Re: Superdrive 2000?

On 6/4/2018 4:32 PM, smf wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 21:45, Jim Brain wrote:
>>> But, the game was significantly different, not just a minor 
>>> addition.  As well,
>>> the writeup notes they did not overlay any of the code, they just 
>>> put their ROMs
>>> alongside.
>
> In super missile attack they took the original missile command roms, 
> removed the multi language code and test mode and inserted their own.
You must be reading a different synopsis than I:

"GCC had been careful not to copy any of Atari's code when creating 
their product. Their enhancement board connected to the original 
*Missile Command *board. Operators would remove ROMs from the original 
board and plug them into the *Super Missile Attack *board."

>
> Jiffy DOS c64 roms take out the tape code and inserted their own.
>
> The Jiffy DOS transfer routines are significantly different.

You can't use the Atari/GCC case as precedent.  Yes, they sued, but it 
was never brought to a jury, and it was dropped before a ruling could be 
made.  For all we know, GCC may have been able to prevail on the merits 
of the code portion of the argument.

>
>
> Atari threw everything including the kitchen sink into the case & the 
> artwork was easily solved as GCC did offer to produce artwork during 
> the case. I don't think they produced any because they stopped 
> producing super missile attack as part of the agreement they signed 
> with Atari.
It doesn't matter what they offered to do after the suit started. If 
that were true, people would knowingly violate the rules all the time 
and then "offer" to address the issue after it was discovered, bypassing 
a suit by implementing the change.  Maybe that's how it works elsewhere, 
but US law does not offer that recompense.
>
> The copyright was the main claim and it's pretty strong. GCC thought 
> so too, because for the next game they didn't include any copyright code.
I vehemently disagree, but it is an opinion either way, since there is 
no judgement to back up the opinion.
>
>>>    As it was, it's an ironic suit, in that the solution to
>>> it was to hire GCC to do Ms. PacMan, which itself spawned a suit 
>>> from Namco over
>>> mis-appropriation of the Pac Man license Namco gave Bally/Midway.
>
> Atari had a habit of going into court with a good case and then 
> leaving court paying the other party money. According to GCC the deal 
> was only offered so that they would sign a contract with Atari, they 
> don't believe Atari actually expected them to produce any games. They 
> only GCC to sign the restrictions, but GCC had a signed agreement and 
> so they made the most of it.
I have an opinion on this, but I doubt it matters.  We are getting so 
far afield here.

> The copyright is a right to produce copies, the law doesn't get 
> involved with whether your customers have an existing copy or not. 
> Fair use requires the end user to make the copy.

I am not disputing the definition of copyright.  My statement was 
intended to convey that CMD did not receive a license to redistribute 
CBM ROMs outside of a very narrow use case (as a function of offering a 
replacement ROM for specific CBM computers and peripherals).

> It's unlikely that agreement was transferable, but I personally would 
> want to see it.
Just as CBM has changed hands a number of times over the year, so has 
CMD, so the likelihood that one can find that is low.

Still, I'm not sure how we got here.  Someone asked about a drive 
manufacturer being sued, I posted some links that represent oral history 
from the JiffyDOS creator.  Even if Mark mis-remembered a few things, I 
am convinced the term "overlay" is significant from a legal perspective, 
regardless of how you define it.  I also am convinced that CMD took the 
stand at a trial, and I am convinced that CMD did so because CBM agreed 
to somehow legitimize CMD's use of CBM code in the KERNAL and DOS roms.
Jim