Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules For Connectix, Against Sony
Robotech_Master writes "According to this article in Wired News, a court has just dismissed many of Sony's charges against Connectix in the Virtual Game Station emulation case, noting that 'both copyright and trademark law favor broad consumer choice.'"
Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
Yeah, the spring 2000 issue of 2600 goes into more detail on how this is done. Neat idea, but like anything, it can be worked around.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The only thing I can figure is that maybe they're afraid of:
a) Connectix and or Apple enhancing the hw/sw mix of the VGS platform to the point where PSX games look exceptionally better on VGS-Macintosh than PSX consoles. - basically an embarassment to Sony.
b) The existence of a multi-purpose computer system that can play PSX games also makes possible the analysis and circumvention of their game copy-protection scheme, which encourages more widespread piracy.
c) The technical "black-eye" they get when another company figures their shit out.
d) Mac/VGS becomes a more attractive buy for consumers, lowering the marketshare ratio between Macintosh and PSX, causing game developers to go "whoa, maybe it's more profitable to put Mac higher up on our platform priority list", and they're afraid of falling below the cutoff, and being marginallized as a platform. The fact that PSX is THE standard platform for games these days is a big advantage for Sony, as the same holds true for Microsoft when software companies develop for that platform to the exclusion of their competitors.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There was one news story in the last day that may prove to be extremely important, although it was not in slashdot. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Violence Against Women act, because they said that Congress had no authority to pass the act. Congress said that the law derived its authority from the instetstate commerce clause, and the Supreme Court said, in effect, "no way."
Violence against women is an awful thing, but justifying it on the grounds of interstate commerce is almost offensive. It feels like almost a direct reference to the idea that virginity or chastity is property, and to rape or attack over sexual reasons is a violation of that property. That's as bothersome as the bloody sheet that gets hung out for the village to see that the new wife was a virgin--it's Just Not Cool.
Now, the real justification that the federal government seems to want to use is, "When a state is unwilling or unable to effect Justice within its territory, the federal government may interdict and enforce its jurisdiction on the uncontrolled territory." State, in this sense, seems to refer to both State of the Union and State in the World.
And, to be honest, I'm just not that sure that's a bad thing. Should require some pretty extreme violations of justice, though.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
How do you see the 'digital revolution' affecting author's copyright?
Larry Niven, famous SF author:
It's worth remembering that intellectual property is fiction. It obeys the
laws that are set. If we can't defend intellectual property any more, then
creation will become a hobby again.
http://www.detonate.net/blade/index.php3?page=18
Bleemcast! is going to be a whole other kettle of fish. With VirtualGameStation, you have to have a PC (be it Win9x/x86 or MacOS/PPC) and no person can honestly believe a person would purchase a >$500 system + $30 software to play games from a console that costs $99. Really no percievable overlap in markets. While with Bleemcast! you have Dreamcast which is a direct competitor with the PSX and PSX2. I believe Sony will take a whole other tack with this one. And considering all the previous cases on this subject (numerous Atari, Acorn, Apple II, etc. clone) that all ended in victory of Plaintiff. Only case for Bleemcast! I can think of is the compaq reverse engineering of the IBM PC Bios. But of course, I've been wrong at least 3 times today alone.
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
Actually, PSX2 will do some enhancements similar to what bleem! (D3D) does to PSX1 games, such as increasing the resolution and texture interpolation.
The Dreamcast graphics hardware has a couple extra features that bleem! takes advantage of that the PSX2 does not: trilinear filtering and anti-aliasing.
The PSX2 probably provides more complete emu(sim/cosim)ulation without these features, but bleem! for Dreamcast probably will make some games look a little nicer than even the PSX2 will.
~GoRK
There are a couple things to consider if you're Sony when you look at bleem! and VGS and then throw the bleem! port to Dreamcast into the mix.
Sony has more of an issue with the VGS people reverse engineering the PSX copy protection scheme than emulating the machine itself. This is quite significant in that bleem! couldn't afford to fight Sony on this one and consequently bleem! backed down and does not check the integrity of playstation cd's.
Of course it is widely known that console game companies make more money selling the games than the consoles themselves. I personally think it is a misconception that Sony wants to quaff emulation. I just think that they want to make sure that they get a piece of the profits. If VGS had licensed the copy protection from Sony and Sony had gotten a kickback from the sale of each copy of VGS, lawsuits would have probably been a non-issue as all that VGS could possibly do to Sony is broaden their market and their popularity. It is the REVERSE ENGINEERING that they take issue with and NOT EMULATION. Sony's methods of copy protecting playstation disks are patented and protected and in this particular case there's not much of an argument against that particular fact. No matter who argues for the "freedom of information," "Broad customer choice," or whatnot, it's very difficult to argue that an emulator should be able to play a backup copy of a PSX game any more than a legitimate Playstation should. (Especially when Sony will send you a replacement disk if your original copy breaks or otherwise becomes unplayable.) [Personal note: I think that emulation software and all legitimate playstation hardware should also be able to run original software/demos/etc.]
Sony's case against bleem! and VGS was to protect Sony's rights to their copy protection system. Granted, they also went after the emulation aspect as well, but the copy protection was the major thing. The media and the public seems to mangle these facts every time Sony vs. the Emu's comes up.
Sega is obviously condoning this (as they gave bleem! a development license) -- and they get a kickback from sales of bleem! for Dreamcast. If you look at the bleem! for Dreamcast situation, Sony would have much to gain by not having made such a fuss of this whole thing from the beginning - e.g. if bleem! for Dreamcast had copy-protection measures then Sony would lose much less money to piracy than it obviously will now.
Sony shot itself in the foot with emulation. It should have jumped in to help VGS and bleem! (which could have very easily included contracts to distribute the emulation software with copy-protection measures.) They would have had a lot to gain doing that.
~GoRK
There was one news story in the last day that may prove to be extremely important, although it was not in slashdot. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Violence Against Women act, because they said that Congress had no authority to pass the act. Congress said that the law derived its authority from the instetstate commerce clause, and the Supreme Court said, in effect, "no way."
Congress regularly uses the Interstate Commerce Clause -- which says that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce -- to pass laws that really have nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has gone along with this practice for a long time, but the current court appears ready to impose limits.
If the court has in fact decided to end the "interstate commerce loophole", then huge bodies of federal law will be vulnerable and may be challenged, as much of federal law has no constitutional basis besides the thinly stretched doctrine of "it somehow affects interstate commerce."
and that would have enormous consequences.
So, what about other emulators? Will the courts eventually decide that Sony is just playing games, and has no real case?
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
It's still positive; after all, every one of these *could* have been a problem, and been expensive to fight; getting a few of them removed from the list makes it that much safer for Connectix.
Additionally, courts sometimes take other rulings into account; if there is adequate evidence that a party is not acting in good faith, it's possible for that to work against that party in other rulings.
A judge who sees Sony making things up for several of their charges will be less sympathetic to them on the trade secret charge.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Nope. Connectix is a software company that makes cool Mac products like Virtual PC, Speed Doubler, RAM Doubler, and the VGS.
Perhapes you're thinking of ConXion which is used to mirror software and stuff for downloading.
or an Airline?
There's a lot more too...
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Frankly, I don't understand why Sony ever filed these charges in the first place. How are they hurt by emulation? They sell playstations at a loss! They make all their money on the games. When you have a playstation emulator for your PC, you end up buying the games without buying the playstation, which Sony actually loses money on anyway. It seems to me that they are better off with emulation.
Understand that this isn't the same as somebody like Nintendo suing the makers of an emulator. In that case, since the Nintendo systems use cartridges, all the games anyone will ever acquire for a N64 emulator will be pirated. But with a playstation emulator, you just buy the game and stick the CD in your computer. Sure, there are ways to make copies of the CD and then run these copies with your emulator, but there are ways to do that with a playstation console as well.
So I just don't get it. What is Sony trying to accomplish with lawsuits like this? Is it simply a matter of control?
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
In fact, Judge Legge is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the federal trial court in which Sony sued Connectix. He had previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Sony and against Connectix on the basis that Sony was likely to succeed on its copyright and trademark claims. The Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court which hears appeals from the Northern District of California) instructed Judge Legge to dissolve this preliminary injunction in its February 10, 2000 opinion:
In light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Judge Legge has now ruled that these claims by Sony (though not all claims by Sony) are deficient as a matter of law. Readers may judge for themselves whether they should be surprised by this turn of events.
Sorry, the Wired article suggested that Judge Bleem's opinion issued from the 9th Circuit, so I pulled up the most recent Sony case from that Court. (Judge Bleem is a District Court (trial) judge in the Northern District of California, and not a Circuit Court judge, though from time to time District Court Judges are asked to sit temporarily as a Circuit Court judge).
I was unable to find the Connectix opinion available online.
The Bleem case is quite interesting, and is a playstation interpreter case as well. Perhaps Judge Legge was moved, at least in part, by the scolding he received just last week in Bleem?
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
The truth is rather more interesting.
One problem is that today it costs zillions of dollars to produce a film or album.
Perhaps some artists will forego life and livelihood for the "sake of the art," by begging up funds to stretch a canvas or paper to etch out a novel. In the meanwhile, we all lose out while those talented and smart enough to create, but who can't get resources go to law school instead.
However much the artists may "have to" create, no one else needs to give them a dime to do so.
The opinion in Sony v. Bleem, No. 99-17137 (9th Cir. 2000), is available online at the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals web site
So what's gonna happen if they stole trade secrets???
It wouldn't be good.
Depending upon the statute, the court could grant an injunction against using the product, an award of damages, treble damages, an award of attorney fees and court costs, or worse.
A finding of misapproporiation could also expose Connectix to criminal penalties, including the substantial civil forfeiture provisions of the EEA.
According to the Daily Radar the Bleemcast will come over 4 different CD's. That article also provides some excellent comparison pics between a regular PSX and Bleem. I'll probally sell my PSX and get Bleem since I already own a DC, and the games look so much better; even better than they would look on a PS2.
Party time. Now if only Connectix would make a linux port... But seriously, this is the only good piece of legal news I've heard in a long time. Maybe there is still hope.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
"We are prepared to move forward with the misappropriation of trade secrets claim," said Molly Smith, spokeswoman for Sony Computer Entertainment America.
This is consistent with their position in favor of banning/suing deCSS, banning/suing mp3 companies, and forcing their engineers to committ sepuku (sp?) if consumers figure out ways to use sony products in accordance with US fair use policy.
i wish they'd just stuck to the freakin walkman, myself.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
So the obvious question that comes to my mind is: isn't this great news for the Dreamcast? Bleem is coming out with a Dreamcast port of their software. People will now be able to play a vast array of Playstation games on their Dreamcast, with the games looking better on the Dreamcast than they looked originally on the Playstation.
Using Bleem, Dreamcast owners will have access to 400 or so Playstation games, along with a projected 200 Dreamcast games, before Playstation 2 is even released in the US.
This could make things interesting!
--- Biffster.org
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
"The electronics giant also claimed that Connectix tarnished the PlayStation trademark by selling the rival Virtual Game Station product."
"Dilution by tarnishment occurs when a famous mark is linked to poor quality or unwholesome products, or otherwise displayed in a derogatory manner.[46] If the use of the mark does not result in negative associations for the senior trademark user, then there is no dilution by tarnishment." - http://www.loundy.com/JMLS-Trademark.html
It sounds like Sony was really reaching to try and get Connectix on any of these kinds of accusations. I doubt that the dismissal of those charges were in any way a shock to Sony. I'm guessing they've been aiming to nail Connectix on the theft of a trade-secret all along, and these other trumped up charges are just for filler. As a result, I don't think the dismissal of these issues is really a positive sign for Connectix at all; rather, it probably bodes that the legal battle is going just as Sony has intended it to all along. With the verdict on the trade-secret theft pending, I wouldn't be popping marguaritas at Connectix any time soon....
This adds a bit of scrutiny on the MPAA's case. Everyone here will agree the MPAA is ethically in the wrong, but are they legally in the wrong? Maybe the MPAA knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but since DVD is it's cash-cow, it's using legal intimidation to wear down people completely in the right (IE: DeCSS for compatibility purposes). Maybe Sony knew that that route was a losing battle and decided to not even pursue it.
Just some thoughts ...
Earlier this year, the court issued a ruling upholding Connectix's right to use a process known as reverse engineering to develop a product for playing PlayStation games on home computers.
Wonder why Sony isn't hiding under the umbrella of the DMCA like the MPAA with DeCSS. Perhaps there was no protection (to parallel with the weak encryption used by CSS) to be broken in order to reverse engineer?
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
TO stay somewhat on topic, I don't really see why it upset Sony so much. They sell the console at a loss (initially anyway) and make the majority of the revenue from the licensing of games. You would think that:
More people able to play PSX games = more games sold = more licensing revenue.
I could see Sony going apeshit about people developing (more importantly, selling) unlicensed games, but trying to stop an additional way to play licensed games seems counter-productive.
But then again, since when has corporate paranoia made sense? :)
Sooo..if Connectix can reverse engineer Sony software and hardware, what's the difference between that and reverse engineering CSS? Or is this strictly a DCMA thing and Sony didn't sue under that law?
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
After all, Sony wasn't whining about Connextix violating DMCA, which favors just the opposite, it was whining about the reasonable forms of copyright.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
They didn't steal trade secrets, they reverse engineered, which is perfectly legal and is an important principle that needs to be protected, IMO.
Nice troll, but it's important to note that this case has nothing to do with Intellectual Property at all, it's solely about reverse engineering, which is an extemely important issue today.
He is speaking of it's true purpose, not what is currently happening in many areas of the software industry. when used for it's ariginal purpose those laws are very good for consumers. What we need now is a punishment for people who use them as a fear tactics against consumers.i.e. claiming something is copywritten when it isn't or filing for copyright on things that clearly violate what is copyrightabls, or claiming something is a violation when it is not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
does this case have enough of a relation to the decss case to impact the outcome? It is great to see that the judicial system is starting to see the need for consumer rights, but how far will this go? Hopefully, this is a new beginning. Consumers should NOT be fettered a company's desire to control the market. Free market is what capitalism is all about.
Jaeger
http://334.se2600.org
http://jump.to/jaeger
The article doesn't make any reference to DMCA. Maybe the judge considered DMCA and decided that Connectix didn't violate it. Maybe DMCA wasn't brought up at all. There's a whole lot the article doesn't say, so my comments are mostly speculation...
Baring that disclaimer in mind, I suspect that Sony didn't bring it up because they don't have any "security" for their technology. No encryption like DVDs, no licenses like MS Kerberos.
So apparently it's OK to reverse engineer (or just peek under the hood) only if the company who holds the copyrights doesn't try to prevent it. Under DMCA, the act of putting some (possibly flimsy) protection in place makes reverse engineering illegal.
One of these days, I'm going to get sued for bypassing the copyright protections on a paperback novel by opening the cover.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
IP is bigger than copyright, patent law, or trademark law by themselves.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
If economic value is the only value you recognize, of course, this makes less than sense. In fact, it's downright scary. That's why the suits and the drones and droids absolutely despise and (I think) secretly fear the FSOS movement. They don't understand it, because it's not entirely driven by economic profit. But if you free your mind from those sorts of blinders you begin to see that such things can make sense.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Hopefully some good hackers will create some software for psx2 so we can use it as an mp3 player and vcd player among other things. Any Linux hackers up for the challenge? That will piss Sony off!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At least consumer rights are being considered SOMEWHERE...
"Ow, my spleen!"