José Pereira Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Now I'm really confused. You are . Let's go back to first Page of this Thread. PPS open this and on Post nº9 you can see that some Minutes later I sent a Mail to atari: this Topic 1st Page And was this get into the Atari answer today for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+thegoldenband Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) You sorta have it... Sega won the lawsuit because the console required that a cart have the name SEGA contained within the code, which was copyrighted, so if you sold a game and weren't paying royalty to SEGA, then you were using their copyright without permission and they could sue and win, it was the simplest and greatest form of "content control" - no complicated encryption chips or anything fancy, they just enforced their copyright. The Wikipedia page about Sega vs. Accolade -- which is the case to which you're referring, I believe -- appears to say the exact opposite thing, i.e. that Sega lost the lawsuit, and that the "you can't use our name" TMSS trick doesn't hold up in court. Is it incorrect? BTW I don't think the name issue is about copyright, but trademark. Edited August 24, 2011 by thegoldenband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEtalGuy66 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 On the other hand, the childish pile-up of commiseration, lack of prudency and useless comments is a F-WASTE of time, and certainly in detriment of the Forum's substance and viability. You've gotta be shitting. You and Fiberwire both have made more completely USELESS posts in this forum than any two other users in the history of the site.. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fibrewire Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 You've gotta be shitting. You and Fiberwire both have made more completely USELESS posts in this forum than any two other users in the history of the site.. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiv Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Sega won the lawsuit because the console required that a cart have the name SEGA contained within the code, which was copyrighted, so if you sold a game and weren't paying royalty to SEGA, then you were using their copyright without permission and they could sue and win Excellent... Smithers, send an appreciation card to SEGA; and inform my barristers on this new "code" and "copyright" thing.. It sounds just like what we need.. Monty Edited August 24, 2011 by desiv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faicuai Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 You've gotta be shitting. You and Fiberwire both have made more completely USELESS posts in this forum than any two other users in the history of the site.. Thanks! Interesting... could not locate the inner quote anywhere in the thread view... It turns out that it was locked-out on my Ignore-List (along with a short list of immaterial, "false deities"). F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trent Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I received another take down notice today, this time for Droid800. I also see that the the official Atari800 Android port is gone as well. This time the stated reason was trademark infringement. If these are infringing then so are all other ports of Atari800 and Stella, so I wonder if they are next. I suppose that is fine but it would have been nice to know their intention before spending countless hours on these projects. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fibrewire Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 WTF? ls650 +1 MG comment about me and faicuai? I don't even think MG can tolerate that level of brown-nosing... WOW... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Just to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fibrewire Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 HA! Finally, things are getting back to normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceDice2010 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) You sorta have it... Sega won the lawsuit because the console required that a cart have the name SEGA contained within the code, which was copyrighted, so if you sold a game and weren't paying royalty to SEGA, then you were using their copyright without permission and they could sue and win, it was the simplest and greatest form of "content control" - no complicated encryption chips or anything fancy, they just enforced their copyright. Weren't the VCS carts done with the Atari permission exactly like Nintendo ones? No. Atari sued Activision, but lost. I think that pretty much opened the doors for everyone else to make games for the VCS. Michael That is why all the consoles now put up a splash screen with the company name. The first company to win a lawsuit (was it Sega?) did it on the grounds that the software was claiming that it was authorized by them since it came up right after the splash screen. Actually, Sega did not win this lawsuit. If I recall correctly the appeals court ruled that what Accolade did was protected under fair use and that it was Sega's fault for saying "Sega whatever" on the title screen. It was actually a precedent setting decision as it relates to fair use and technology (software code). Edited August 24, 2011 by SpaceDice2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceDice2010 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Atari looks like it might just be the new Acacia. Wonder if the EFF would get involved? I'm the owner of atari2600.org -- I registered the domain on 05-Sep-2000 and have had it ever since. Over a decade. I used it to demonstrate and share my software efforts on the machine. Generally, freely downloadable demos and videos of work-in-progress. If you have a look at the site on the wayback machine you'll clearly see that I've never associated it with the Atari company, used their logo, nor have I implied any endorsement by them. Like I'd want to. It's simply a hobbyist site which was used for a while to promote Qb, then as a placeholder for the [stella] mailing list, and more recently it's hosted some videos of my latest 2600 efforts. I suspect I have a very valid case for "nominative fair use", however I have little chance of fighting the big company on this. I believe I have to show up in a USA court to fight usage if ICANN respond to a trademark claim; hardly an option when I live on the other side of the planet. I also suspect that this is the thin end of the wedge. Say goodbye to your hobby, everyone. Cheers A This is not true at all. UDRP disputes are not handled in a physical location. If Atari pursues this avenue they are limited to only getting the domain name and nothing else. Meaning all that will happen is you will lose and ICANN will transfer the domain name to Atari. It will also cost them $1400 in filing fees. That alone is not worth giving them the domain name. p.s. I would probably not go the parked page route as that could add more fuel to Atari's fire. Now they can add that the domain name is being used in bad faith. Edited August 24, 2011 by SpaceDice2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceDice2010 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 ...I was unable to find an active word mark for "Atari 2600". The original mark was active from January 17, 1989 to July 24, 1995... One can get and maintain a trademark through consistent trade with the mark. Similar to copyright, official registration isn't required, it just makes proof of ownership easier in court. ...Can't someone get this Slashdotted... The best approach to this would be for someone to write an article, opinion piece, or summary of what happened, rather than directing them to a bunch of forum posts. Or perhaps pps could submit an "Ask Slashdot" question, asking what he should do. If Atari clarifies their position and it becomes apparent they're overreaching copyright or trademark law, I think the EFF would become interested. Especially if multiple people receive these garbage letters. It is true that one can maintain a trademark in that way. One thing funny about Atari is that I feel they don't even know what the Atari2600 really is. God. One of the reasons that they probably didn't sell that many FB2+'s is because it was listed under platform -> 7800. The shipping charge didn't help that much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w1k Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 hm, what about is this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) . Edited August 24, 2011 by Bryan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 My suggestion - just rename the 800 emulator to "Colleen" and make the user find their own OS images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorclu Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I received another take down notice today, this time for Droid800. I also see that the the official Atari800 Android port is gone as well. This time the stated reason was trademark infringement. If these are infringing then so are all other ports of Atari800 and Stella, so I wonder if they are next. I suppose that is fine but it would have been nice to know their intention before spending countless hours on these projects. Man that is not cool. Saddened to hear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickled_Pink Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Emulators themselves do not infringe copyright in any way unless they include parts of the original OS or other software. A potential loophole that might open up is that Atari could claim that emulators encourage piracy. Yeah, I know. Tenuous but given the way that courts in some jurisdictions, most notable the UK, have bent over backwards to find in favour of major hardware manufacturers then you never know how this kind of thing can pan out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I was also under the impression that Boulder Dash was dead. Did you miss the demo we released a few weeks ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Rogue Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I received another take down notice today, this time for Droid800. I also see that the the official Atari800 Android port is gone as well. This time the stated reason was trademark infringement. If these are infringing then so are all other ports of Atari800 and Stella, so I wonder if they are next. I suppose that is fine but it would have been nice to know their intention before spending countless hours on these projects. I looked over the page, I don't see where the infringement is other than if you include the OS roms. That would be a copyright infringement though, and easily rectified by not including them. Otherwise you're allowed to mention Atari 800 in the context of what this is - an emulator of it. Any patents have long since expired as well. The title is not an infringement, it's Droid800, whereas I could see if it were Atari 800 Emulator or something like that. Emulators themselves are not infringements and there's not a thing legally they can do about them - just as long as you're not including anything copyrighted with them (Atari's bios roms). I would ask for further clarification and stand tall - you're completely in the right. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svenski Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Just an update that Andrew has now posted a brief message on atari2600.org which I think is helpful. Obviously it doesn't magically fix anything and there appears to be no news from Atari as yet although the story continues to spread and 99% of people out there believe Andrew has been unfairly treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I bet these stupid lawyers at Infogrames go after these guys next. http://www.2600.com/ Wouldn't surprise me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Vendel Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Actually you're correct on both points. You sorta have it... Sega won the lawsuit because the console required that a cart have the name SEGA contained within the code, which was copyrighted, so if you sold a game and weren't paying royalty to SEGA, then you were using their copyright without permission and they could sue and win, it was the simplest and greatest form of "content control" - no complicated encryption chips or anything fancy, they just enforced their copyright. The Wikipedia page about Sega vs. Accolade -- which is the case to which you're referring, I believe -- appears to say the exact opposite thing, i.e. that Sega lost the lawsuit, and that the "you can't use our name" TMSS trick doesn't hold up in court. Is it incorrect? BTW I don't think the name issue is about copyright, but trademark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Vendel Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 droid800 --- can't see how that could be accomplished, no trademark is active for Atari 800, so can't see how the use of the number "800" for an emulator could be perceived to be a violation. As for Stella - it was a codenmame, never trademarked, never used in commercial trade, there is no precedent to attempt to enforce any form of trademark/copyright against it. As for atari800 emulator - yeah, you can see a clear connection there, just call it Colleen800 instead. call droid800 droidcolleen Curt I received another take down notice today, this time for Droid800. I also see that the the official Atari800 Android port is gone as well. This time the stated reason was trademark infringement. If these are infringing then so are all other ports of Atari800 and Stella, so I wonder if they are next. I suppose that is fine but it would have been nice to know their intention before spending countless hours on these projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Vendel Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 What he said... exactly... Also as for the OS images, I would recommend we all consider supplanting the Atari OSA, OSB images with one of the defunct 3rd party OS' instead and completely shut any Atari copyrights materials out of the emulation circles, this way this can be put to bed once and for all. My suggestion - just rename the 800 emulator to "Colleen" and make the user find their own OS images. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts