From: Jack Mooney (n2hqc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 2004-06-19 04:15:09
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:13:28 +0200, you wrote:
>Hallo Rainer,
>> The form factors (as otherwise pointed out) were industry standard
>> ...
>> original owner and reprinted in thousands of print publications and
>> online.
>
>Hmmm, completely forgot about the last. Or better, I didn't realise its
>possible legal consequences. But on the other hand: Philips delivers a
>schematic with their televisions. But I don't think that that schematic
>gives you the right to build your own television and sell it.
Ahh, but it doesn't prevent anybody from producing and marketing a
satellite or tuner that works with it's "antenna port" or amplifier,
speaker or headphone that works with it's "audio ouptput port." ;-)
I cannot produce a television (or computer) that is designed with
exactly the same input and output ports, but nothing prevents me from
producing complememtary equipment that works with it.
>
>> ...now someone else comes and says "all your code are belong to us"
>> because they own the rights,
>
>No, that's where you go wrong. The only things they claim are the things
>that were already owned by the original Commodore. Certainly not software,
>code or whatever made by other people. Otherwise they also could claim
>rights about ALL games as Gpz already was complaining about.
And so "Attack of the Mutant Camels" will be safe until they find Mr.
Minter and buy out his rights to the game. (Unless he already
released it to PD, which he could have done for all I know...)
>> - the chips were reverse engineered by external people
>
>I think youy refer to the new C64? I'm quite sure the person involved only
>used its own work.
>> - the (freely published!) emulators were good enough
>
>I haven't heard anything like "people are not allowed to write and publish
>emulators anymore". Au contraire, they realise as no other the value of the
>emulators being around because it enabled people to play their beloved C64
>(and other machines) again after so many years and thus keeping the memory
>alive. What they hope is that these people will buy the new C64 again
>because it is cheap, small and simple to use.
I suppose that, even if they decided to come down hard on the emulator
scene, they cou8ld only ban new emulators based on
reverse-engineering. They couldn't scarf up the rights to
independently written code produced prior to their acquiring the
rights to C-64. The "mature" emulators would most like likely be be
safe. (Than again, IANAL.)
>
>To make things sure: the only things people/sites have to worry about are
>games and software owned by Commodore, Irvingstone or other firms contracted
>by these two parties. And that certainly are not all the games in the world.
Correct. Only the actual original Commodore IP and any 3rd-party IP
they actually purchase/licsnse the rights to from the legal holders.
If they don't buy CMD from Maurice, he's OK to keep selling CMD
products (and I hope he catches up with backlog and resurfaces,
BTW...) If they cannot contact Geoff Minter, they can't claim "Mutant
Camels," <g>
>Remark: I have spooken with these people, not for just a few minutes, bonut
>for hours. They appeared truthfully regarding the statements towards the old
>community. Or they were great actors. I only can say, time will tell.
>
>Another remark: if things turn out bad, I have FUNET, 64'er, HighVoltage,
>Arnold, Fairlight etc. on DVD and I'm willing to share with anyone who asks
>for it :) I'm nice, but not crazy.
I imagine the archive servers will see substantially higher usage in
the next few weeks/months as those concerned about the ramifications
scramble to back up their own copies. <g>
-jack-
>
>
>Have a nice weekend.
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.