New Atari Legal Actions

[Metal Ghost]

You know, I'm not even so angry at Atari. It's up to their lawyers to pursue anything that they think may infringe on their IP. That's what they're job is.

 

I'm surprised Apple went through with this though.

 

http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/ataris-latest-legal-actions-appear-to-be-putting-the-squeeze-on-hundreds-of-apps/

[Emehr]

Since when is it illegal to make a clone of a game or a game that resembles another? It's not like they called it "Battlezone" and are trying to steal Atari's magic bag. Where were Atari's lawyers when I was playing Spectre Challenger on the Mac 16 years ago? Or Robot Tank?

 

Here's a thought: how about Atari release their own Battlezone for iOS and let the market determine which game is successful?

 

Or here's another idea: how about Atari fire their lawyers and hire some game designers?

 

This paranoia with protecting "intellectual property"* using draconian, questionably legal and ethical tactics is getting ridiculous.

 

*in quotes because technically, tanks and a playfield drawn using vector lines cannot be intellectual property any more than drawing crumbling cities using polygons and texture maps in shades of brown can be. The intellectual property at hand is the name "Battlezone", which is not the name of the game in question.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Emehr

[SoundGammon]

Remember when Disney took Williams to court over ROBOTRON? Claiming the use of TRON in the title!

[Metal Ghost]

See, that's the thing....I'm disappointed that Apple didn't push back at all. I mean hey, anyone can sue anyone. I agree that they shouldn't, but some legal teams are more zealous than others.

 

GIve you an example that I remember from one of my business law classes back in college: Anheiser-Busch sued a Budweiser Florist for the use of the Bud name, which if memory serves was a family name, even though we're obviously talking about different industries where there's zero chance of any confusion being created in the marketplace, etc. However, it is true that if a company doesn't actively defend their IP, trademarks, etc., they can loose them, and while what constitutes actively defending differs from person to person, these lawyers obviously took a very conservative approach.

 

Of course, when the courts got a hold of this they threw it on it's ass and A-B didn't appeal....they just wanted to be able to proove active defense of their IP. But just an example.

 

In this case I agree with Emehr that they're probably just trying to limit competition. But I'm saddened that the developer in question is changing the game, but of course fighting is expensive. At least they have a game plan to still get their product out to market, which is good.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Seriously at this point I could care less if the "Atari" of today crashed and burned permanently. They seem to be more trouble these days then they are worth.

[Hatta]

You know, I'm not even so angry at Atari. It's up to their lawyers to pursue anything that they think may infringe on their IP. That's what they're job is.

 

No, that's not their job at all. Countless legal departments in countless industries exist without sending threatening notices to their patrons. Even if you assume that Atari has to persue every possible claim (which they don't), it's still their job to do due diligence (which they haven't). There's no washing their hands of this. Everyone involved in sending these letters is a crook and knows it.

[Mirage]

It's actually pathetic. The new "Atari" can hardly even be considered an actual company. What have they done interesting recently?

[Animan]

It's actually pathetic. The new "Atari" can hardly even be considered an actual company. What have they done interesting recently?

 

Roller Coaster Tycoon 3D-

 

Oh wait, that's being developed by n-Space. Nevermind.

[pocketmego]

Seriously at this point I could care less if the "Atari" of today crashed and burned permanently. They seem to be more trouble these days then they are worth.

 

Hard to disagree with that sentiment. This French company is about as responsible for anything that went into the original Battlezone as I do.

 

It sickens me every time they go to court to protect "their" intellectual property.

[Animan]

Seriously at this point I could care less if the "Atari" of today crashed and burned permanently. They seem to be more trouble these days then they are worth.

 

Hard to disagree with that sentiment. This French company is about as responsible for anything that went into the original Battlezone as I do.

 

It sickens me every time they go to court to protect "their" intellectual property.

 

Well, I wouldn't mind if a company protected their intellectual properties (regardless of whether they created them or not), but the fact that Atari has been sitting on a good chunk of their properties makes it awful.

[cimerians]

Lets just be honest, they are a bunch of d_cks right?

 

Wasn't there a thread somewhere here at Atariage where they threatened a homebrewer or something? (shutting down websites with the word ATARI in them or something along those lines)

I was reading it sometime this past year here. It was pretty swarmy what they were doing.

[DrThielegood]

To make matters worse, Vector Tanks was programmed by Peter Hirshberg. For those how have never heard of, or met, Peter, he was the owner of one of the greatest home arcades I have ever seen. His love of classic games and gaming actually reignited my love of the classics. He created retroarcaderadio, and ran it before handing it over to SoCal Mike (aka Parrothead..who has done a fine job with it btw). He was also involved in the production of the film "Chasing Ghosts". A google search of his name or "Luna City Arcade" will give you an idea of who we're dealing with here. Truly a gentleman in the industry who opened his home arcade up to strangers, news reporters, and charity benefits before some personal events forced him to sell much of his stuff and close down Luna City. Now this. This really sucks.

 

Shame on atari and Apple. Shame on atari for using what money they seem to have left to pay lawyers, in an effort to clear the decks of actual, and better, ios competition so they can continue to release lousy and ill-conceived reboots of their once groundbreaking IPs. I mean has anyone actually seen the remakes of Yars and Haunted House? Nuff' said. As for their "Free" ios offerings, which I admittedly have not purchased (and will not), I hear that they are micortransaction driven. This leads me to Apple. Before we get into a conspiracy about Jobs and Woz and their time at Atari lets just put that to bed right out. As we all know, the atari of today is NOTHING, repeat...NOTHING like the Atari of old and, if what we have read about Jobs is true, this is the kind of BS that he might have put the kibosh on. What this comes down to is money, pure and simple. Pulling Pete's game(or 2 since Extreme was pulled also), even though it was popular and well reviewed, will ultimately lead to more "atari" business coming to Apple in the way of more crappy ports and microtransactions, all things that apple gets a piece of.

 

Sorry for the rant here but as a huge fan or classic Atari, and the owner of an Apple IIe, I am so disappointed that these companies that I held in such high regard would do such a thing. And before the logical, ecomically-minded, realists take all this and justfy these companies' combined actions with some rationale consistant with our capitalist principals let me just say in advance.....legal or illegal, justified or not...it was a SHITTY thing to do.

 

Stay Strong Peter...

 

Bob

[Retro Rogue]

I have several thoughts on the matter - As far as the claim in the article on no communication, I'm not so sure about that. The author of this game (Pete) is the same one that was previously contacted by them to remove his copy of their Adventure game, which was literally a direct reproduction of the original 2600 game on iOS. Likewise, they have a direct program specifically for smaller companies to work with them and license properties -

 

http://www2.atari.com/go

 

That being said, Atari SA should also be considering how actions like these (this isn't the first time apps have been forced out of the app store by them) effect the brand's fans. With things as bad for the company as they are right now and not a lot of good remakes of older IP from them in recent years, they should consider approaching some of the better offenders to become official ports instead of issuing cease and desists. PR wise 2011 was a terrible year for them with stuff like this, and I can't imagine some of these developers who are releasing "inspired by" games or clones wouldn't love the change to have their game actually under the Atari brand banner.

[Mord]

However, it is true that if a company doesn't actively defend their IP, trademarks, etc., they can loose them, and while what constitutes actively defending differs from person to person, these lawyers obviously took a very conservative approach.

 

Of course, when the courts got a hold of this they threw it on it's ass and A-B didn't appeal....they just wanted to be able to proove active defense of their IP. But just an example.

 

Do you see the problems with blurring trademarks, copyrights, and patents under a single term "Intellectual Property"?

 

It is NOT true that a company has to actively defend their "IP, trademarks, etc". They only have to actively protect their -trademarks-. You do not lose copyrights even if not defended. And companies regularly sit on patents until a competitor arrives and goes around for a few years before hitting them with big fines. (Hell, it's considered it's own form of business for some.)

[Retro Rogue]

However, it is true that if a company doesn't actively defend their IP, trademarks, etc., they can loose them, and while what constitutes actively defending differs from person to person, these lawyers obviously took a very conservative approach.

 

Of course, when the courts got a hold of this they threw it on it's ass and A-B didn't appeal....they just wanted to be able to proove active defense of their IP. But just an example.

 

Do you see the problems with blurring trademarks, copyrights, and patents under a single term "Intellectual Property"?

 

It is NOT true that a company has to actively defend their "IP, trademarks, etc". They only have to actively protect their -trademarks-. You do not lose copyrights even if not defended. And companies regularly sit on patents until a competitor arrives and goes around for a few years before hitting them with big fines. (Hell, it's considered it's own form of business for some.)

 

That's not entirely true. If a company does not actively defend it's IP, trademarks, etc., and knowingly lets other products on the market then it weakens their position for future lawsuits and attempted enforcement. That's what Metal Ghost was referring to. In those cases, the value of the copyright can diminish and you can wind up in effect loosing the protection all together.

[Metal Ghost]

Good article on the subject from a good source:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/05/exclusive-app-store-game-copycat-battle-zone-heats-up/

[Emehr]

Good article on the subject from a good source:

 

http://venturebeat.c...-zone-heats-up/

 

Good article. The "uneven playfield" comment was spot-on if a bit understated. I think "double standard" is probably more appropriate.

 

Whoever owns the Atari name needs to pass it on to someone with some integrity. Someone that will actually create games that people want to play and not cry "IP theft!" whenever they want to crush legitimate competition. Some bad precedents are being set.

[Agent X]

After reading up on this situation, I'm thinking both sides might be handling this the wrong way.

 

The author of the game admits to originally requesting to develop an officially licensed Battlezone game, but since Atari didn't accept his offer, he went ahead and made a clone of the game anyway. While his intentions might have been good in making the game as a tribute to one of his favorite early arcade classics, he should have been aware of any consequences if the game bore a strong resemblance to Battlezone. I watched

, and it's instantly evident that he's attempting to replicate the "look" of classic Battlezone. For whatever reason, Atari wasn't interested in working with him, and he should have moved on in a different direction instead of continuing to poke at the sleeping bear.

 

On the other hand, you have Atari. While they haven't done anything legally or morally wrong in defending their properties, I have to say that it's just monumentally stupid that sending cease-and-desist letters is the extent of their involvement. It's not like Atari's got a better Battlezone cooking (at least not one that we know of). Most of their classic game sequels/remakes of the last few years haven't been so hot (to put it mildly), and they could really use another high quality game in their stable right about now. If Vector Tanks was a love letter to Battlezone, then Atari should have dressed up for a Saturday evening date.

 

As Retro Rogue said above, this could have been a great opportunity for both sides to shake hands, and perhaps rebrand this game (and/or the next iteration) as an official Battlezone game with Atari's blessing. It would have the crossover effect of allowing fans of Mr. Hirschberg's games to look forward to his continued work on the franchise, and for Atari to rebuild their reputation and reinforce feelings of goodwill among their own fanbase.

 

Atari doesn't do much (if any) internal development anymore. If anyone's going to release updated versions of classic games, then let it be done by developers who are capable of pouring love and devotion and talent into the project. As a longtime fan of Atari, I'd hate to see them go under again (perhaps for the final time) on a sour note, clinging to fading memories of a previous incarnation of the company from three decades ago.

 

With the rise of downloadable game services on PCs, video game consoles, smartphones, and tablets, Atari has the opportunity to meld past and future, and reinvent itself as a forward-thinking company that can revitalize beloved games in new and exciting ways. It's a shame that Atari doesn't see itself that way.

[DrThielegood]

Well said Agent X. Revamped Atari Classics on iOS or Android is probably their best shot at survival. Its just hard to believe that they would can Vector tanks instead of simply bringing it into the Atari Family, so to speak. Perhaps it has something to do with Black Powder acquiring the rights from Peter. Maybe we don't know the whole story. We know that Peter was more than willing to program Vector Tanks with Atari's blessing, and maybe even their label. 3 years ago when the portable market space was not nearly as lucrative they declined. Fast forward to now and Atari has jumped into the iOS pool and Peter no longer calls the shots with Vector Tanks. Could the issue be between Atari (who fairly has a claim) and Black Powder (who wants to continue to profit from their game without sharing with Atari)? Hard to tell. I was pleased to here that Peter was clear of this mess when it blew up.

 

All that said, Agent X hit it on the head when he stated that BOTH sides are now handling things the wrong way. Atari should want their brand associated with Vector Tanks...hell, rebrand it Battlezone and Black Powder is in a lose-lose situation where they are currrently doing no business with the game.

 

We shall see.

[HatefulGravey]

The old stuff is more popular then anything they are currently messing with so I can see why they are trying to gain what little they can. I see Atari shirts and stuff all over the place for the old stuff, I bet they will get after that soon too if they haven't already.

 

This is just Atari trying to make money at anything right now. I bet they understand that they can't produce anything worth while that isn't just a rehash of the old stuff or a compilation disc and this is the new business model. Just sue everyone.