New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[JBerel]

AtariAge

 

Former Pigeons

 

Atari SA

 

IGG Comment Board

[+frankodragon]

I'm pretty sure the AtacoVCS boards will have pigeons fighting other pigeons. Just like the Goodfeathers cartoons on Animaniacs.

 

 

 

[Flojomojo]

I wonder how bad things would have to get for Atari* to take notice or change direction. A massive surge of refund requests could work, but how many would it take?

[Inky]

 

And enjoy the REAL Atari, it is very much alive here, without shitheads and with actual products.

 

CPUWIZ is 100% correct. Atariage IS the the real Atari.

[Inky]

Oooh. We should have an ATACO party at Midwest Gaming Classic!

[JBerel]

 

I wonder how bad things would have to get for Atari* to take notice or change direction. A massive surge of refund requests could work, but how many would it take?

 

Even if every legitimate backer got a chargeback on their card, I bet they would still have at least half their reported backers, and I'm not certain that someone cancelling their "perk" even takes away from the number of backers or amount raised reported by IGG. Their sham would probably continue for their desired purposes. I doubt it will work in any case. They're not gonna get a boost in value anytime soon, and the RCT license expiration is just looming. I've never bought a RCT title and never will as long as it's associated with these crooks.

 

I don't see these clowns changing direction in any meaningful way. They're one trick ponies with nothing in their pockets but paper shuffling, license leveraging and lawsuit threatening.

 

On the topic, who's getting the licensing on the 1Up mini arcade cabinets? Those are using arcade properties which the cheese eatin' surrender monkeys don't have a piece of correct?

Edited April 9, 2019 by JBerel

[racerx]

No, Atari SA still controls the pre-split arcade titles.

[TACODON]

I got the Midway Rampage 1UP and it is covered in Warner Brother logos. So WB is at least maintaining some copyrights even if they aren't really using them otherwise. Gauntlet though has no Atari copyrights on it. Not sure how that one works, but I guess Warner Bros owns that out right.

[+frankodragon]

Looks like "Atari" dismissed its Target lawsuit, probably due to lack of evidence. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26556532/Atari_Interactive_Inc_v_Target_Corporation But they can sue them again.

[godslabrat]

[JBerel]

In reviewing that company description and financial audit info further, I see some really shady activity there. They are reporting license fees and stock issued as part of their acquisition of Infinity Network shares as revenue, but their own auditors are taking issue with the valuation. There would appear to be some inflated numbers that the auditors could not justify, but were unable to acquire additional data for. That, and Atari SA's practice of issuing new stock shares on a whim seem to be the bulk of their professed improved financial performance. (Other than all their eggs in the Roller Coaster Tycoon Touch basket which they claim is going gangbusters)

 

So does anyone have reliable documentation on what Arcade licences these French trademark trolls actually have rights to? I know their position is to defend their rights even where they have none, but I thought the arcade titles was all a separate division spun off long before their holding company schlubs had any involvement. Was Tempest, Asteroids and Centipede different from the others? Best I can tell is they "may" retain rights to those 3 plus Breakout, Pong (Stolen from Magnavox and later settled), Warlords, Night Driver, and possibly Lunar Lander, Fire Truck, Missile Command, Black Widow, and Space Duel. If you asked them, I'm sure they'd tell you all that and more, then let you pay them to license them.

Edited April 9, 2019 by JBerel

[JBerel]

Looks like "Atari" dismissed its Target lawsuit, probably due to lack of evidence. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26556532/Atari_Interactive_Inc_v_Target_Corporation But they can sue them again.

 

I would love to see the "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss."

 

It's not often you see...."Plaintiff is a dumb ass." in legalese.

[racerx]

For our viewing pleasure...

More comments nuked from orbit.

[TACODON]

More comments nuked from orbit.

 

I AM SHOCKED!!!

 

But seriously, Rainfactory seems like a terrible company. They never respond to anything and just delete everything. Even from the standpoint of Atari they aren't that good. They leave those comments up for days and just make it look worse when they do those huge purges.

[+x=usr(1536)]

So does anyone have reliable documentation on what Arcade licences these French trademark trolls actually have rights to? I know their position is to defend their rights even where they have none, but I thought the arcade titles was all a separate division spun off long before their holding company schlubs had any involvement. Was Tempest, Asteroids and Centipede different from the others? Best I can tell is they "may" retain rights to those 3 plus Breakout, Pong (Stolen from Magnavox and later settled), Warlords, Night Driver, and possibly Lunar Lander, Fire Truck, Missile Command, Black Widow, and Space Duel. If you asked them, I'm sure they'd tell you all that and more, then let you pay them to license them.

 

Speculative answer, so take it for what it's worth:

 

My suspicion is that they only have rights to games that were released under the consumer division, not coin-op. In cases where a game was ported from coin-op to consumer (e.g., Super Breakout), they probably have rights to the console version but not the original arcade release.

 

Two places that are grey areas for me on this: the pre-VCS standalone consoles (Stunt Cycle, Video Pinball, Super Pong, etc.), and the home computer lineup. My best guess is that they may have rights to those platforms, but see the 2600 (and, to a lesser extent, possibly the 5200 and 7800) as the real cash cows so are focussed around nostalgia for the 2600.

 

One thing I would like to know is if the current rights holder to Battlezone obtained only the console, arcade, or all rights to that title.

 

As this applies to Atari SA's withdrawal of their case against Target for copyright infringement on Pong, I'm wondering if Atari SA's lawyers didn't suddenly discover that they don't actually own the rights to said game.

 

Again, that's all speculation. But given how things were split between consumer and coin-op I think it's a reasonable supposition in lieu of hard facts.

[jhd]

So does anyone have reliable documentation on what Arcade licences these French trademark trolls actually have rights to? I know their position is to defend their rights even where they have none, but I thought the arcade titles was all a separate division spun off long before their holding company schlubs had any involvement. Was Tempest, Asteroids and Centipede different from the others? Best I can tell is they "may" retain rights to those 3 plus Breakout, Pong (Stolen from Magnavox and later settled), Warlords, Night Driver, and possibly Lunar Lander, Fire Truck, Missile Command, Black Widow, and Space Duel. If you asked them, I'm sure they'd tell you all that and more, then let you pay them to license them.

 

I do not have the citation handy, but BITD, Universal Studios managed to collect license fees from Coleco (and some other parties) for use of King Kong imagery in the Donkey Kong video games. Someone eventually contested this, and the Court held that the license agreement was invalid (as there was no copyright issue). I do not recall if Universal had to then repay the fees they had received.

 

My point is that a firm collecting license fees from intellectual property that it does not actually own has a long (if not honorable) history in the video game industry!

[JBerel]

I'd agree with both points above on the ownership of arcade licenses. It does seem anecdotally, that Atari Interactive is getting credited (and license fees) for some licensed releases of arcade roms on those Arcade 1 Up systems. But, here's the thing...Every time I see them credited, it's simply noting that: Asteroids®, Tempest®, Major Havoc® and Lunar Lander® are all registered trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. @2018 Atari and the Atari logo are registered trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Just like the word pong, as relates to video games, Atari SA has a registered trademark, but they don't own the game. It was stolen from Magnavox and original Atari settled out of court to a licensing deal. This established Magnavox as the rights holder and they successfully sued other manufacturers and won. Now Atari Interactive is a subsidiary of the French goobers, but all they can claim is the trademark on the names of the games used. Those names are not the arcade game. It's relatively clear they can license the Atari 2600 stuff to AtGames, but I don't see that being the case with Arcade 1 Up for the arcade games. Holding a registered trademark on a word does no equal ownership of a product. See the dipshit who claims a fraudulent trademark registration on Colecovision for more on that.

 

I suppose the best frame of reference is the oft released Atari Vault which has them repeatedly re-releasing arcade roms of the following:

 

Asteroids, Asteroids Deluxe, Black Widow, Centipede, Crystal Castles, Gravitar, Liberator, Lunar Lander, Major Havoc, Millipede, Missile Command, Pong, Red Baron, Space Duel, Sprint, Super Breakout, Tempest and Warlords.

 

I suppose the best claim they have to rights ownership is that no one else has sued them over that so far, but it doesn't make it so.

Edited April 9, 2019 by JBerel

[+x=usr(1536)]

I AM SHOCKED!!!

 

But seriously, Rainfactory seems like a terrible company. They never respond to anything and just delete everything. Even from the standpoint of Atari they aren't that good. They leave those comments up for days and just make it look worse when they do those huge purges.

 

 

As always, anyone with actual Photoshop skills who may feel inclined to make that image not an awful cut & paste mess has my blessing.

[TACODON]

 

 

As always, anyone with actual Photoshop skills who may feel inclined to make that image not an awful cut & paste mess has my blessing.

 

I majored in history during college and what you did just made my day. Thank you.

[Flojomojo]

I would love to see the "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss."

 

It's not often you see...."Plaintiff is a dumb ass." in legalese.

 

Here you go. 031130019499.pdf

 

 

2. Whatever the forum, Atari’s Complaint also fails to state a claim. Atari

3. 16 alleges copyright infringement, but fails even to identify the specific work it alleges

4. 17 is infringed, much less to set forth a plausible infringement claim. Atari also claims

5. 18 trademark infringement (and related claims), but Atari fails to allege that Target ever

6. 19 made commercial use of the trademarks in which Atari claims rights. As described

7. 20 more fully below, Atari’s vague gestures towards copyright and trademark law do

8. 21 not state a valid claim for relief; its Complaint should be dismissed for failure to

9. 22 state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 674 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

10. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In general, a claim lacks facial plausibility “when the plaintiff fails to plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint and must construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

 

Atari fails to state a copyright infringement claim because it does not plausibly “explain how Defendant copied the copyrighted material.” See id. In fact, Atari’s Complaint does not specifically identify its allegedly copyrighted work(s) at all—instead generically reciting that it owns copyright registrations “for various iterations of the Pong game, including the visual elements thereof.” (Compl., ¶ 17.) And while Atari does identify copyright registrations in its Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action or Appeal Regarding a Copyright, those do not suffice to state a copyright infringement claim. (See Dkt. 5.) As a threshold matter, Target does not agree that this separate filing is a part of Atari’s Complaint or should be considered on this motion. But even if the Court considers this document in conjunction with the Complaint, it makes Atari’s claim less, rather than more, plausible. That is because the identified copyright registrations do not appear to have any connection to the allegedly infringing game in Target stores—most of the registrations appear to be owner’s manuals, such as a French-language document entitled “Pong: Tennis de Table Electronique . . . Guide de l’Utilsateur.” It is implausible to suggest that a game displayed on the floor of a retail store infringes copyrightable subject matter from a decades-old French-language user manual.

 

The factors relevant to the Section 1404(a) analysis overwhelmingly weigh in favor of transferring this case to the District of Minnesota. See Bridgeport Enterprises, 2013 WL 12129388, at *5 (balancing factors and granting transfer in case where “plaintiffs’ choice of forum deserves little weight” and “[n]ot one factor entitled to significant weight favors keeping the case in this district.”). In addition, Atari has failed to state a plausible claim for relief on any of its asserted claims. In the circumstances, Target respectfully requests that this Court transfer this case to the District of Minnesota and/or dismiss Atari’s Complaint for failure to state a claim.

 

[+x=usr(1536)]

 

I majored in history during college and what you did just made my day. Thank you.

 

The idea's been floating around in my head for some time - thanks for giving me the impetus to hack it together

[TACODON]

 

The idea's been floating around in my head for some time - thanks for giving me the impetus to hack it together

 

I never realized how good old Soviet propaganda and censorship works for Atari. I guess Fred sees himself as Stalin.

[+x=usr(1536)]

Here you go. 031130019499.pdf

 

And how many dollars of the Indiegogo campaign were squandered on the legal teams bringing this case to court?

 

But, as frankodragon pointed out, the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that it can be brought again. Atari SA's lawyers don't strike me as being terribly competent given the assessment of the evidence of infringement that they presented, but maybe, with the benefit of the court's outline of their shortcomings in that department, they'll figure out how to do it right this time.

 

Not that I want to see Target sued, particularly, but if doing so pushes Atari SA closer to financial precariousness, I'm all for it.

[racerx]

It just tickles me to see a frivolous lawsuit swatted aside by a company with deep enough pockets to do so.

[Flojomojo]

That description of the company that Atari* posted recently? Project-Game-Company-Description-2019-03-27.pdf

 

This is from page 6. They've anticipated this kind of setback, and they're likely to get more and more of it unless they can establish a firm footing for their copyright claims other than "we say this is ours."

 

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Because Atari depends substantially on intellectual property rights, the protection of Atari's intellectual property rights is important to the success of its business. Atari rely upon a combination of trademark, trade secret and copyright law as well as contractual restrictions to protect its intellectual property. Despite Atari's efforts to protect its property rights, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our games, software and service or obtain and use information that we consider proprietary. Moreover, policing Atari's proprietary rights is difficult and may not always be effective. In addition, we may need to enforce our rights under the laws of countries with reduced or varied protection for intellectual property rights.

Moreover, Atari's success depends, in part, upon its intellectual properties not infringing, misappropriating or violating the intellectual property rights owned by others and being able to resolve claims of intellectual property infringement. Such intellectual property claims and proceedings brought against Atari, whether successful or not, can be complex and time-consuming and could result in substantial costs and harm to Atari's reputation. Such claims and proceedings can also distract and divert our management and key personnel from other tasks important to the success of our business. Moreover, the legal threshold for initiating such claims and proceedings is low, so that even claims with a low probability of success could be initiated and require significant resources and attention to defend.

 

So maybe they should stop picking fights with the bigger boys.