jbanes
-
Content Count
3,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jbanes
-
-
I got my son Frogger for Christmas. At $9.95, it really wasn't that much. Here are the pros and cons I've found:
Pros:
Nice Joystick - The Joystick is large, solid, and easy to grip. It makes playing the game a pleasure.
True Gameplay - As far as I can tell, the gameplay elements are all intact. Of course, most of my memories come from playing Frogger on the Atari 8-Bit at my local library, so take this with a grain of salt.
Cons:
The music screams "I'm a Nintendo game!" The chinsey music-box sound was great back in 1988, but in 2006 it seems just a little on the poor side. Especially knowing that the original music was better.
Only one game. I mean, couldn't they have thrown Frogger II on there as well? Cheapskates.
Too many logo screens. If I have to cycle through one more "Konami", "Majesco", or "Whoever" screen, I'm going to throttle someone.
Oddities:
What's with the two buttons? All they do is make you hop forward, guaranteeing that you'll kill yourself in the process. I'm guessing that this is a generic Nintendo stick, and the buttons are for other games.
All in all, it's a nice purchase, but don't count on recreating anything more than you can get on a Nintendo.
-
I just got mine off of eBay from bkfowler (great seller, BTW) for ~$16. It included Ms. Pac Man, One on One, Dig Dug, Donkey Kong, and Pole Position II. The RF adapter was included with the unit, and the unit had been cleaned and tested by the seller. Shipping effectively doubled that price, but otherwise it was a great transaction.
Now all I need to find is a good used game store in the Chicago area. Anyone know good stores in my area where I can get 7800/2600 games?
-
Actually, Danno is right about the copyright stuff.In music, copyright infringement lawsuits are judged based on what amounts to the core of the song--a series of tones (or chords) played in a pattern. Making that series higher or lower does not circumvent copyright infringement.
Music is judged that way because the court has to look at sheet music. If you change the scale, you don't actually change most of the sheet music. In software, they're looking to see if significant parts are the same, or obviously ripped off. The general look, feel, and gameplay are not protected by copyright. (The artwork is though, so don't use that directly!)
To take a popular case in recent history, SCO was unable to prove that Linux infringed on their Unix IP, since Linux was built from scratch. However, Linux does retain many of the exact same features and designs as Unix. The judge has not at any point ruled that this similarity is enough to prosecute Linux on.
Granted, video games and music are different subjects (usually), but think of this:People here are creating enjoyable games. Kenfused, Pac Man Plus, and Schmutzpuppe have created very near arcade perfect games. Would you want them to take the risk of having to stop making these homebrews?
I don't understand your point. I'm merely clarifying the laws under which protection is granted. Merely the act of creating a clone puts you in danger. Selling it only increases that danger.
Take the example of The Tetris Company. While they've quieted down quite a bit over the years, they used to send Cease and Desist letters to nearly every clone in existence, regardless of whether or not money was made or the name was used. At the time, these actions had a chilling effect on the industry as no one wanted to take the Tetris Company to court. From Wikipedia:
In 1996, he and Henk Rogers formed The Tetris Company LLC and Blue Planet Software in an effort to get royalties from the Tetris brand, with good success on game consoles but very little on the PC front. Tetris is a registered trademark of The Tetris Company LLC ("TTC"). TTC has licensed the Tetris mark to a number of companies, but the legality of tetromino games that do not use the Tetris name has not been decided in court.According to circulars available from the United States Library of Congress, a game cannot be copyrighted (only patented), which refutes much of TTC's copyright claims on the game, leaving the trademark on Tetris as TTC's most significant claim on any government-granted monopoly.
To clarify that last sentence, a clone of a game cannot be protected under the "derivitive works" concept that authors are often able to use in protecting their works. The source code and game code is otherwise copyright protected. The flyer the text refers to can be found here. The first sentence states:
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.The text then goes on to describe how to register your game's copyright. (Which, BTW, you have an automatic copyright under the current laws ratified by the Berne Convention.)
I'm not going to ask them to do anything I'm not sure is legal. One could make changes to the media they buy containing Frogger, Beef Drop (my copy of that game has been changed), etc. like label variations and such. You can't ask the programmer to do that, though, for fear of copyright infringement.As I said, as long as your sourcecode, artwork, and other elements are original, copyright does not apply. (Which doesn't stop the owner from sending a Cease and Desist, regardless of whether he believes he'll win the case.) You need to make sure you're in compliance with trademarks. It wouldn't do to spend all that time obscuring the game itself only to get in trouble for using the name.
Here's another thought: You put your time and effort into creating something, and then someone comes along and profits off of it, denying you the profit you worked for. They take your idea and sell it as their own. What if it's something you worked all your life for?That's hardly a fair comparison to what homebrewers are doing. Homebrewers are writing their own code, creating their own images, and generally doing all their own work. The market sees this as competition to an otherwise monopoly.
If it could, the market would allow for competition in music, as the individual songs can command unnaturally high prices. For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller CD costs more money in stores today than when it was originally released on cassette. CDs cost less to produce than cassettes, and the product should deprecate in price over time. Yet since there's no competition to Thriller, there's no reason for the prices to drop.
Unfortunately, there's no way to both respect the copyrights of an artist and provide for competition, so the music industry continues to get away with exhorbant prices.
Is it fair for you to go to your job every day, and then return with nothing on payday because someone took your check? No, it isn't. Is it fair to be laid off because your job was outsourced? This has happened to me, and it sucks. Someone else came in, took my place at a job, and I was out on the street. I did nothing wrong--it was taken.Again, not the same thing. Creating a clone of a game is like creating a competing pocket calculator. Let's say you created the first calculator. Is it fair that all these other manufacturers took your idea and created their own pocket calculators? It could be argued that it's not fair, but the US market is structured to encourage such practices. That's why many new businesses always look for what's called a "high barrier to entry" when creating a new product. "High barrier to entry" means that it's difficult for a competitor to provide your product or service, thus ensuring your monopoloy for a longer period of time than would otherwise be possible.
Anyway, to clarify, I heartily encourage our programmers to create more games. that includes ports of games from the arcade or another system (I'm sure they will get right on that Perfect Dark port).I wish it were easy for them to be able to use the exact game, title, and code, but it isn't. They've done the best they can, and I say that based on my experience with Pac Man, Beef Drop, and Frogger.
I think you misunderstand me. I am in no way encouraging authors to "rip off" the originals. I'm only clarifying the precise laws and vectors of attack that authors need to concern themselves with. Trademarks can actually be more dangerous than copyrights because individual characters and likenesses can be trademarked. For example, Mario is a trademark of Nintendo Co, LTD. If you use Mario's likeness, you're in a far worse position than if you use a generic character.
Danno's heart was in the right place, but his understanding of IP Law was seriously skewed. If you're going to protect yourself, you need to understand exactly what laws you're trying to stay in compliance with.
-
I'm sure about that. "Walkman" is still trademarked. Sony is very rigid about ensuring that no one else uses the term, even though it was popular for awhile to use the term "Walkman" in common lexicon to describe any portable player.
Game Boy is anything *but* a household word. Generally its only used to refer to an actual Game Boy. I haven't heard anyone use the term for their GameGears, Lynxs, or PSPs. Since it's not considered generic (even though it's made of two generic words). it is perfectly trademarkable. Finally, you're mixing the trademark laws of another nation with the US's laws. While such laws are usually compatible, you always need to check what the exact laws are in other countries.
Even "Kleenex" is still a valid trademark. I said it was in danger because of its common usage, but no one has yet challenged the validity of the mark. Xerox sent out various pamphlets to consumers explaining how to properly refer to copies made on copy machines in an attempt to overthrow the "I'll just Xerox this document" terminology.
-
You didn't kill the discussion. I just keep getting sidetracked from replying.
To answer your concern, there's no reason why much of the older hardware can't be copied. The 2600 was copied by Coleco and MANY other companies. The courts upheld this right. So you'd be pretty safe as long as you're not stepping on someone's Patent. Since pretty much all the Patents that could possibly cover the Atari machines has expired by now, you're probably pretty safe in recreating, say, the 5200.
Nintendo was always a difficult one, as they had many heavy patents protecting their hardware. Since most of those patents have expired (or can be worked around), we're seeing a lot of legitimate NES clones hitting the market. (e.g. The Generation NEX)
Just don't try selling any software that you didn't create yourself, and you should be fine.
-
It's the Selling of them for profit that is against the law.Now I'm not opposed to someone selling unlicensed games on cart to regain their costs of building the carts, but turning a profit on someone else's PATENTED idea is not only legally wrong, but MORALLY as well.
Wow. What a mess. While I understand the sentiment, allow me to decode what you mean to say.
First off, video games are not protected by patents. Programming elements may be, but not the game itself. The game itself is protected by copyrights (life of owner + 75 years), and the names/feel are protected by trademarks (valid as long as it's protected and maintained).
Copyright doesn't enter into this discussion, since the homebrews are not derived from any original code. (At least, I assume they're not.) Thus trademarks are the primary issue to deal with. Now trademarks are much different than patents and copyrights. There is no time limit on trademarks, but in exchange the mark has to be protected. This makes it difficult to create clones without silly names. The owner of the Frogger mark may have no problem with Frogger clones. But the moment you use the Frogger name, the owner MUST shut you down or face the possibility of losing their mark.
With that sort of requirement over their heads, the owner will pursue you no matter what their feelings on the issue are. Even if you're not making money off the mark, you're still walking on thin ice. If you threaten their mark, you're going to be targetted. Period.
The only up side is that these things usually only go as far as a Cease and Desist. As long as you comply, the owner will usually not carry it any further.
It's theft. period.Trademark infringement is NOT theft. It is a violations of government granted rights, and is subject only to civil suits. You are not taking anything from the owner of the mark, you are merely misrepresenting yourself as a legitimate owner of the mark. That doesn't make trademark infringement "right", but it isn't theft. Especially when you consider how much hard work the homebrewers have invested in creating their clones.
You can make the argument that the licenses have already paid for themselves. I agree. But the license holders for ALL of these games ARE still releasing versions of them for the newer systems, so they aren't exatly letting the statute of limitations run out on their licenses either.There is no statute of limitations on copyrights or trademarks. The statute of limitations is for the matter of legal issues, usually criminal issues. e.g. If you steal money, but don't get charged for 10 years (or whatever the statute is in your area), then you probably can't be prosecuted.
What you're thinking of is the time limitations on intellectual property. Copyright is life of the owner, plus 75 years. Patents are about 14 years (though there are some tricky things that can be done to shift that protection into the future). Trademarks have no limits. All they require is that a mark be maintained. A mark is lost if it is considered "abandoned", or if the mark falls into such common usage that it is considered to be no longer trademarkable. (e.g. "Kleenex" is in danger because everyone refers to facial tissue by that term.)
The argument over whether or not an owner has made his money off of a product is a matter for Copyright law. The Founding Fathers of the United States wanted the Copyright to be for a very limited time. After that time, they wanted it released into public domain so that others may build on earlier works. Unfortunately, they didn't define an upper bound on what was "reasonable". Thanks to Disney's concerns over Mickey Mouse falling into Public Domain, Copyright has been extended from its original 14 years (act of 1790) to a whopping life of the author PLUS 75 years! That's simply not what our laws intended. It's screwed up and wrong, but the Supreme Court won't overturn it. The court agrees that the term is too long, but dodges the issue based on the idiocy that the upper bound of "reasonable" wasn't defined.
-
I think that the definitive answer to this is: It Depends.
(Don't you just love firm answers?
)Ask yourself, would you use Wood and Cloth to build an airplane when lightweight Aluminum is available? Probably not. Wood and Cloth are very limiting in constructing a craft. There's very little to be extracted from attempting the feat unless you have nothing else at your disposal.
On the other hand, ask yourself if you would prefer a vase made of Clay or Pyrex? Probably the clay. It has an aesthetic and historical appeal that Pyrex simply can't match.
And here we come to the crux of the problem. Many people like the old game consoles because they're a piece of history. They have aesthetic, nostalgic, and historical value that is a shiny new device can't offer. But if you create a new device that's unrelated to the historical one, then it's questionable whether you can attract interest or not. Why would people want to work with this machine? So they can spend hundreds of hours coding for an intentionally limited device when they could recapture history by programming for a real device?
It's a bit like classic cars. People like classic cars because they're classic, not because they're limited. How many car enthusiasts create new cars at the level of a Model T without making an actual replica? Probably not too many.
I'm not saying you're on the wrong track. I'm just offering food for thought. You may decide that cloning the 5200 or 7800 would be a more interesting use of your time. Then again, maybe not. It's up to you to see if you can find a market.
-
Just an FYI, the 8086 is a 16 bit processor just like the 80286. You might be thinking of the 8088 which was a 16-bit processor with an 8 bit data bus.
The Z80 was a clone of the Intel 8080, which was an 8 bit processor, but with 16 bit memory addressing.
The 8086/88 got around the 64K limitation by using a segmented memory scheme. The processor would first be fed a 16bit memory segment locator which would tell it the section of memory to work in. The program would then be able to address any memory within that 64K segment. This led to the development of C compilers with "small" (64K), "medium" (64K code, 64K data), and "large" (full use of all segments) memory models.
-
Most off-the-shelf components in the hardware design world are designed to operate in and around 3 Volts. (That's 2 AA batteries.) My suggestion is to design your hardware with 3-3.3 Volts in mind, then work on a handheld version when you're done. If your voltage is a bit above your target, you can add a third battery or switch to a rechargeable pack.
The conversion to a handheld shouldn't be all that hard. (Just ask Ben Heck.
) Your greatest obstacle would be getting ahold of some LCD screens. Unless you have massive production runs, those things are expensive. -
Kaboom! would have been a nice addition. Unfortunately, it just wasn't going to happen given Activisions trademarks and copyrights. I'm shocked that any Activision games made it to the FB2!
Personally, I found that the games were a mixed bag. For example, Canyon Bomber wasn't exactly fun the first time around. Bringing it back doesn't help anything. But Pong, Breakout, Super Breakout, Warlord 2600, and Warlord Arcade more than make up for the other games on the paddles. Heck, just Pong and Warlord for two players is awesome. Breakout is a bonus.
-
Designing a new Vectrex is really beyond the ability of your average hardware developer. It would require very precise development of CRT hardware. That stuff is nowhere near as easy to get ahold of as it was when the Vectrex was created. (I mean how many people think, "Hey, we've got a bunch of extra Cathode Ray Tubes lying around. Let's make a portable game console!")
A developer could translate the vector commands to pixels in a framebuffer, but that kind of defeats the point.
That being said, there is a way to bring back the Vectrex as long as you don't mind a projection unit rather than a CRT unit. JB, I give you LaserMAME. There's a video of it in action here. Technology may have marched on, but it has offered us new ways to do the same cool stuff.
-
Are those real, honest to goodness, arcade cherry switches I see? Tell me those are real arcade joysticks?
*drool*
Where did you get the parts?
-
You have to be careful with companies that fold. Just because the company no longer exists doesn't mean that someone doesn't still have the rights. Usually it's too much trouble to sort out who has the rights then purchase them, but once there's money involved (such as a product being produced off of the IP) then someone will usually smell easy money and purchase the rights so they can sue everyone else.
-
Oh, believe me, after playing recent VCS homebrews I know the hardware has nothing to do with it i just meant which method of sprite management makes it easier on the programmers, and I worded it incredibly awkwardly, as I'm wont to do.Depends on your interface. There's nothing stopping you from having an interface that consists of writing a memory address to the right port. That would be nice, simple, and easy on the programmer. That being said, I'm planning to hide the implementation behind APIs so that the programmer doesn't have to fiddle with the fiddly bits.
My own take on graphics rendering is that you should try to limit the developer as little as possible in the design that you're targetting. That means that the best solution is to use a hardware accelerated Framebuffer. The console would draw to the framebuffer which would in turn be used to produce a video signal.But doesn't that kill the "retro-ness" of it?
Like I said, it depends on what you're aiming for. If you want a super-charged Atari, then you probably don't want a framebuffer. If you want a cool 2D console that you can produce and sell for a good price, then go for the framebuffer.
The hardware acceleration would probably be unnecessary if you were only allowing direct blitting (the baseline clock for an FPGA these days is about 50MHz, and an ASIC can easily hit 400+ MHz), but Mode 7 style scaling and rotating graphics are a nice thing to provide developers.If Mode 7 on the SNES used an accelerated framebuffer, then does the SNES have one? I'll have to look back through all the SNES docs I've compiled and not yet read.
I didn't say it used a framebuffer on the SNES. (It didn't.) I said that if you want Mode 7-style graphics, than hardware acceleration of scaling and rotation would be a good feature to have. If you use a framebuffer, that just means that your hardware blitter does the scaling and rotation before adding it to the framebuffer.
In the 1980's, no hardware designer in his right mind would have bothered with a framebuffer. Memory was just too expensive. The Atari was so short on memory, that it didn't even have enough memory to framebuffer its cut-down playfield scheme! Today, megs of memory can be had for a couple of bucks.Can a 6502 (or variant) access more than a 64k address space without bankswitching?
No.
Would I need to add a memory controller chip to the block diagram to access more than 64k, or is there an off-the-shelf part that'll do (I know nothing about the 65C816, maybe I should Google a bit before replying any further about that topic)No idea. I personally wouldn't bother with the 6502 due to its limitations. 32 bit chips are plentiful and cheap these days. Again, though, it's all about what you want. *I* wouldn't do it because I don't see any market for it. But that doesn't mean that you have to agree with me.
What 40+ lines of resolution do you speak of? I thought standard NTSC was 192 scanlines...? Or maybe I've been in TIA-land so long I only think in terms of the VCS?You've been spending too much time with the TIA. NTSC specifies 480 lines of interlaced resolution. The interlacing basically divides the number of lines in half, giving you 240 lines of resolution.
To clarify on the horizontal part, there is no specific horizontal resolution as the signal merely drives the electron beam. How many horizontal pixles you get is a function of how precise the electron beam is. I could hold the color solid long enough for the beam to travel the entire width and get 1 pixel per line. Or I could hold the color solid for precisely 1/512th of the beam's journey and get 512 pixels per line. Theoretically, there's no upper bound on horizontal resolution, though practical matters tend to limit the resolution.
You're welcome.
-
If you really want a SuperNES system, try this auction. It's got the complete SNES system, PLUS a complete NES system, all for $30.00. The only down side is that the auctioner couldn't test the SNES because he doesn't have a game. So there is some risk.
But if you want it, you've got four hours to get it. So get cracking.
-
How would games be stored?! Would they be on flash type memory cards or would you actually have an Atari 2600 like cartridge slot?!My suggestion is ISO 7816 SmartCards, but I may be a little biased.
This project definately sounds interesting. So, would I be able to just download Java games off the internet and play them on this unit on a TV?!Was that question targetted at my project? If you look around the website, it describes the choice for media (SmartCards). At least in the version of the box I'm working on, there would be no networking capabilities. The choice of Java as a language was to harness the massive Java gaming community that's looking for an outlet to expend their creative energy.
That's not such a good idea. Once you force users to start upgrading their systems, you lose one of the key advantages to Consoles: Plug and Play. Users end up having to treat their console like a computer, paying close attention to the correct upgrades to apply for a particular game. Worse yet, users may be forced to chose between upgrading their systems to play new games, or keeping the old version of the BIOS to ensure that they can still play all of their old games.
-
It's a common misconception that the hardware is responsible for the quality of the games. Hardware only translates to capability. It's up to the game developer to translate that capability into games that are fun to play. As a result, your choice in graphics hardware is all about how much you plan to limit the developer.
My own take on graphics rendering is that you should try to limit the developer as little as possible in the design that you're targetting. That means that the best solution is to use a hardware accelerated Framebuffer. The console would draw to the framebuffer which would in turn be used to produce a video signal. The hardware acceleration would probably be unnecessary if you were only allowing direct blitting (the baseline clock for an FPGA these days is about 50MHz, and an ASIC can easily hit 400+ MHz), but Mode 7 style scaling and rotating graphics are a nice thing to provide developers. Alpha filtering is another commonly requested feature, though I'm not a big fan of using it in games. (It tends to blur the heck out of everything.)
In the 1980's, no hardware designer in his right mind would have bothered with a framebuffer. Memory was just too expensive. The Atari was so short on memory, that it didn't even have enough memory to framebuffer its cut-down playfield scheme! Today, megs of memory can be had for a couple of bucks.
For a 256x192 screen with full RGB support, that works out to about 144K of memory. Speaking of which, what are you going to do with the other 40+ lines of resolution? Also, you may want to consider a variable horizontal resolution. Most TVs are capable of up to 512 "pixels" across.
-
I was wondering who "Morgan" was. Tramiel I recognize, and who wouldn't recognize old Yar. But it looks like Morgan had a rather short life as the CEO before Atari got split in two.
BTW, I've noticed something interesting with the FB2, though I'm not quite sure that it qualifies as a "secret". If you start the console in Paddle Test mode with the regular joystick, then press a button or direction on the joystick, it drops you into "Off the Wall". Is that just a glitch, or am I somehow ending up in a special mode?
-
Whine, whine, whine. Suck it up and learn a new instruction set! Now drop and give me 20!
Seriously, Java is super-easy. Everything you ever wanted to know (and didn't want to know) is here:
And of course, the JVM and compiler can be found here:
The most important part from a hardware development perspective is to understand the opcodes here:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-...monics.doc.html
So go do a tutorial or seven. Just ignore the Applet part.
FYI, my console will have full RGB (or YUV) colorspace. Individual sprites will be limited to 256 colors, and a size of 256x256, but that limitation comes at the gain of the SuperPackME APIs which keep images in a super-tight state. I've been kicking butt and taking names later in the 4K game programming contests because of it.
I'm also looking at things like precomputing to the YUV color space to make the video signal easier (and to save framebuffer space). I've got all kinds of notes scattered all over the site (for example), so it may not be immediately clear everything that's going on.
-
Ah HAH! Fresh meat for the grinder! I just so happen to need some help with such a device. Let me know if you have any questions, and/or if you want to help out.
-
Just FRU your mouse!
Abstract: Mouse Balls Available as FRU (Field Replacement Unit)
Mouse balls are now available as FRU. Therefore, if a mouse fails to operate or should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement. Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be attempted by properly trained personnel.
Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside of the mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ depending upon manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method. Domestic balls are replaced using the twist-off method. Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive. However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge. Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately.
It is recommended that each replacer have a pair of spare balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction, and that any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary items.
To re-order, specify one of the following:
P/N 33F8462 - Domestic Mouse Balls
P/N 33F8461 - Foreign Mouse Balls
With apologies to the original IBM rep.
-
I never said that people don't make mistakes. However, I'm using the best sources I have available at the moment. If you find them unsuitable, I can try finding better sources for you, or we can agree to disagree.Great, then lets get back on topic shall we? Show all of us a better source that says Coleco made Intellivision adapters (or even had ones on the drawing board). That is what the original question was asking for after all....
If you want it that way, fine.
/ME cracks knuckles.
In an interview with the founder of Intellivison Productions, Keith Robinson, the following conversation took place:
Kyle: In the early 80’s, Mattel released the “System Changer”, which is an adapter that plugs into the Intellivision II. It had the ability to play Atari 2600 cartridges, eliminating the need to purchase your rival’s machine. Isn’t that against copyright laws and/or patents?Keith: The System Changer was essentially an Atari 2600 clone that fed off the power supply of the Intellivision II and used its RF converter. Mattel wasn't the first company to make an Atari 2600 clone. I forget the company that did it first, but there was a legal challenge from Atari. The ruling was, essentially, that if you can duplicate the function of an electronic circuit using existing off-the-shelf parts, you're free to do so. Now, the basic concept of video games was patented; Magnavox (which introduced the first home video game: Odyssey) owned the patent and, after court battles, Mattel and Atari wound up paying licensing fees. Also, software built into a video game system can be copyrighted. Although Coleco announced they were going to build an Intellivision module for the ColecoVision, they never could get around the copyrighted 4K operating system contained in ROM in each Intellivision console. But the Atari 2600 - which contained no software - was fair game.
Interestingly, Keith seems to believe the problem was replicating the Intellivision OS without getting into trouble. The lawsuit with Atari was probably costly for Coleco, and they may not have wanted to get into one with Intellivision. It's hard to say if he's right, since most of the lawsuits over DOS clones wouldn't come until later, but Tempest may find this info to be of interest.
And with that, Mr. Else, I place the burden of proof to the contrary fully on your plate.
-
I already understand how the legal system works in this country, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.Excellent. Then flow with me here.
How about opening your mind to the possibility that just because somebody wrote something down, that doesn't mean it's true. People are human and humans make mistakes. In this case, just because some FAQ says Coleco made and Intellivision adapter, maybe, just maybe it's not true.I never said that people don't make mistakes. However, I'm using the best sources I have available at the moment. If you find them unsuitable, I can try finding better sources for you, or we can agree to disagree.
Let me ask you, is it your position that the judge did NOT find in favor of Coleco in the Atari vs. Coleco case? If so, please share the basis for this position with the rest of us.
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.Okay, please explain further. Coleco settled and agreed to pay Atari royalties AFTER the judge had found them not guilty? Sounds goofy, but I'm all ears....
Yes. You said you understood how the legal system works in the country? Then you must know that companies as large as Atari and Coleco can always find more Intellectual Property to sue one another over. Technically, they don't even have to have a case to harrass one another. So it's usually in the best interest to get a contract stating that they won't sue each other as long as XYZ happens. If the settlement talks failed, then the judge would have had to resolve each and every complaint the two companies had filed against each other. Many of those complaints may be completely off topic, but the result would be that both companies would lose, and one or the other could continue to prosecute the other under different complaints.
As a result, a resolution that has Coleco paying a small fee to Atari in exchange for the full rights to make money off of Atari's hard work is a win for Coleco (they're still making money) and a less costly loss for Atari (they save face on one hand, and make a minor revenue from something they can't stop anyway on the other).
-
Yep, this is exactly the part I am talking about. Okay, maybe it wasn't ruled illegal, but a settlement was reached nonetheless....As a result, the two eventually settled out of court.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: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.
interesting idea, though, and if it begins to look like my work is redundant I'll offer any help I can 
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Post Holidays check
in AtGames Flashback and Portable Consoles
Posted