AVGN reviews the Odyssey 1

[Artlover]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...amp;RS=03728480

 

That's the original patent. (Click on images at either the top or bottom of the screen for actual scans with schematics included).

 

It's both vague and specific at the same time.

 

Vague in the overall general concept. Specific in as much as he's detailing things such as where resistors and transistors are located in the circuits and how they are used.

 

Boy, I hope no one else is the world is using two diodes as a rectifier or a transister as a switch. Baer patented those ideas 40 years ago.

 

*EDIT*: pasted the wrong patent link in.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Artlover

[Retro Rogue]

Either way, the courts then (and largely still don't now) understand the fine technical differences of hardware and software.

 

What software? There was none with any of these, it was all hardware based. All of these early arcade games and consoles were done

through pure digital logic.

 

If Baer's patent wasn't so generally vague, Magnavox wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

 

Actually it was quite the opposite. If he hadn't had the technology and its development so overly documented (every little aspect of it was kept, boxes and boxes and boxes of material, notes, diagrams, etc.), Magnavox might not have had a leg to stand on. It also included demonstrations of all the different proto devices (not just the brown box), and explanation of the technology and its development process. That's precisely why he was so successful when he was called as a witness to the court proceedings each time. And also why the 480 patent was and still is referred to as the pioneer patent. And time and time again in every single court case.

 

 

Boy, I hope no one else is the world is using two diodes as a rectifier or a transister as a switch. Baer patented those ideas 40 years ago. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

That's just being silly, or showing very little understanding for the patents (there was more than one) and what they covered. Likewise very little familiarity with the actual court cases and what they were about (which you've been demonstrating in these posts). The patents were not for any minuscule thing like what the electronic cicruits were made of (Baer used DTL, the arcade companies used TTL), though instead what they were manipulating and their intended overall function was.

Edited April 24, 2009 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...amp;RS=03728480

 

That's the original patent. (Click on images at either the top or bottom of the screen for actual scans with schematics included).

 

480 patent. There was also the 285 patent which is more specific in the details and technology of the generation of symbols through a television signal on a tv screen, and their interaction. And there were several other related technology patents. Once again, as has been discussed plenty of times here before, there's a reason for the "video" in "video game". It had to do with the specific technology of drawing, manipulating, and interacting with objects on a television screen via a video signal. Something that was only done via hardware at the time, hence the patenting of the technology needed to do it.

Edited April 24, 2009 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

Surprized calculator companies never sued the computer industry. Because you know, they are both just electronics on a circuit board designed with the purpose of processing numerical data.

 

Sorry, but the patents are not that generalized. And likewise, if Ralph's technology had used any of the patented circuitry (including display technology), he certainly could have. The entire hand held gaming industry actually came from the appropriation of calculator technology for the playing of games.

[hhwolfman]

I like the review and it was nice to see the Odyssey 1 in action but the "NerdTurd" was really not needed.

 

That was my favorite part.

[lushgirl_80]

LOL!! Nerdy Turd is gross. I think the AVGN is adorable *swoon* but I don't get his obsession with poo jokes sometimes. I love how his house looks tho,so many games..

 

 

 

 

That episode makes me actually want to own an Odyssey 1. Seriously I think that Haunted House game actually looks cool.

For 1972 that's not bad. Considering the kinds of mind altering substances people were taking in those days too, I bet the Odyssey was kinda cool in the old days.

[catbox_9]

Good video in the sense I enjoyed seeing all the aspects of a system I've never played before. Like most here I'm not a fan of his sidekick in that episode.

[Reaperman]

I liked it, especially the sidekick. The turdling said *exactly* what my other half was thinking, but didn't really get in the way of the episode while keeping it from becomming too serious. And his episodes are getting a bit more content-rich these days, so there's a real danger of them turning boring without something to lighten them up. Granted there are diversionary tactics in every episode, but I especially liked the little turd.

[S1500]

I predict this video will be a huge hit in Japan, just from his sidekick.

[Atarifever]

Everyone here is trying to be all internet ironic right? No one here actually enjoyed that or thought it was informative, right? You're all going to start talking about how great Ctrl-Alt-Del comics and "The Bachelor" are in a minute too, and then yell "April Fools!" right? Because if not, I may have to give up coming here, because whatever you all have, it may be contagious. The guy played a videogame with a version of himself made out of feces that, itself, made fart noises. Also, him and the turd used the odyssey to simulate defecating. To use his level of humour to desribe it, that's about as funny as a bag of smashed cocks.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Atarifever

[+Ransom]

To use his level of humour to desribe it, that's about as funny as a bag of smashed cocks.

 

Now that's funny!

[hhwolfman]

To use his level of humour to desribe it, that's about as funny as a bag of smashed cocks.

 

Now that's funny!

 

 

That could be next weeks side Kick, Smashed Cocks. I watch it, for sure.

[Artlover]

I think a bag of smashed cocks would be more fun then an Odyssey.

[Retro Rogue]

I think a bag of smashed cocks would be more fun then an Odyssey.

 

 

Could be. I never got mine running, it arrived DOA - battery leakage. Was thinking of trying to repair the board or redo the board my self.

 

I wish Magnavox would have gone with the colored version Ralph originally designed, along with some of the other specialized circuits.

[AtticGamer]

I loved the review, the things he imagined to do with the rectangles on the screen cracked me up, specially the pooping part.

 

I think the Odyssey could have been better because at the time it was about 7 years old. It was practically a Brown Box with no added elements that really mattered to make a more complex game system. But looking at the time, when videogames were basically Pong and Space War and board games, what the Odyssey did is not suprising. Sure, it lacks rules and AI but the system could handle what was needed at the time: 2 squares.

 

Haunted House is by far the most interesting game in my opinion.

 

Btw, those controllers look hard as hell to use. I can never move something vertically to move horizontally. My brain cannot do such multitasking.

[Herbarius]

Even being completely analog they could have put some more effort in it in some areas.

What about two "counters", you know those number wheel thingies, which could be incremented by the electrologic in the system and maybe reset by a button next to it, like you would do on an old style tape deck or Datasette... This could keep score...

 

This propably could have been done, if not, then they wouldn't have been able to let the ball bounce off the players either.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Herbarius

[Retro Rogue]

Even being completely analog they could have put some more effort in it in some areas.

What about two "counters", you know those number wheel thingies, which could be incremented by the electrologic in the system and maybe reset by a button next to it, like you would do on an old style tape deck or Datasette... This could keep score...

 

This propably could have been done, if not, then they wouldn't have been able to let the ball bounce off the players either.

 

 

Its not analog. That's a misconception that Nolan tried to put out there, which this article explains more about. As far as "scoring", people keep approaching it as a pong system. It was designed for a bunch of different games and game play built in, not just the table tennis. That includes all the traditional board game supplies that came with it, and it was assumed more of a "between mediums" game play would take place. Its not like the Odyssey 100, 200, etc. where they were designed specifically for pong games. If Magnavox had already cut out the color circuitry and any other "enhancements", they certainly wouldn't have agreed to the cost of scoring detection circuitry tied to the flip-flops, that would only benefit one of the games. Again, when this system was designed there was no way to tell what was going to be the most popular game on it. When it was picked up by Magnavox, there was still no way to tell. When it was shown off by Magnavox before it was even sent out to retailers, there was still no obvious popular game. When Nolan saw the system and decided to take the table tennis game idea and give it to Al to create Pong, there was still no way (it was just as an exercise, they weren't even planning on marketing it). In fact, it wasn't until early '73 that Pong had been out in the arcades for several months and starting to generate demand that anybody knew. Ralph still kept trying to introduce technology to retrofit to the Odyssey, sound, etc. and Magnavox would not want each one. It was technology limitations, or limitations on Ralph's part, it was Magnavox and their lack of foresight as to what people would want. Ralph had even pioneered video transmissions for the background while designing what became the Odyssey, having real images or video broadcast over cable for the playfield instead of the cellophane overlays that were gone with.

Edited April 25, 2009 by wgungfu

[Herbarius]

Its not analog, that's a misconception that Nolan tried to put out there, which this article explains more about.

Sorry, my mistake, I got things wrong here. I wanted to say it didn't have a CPU. Of course it could be digital nonetheless... But I'm glad to hear that it's a common misconception, so I'm not alone

 

 

EDIT:

Interesting read BTW... However I can't help but feel there's something very ill about all this. I'll take a look at the patents and

What about today? Do Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo still have to pay license fees to Magnavox, because they're still displaying stuff on a TV screen which can be controlled by the customer? Why don't they have to pay that if Magnavox' claims were legitimate back then? Okay, with the advent of digital TV I could see why it's different, but AFAIK you still connect your X-Box or Playstaion by analog means, maybe digital connection is availabe too, but its optional...

 

Patent issues seem to leave behind this "something's wrong about all this"-feeling quite often... The patent system as a whole may posess some fundamental flaws, however revising it would most likely upset a lot of people who get money from their patents which could be rendered illegitimate by a revision of the system...

Edited April 25, 2009 by Herbarius

[Retro Rogue]

EDIT:

Interesting read BTW... However I can't help but feel there's something very ill about all this.

 

I'm not sure what would be ill about the designer himself stating its a digital system, or that it used DTL, a digital class of circuitry, and specifically contained flip-flops - also a digital circuit.

 

 

What about today? Do Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo still have to pay license fees to Magnavox, because they're still displaying stuff on a TV screen which can be controlled by the customer? Why don't they have to pay that if Magnavox' claims were legitimate back then?

 

Because patents have a time-limit. Nintendo was licensing at one time actually, and in fact in '86 had sued Sanders in court to try and invalidate the patents - which they were loosing and finally agreed to settle out of court (much like Atari did years before). It was with several patent violations actually, including the light gun. All these court cases, documents, etc. from them, and more are actually shown in detail in Ralph's book if you pick it up. That includes the many attempts by others to invalidate his patents, which were warded off time and time again.

 

 

Okay, with the advent of digital TV I could see why it's different, but AFAIK you still connect your X-Box or Playstaion by analog means, maybe digital connection is availabe too, but its optional...

 

See above. All the major players through the early 90's I believe, were licensees at one time.

Edited April 25, 2009 by wgungfu

[Herbarius]

I'm not sure what would be ill about the designer himself stating its a digital system

Sorry, I did not make my point clear. There's nothing ill about it being a digital system, but about Ralph Baers patents, at least some of them.

Or, propably there's nothing wrong with the patents at all. However the "infringement" by Atari and others seems to be far-fetched at least.

 

and tried to get out of it in '85 by suing Sanders in court to invalidate the patents - which they lost.

Do you have any link with more information to this court case? What was their reasoning?

 

Considering how many people went to court trying to get rid of the patents and/or their obligation to pay license fees shows there's some moral clash... Okay, you could argue "hey, they just didn't want to pay", however their lawyers would not have pursued the case if they had not thought there was any chance of winning, because if would've only caused additional costs for acchieving nothing.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Herbarius

[Retro Rogue]

I'm not sure what would be ill about the designer himself stating its a digital system

Sorry, I did not make my point clear. There's nothing ill about it being a digital system, but about Ralph Baers patents, at least some of them.

Or, propably there's nothing wrong with the patents at all. However the "infringement" by Atari and others seems to be far-fetched at least.

 

As with your comment below, that goes both ways. They wouldn't have approached them unless they were sure they could win on the cases and there was patent infringement - again, these were some of the first cases of their kind and had to go through precise checks and balances or risk invalidating or devaluing their own patents. They literally took apart the other person's products and analyzed them, discounted some possible violations (because they weren't clear) and went forward on others. It wasn't just a process of "oh , these guys are displaying something on a screen and interacting, lets sue them." The process is all laid out in the book actually, pretty clear - its a very tech book that I highly recommend as it addresses a lot of these questions people keep having. Likewise, to put some of the "moral dilemmas" to rest, there are companies that actually approached Magnavox for licensing that Magnavox turned down. I.E., it wasn't just about "Let's get as much money on being the exclusive licensee as we can."

 

 

and tried to get out of it in '85 by suing Sanders in court to invalidate the patents - which they lost.

Do you have any link with more information to this court case? What was their reasoning?

 

As I mentioned, most of that stuff is in the book. Or you can probably research the court records on your own as well like the rest of us author types tend to do. As far as the book, you can order the book through Lenny's site at rolentapress.com. BTW, make sure and check out the current issue of Edge magazine to hit the states, Lenny did an interview with Atari co-founder Ted Dabney.

 

Considering how many people went to court trying to get rid of the patents and/or their obligation to pay license fees shows there's some moral clash... Okay, you could argue "hey, they just didn't want to pay", however their lawyers would not have pursued the case if they had not thought there was any chance of winning, because if would've only caused additional costs for acchieving nothing.

 

That goes both ways though. Neither side would not have pursued it if they thought they didn't have a chance for winning or had grounds for it. And the patents (the first of their kind mind you) would not have been upheld over so many years and challenges either. People tend to use hindsight with this and affix today's problems with frivolous software patents to this. These were the first video game patents, period, first of the industry. And there's a whole plethora of gaming related technology he was awarded patents for. Things that seem obvious now (displaying an electronically generated game on a tv screen, interacting, etc. interfacing a light gun, other interactive sources), were not back then. Again, that's the problem with hindsight, it tends to not take the proper context and put things in today's exposure and world.

 

I honestly do believe that some companies and individuals did come up with the same or similar methods, completely on their own, not realizing about the patents or a possible infringement on technology. However, once you have a patent, trademark, copyright, etc. it has to be asserted to be upheld or risk invalidation after a time (i.e. if you let a lot of similar technology on to the market or let people use your patents, it weakens your patent for future usage or licensing). Others (like Nolan), were not so honest and knew full well about possible infringement. They've spent their time even now, still continually trying to marginalize everything long after the fact. (Nolan's funniest has to be when he stated that the Odyssey was already a failure when he saw it in Spring of '72. However it's hard for a console to fail on the market before its even been released!)

Edited April 25, 2009 by wgungfu

[Artlover]

Patent issues seem to leave behind this "something's wrong about all this"-feeling quite often... The patent system as a whole may posess some fundamental flaws, however revising it would most likely upset a lot of people who get money from their patents which could be rendered illegitimate by a revision of the system...

I agree.

 

In looking at the Baer patent, I didn't see much in the way of detail that specificly gave him a claim to anything. It's all application of generic circuity. The only thing about it that gives him claim to anything is the "generalized" concept of "Television gaming apparatus". It's surely nothing no one else couldn't have independantly developed.

 

I see it like trying to patent a knife. You can patent what makes your knife different/special, and if anyone copies "those" aspects of it then there is a case to be made. But to patent the raw concept of a piece of metal with a sharp edge for the purpose of cutting, then fight everyone else doing the same thing - no, that shows an inherent problem in the system.

[Retro Rogue]

I see it like trying to patent a knife. You can patent what makes your knife different/special, and if anyone copies "those" aspects of it then there is a case to be made. But to patent the raw concept of a piece of metal with a sharp edge for the purpose of cutting, then fight everyone else doing the same thing - no, that shows an inherent problem in the system.

 

Except that wasn't what the patents (notice the plural) were for. I'm sorry, but that's just an extremely marginalized view of what was actually patented or what was involved with any of this with a ridiculous comparison. The knife has a long history of generalized public domain use as a utilitarian tool, much like the wheel. Of course you have to patent specific aspects of changes to a well established and generalized device (such as a "tire"). With this however we're talking about specific devices, circuits, and concepts that were the first of their kind, for a specific medium (video signals) and (at the time) relatively new technology. It wasn't a "raw concept", and if "raw concepts" had been all they had to present it would have been thrown out of court. They were specific in the timings (vertical and horizontal syncs, symbol representation, collision, motion, etc.), technology, and circuitry needed to manipulate and interact with electronically generated objects on the television via a video signal. All that had to be demonstrated, backed up, etc., first to the patent office, and then continually in the courts. Likewise, it marginalizes the effort put in by the companies that went against Magnavox in court - I think I have yet to see one of them or their law firms that tried to use the argument "Oh, its to generalized, its like trying to patent a knife." Instead, they used very compelling and factual evidence and arguments, that didn't waste the court's time.

Edited April 25, 2009 by wgungfu

[Curt Vendel]

Except you are talking about a time when no such methology or technology such as this ever existed. The patent is also quite detailed and goes to solid lengths to detail the patent and application. You may feel - in your humble opinion, that there are flaws in the patent system, however the court in the 70's did not agree with you and Sanders/Magnavox won every case clear cut. Now I am probably the biggest Atari supporter on this planet, I know Nolan (heck I worked for him at one point) and I also know Ralph Baer as well. I side with Ralph, Nolan has done nothing for the last 35 or so years except to attempt to cloud, muddle, distort and underrate Ralph, Sanders and Magnavox and the achievements and credits rightfully belonging to Ralph, not Nolan.

 

So for the 1960's - creating a technology to implement onto TV's like this is almost on par with inventing the worlds first knife - or fire for that matter, it was pioneering and was the cornerstone by which todays vg industry exists.

 

 

Curt

 

 

Patent issues seem to leave behind this "something's wrong about all this"-feeling quite often... The patent system as a whole may posess some fundamental flaws, however revising it would most likely upset a lot of people who get money from their patents which could be rendered illegitimate by a revision of the system...

I agree.

 

In looking at the Baer patent, I didn't see much in the way of detail that specificly gave him a claim to anything. It's all application of generic circuity. The only thing about it that gives him claim to anything is the "generalized" concept of "Television gaming apparatus". It's surely nothing no one else couldn't have independantly developed.

 

I see it like trying to patent a knife. You can patent what makes your knife different/special, and if anyone copies "those" aspects of it then there is a case to be made. But to patent the raw concept of a piece of metal with a sharp edge for the purpose of cutting, then fight everyone else doing the same thing - no, that shows an inherent problem in the system.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Curt Vendel

[Atarifever]

I side with Ralph, Nolan has done nothing for the last 35 or so years except to attempt to cloud, muddle, distort and underrate Ralph, Sanders and Magnavox and the achievements and credits rightfully belonging to Ralph, not Nolan.

And that Curt Vendel says this should resolve the entire argument. Nolan would make a great seller of "Tonic Water" in the old west. He creates myths and then proves them with more myths, and people believe him in droves. He's a great salesman. But the guy is more "Reggie Fils Amie" than "Shigeru Miyamoto."

Edited April 25, 2009 by Atarifever