Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Patents Handheld Emulation, Cracks Down
mclove writes "Looks like Nintendo has recently been granted a patent that gives them new leverage in their fight against emulators: Patent 6,672,963 mainly appears to cover emulators like UltraHLE that are custom-tailored for particular games, but they're already using it to suppress a new Game Boy Advance emulator for the Tapwave Zodiac, Firestorm gbaZ, and there's no reason to think they won't start leveraging it against anyone else trying to emulate their systems." The reprinted lawyer's letter from Nintendo also notes: "Whether you have an authentic game or not, it is illegal to copy a Nintendo game from a cartridge or to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."
I thought patents were only granted for new technology? Handheld emulation has been around for years. How can Nintendo suddenly own it?
SMB on the TI-85 was more of a port than an emulation. However, TI-85 games on the TI-86 were partially emulated. Or Sega Master System chips in the Game Gear (which may or may not have been real, just came to mind). Or how about every emulator that has ever run on a Palm?
Given the repeated mention of an LCD display, does this patent only affect laptops and handhelds?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I find it strange and somewhat stupid that Nintendo hasn't tapped into this market... they should be teaming up with the people making emulators, rather than trying to stop the community from doing what they love. It's not like they're going to get any money from the Nintendo/SNES/Etc. at this point anyway. I can understand their frustration with a GBA emulator, but the others... just think of the possibilities, Nintendo!! Surely Nintendo couldn't hurt itself by teaming up with the creators of ZSNES and releasing a commercial version (rather like Linux commercial releases) that includes a bunch of games and some extra features (PDF guides for the games, maybe some touch-ups to the emulator, etc.). Plus, people would get a warm fuzzy feeling for knowing that they'd be collaborating with both Nintendo and emulator creators.
These guys seem to have stepped into legal hot water in several places.
- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but the patent Nintendo is claiming is against a program emulates multiple handheld videogame consoles based on analysing its input file to declare what format it has been given and therefore which console it needs to emulate. Now, there's likely was that a multi-platform emulator can step around this limitation, like requiring the user to declare which emulation mode is to be used, but this is definitely something the write of such a program should have a lawyer look over before they release their product.
- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but if there are no legal non-cartrige games available for that platform, there's a problem. The Atari emulator community has managed to not just reverse engineer the platform, but have also reverse engineered development tools for that platform so there are some legal freeware Atari 2600 games in circulation. I don't think there are any freeware Game Boy Advance games in circulation yet.
- You can legally copy your cartriges to your computer (if you can) to make a backup copy that could later be used to restore a lost or damaged cartrige, but you can't legally do anything else with your backup copy and still hide behind the backup fair use shield.
- The moral justifiation that you can download from the internet what you legally have another copy of is not a legal one. Maybe it should be, but under today's laws it isn't so that's not a defense to hide behind.
In short, this seems like a tool that encurages piracy and cannot seem to come up with a "substation non-infringing functionality" yet. It should be held tight to the developer until somebody can come up with one... maybe a lawyer can help find one.
"Whether you have an authentic game or not, it is illegal to copy a Nintendo game from a cartridge or to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."
This seems very debatable to me. Has anyone ever been procescuted for downloading something they own?
It's not illegal to make a tape that I can listen to in my car off a CD, so why would copying info from a cartidge be any different?
Is the cartidge form factor enough of a copy protection mechanism that they think it falls under the DMCA?
Pirated game roms are just as common as emulators, and are basically illegal. "Archival purposes only" is a complete joke with digital content.
Still, selling an emulator is asking for trouble. What are you making money off of? You are selling a software representation of the system vs. the hardware system. Which is cheaper? - So you are competition for the hardware platform. It doesn't matter if the emulator is legal or not, the company will take you to court over it and you will be a small world of hurt (even if you win). As a business, a paid-for emulator is encroaching upon the turf of the emulated machine and whoever owns it. Naturally, this turf will be protected in the interest of the company and shareholders.
Isn't it true most every business to do with a console has to pay royalties to the console's maker (company who controls the platform)? So the company is going to go after you if you are trying to make money off their platform without royalties.
What a polite and well written way to say (paraphrased) "we'll sue your ass." Perhaps if the RIAA were only half as elequent the world would be a nicer place. Mabye it was the unexpected simplicity of the legal doubletalk, but the letter from Nintendo seems to raise some valid points:
The very limited archival copy exception to copyright laws is set forth in 17 U.S.C. 117(a)(2), which specifies that the owner of a computer program can make a copy "for archival purposes only." Even if it were otherwise permitted, which it is not, playing a copy of a Nintendo game on the Zodiac system is not "archiving".
While generally I am amoung the first to annunciate my right to fair use, you have to admit that in this case there is a very legitamate and valid difference between media such as a cd and media on which a game is stored, and as such Nintendo makes a strong arguement. While one could do some waving of the hands and talk about hardware upgrades or software cd/dvd players, the plain and simple case in point here is that Nintendo software is meant to be extremely platform dependant. To reiterate this concept, to this day such software is distributed on a piece of plastic that would seem to have broken off a commadore 64.
I dont know...I enjoy emulation but generally (due to hardware limitations more then choice) get my kicks from the plethora of original nintendo, super nintendo, original gameboy, atari, playstation, and arcade emulators available. In retrospect there seems something fair-er about playing such games on under emulation, as many of these systems are no longer produced, and as such the emulator itself becomes - conceptually atleast - an archival copy.
How do I keep track of people who are fingering
This is already causing quite a stir on one of the more prominant Zodiac message boards.
A few relevant issues: Since the recent DMCA exemptions created by the Library of Congress, Nintendo's claim that "You're not allowed to play roms you own," is only valid for the GBA, since the Gameboy and Gameboy Color are both legally considered obsolete.
At any rate, the patent only refers to emulators running on "limited capability devices" (Cell Phones, PDAs, and embedded entertainment centers), not to emulators running on desktop PCs. Further, it only covers the Gameboy family of systems: NES, SNES, Virtual Boy, N64, Game Cube and DS are not protected at all.
As for prior art, the patent was applied for in 2000, but wasn't granted until Jan. 6 2004, but the patent acknowledges prior art in its own phrasing:
"A number of GAME BOY.RTM. emulators have been written for a variety of different platforms ranging from personal digital assistants to personal computers. However, further improvements are possible and desirable."
Even more interesting is its mention of Aaron Giles' MAME patent.
One thing that really makes me scratch my head: I've known of people getting patents in a matter of months. Was this one constantly rejected over the course of those 4 years or something?
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
One of the strongly debated issues about emulators is that they are used to play "abandonware" or software that the copyright holder is assumed will never release again.
Well, that used to be fairly reasonable in the 90's when the arcade and console videogame market were in this huge transition towards fully immersive 3D games; nobody thought there would be a future for 2D, and then many old games were automatically assumed to be abandoned forever.
But, the Gameboy Advance changed all that, we are getting re-releases, remakes and rehashes of great, old games because the GBA is not a "3D powerhouse" and it doesn't need to be. I'm actually happy those games are released again, and so are millions of gamers. Just look at how the insane success of the Famicom Mini games in Japan makes the GBA sell even better than the PS2
This is what an emulator really endangers, it makes it more difficult to market an old game, and in fact the argument about "emulators saving good games from the past" is very much reversed as Nintendo can't sell a game to a market that got it for free. And Nintendo of course is trying to (rightfully) protect their IP, it may not be the right way to do it, but what other choices do they have?
OK, I see one alternative. I'm not saying it's good or bad to emulate games, but Nintendo and others should contact the emulators' developers and discuss in good faith about the reality of which games are never going to be released and allow them to be legally distributed and emulated. Of course, this is something very unlikely, but still possible in light of iTunes' success as an alternative distribution model.
Thing is, Nintendo is still a corporation and most of the time it makes decisions that are not popular with gamers, but sometimes you can get good remakes from these decisions. Pac-Man Vs., Super Mario Advance 4 (SMB3) anyone? Nintendo simply doesn't want anyone to compete with their own, official, legal emulators.
I think that for a game to really become abandonware in these new times, it now needs to be abandoned by both the copyright holder AND the consumer, since it is already proven an old game can sell like new. That leaves a lot less room for the emulation scene.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
Imagine for a second that I started up a company that made Gameboys, compatible 100% with the Nintendo Gameboy. Essentially I'd be profiting of the design of the Gameboy without paying any money to Nintendo. This would be wrong. Right?
(I know you're just trolling, but you got modded up somehow.)
You mean like how companies like Compaq made PC's that were 100% compatible with IBM's in the 80's?
As long as you are not violating any copyrights by using Nintendo software, and are not deceiving people into thinking it is a Nintendo product, why shouldn't you be able to make a device that plays Gameboy games? What law says I can't?
I'm not even going to bother addressing your other points.
Or we could just forget what's legal and simply do what's fair.
It was fair, though not legal, for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.
It was fair, though not legal in many states, for gay people ot have intimate relationships.
It's fair, though possibly not legal, for me to play my legaly purchased games from any media I choose on any platform I choose.
When we start doing what is legal instead of what is fair then we lose our most basic right and one that's not even in the constitution; our right to do no more or less than we would have done to ourselves. When we do what's fair then we might lose in the short term, but everyone wins in the long run.
TW
IANAL, but as I understand it:
Unless you have a contractual relationship with Nintendo that forbids it, you may excercise all the rights granted in 17 U.S. Code 117 with any copy of a work of software you have. That explicitly includes the right to make a copy of, and adapt if necessary, your copy of a work of software if it is an integral step in running it on a machine. What kind of machine is not limited by the US Code, and you don't have a contract with Nintendo limiting that right, which means you have a right to get a ROM reader, copy the game on to your PC, and play it on your PC.
And simply printing the line in the manual does not make it an enforcable contract. For a contractual relationship to exist, there must be evidence of voluntary consent to the terms and consideration granted in exchange for the terms. (Exception; Maryland and Virginia law recongizes shrink-wrap licenses.)
Nintendo can't even show evidence you ever read the no-copy requirements, much less consented to them, and they can show nothing you recieved on the condition of agreeing to it (since you had full rights by default from point of purchase).
(Click-through licenses meet the criteria at least more closely, since you must state you agree. The "consideration" is murkier, but there is at least one case on-point that declares click-throughs an enforcable contract.)
Now, if your copy on your PC is not a copy of the cartridge you own, but someone else's, you're at least arguably violating the law. But you are, under US law, allowed to make your own copy if you have to do it to run the program on a machine of your choice.
DMCA talks about "technological measure" that is used to prevent copying. The very fact that a PC has no connector for the cartridge can qualify as such a measure. Making a connector, a reader, or a program for such a transfer can be seen as circumvention of the protection, since such a connector or a reader is not useful for much else.
I see that the flames have already begun, and that is not an unexpected reaction when a big company threatens a tiny company for alleged infringement on some obscure patent (obscure to most of us normal people anyway).
But please, take a few minutes to follow the links in the story, and you will notice a couple of things:
First, notice how Nintendo is cracking down on a commercial product - this emulator is actually being sold. The company selling this emulator is making money by emulating Nintendo, and while I'm not quite decided on whether this is actually bad or not, I can actually understand where Nintendo is coming from here. He's making money instead of Nintendo - some people will buy the emulator instead of the GBA itself. It makes sense for Nintendo to do something about that. So they are cracking down on a commercial entity competing directly with them by offering something which emulates their product, not some hobbyist who doesn't make a dime from it. Good or bad? That's not up to me to decide.
But wait, there's more!
Very few comments here seem to mention the fact that this emulator isn't even available yet! That's right, the sales are actually pre-sales. People have been paying for promises of a delivery, and it seems that it is delayed already:
Now, we should probably give the author the benefit of the doubt, and I must admit that I do not know how well known or respected he is, but this seems to be a rather convenient time for the author of the emulator to have an excuse for delaying the product.I'm not saying that something fishy is going on here, but there's always that tiny possibility. If you had sold a product which you promised to deliver on a certain date and failed, wouldn't it be convenient to have something to blame, to be able to postpone the release and continue work on it until it is actually finished?
It would of course be silly of this guy to falsely accuse Nintendo of this, as Nintendo would probably be all over him, but people have done stupid things before, out of sheer desperation... Instead of losing face, people have been known to do rather silly things. And I don't have to mention SCO, do I? Not that they have any face left to lose...
But please people, take the time to have a quick look at the links in this story and make up your own minds. Maybe Nintendo is doing something really bad here, or maybe they aren't. Maybe there's more to this story than meets the eye.
Time will tell.
Clever signature text goes here.
well, that won't take long. The EU has just passed a bill allowing the recording industry to raid houses without approval from the court or the police.
Where oh where does that lead us.
A while back someone was selling blank game boy cartrages. Just insert into a specal cable and load the game boy rom images into them.
The old game shark for the NES (if I remember correctly) copied the game cartrage into a RAM cartrage and the codes you entered would alter the ram copy.
(Being ram the copy was gone the instant you turnned the NES off)
As I remember the NES cartrage was basicly off the shelf roms and some additional chips. Presumably the locking was in those chips. Once your able to replicate (or fake) the locking chips you can make full cartrages and the game shark proves it can be done.
I don't actually exist.