger if you strictly compare the points pressed. The major consideration I can see a judge giving were this to come to trial is that Infogrames, now Atari, derives its existence, in part, from the use and the reputation of the Atari name, whereas Lawrence's usage of it is simply a hobbyist thing. If Infogrames in any way feels that Lawrence's use of the name and logo in any way dilutes, defames, or otherwise casts a negative or confusing light on the Atari name, then they have a right to exercise their perogative to recourse against damaging their brand. However, I don't think Lawrence's site does any of that; it is simply a small-time, infrequently updated site from a dedicated gamer and long-time fan of things Atari who wants nothing more than to bring some kind of glory back to the Atari name. More in this below...
quote:
He hurts himself also with his explainations of why he chose the Atari Labs name. He says that there was no effort by Hasbro or Infogrames to revive the Atari name, and this is blatantly untrue. It can be argued whether or not they did a good job, but Hasbro definitely revived the name. It graced all Atari related products for PC, PlayStation and Dreamcast. They also promoted the Atari name on their web site with web based games. Likewise, Infogrames have, in the short time theyv'e owned Habro Interactive and Atari, shown a clear intention to use the name to its fullest advantage. Noone can claim that their intent to promote the name is not clear.
Although this would hardly be a good legal argument, one could contest that revival of a name does nothing in itself to bring it any glory. Hasbro's revival of the Atari name amounted to little more than pimping the Atari brand to peddle inferior remakes of classic games to which they owned franchise rights. As far as I'm concerned, though the Atari name and familiar logo still made its rounds to keep the brand in the minds and hearts of consumers everywhere, it was in a way which was unlike the Atari we all knew and loved, and did little to build a good reputation for the Atari name. It was, in that sense, a revival of the same sort you'd give a dying man on life support in order to give him his shot of demorol. Whether or not this is the truth is irrelevant; his perception of Hasbro's handling of Atari is enough to give him cause to try and give the Atari name a more positive spin, and is therefore a valid reason for him to have leased the domain name.
quote:
He also states that there never was an 'Atari Labs' only an 'Atari Consumer Labs.' While this may be true in the sense that 'Atari Labs' was not an official name, nonetheless a search of Google not only doesn't yield the results he mentions, it yields specific references to 'Atari Labs', some of which are industry observations or anecdotes. So while it may not have been a formal name, it nonetheless was a phrase that pre-existed Atarilabs.com.
This is sort of irrelevant though. The usage of "Atari Labs" as a phrase was in brief reference to "Atari Consumer Labs," or as a general reference to Atari's R&D department, and not to any pre-existing division that was actually named "Atari Labs." It's a slight difference, but important in legal terms, because Atari as a company, regardless of who owned it at the time, had not actually registered "Atari Labs" as an official division of Atari, so the name, if used under the fair use clauses of the Lantham Act, was up for grabs, and I think Lawrence's site could be classified as using the name in good faith.
quote:
Mr. Wright also states that he did not want the Atari name to languish. This seems an odd thing to claim given the existance of AtariHQ, Atari.net, AtariAge, etc. The Atari name was in no danger of languishing and certainly didn't need him to save it.
Once again, how the Atari brand was languishing is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Hasbro's mishandling of the Atari brand is in many people's eyes a grevious slight on the Atari name as a whole. That they had some success with the titles they released under the moniker is irrelevant in this case; it isn't a popularity contest, but how one person percieved Hasbro's usage of the Atari name and the titles it released under it as poorly representing the Atari name. That's fair reason to want to try and bring something positive to it yourself.
quote:
Now, understand that I'd kind of like Infogrames to give in. I'm in agreement that this kind of thing can hurt their image with the very base they are trying to capture (as it clearly has). That being said, I do not think Mr. Wright is on quite as solid ground as you seem to think he is. Remember the case of Madonna.com. It was held by a man who used it for a sex site, but decided (when pressured by Madonna) to turn it over to the people who run, the Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital. He lost in court and the name was given (without recompense) to Madonna. I don't think Madonna has a greater claim to the word 'madonna' than Atari does to 'atari.'[ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Rhindle The Red ]
Precisely. Which comes down to Lawrence's argument that, if it came down to it, he is prepared to use the word "Atari" it its original Japanese definition, and not as a brand name. It's so scant a difference as seems almost laughable, but it is a legitemate legal defense, even if it's more of a loophole than a good argument.
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
Um ... that would be Atari's 16-bit line of computers. Every basic ST system had the following specs:
- 8MHz Motorola 68000 CPU
- One expansion bus (cartrige port)
- Two standard 9-pin DIN ports for mouse and joystick
- Centronics (printer) port
- Serial port
- MIDI in/out ports
- ACSI port for connecting hard drives and laser printers. (ACSI stands for "Atari Computers System Interface" and was basically Atari's proprietary SCSI-type connection. Devices on the ACSI bus were chainable)
- 3 channel sound chip (Yamaha YM2149)
- 10 function keys (F1-F10)
- Two button mouse
- Graphical operating system (GEM (Graphical Environment Manager), designed by Digital Research, Inc. who also did a little-known PC version back in the day)
- Three resolutions (Low: 320x200, 16 colours; Medium: 640x200, 4 colours; High: Monochrome 2 colours, required monochrome SM124 monitor. Colour pallette was 256 colours)
- 512k or more, expandable to 4 megs.
The models, roughly in order of appearance, were:
130ST
- Released in a short run in Europe; failed miserably due to the memory, all 128k of it, being barely enough to just load the OS from disk and nothing else
260ST
- Same as the 130ST with 256k RAM; also failed for the same reasons
520ST
- The first successful ST. 512k of RAM, disk-based operating system in early models. Required an external 3.5" floppy drive (SF314 360k single-sided or SF354 720k double-sided)
1040ST
- Same as the 520ST, with 1 meg of RAM
520STF
- Same as the 520ST, with an internal 720k 3.5" floppy drive.
520STM
- Semi-rare, IIRC; same as a 520ST, but with an internal RF modulator to connect it to a TV. (Non-M models required a colour (SC1224) or mono (SM124) monitor)
520STFM
- A 520ST with internal floppy and RF modulator. Later models had 1 meg of RAM.
1040STF
- 520STF with 1 meg of RAM
1040STFM
- A 520STFM with 1 meg of RAM.
Mega ST
- A 1040ST in a detatchable keyboard flavour. Also featured a blitter chip for fast graphic blitting, and an internal clock powered by 2 AA batteries. Came in 1, 2 or 4 meg flavours.
1040STE
- The "E" is for "Enhanced." Same as a 1040STFM, but with hardware scrolling, hardware sprites, stereo sound, and other enhancements.
Mega STE
- A 1040STE with a 16MHz 68000 and a detatchable keyboard in the same vein as the Mega ST, but with a retooled case that had a bay for an internal hard disk. For compatibility purposes, the machine was switchable between 8 and 16MHz on the fly.
TT030
- Atari's powerhouse. A 32MHz 68030 CPU, higher graphic modes, VME expansion slot (similar to VESA on the PC), same case as the Mega STE, etc.
Falcon030
- Atari's last computer, and in many ways outshone the TT030. Featured a 16 MHz 68030 as its main processor, and had a Motorola 56001 DSP as a secondary processor (used primarily for sound). Featured true-colour graphics with unlimited graphic modes (modes were fully programmable and were limited only by available RAM), unlimited CD-quality sound channels (the 56001 DSP is fully programmable as well), multitasking operating system (MultiTOS), internal IDE hard disk (1" form factor) -- you name it. The system was expandable to 14 megs of RAM. Independent companies have since taken to producing Falcon clones, such as the Medusa. These clones are more PC-like in that they have PCI expansion slots, are able to use PCI video cards, have faster chips (68040 or 68060), etc.
I've probably forgotten some here, but you get the idea.
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
For emulation, I reccommend STEem Engine. It's fairly frequently updated, has an extremely high compatibility rate, has excellent sound (both chip and PCM) and supports most of the things the ST/e machines were capable of. (Some demos don't work tho) Altogether STEem Engine is pretty well surpassing the other emus out there.
You can grab it from http://steem.atari.org
I also have a bunch of disk images available on my FTP site at ftp://atari16:[email protected]:2026
including some disks I ripped myself. (Yes, including my own really bad early attempt at writing a demo in GFA Basic, as well as my much lauded but rarely registered shareware ANSI editor called FANSI! ... :-)
Lots of multi-disks online as well. Someday I'll have enough space to put it all online. :-)
[ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]
-
From the looks of it it does look like a glitch. Essentially what seems to be happening is that you're entering areas for which there are no legal coordinates the game can reference or understand. Games screens like this have finite coordinates; top left is 0,0, bottom right is, say, 255,255. That defines the legal boundaries of the entire game level. This "glitch" seems to be an unintentional area you were never supposed to access. When you get there, you're technically in an area that has no legal coordinate. Because of the way the VCS accesses bits of the game, what ends up happening is that when you travel outside the bounds of the game screen stored in the cartrige's ROM, you're essentially travelling beyond the area of memory in the ROM where the level data is stored. The game code doesn't know any different though, so what it ends up doing is wandering around the ROM reading bytes of actual program code or other data and interpreting it as objects on the screen (floors, ladders, etc.) That's why the "secret" area has a large degree of randomness to the layout; because it's not proper level data, it's game code. And because it's static game code, the "secret" area always looks and behaves the same way.
If you could, for example, disassemble a game and change the pointer(s) to the level data to some random address, you'd probably achieve the same results.
-
To be honest I don't really think Infogrames would bother. These games are hobbyist material, not serious commercial ventures, and I doubt the revenue generated would be near to significant enough to even catch the notice of Infogrames execs. If they took exception to anything, it might be the misrepresentation of the Atari brand by making these homebrew titles look like they were officially sanctioned or licensed by Atari. I think that falls under both the misrepresentation and the brand dilution clauses of the Lantham Act.
Still, I think it's small-time stuff and will probably fly under Infogrames' legal radar.
-
Jahfish:
I would agree in cases like this, where the big company disputes ownership over a domain name because their newly formed division, formed after someone else purchased the domain they wanted for it, happens to bear the same name as the domain someone else registered. Personally I think Infogrames should just back off and register "atari-labs.com" ... there's nothing to stop them from doing that. Look at ATI. Someone already owns ati.com, and in fact if you were to go to ati.com that site's first page actually provides a link to the real ATI site. I'm sure ATI initially contested ownership over this name, but it probably didn't get far since you can't copyright an acronym. Anyway, the bottom line is that ATI had to back down and register atitech.com instead. This case is rather different than atarilabs.com since ati.com has nothing to do with Advanced Technologies Inc., nor does it use any of their logos, but the point is the same, and so is Lawrence's: he's prepared to fall back on the japanese meaning of the word "atari" and remove the Atari logo if it comes down to that. And that's a perfectly defensible position to take.
Debro:
Although the Infogrames' letter is a scan, I'll retype it here, followed by Lawrence's response (which is plain text):
[begin Infogrames quote]
Dear Mr. Wright:
It has come to the attention of Atari Labs, a division of Infogrames Interactive, Inc., formerly Hasbro Interactive, Inc. ("Infogrames"), that you have reigstered the AtariLabs.com domain name and are operating a website from that address, which prominently features the Atari trademarks. In particular, we note and appreciate your statement on the "What's going on here?" page of the website that "The only people [you and the users of the website will] answer to are Hasbro's lawyers."
Based on your statement, we assume that you are aware of the potential legal issues arising from your use of the AtariLabs.com domain name, including unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lantham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125, trademark infringement and unfair competition under common law, trademark dilution under both federal and state statutes, and unlawful use of a domain name under the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Just as we hope that you will acknowledge our interested in protecting Atari Labs and its intellectual property, we would like to support your endeavour to operate a gaming site, provided that it is non-infringing. Accordingly, we propose that in consideration of your transfer of the AtariLabs.com domain name to Infogrames, we will grant you permission to use an Atari logo as specified by Infogrames on a royalty free basis for certain approved noncommercial purposes on GameSX.com, which we understand to be another gaming site that you currently operate.
While we hope that we will reach an agreement on this matter, we hereby reserve all of Infogrames' rights under both law and equity. We look forward to your response.
[End Infogames quote]
And here's Lawrence's reply:
[begin Lawrence Wright's quote]
In response to this letter received June 25, 2001 from Senta L. Wong, legal counsel for Infogrames Interactive Inc., who owns Hasbro who owns Atari.
This document is divided into two parts followed by a brief summary. The first part is an impassioned plea to Infogrames to let me keep the domain name which contains a site I've worked very hard on. The second part is the legal defense, the last defense of a coward (besides duty, I suppose).
Part One: The Impassioned Plea
To: Senta L. Wong
Hey Mr. Wong, thanks for the kind letter.
I appreciate greatly your willingness to send a letter that didn't threaten immediate legal repercussions if I paused even to scratch my nose en route to the phone to call Network Solutions and tearfully beg them to transfer the AtariLabs.com domain name to Infogrames ASAP. With all the crazy 'cybersquatting' and BigCorp heavy-handed perversions of justice making headlines the world over it's nice to talk to human beings about a situation that is, I hope, totally resolvable to our mutual satisfaction.
I started the AtariLabs.com site for a number of reasons. Permit me a short history of the decision to register AtariLabs.com as my personal domain.
When I was a kid, Atari was god. I remember fondly the debacle that was the 5200, the movie called Cloak and Dagger, the press release exclaiming Atari to be the second most recognized brand name on the planet, next to Chrysler. I felt the touch of the industry's greatest pioneer in everything I did. Margin doodles in my elementary and high school text- and note-books, feeble attempts at programming (including a very impressive Atari logo using only the characters available in 800xl Basic) and an endless stream of confrontations with people convinced I was less than they for I backed the wrong system.
I bought into the Atari hype in a big way. My father owned and operated an Atari-centric store for many years in the small town of Fort St. John, BC. I have owned every single released Atari computer. I still use an Atari TT 030 workstation as my primary graphics processor - I even blew over a hundred dollars last month buying new software for it on eBay.
I took very personally ever single Atari success and failure. I was devasted by every dumb-ass mistake they ever made. I thrilled with every single success they had. I owned one framed piece of Atari stock. Well, technically it was my dad's, but since it was more or less monetarily worthless he let me treasure it until some nameless member of my family 'lost' it in a move.
I treasured every part of my life that Atari touched. I was there, I lived it, and when Atari fell from grace I took it hard. *******s - how could they do that to me? After crying the merits of Atari from the hilltops for so long, they still managed to screw it all up. And after all I had done for them! =)
Jump forward a few years, to 1996. I opened my own game store in Kelowna, BC, called Game Station X. I created soon after a page referred to as GameSX.com, and because I had so much trouble locating technical information for video game consoles, I made it the internet's largest and most comprehensive collection of game console hardware modifications. The site is devoted entirely to hardware hacks, including video output diagrams, how-to guides for adding additional functionality, etc. It contains not a single page with instructions for defeating copy-protection, nor does it include links to pages that do. It does not have instructions for copying or "backing up" video games in any way, shape or form.
Because the site was devoted strictly to hardware, and as a result of operating a video game store for over three years, I felt the need for a soap-box of sorts, from which to shout out my opinions, grievances and congratulations to other people as entranced by the game industry as I was. I wanted to start another site with a bit of a community feel, a little reader interaction, and a forward looking mandate to discuss the state of the video game industry, past present and future.
I wanted to have a name with some meaning to me personally, something with a little kick. I chose an entirely fictional name - Atari Labs - for two reasons: 1. Atari was the industry's pioneer. They rose higher than any other and crashed harder and faster than anyone imagined possible. They were the icon of games past, and at frequent intervals, an apparent harbinger of things to come. 2. Atari Labs sounded cool. The 'Labs' part inferred a more intellectual side of the pursuit of gaming happiness, a place that if it existed would be the equivalent of a mad scientist's lair, full of wonder and imagination, of knowledge arcane and mundane, overflowing with talented people, bubbling beakers of brightly coloured fluids, and games which would have propelled Atari to certain greatness had their management ever taken notice of what they had.
Also, neither Hasbro nor Infogrames had announced any legitmate attempt at re-launching the Atari name, and I wasn't at all pleased to see it languish. Why not do what I could to resurrect it? Where was the harm in making the Atari name stand tall and proud once again? You know, excusing for a moment the fact that I wasn't the legal owner, nor did I have any legal right to make that decision. =)
There was never an "Atari Labs" division of Atari Games Corp. or Atari Inc. as far as I was able to determine. There was "Atari Consumer Labs" which was responsible for prototyping and sending to media pre-release copies of early to mid-eighties Atari games. A google.com search for "Atari Labs" turns up only this site and several dozen other pages with the words "Atari" and "Labs" without them being adjacent to each other.
From the gist of your letter, I'd have to assume that you are maintaining that there is an Atari Labs division of Infogrames (Who at the time of my domain registration had not quite or only just acquired Hasbro, who owned the Atari name). Neither I nor anyone I know have ever heard of Atari Labs as a legitimate business entity, so I'd have to assume that if they existed they were some sort of internal division unknown to the public and the name I chose was simply coincidence.
Anyway, that's my story. I'm quite fond of the domain, and even if that's not enough to bring a tear to your cold, hard lawyer's eye, maybe the legal defense will mean something. As an aside, my site is now generating some considerable interest, and has been featured in the premiere issue of GameGo! Magazine
Thanks for considering the above, and the below,
Lawrence Wright,
good faith holder of the AtariLabs.com domain name.
Part Two: The Cowardly Legal Defense
There are a few conditions that have to be met before I can be legally accused of "Cyber Squatting" and you fine folk at Infogrames can reasonable expect to win a case against me. Right off the bat, I'd like to point out that the word "Atari" is also a Japanese word that loosely translates into "bingo" or "winner" or similar, and in fact was printed inside a Pepsi Cola beverage label I purchased around the same time I made the decision to register AtariLabs.com, which I interpreted as a good omen.
That said, I would offer as a token of my good faith, to remove all visual representations of the Atari logo, all references to Atari Inc. except as legally permitted in the instances of review or commentary or fair use, and to install a prominent disclaimer disavowing any connection between my site and Atari, as a division of Hasbro and/or Infogrames, as well as a link to the official Atari site(s). I'd rather not, as I'm quite fond of the Atari name (As I've shown above) and hope that I can use the name of this fictional Atari division in peaceful coexistance with Infogrames. Should the need arise, I'm prepared to fall back on the Japanese-language meaning of the word, and would sooner to that than give up the domain name itself.
Now, the legal bits:
You mention the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. part 1125. I'd like to bring up the specific parts of this Act that I believe apply to this case.
parts of © Remedies for dilution of famous marks. which read:
©(4)The following shall not be actionable under this section:
©(4)(b) Noncommercial use of a mark.
©(4)© All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
While I'm not entirely certain a news and commentary site which is TITLED after the mark in question qualifies, AtariLabs.com is without question and in every sense of the word Non Commercial. I sell no goods or services, nor do I charge any fees, nor do or have I announced any intention to do so. I pay for the hosting and traffic of this domain out of my own pocket, and it is freely available to all.
parts of part (d) Cyberpiracy prevention. which read:
(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(As I mentioned above, there is no available public record of any division of Atari, Hasbro, Infogrames or any other past owner of the Atari name ever using "Atari Labs" as its operating title.)
(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark;
(again see above and the response to the previous part of this Act)
Now since I've volunteered to remove the Atari logo and references to the Atari company currently owned by Infogrames and/or Hasbro, as well as happily link to the legitimate holders of this name and make clear my use of the name in a Japanese context (I do live in Japan, my wife is Japanese) I think I should be able to quietly slip under your legal radar. No harm, no foul, no hard feelings.
The entirety of the remainder of the Lanham Act seems to deal exclusively with commercial mis-use of the mark in question. Note that I used the version of this Act available at Bitlaw.com.
Thanks for taking the time to read this lowly document, and I hope that we can work out an agreeable compromise. I'm not offering this domain for sale to you or anyone else, I'm not profiting from it, and I think I qualify rather perfectly for the definition of "Fan Site" with legitimate claim to a fair use of the mark. If you insist, I'll remove your trademarked images, disavow all relationships, and make clear the alternative interpretation of the name.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Lawrence Wright Happy, fun-loving and good faith fair-using long-time Atari fan.
[End Lawrence Wright's quote]
-
Whoop! Looks like AtariLabs.com is back online. Must have been network troubles after all... so much for the conspiracy theory. :-)
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Things to do when you're bored...
in Atari 2600
Posted
...how about ... render a strange, ethereal room in the middle of an ocean with little more in it than an Atari symbol!
I would have added a television and a VCS connected to it, but I can't for the life of me find a 3D model of a VCS. :-(