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."
'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." '
aren't consumers allowed to make backup copies of their electronic media?
There has got to be prior art for handheld emmulators. I've ran NES emmulators on my desktop for years now. You can't tell me this hasn't been done before on a handheld. What about the Super Mario Bros. game that I had on my TI-85?
[ ]
I thought patents were only granted for new technology? Handheld emulation has been around for years. How can Nintendo suddenly own it?
You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Things like this are disturbing. It's become acceptable, in today's society, for a company to tell it's customers how they can and can't use their products. It's like a pencil manufacturer selling you a pencil, then saying you can only write on the paper they make. Doesn't make much sense to me, but what would I know.
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.
C'mon - you know how in the back of the instruction manual they tell you it's illegal to make any kind of backup of your cartridge because it's unnecessary, and then cover their bets telling you they're not infringing on your statutory rights?
Software is software is software, and you are allowed to back up your software in case the original gets damaged. Period. Most of my old NES carts are unusable because they're so old. So is it unnecessary for me to backup the cart because Nintendo is going to buy me a new cart, or because I'm allowed to download a ROM and play it on an emulator?
(Yes, carts do deteriorate - it's called bit rot. Look into it before you flame.)
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
The PS2 contains a PS1 emulator...does that mean the PS2 is in violation of Nintendo's patent?
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
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.
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."
Basically Nintendo is saying "Now pay us again, you consumer piece of shit."
Apparantly they liked DirectTV's business model (i.e. extortion via letters from lawyers). One has to wonder if this is a first step in something greater.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
A very good point, and one that people sometimes forget. I love it when stores post signs saying "we're not responsible for blah blah". They can SAY that, but just saying it does not make it true.
So, as you said, making backups of your own ROMs only become illegal when Nintendo wins a court case against someone. What they say about the matter only tells you whether they would file suit or not in the first place.
However, I would caution you against ranting about your fair-use "rights" as though it's part of the Constitution. Fair use rights are entirely at the court's interpretation of what is "fair" or not. What you think is fair may not jive with the court's interpretation.
Two relevant links:
http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.html
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
I'm not arguing that downloading ROMs of cartridges you own isn't fair use, only cautioning against making "fair use rights" arguments - because the default opinion of the court is going to be for the copyright holder, unless you can make an extremely good argument. In this case, I think you could, though.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
By a locking chip, which prevented duplicates from being used in the system. However, they didn't have anything to prevent copying at the time. Also, hardware encryption is very easy. They could have done DES (or even AES if it had been invented by then) in hardware with almost no cost.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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
Imagine for a second that I started up a company that made Gameboys, compatible 100% with the Nintendo Gameboy.
Something similar was already done in the 80s - several manufacturers made systems or add-ons for their own that were 100% compatible with the Atari 2600.
Atari took at least one of them to court, but it was ruled to be legal.
It wouldn't make much sense to do this now anyway, because there is no profit made on the systems - just the games, which Nintendo still collects the license fees for.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
It was fair, though not legal, for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.
But was it fair? Not to the people who thought that she was stealing their space (though now I'm sure they feel differently, and as a society we have definately changed our perception of fairness in this case).
Were the purges in Russian fair? Depends what side you were on.
Does Nintendo think its fair that you can't emulate their games? Damn straight. Do you think it's fair? Hell no.
'Fairness' is not a useful way of determining right or wrong (or correctness, if you don't like the terminology).
'Fairness' is not a useful way of determining right or wrong (or correctness, if you don't like the terminology).
Well, if by "fairness" you mean the "sniff test", I agree.
However, it is possible to try to create a definition of fairness that can be used to create criteria of the rightness and wrongness of actions. Jowhn Rawls" constructed one such theory, which is at its heart very simple. One way of explaining it is to imagine that we are about to sit down to play a game, and have to agree in advance on the rules governing each player's role. The rules are fair if we would agree to it not knowing in advance which role we are going to be assigned.
This is actually a lot like the Jewish concept of tsedaqah, which is usually translated as "rigtheousness" but could also be construed to mean "objective". Objective in this sense: you should remove the overwhelming effect of your subjective stake in the outcome of an action from deciing on whether it is right or wrong. For example you should assist the poor because their condition objectively requires assistance and it won't really hurt you that much to help.
Of course taking this approach means that you then get to argue about whose definition of "fair" is correct. However it's an intrinsically more honest process, because you have to accept the consequences of your definition, whereas the sniff test doesn't put any constraints on you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.