Re: "Commodore" brand

Just so you know.... this topic thread title is "Commodore" brand. Brand is another word for TRADEMARK. Brand has nothing to do with patents or copyrights. 

Cloanto has the copyrights to the firmware (Kernal, DOS, BASIC rom from Commodore and other ROM based software that Commodore had released either as cartridges or rom chips installed on the various computer models that Commodore produced.), and software (stuff put on disks, cassette tape, etc. developed and produced by Commodore). You can argue if Cartridge based games and apps and tools are firmware or software. I'll agree that it can be interpreted in both cases. Take your pick on where it falls. Cloanto either has a license or they outright purchased the ownership rights.

For legal actions in the U.S., you have to register the rights. Just so you know, if you don't register prior to the infringement, you can only get a limited/reduced level of restitution for infringement. However, from the time your copyright is registered, you could get all the restitution provided by law with regards to copyright infringement that occurs AFTER the registration occurs. This would depend on the judge of the court case. Judges determine the amount to award the copyright owner (if they win the case) from the sentencing guidelines and so forth. This is not a clear cut matter.

Just so we know, the VICE team is aware of copyright matters. They are distinct from patents (which every patent Commodore Electronics, Ltd. (and its business units including the Amiga subsidiary) has filed has all expired in the U.S. and possibly other countries). In the U.S. we can pretty much ignore the patent as they are expired. Commodore closed it's doors in 1994 and bankruptcy proceeding concluded in 1995. That's more than 20 YEARS ago. Patents are for a one term of 20 years. (some types of 'patents' are for 10 years) They are not renewable. 

65C02 and all the other CMOS based 65xx chips were designed by Western Design Center, Inc. and they licensed their technology. MOS Technologies designed the NMOS 65xx chip. They have some changes but were purposefully engineered to be substantively compatible to the original MOS Technologies 65xx/75xx/85xx chip but they have differences. NES used the 65c02 based core in their CPU and PPU unit. These parts were from a WDC licensee. 

Copyrights covers the software, firmware (eg. Kernal rom, BASIC rom, etc.), and books (user guides) and other written publication by Commodore. Commodore was primarily a computer manufacturer from the 1970s to mid-90s. They did make a few games, apps, utilities, etc. but they didn't want to be a SOFTWARE company and Video game developer as much as being a computer manufacturer. 

Lets keep on track of the topic. Trademarks have defined terms but they are renewable. Copyrights, in the U.S., also have some definition but with corporate entities, these copyrights can be for a long time. Copyright duration are extremely long. Hence the contention between copyright owners and emulation. You see this with Nintendo and their frequent aggressive stance against emulation and largely the "ROM" download sites where people can download ROM images of various games and whatever else.... published by Nintendo and sometimes their licensees. 


> On March 1, 2020 11:46 AM smf <smf_at_null.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 01/03/2020 19:28, groepaz_at_gmx.net wrote:
> > yes, whatever you say
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate it.