Jump to content
TPR

Coleco strong-arming homebrew publishers and fan sites

Recommended Posts

 

As long as they aren't dissuaded from buying a "classic" 1980s ColecoVision and supporting the homebrew community! ;)

So is that to say all this hasn't effected the 4th round of Super Game Modules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that to say all this hasn't effected the 4th round of Super Game Modules?

 

Doubtful, packaging is everything and I believe opcode already mentioned that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The other part of that combination is the fact that I'm currently hanging out at my favorite Barcade here in Orlando having a few beers and playing classic video games. I will post some pictures from this Barcade (Player One if you are interested) because I've had a few beers and I'm just sick of all this crap and beer + video game is far more interesting to me than anything Coleco Holdings LLC can throw my way....

 

attachicon.gifIMG_5826.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5827.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5831.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5822.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5825.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5829.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5830.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5836.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5837.JPG

attachicon.gifIMG_5840.JPG

 

Now that's out of the way, back to my original point...

Dang dude, why can't we have this type of stuff in my hometown? :lust:

 

Proud inhabitant of Armpit, USA. Okay for real though, I like my town, but we never get coooool stuff like this. Hell, I'd have to drive 200+ miles just to find a Dave and Busters... :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're strong-arming due to using 'Colecovision' in a Roman Type true-type font vs the original ColecoVision font?

 

 

 

post-18158-0-39871300-1497473975_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mind me I'm just posting here so I can follow the thread easier. Fascinating to say the least. I can't believe Mike Kennedy cloned himself.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doubtful, packaging is everything and I believe opcode already mentioned that.

I missed anything related to the 4th Round of the SGM, but this thread bloated pretty quickly. I'll re-read through it I guess unless someone happens to have the page number it was brought up on handy, or cares to further a discussion about it. I was all excited about the prospect of getting a SGM and have even been in talks to purchase multiple games for it. Hopefully all this didn't throw a wrench into the works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed anything related to the 4th Round of the SGM, but this thread bloated pretty quickly. I'll re-read through it I guess unless someone happens to have the page number it was brought up on handy, or cares to further a discussion about it. I was all excited about the prospect of getting a SGM and have even been in talks to purchase multiple games for it. Hopefully all this didn't throw a wrench into the works.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/265725-the-colecovision-trademark/?p=3764586

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - Something I have posted to the ColecoVision Fan page now that I have restored it and (hopefully) clear of any future potential take-down notices:

https://www.facebook.com/colecovisionfan/photos/a.596216417204818.1073741828.596195503873576/785767591583032/

If I had a Facebook Account, I would :thumbsup: this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all confusing. So they're strong-arming due to using 'Colecovision' in a Roman Type true-type font vs the original ColecoVision font?

 

 

 

attachicon.gifcoleco_type_fonts.jpg

From what I understand, the first (abandoned) one is a code 5, known as a design mark, which limits the registrant to owning that specific combination of characters in that specific style, format, and typeface. A code 4, known as a standard character mark or word mark, is more broad, and encompasses the brand name itself in any style, format, or typeface, thus the specimen need only be generic (i.e. just the name to be trademarked), not the specific style or format or typeface that is intended to be used. In other words, the first in that image only trademarks that logo in that specific style, not the ColecoVision brand used in any other form, while the latter trademarks the ColecoVision brand in any form that it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find these web articles a little confusing:

 

https://www.colecoexpo.com/home/coleco-officially-releases-exidys-sydney-hunter-on-cartridge

 

 

http://reviewfix.com/2017/04/coleco-officially-releases-exidys-sydney-hunter-sacred-tribe/

 

 

http://reviewfix.com/2017/04/review-fix-exclusive-inside-sydney-hunter-sacred-tribe/

 

At least one of the commenters at the bottom of the page seems to have figured it out. Is this why RWB/CH is freaking on the puritanical, because they are selling this game at coleco expo but didn't bother to find out about the mature games first? It is hard to believe after all these years.

 

 

 

Woah.... Coleco DID NOT make this game..... They simply bought a bunch of copies for their expo

That's it.

 

I've also seen somewhere.... Sydney Hunter has been liscenced to Coleco Holding

Again, not true

We didn't liscenced the character at all

 

 

Was that this:

https://www.colecoex...er-on-cartridge

 

I don't see CollectorVision mentioned anywhere.

 

 

 

That's the 150 copies they bought from us

 

Well if that is not a punch below the belt, I don't know what is! Of all the sleazeball tactics I have seen upon display here, that has got to be the worst. Buying out someone else's game and claiming it as your own at an expo is not cool...

56089768.jpg

Not cool Brah. Not coo!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been following this thread and the one on Facebook. I've been trying to remain as impartial as I could, despite my own personal attachment to ColecoVision. I wanted to give Coleco Holdings the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe this was a mistake on their part -- a dumb error or miscommunication or something. But the more I read and find out, the more I feel like Coleco Holdings is just being a trademark squatter (the trademark equivalent of a patent troll) and trying to appear arrogantly magnanimous in its "generous" support for the homebrew community and its "looking the other way" when it sees homebrewers engage in what they see as trademark or copyright violations.

 

To whit, they have some points with regard to the use of the Coleco name on homebrews that are clearly remakes of IP that the developer did not secure the rights to. Don't get me wrong, I love that these things exist, and had I still a ColecoVision and the money, I'd be buying this stuff up, because it's awesome. But I am under no delusion that many of those arcade-to-CV ports are using the IP without permission. So there is a legal point to be made there.

 

But the more I read, the more I believe that that isn't really what this is about. Occam's Razor tells me that this seems to be more about Coleco Holdings coming out of the woodwork after all this time and trying to assert its legal muscle where, by all apparent accounts, it has no standing. (I came to this lack of legal standing position early on when I was shown what they submitted as their specimen to secure the word mark on the ColecoVision brand.) I don't begrudge a company its right to protect its marks or its IP, that's sort of what it has to do if it wants to retain the exclusive rights to use them as they see fit, and to prevent others from using it in ways they did not approve. But their intent to use was filed nearly ten years ago, and they haven't really used it.

 

Also, RWA's methods smack of trademark squatting with many other trademarks -- they engage in things similar to the way patent trolls do, but without the same degree of strong-arming that should be considered extortion.

 

Worse, they want to try to control the content that homebrewers bring to the console whose trademark they debatably own. That right there is unpolished bullshit for any number of reasons.

 

So yeah, like pretty much everyone else here, if they were to actually make use of the ColecoVision name in a future product, they won't be able to count on me to support them in their endeavors. Screw them and the troll they rode in on.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kosmic, where is that DO NOT BE FOOLED crap posted? I'd love to see it in context.

 

It's incredibly patronizing and should turn off plenty of would-be customers.

 

 

Thanks. What a doofus. RIP COLECO.

This is one reason I am glad that AA does not allow non-subscribers to edit their posts. When unsavory people like Mike Kennedy or cardo-what's-his-name spew verbal diarrhea like this, they cannot simply redact it some time later.

 

Almost caught up with this epic trainwreck. This thread surpasses even the RVGS/Chameleon level of epic stupidity...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This reminds me of something I was going to address earlier, but I forgot. This block of text right here...

 

attachicon.giftrademark BS.png

 

I don't see why it has to be "one of the two" if both are wrong...

Also, what's with that four line run-on sentence in the middle. I had to read it five times to understand what he was trying to communicate; Not helped by its logical shortfalls.

Edited by Swami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new coleco guy seems by no means a trademark squatter trying to exploit what remains of the colecovision glory...

Trying to make real business in the niche market of homebrew games where the few spare developers are hobbyists will kill the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who cares who is working on it? I have worked on plenty of games with weird IP's (I wrote a couple of Nickelodeon titles for the SNES for instance), it pays the bills. And half the time the theme is irrelevant, when the game is fun to play. That is all that matters in the end anyway. Boobies or not.

 

I don't even know what/who Rainbow Brite is, since I haven't googled it, but if I got paid to make a game with that IP, I would be in. Not that I have time for it, but if I did, I would.

I'm not the only one that bought Girl's Garden am I ? ... Am I!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the only one that bought Girl's Garden am I ? ... Am I!?

It's on my list of "to get" although I'll admit I ultimately passed on it my first round of homebrew games for fear of being called a sissy.

I figured I'd wait a couple months then pick up and say it's for my daughter, even though I don't have kids.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread is on fire!

 

Colecovision guy is (by his words) "confused and hurt."

 

Confused? That seems true for sure. Any hurt seems self-inflicted.

 

At least this is all just Facebook posturing and low-stakes bickering, with no lawyers involved. I hope Colecovision guy is capable of learning something from this experience.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a dick is what nouveau ColecoTM is all about.

 

I don't think Cardillo realizes that even if he "wins" this dispute, he's already lost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real crime is the ColecoExpo where they are charging $35 for a event where you meet a EX Disney cast member that no one knows, listen to Trademark Pirate Mark Thomann, and probably have to listen to Chris Cardillo sing

 

When most people that go probably think it had something to do with Old Coleco such as Nintendo Donkey Kong, or Cabbage patch kids

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was 35 years ago, but Cardillo of ColecoTM thinks he's entitled to the same treatment since he paid for the Coleco name. He posts these pseudo-legalistic orders inn Facebook from a position of authority. He does this in spite of his tiny size and importance, apparently unaware he is a teeny tiny shadow of Warner/Atari, and without the benefit of lawyers. The stakes are low, and all he has to gain by "protecting" his trademark is the ill will of the relatively few people who might actually buy his stuff.

 

The homebrewers will continue with or without ColecoTM. Surely Cardillo is realizing that now?

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the only one that bought Girl's Garden am I ? ... Am I!?

 

No you're not - and I think it's a great game.

 

Now, when it comes to Rainbow Brite, who I'd never heard of before this debacle, hell will freeze over before I give any money to Coleco Holdings for that, or anything else for that matter.

Edited by Ikrananka
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...