Slashdot Mirror
Arcade Kit Seller Applies for MAME Trademark [updated]
"Subject: I would hope that you post this to correct your misstated comments on slash dot
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:27:43 -0800
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions aside, they will realize that what we are saying about selling M.A.M.E. machines and the promise of getting 4,000 games for the average consumer can't possibly happen. Unlike most of you reading this, the average consumer looking to buy a machine for their game room has no idea how emulation works, or what is legal and illegal to do. To them, they read an advertisement on a website or on eBay and compare our product with 50 games or an ad for a machine that promises thousands of games, with the promise of instructions about how to obtain those games. Of course, in this skewed environment the average consumer would gravitate towards the thousands of games machine, not realizing that the software and the games are unlicensed and illegal to play. Most consumers who are pointed at a web site selling a 7 DVD set of ROMs have no idea that this is an act of piracy, they were simply instructed to do this by the person selling them their arcade cabinet, and told this is how you get the games.
Now that we have attempted to take legal recourse to prevent illegal competition, the same people, who steal the work of the M.A.M.E. authors, and then profit by selling machines that have no value without the pirated games being made available, turn around and cry foul when we call them on their ways. They run to the M.A.M.E. discussion forums and spread rumors about UltraCade suing the authors of M.A.M.E. or stealing the M.A.M.E. engine. I'm amazed at the response of the community, a community that is being whipped into action by the same people who are stealing and profiting from them and they're efforts. Many people have reacted with hate mail without even considering to look at the facts of the situation, or to realize who is spreading the rumors. They are being spread by those who wish to profit by selling unlicensed games.
The simple fact is that we are attempting to stop the tide of illegal arcade machines, and the promotion of unlicensed games. The M.A.M.E. platform, while a technical marvel, consists of many violations of copyrights and trademarks. The authors have always stated in the documentation that it was not put into the public domain to steal from the game authors or publishers, and they have always been hands off about how to obtain the ROMs. They have also clearly stated that it is not to be used for commercial gains. A majority of the publishers who own the copyrighted material have not paid much attention to this marketplace, as until recently it has not had a huge commercial impact. But now, there are websites and eBay sellers selling machines that directly compete with legitimate publishers like us who publish games from Capcom, Taito, Midway, Atari and others, or publishers like Namco that publish Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga or the Donkey Kong/Mario Bros. machines.
Of the many thousands of games that M.A.M.E. supports, only a minute fraction of them can legally be played on a M.A.M.E. equipped machine, and many can not. There are many fallacies about the legality of owning ROMs and how you can play the game. Many people claim that they have a board set and therefore they can download as many ROMs as they like. The law is very strict. You can transfer the image from the actual original ROM chips, which you legally own, to another piece of hardware, provided that you actually transfer the code from the chips. Just having a board sitting around, and saying I have the right to play it is not the case. Many people point to StarROMs and say that they can then sell the games with the ROMs installed. This is not the case either. StarROMs license prohibits the resale of the game licenses, and only the end user can purchase these ROM images, resellers can not. Our market is further plagued by the rash of 4 in 1, 9 in 1, 24 in 1 39 in 1 and the new 300 in 1 "multicade" boards. These boards come from Taiwan and Hong Kong and contain illegal copies of the ROMs of several games.
This is a complex case amongst companies that are trying to make it about UltraCade stealing something from the M.A.M.E. team. That is not what this is about. This is simply UltraCade Technologies and other publishers doing whatever it takes to protect our commercial interests and prevent other companies from stealing our market by capitalizing on unlicensed games and selling products that only have value when coupled with illegally obtained games. Our application towards a trademark is to simply prevent anyone from commercially marketing an illegal product, nothing more. There have been no lawsuits filed against any of the M.A.M.E. authors, and there have been no claims towards the open source engine, nor will there be We are simply protecting our commercial market, and nothing more. We have no interest in the hobby community. We have no interest in the open source project. Our goal is to simply stop the rampant piracy in our marketplace, and we will use every means at our disposal to do so.
I welcome open discussions about this situation, and will respond to legitimate communications or questions.
-David R. Foley
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
David R. Foley
UltraCade Technologies"
We have a lame idea that borrows heavily from a former but robust lame idea.
We have an opportunity to litigate for revenue as oppose to actually, well , you know, EARNING IT.
Yes, everything seems to be in order here. Hand me the rubber stamp.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Is the US legal system so fucked up they can get away with this?
XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
What a fucking CUNT! I can't believe the balls of this company....I'm hoping in MAME's favor.
BYOAC Forum: http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32 339.0.html
The MAME project has changed its name to Ultracade and is planning to sue other companies using this name.
IF ONLY somebody could find some prior art to smack this down.
Now that SCO's gone, the vacuum filled by darl mcbride looks to have been filled by another slimy despicable thieving weasel by the name of David R. Foley, CEO (Chief Extinguishable Organism) of Ultracade.
Congratulations!
RST
This guy didn't previously work at SCO by any chance?
AFAIR, they haven't been granted a trademark yet so try and not put the cart before the horse. I know you people foam at the mouth at the chance to redundantly remind everyone how bad the IP system is. We'll just share these comments when they are actually granted the trademark.
Doesn't one have to own the trademark before something is created in its name in order to sue the creators of the something? Otherwise I'd be able to trademark the word bittorrent, and sue the creator. Could someone explain just how this is going to work to me?
Is there a fund set up yet where we can donate to their legal defense?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who apprecates (immensely!) the efforts of MAME.. god knows I spent enough time in arcades.
..don't panic
If this person gets away with this, I'll have to officially give up on humanity.
Hey dumbo, the issue isn't about making money. Its about absuing IP law.
Wait a second. Doesn't US Copyright law take precedent here. Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't all works copyrighted by default. Couldnt the obvious prior art holders sue ultracade for any usage of their name.
a common sense law. if something doesnt seem right, it probably should be illegal. like borrowing the name then suing the concievers. it happends all the time, but wouldnt you like a little less of it?
Mess with the Best, Die Like the Rest
Well, the reality is that money is an incentive for a lot of people. Its what gets stuff done (see "Greed is good", Gordon Gecco). This guy wants to make some cash from his hard work. What is the problem exactly?
By that logic I can walk into your house and make some cash from my hard work by taking all that was yours.
I'll remember to ask you "what is the problem exactly?" if you object.
Is there an online application for trademark applications? Openoffice.org, Mozilla. Firefox, KDE... so many projects so little time....
Sean.OutaHere()
http://chd.pleasuredome.org.uk/static/
How nice of them to provide a flash-heavy site. All the better to slashdot them with.
Hopefully their hosting bills will be so high, they won't be able to afford lawyers.
The problem is that he's trying to make some cash from OTHER people's hard work. MAME has been around for 8 years now and this guy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROJECT.
RTFA, fool. The opposite is reality.
Still, I think I'd like to get one of these. It'll help me sleep better at night if I know I'm getting officially sanctioned ROMS from the authorized copyright holders.
They may have the right to use "MAME" in any business they do, but they certainly can't claim exclusive rights to the name.
Can't the authors of MAME use the defense of "prior art" when they are sued by this company, and invalidate the trademark? Or does that just apply to patent law?
There are checks against this type of thing. An advocacy group like EFF shouldn't even have to get involved.
Frivilous lawsuit damages anyone?
--Fairfax Underground: Where Fairfax County comes out to play
As a former ZD employee, I've seen this far too much in emulation, but it's never gone to this degree. This is a very evil way to get a point across, and I really hope, if this actually happens, that a few makers of these arcade games out and sue Ultracade for pulling this shit.
Why the hell would you take out the people who made your bread and butter? All that's going to happen is MAME is going to come out under a different name and be designed in such a way that it won't be compatible with Ultracade arcade boxes. You pull shit like this and alienate your users and fellow authors, you get burned. Ask Marat Fayzullin what I'm talking about.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
I'd just like to point out his personal website, which contains his resume with his email address (david@davidrfoley.com or david@hyperware.com) and phone number attached. Don't be too mean. ;-)
Lovingly, Pooka (the 6' 5" version) Okay to mark Pooka's Trolls. We thrive on it.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Someone register for the Ultracade logo and then petition eBay to remove all Ultracade auctions on the bases they are infringing on the trademark.
A 3-step Profit?!? comment would also do well at the moment in time too. If the above isn't funny or clever, pretend I regurgitated the meme here.
I'm sorry to inform you that today I procured a copywrite for the letter "t". All individuals whom use this letter "t" or any character resembling it will be prosecuted. Thank you.
Someone needs to MAIM this guy before he can make it to the trademark office.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
This could set an ugly precedence where an individual sells a product, a corporation sees a small business selling it, they decide to patent the product or trademark the term, and then turn around and sue so that the individual can no longer start another business again because they owe the Corporation for the rest of their life.
So heres a new business model
1. Wait for an individual to create product
2. copy product and patent it or just simply trademark the name
3. sue individual
4. ????
5. Profit!
Only problem I see with this is the one that plagues sooo many victims of frivoulos lawsuits - you gotta pay to get to court in the first place (Bittorrent trackers, anyone?) At least in this case, there is a definative plantiff and defandant - and therefor, a countersuit is applicable if they go to court to fight the suit in the first place.
Too bad, I thought the RIAA and MPAA were the only things to fear these days with the impending demise of SCO. When will lawmakers wake up to this nonsense? When you take the initiative and write them.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
If you are unhappy with Ultracade's decision, maybe you should let them know that it's a bad idea. Be polite-- They are more likely to listen to you if you are polite. Their contact information is right on their front page, but in case of Slashdotting, here it is:
UltraCade Technologies
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
Phone: (408) 436-8885
Fax: (408) 715-6183
support@ultracade.com
The Drowning Man
You can never teach
The drowning man to swim.
As long as he is in the water,
All he can do is flail,
And try and not sink.
Eventually he will tire.
Throw him a line.
Tell him a story.
Tell him it will be okay.
Convince yourself
That it is okay to lie.
You know that he really isn't okay.
You know that he can't swim.
And, you know,
If he stays in the water,
Eventually he will die.
D. Foley, 1997
What a novel way of killing any competition.
I am guessing the owner of this company works for the cable companies.
Seriouly. Whose hard work? - not HIS hard work.
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
If MAME and it's logo has not been registered as a trademark, then Foley can apply to register it, regardless of how long it has been used by someone else. If he can slip this one past the TM Office, possibly by overwhelming the existing MAME folks with advertising and publicity, he will have the registered trademark for MAME.
:)
HOWEVER, since the MAME folks have been using said name and logo for years, they will be protected BY LAW from being sued by Foley for their continued usage of the marks. This is one way that these particular intellectual property laws protect you from cretins like him
I am not a trademark attorney, but I do IT in an IP firm. This is not legal advice, blah, blah, blah. These laws apply at least in both US and Australia.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Yes, we shouldn't complain when thieves break into our houses. After all, they're only making money.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
David R. Foley is committing fraud, and if this goes to trial, he will be committing perjury as well.
This piece of shit should be charged with both and sent to the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison where he belongs.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
The GPL in no way prohibits this!
I'm sure if anyone has any queries about who this gentlemen is, the Us Patent Office has the relevant details:
1. Foley, David R.
Address:
Foley, David R.
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
Legal Entity Type: Individual
Country of Citizenship: United States
Just send it to Lowkee, formerly of LokiTorrent. He'll make sure it gets put to good use.
When the SCO fiasco first started, that there couldn't possibly be a slimier litigation tactic?
Mame is one of the few things keeping old school arcade games alive. If thry end up killing it they are biting the hand that feeds them.. not to mention most people who have an intrest in classic games of this sort are geeks and will hear of this and avoid the place. Have fun guys!
I like muppets.
What a fucking CUNT! I can't believe the balls of this company....I'm hoping in MAME's favor.
"Cunt" is a perfectly good word to describe this piece of shit. In fact, it's probably not strong enough.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Goddamn, what fucking assholes. I've never heard such blatant jackassery outside of politics.
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
What do they do for an encore, rape Donkey Kong Jr with an Atari controller?
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
The applicant does not own the copyright to the artwork. Therefore, the applicant cannot legally reproduce said artwork. Therefore, the applicant is in violation of various US statutes and common law related to copyright, possibly even the DMCA.
THROW THE FUCKER IN JAIL!
-- Motto: If it doesn't make sense, always follow the money.
"The MAME project has changed its name to Ultracade and is planning to sue other companies using this name."
Well if you're going to have some fun? Change the name to "Death Dealer". Nothing says lovin' like an icepick to the eyes.
One thing I think everyone is missing so far is that it hasn't been approved yet. If you follow the Link to the USPTO site it says it hasn't even been assigned to a case worker yet.
zyro out.
Zyrotin
it's called a double standard cause it's twice as right.
Lets Just run up his website costs by Slashdoting him constatly, that way he will be unable to pay the legal fees
What is most hilarious is the fact that this guy's business is doomed now. His goal was likely to boost business and as a result people will end up realizing they can build that $4000 cabinet they are peddling on their own for a fraction of the price. If nothing else this is huge publicity for MAME and a huge career ender for Mr. Foley.
What's even more intriguing about all of this though is that Ultracade almost certainly uses the mame core in it's software. It was recently discovered that the same bugs in mame were found in Ultracade. If anyone ever takes the initiative to reverse engineer the code and prove this, the MAME team will have grounds to sue him for everything he's got as Ultracade has been selling their product and making damned good money doing so for the past several years.
Let the litigation begin...
Eh, I forgot this: IANAL and TINLA.
But what he's doing is so obvious that a disclaimer really isn't needed.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
What the fuck are you smoking? Are you David Foley's mother or something?
"They may have the right to use "MAME" in any business they do, but they certainly can't claim exclusive rights to the name."
Personal injury lawyers may have a prior claim?
Now I know what Dave Foley does in-between commercials on Celebrity Poker Showdown.
Poor guy, I'd be upset enough to sue something too if I had to host dreck like that.
Compare the one in the trademark application, to any of the copyrighted images here. Hmmm, something looks familiar . . can you spot it?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Joy and Comfort are the most prevalent feelings that occupy my soul.
I gaze upon your image, and think of all that is wonderful and kind.
Urgh. Even Vogons would cringe.
Do we have any more substantial information than a small blurb at the top of a emu website?
Even if it is real, he has no hope of winning. Trademarks need not be registered to be protected, and I think there is more than enough evidence out there to prove conclusively that the logo belongs to the MAME developers.
-R
American justice. Good old fashioned bar-b-q burger with fries goddamit "if i can't make my own money with my shitty product I'll steal someone else's assets." justice.
When will you American's learn ?
Joy and Comfort are the most prevalent feelings that occupy my soul.
...closely followed by greed, riding on coattails and a need to go out stealing people's mail...
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
I mean really...would this product even be around if it MAME was not? This almost seems like a troll. This is *almost* worse than the RIAA and that is saying something. I guess the analogy would be the RIAA suing artists...I digress.
1. Create product in *very* niche market.
2. Alienate everyone in your target audience.
3. ????
4. Profit.
I guess we know what #3 in 90% of all business models is now.
These people will be among the 2nd group of people up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Don't ask me when the revolution starts...just go out and start one.
you have a right to sue, but not a fundamental right to commit criminal fraud -- which is exactly what he's doing.
it's as criminally fraudulent as the cocksucker who tried to trademark the name "Linux".
IIRC, didn't someone try something like this by trademarking Linux? And didn't he fail?
Judging from the other posts all this guy is going to get is a lot of hate mail and offers for viagra.
poster knows nothing about law
...Gadsby is all ready for you. :-)
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
The linked article doesn't even site any source for the contention that there is any intention to file suit.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Whether MAME trademarked the acronym or not, the logo that Ultracade wants to use is a straight copy off the official MAME logo. Can't it at least be argued that the original MAME image was copyrighted, and Ultracade is infringing on that by attempting to trademark it?
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Hey David. Suck mine you dipshit
No email address or phone number :/
1) This may or may not be a troll, re: suing MAME deveopers, but it's not a troll in that this bozo is attempting to get a trademark for it.
2) Yes, as someone asked, someone did attempt to get the trademark for "Linux", and demanded payment for use of said trademark. Needless to say, he didn't get real far.
The bottom line is that there is -NO- chance for him to get AND KEEP the trademark. Some bozo might grant it -- after all, the Linux one was granted -- but it would be withdrawn so fast it would make your head spin when both prior copyright and prior art are shown, and in abundance. He doesn't have a prayer.
In other words: if he succeeds in getting the trademark on Mame, he could end up with a registered logo that he's at risk of being sued for if he actually uses it in public.
(It'd almost be funny to see him being sued for using it in his first 'cease and decist' letter)
That having been said, sending the USPTO an email about this application with a well-chosen URL from the WayBack machine might torpedo this application (at least I hope so -- IANAL)
__________________
Btw: With SCOXE at risk of being delisted, Darl McBride may be looking for somewhere else to be a public puncing bag.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Ultracade's trademark application includes the copyrighted MAME logo. Even is MAME doesn't own their own trademark, which is upsurd, the logo is illegal to reproduce.
Isn't that enough reason to deny Ultracade the trademark? This is just like the guy that tried to steal the Linux trademark from Linus.
Go ahead & mod me down or a troll if you wish...
but when it comes to Linux, we (./ers) want to abolish IP laws, but when it comes to MAME, we want them to be enforced?
Maybe I'm not seeing the entire picture here.....
but if this about trademark, then I'm all for making Ultracade an example.
Too bad I'm not in CA, but this is good information for anyone planning on beating the shit out of either of these two clowns. I'm thinking a tire iron to the jaw and then liberal application to the knee caps.
This is absolute nonsense. In the U.S., you do not need to register a trademark to be the owner of it - just use the mark. Perhaps the MAME folks ought to register the name to prevent another clown from trying to steal their name. I've posted a trademark notice on my own site to keep away at least some of the predators. I did that after learning of the problems of problems of Katie Jones, owner of the katie.com domain. Linus Torvalds eventually had to register "Linux" everywhere because of a similar set of thefts.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
My trademark law is not that great but.. 1. This term has already acquired a meaning way before the trademark application was filed for (8 years). 2. The term is actually descriptive in terms of providing what is being trademarked. The term MAME is known to be a term in the art related towards providing game emulation software. 3. Even if the trademark attorney at the USPTO approves the trademark application. There is period of time where one can oppose the trademark application. I hope the trademark attorney to whom this application is assigned does a search on the net.
Linus Torvalds did not originally register a trademark for Linux. It was first registered by a con man named William R. Della Croce Jr. This slimy disgusting toad was trying to weasel 10% of the profits out of any books and journals that used Linux in the title. A groupd of Linux related companies had to fight this guy in court for a year to get the trademark assigned to Linus
What this shows us is that the fact that a product name exists and is in wide prior use makes absolutely no difference to the idiots at the USPTO. They can't be bothered to do real research. Their attitude is that they should approve everything and let things be sorted out in drawn out expensive court battles. The whole organization should be burned and razed.
One thing this reminded me of is that, in order to actually be assigned a trademark, you have to state under penalty of perjury that you are the owner and first user of the mark and that you are not aware of anyone else using this mark or name. The sleazy guy in this case (read his resume, which someone else linked to, the fact that he has worked in the music industry doesn't help his case much) appears to have submitted someone elses already copyrighted work in his submission. I'm wondering if he even had the intelligence to make his own copy of the image. Looking at the one on the page linked from this article, it's a bit hard to tell if he just yanked a mame image from somewhere and slapped a TM on it or just drew his own. Unfortunately, it looks like he did recreate it with colored pencil or markers and then scanned it. But maybe not. In any case, the original is obviously still copyright the original creator. If he submitted it and also claimed that he was not aware of anyone already using it, then he's perjured himself. Sadly, none of these sleezes seem to face criminal charges from that sort of thing anymore. It should make decent legal ammunition though if the USPTO does what I expect them to do and grants this trademark.
WRONG! the problem is that he is trying to use the USPTO to steal the name and logo used by someone else. using MAME to make money is perfectly legal, stealing the name is not. not that i would mind seeing the infusion of cash after the countersuit gives the MAME project ownership of this shitty little company.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
That's what I thought. Especially when I read the name of the guy here. I was thinking of "The kids in the hall" when I read that.
/-McK
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004929/
He's trying to take away the legitimacy so that his company's product can be the only game in town.
People are starting to realize that he has a crap product that is exorbitantly expensive.
I have some strong ties in the arcade business (operation and distribution) as well as good friends in the emulation community.
When you can get a used DDR machine for less money than one of these things AND bring in more, why bother?
The Ultracade has been pushed on arcades by distributors because they get AMAZING deals on it and make LOTS of markup when they actually sell units to arcades. (A lot of distributors usually shy away from this sort of practice with most games because it's more profitable to "rent" a game out to an arcade and take a cut of the game intake. They do all the service of the machine (including coin emptying) so they can track an unmodified count and it's a good system. They can sell off old machines that aren't bringing in money and keep most of the money IN the business rather than moving through it.) The problem for the arcades is that they're pretty much grabbed by the balls. Their businesses are for the most part dying and old games still bring in enough draw to warrant keeping them around...but they can't devote all the space to multiple cabinets so they just get one of these puppies....
I wish our arcade industry was more like in Asia..where everyone gets the newest thing and you have multiple level/floor arcades and you just keep what brings in money. Times are tough over here though.
Anyway, this guy is just trying to solidify his business and since he has a crap business model, he's trying to bully out the competition while the opportunity to do so is still there. I hope people fight him tooth and nail and his company goes bankrupt.
Here is a photo of the fucking asshat of the day
Lets play a game: "Slashdot the Asshat"
Go to this page:
http://www.davidrfoley.com/flyer/
then load up each of the page in a separate tab. The images are large.
On the USPTO webpage for this application (here) it says that its status is "Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney." Anyone can file any trademark -- I could file one for the term "Microsoft" -- and it would get to this stage.
The key is getting your trademark application approved. The main impediment is from either already registed trademarks that are similar in name or from people that file oppositions. The process of filing an opposition is described on this USTPO page.
As someone who knows a little bit about trademarks I can say that the individual who filed this is really wasting their time -- the only way he could get and keep this trademark is if no one noticed he filed for it.
-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org/ben
Too late:
Deutsche Telekom wanted to get an exclusive right to the use of the letter "T".
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Laugh! It's funny!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
They should mame him.
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
There is a big but in this. It should be noted that he will not be able to sue people unless they use the EXACT same image. And I mean EXACT. He may still own the copywrite on it if he really did make it himself, and thus can still sue under that basis for people who use his exact image. But if you look around, most people are using stuff a little fancier, crisper, flashier with backgrounds behind or stylings around the word MAME, and all of those will stand as they are already, and he will not be able to do anything about it. It is the same reason why Microsoft has never wanted to have a true court case involving its trademarking of the word Windows, it has always managed to skirt the issue and or settle cases before rulings could get made to make the case go away before being striped of the TM. If it ever does actually make it to court, it would most likely be stripped in the current court system.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
That is thier logo he has distributed as his own without asking.
:
Roytalies as a forgivable 11m$ for each use and the guy might think twice.
if I take a photo, it is mine, I can let you use it for a price, on time, anything.
if I make a movie, and I can be all RIAA on your ass, and even insult the laws of the country that people died for, and claim things that are not true.
if I draw a logo, or even name something, this is a work that is auomatically protected under copyright.
So
David R. Foley
144 S. 3rd Street
Suite 626
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 685-5403
david@davidrfoley.com
You are a thief. STEALING (according the the MPAA anyway)
and a dumb ugly one at that: look at his pic!
I am so waiting for the penny arcade on this...
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Correspondent
Lee Hagelshaw (Attorney of record)
LEE HAGELSHAW
LEE HAGELSHAW OF TECH LAW
350 TOWNSEND STREET SUITE 406
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
Phone Number: (415) 615-9300
Fax Number: (415) 615-9301
Can we Not as an open source community claim that we own the copywrite not sourcefourge but us the peaple that love mame and appreciate the authors work. WE LOVE MAME Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator For Life and doesnt even describe any hardware its the name of an emulator.
I Predict A Riot
It was pretty foolish for the Ultracade guys to have filed for the mark since they clearly knew there was a prior user.
Here's what will likely happen, assuming that neither side just gives up:
Eventually the mark will be published for opposition, unless the examiner at the PTO has a problem with it first. Since the PTO doesn't perform exhaustive searches (relying on the fact that people rarely invest the time and money to get a federal registration without themselves searching thoroughly and taking pains to avoid conflicts with others) it could easily get to this point. MAME will then have a brief window to file a notice of opposition, claiming that they were using the mark in commerce first, and that it is confusingly similar. This'll result in some discovery on both sides, and evidence and briefs being sumbitted to the TTAB, which will make a decision. I have a hard time seeing that MAME could lose this, but it costs money.
Meanwhile, the MAME folks should really be thinking about just getting a federal registration for their mark to make it easier to deter this sort of thing in the future, but again, it costs money for the initial registration, and for periodic affidavits and renewals that would need to be filed every so often for as long as they wanted to keep the federal registration.
Regarding the copyright issue, it's actually less clear. Ordinarily just because some piece of art is a logo, that doesn't make it uncopyrightable. However, you cannot copyright a name, and you cannot copyright mere variations of typography. Since the MAME logo is basically the stylized word 'MAME' it would have a tough time with copyright. A fancier logo would work better. Still, MAME could always try to register and see what happens. It also costs money, but not much.
As for people talking about prior art, that's patents. There's no such thing for trademark or copyright. Try again.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Quote: 'It is the same reason why Microsoft has never wanted to have a true court case involving its trademarking of the word Windows, it has always managed to skirt the issue and or settle cases before rulings could get made to make the case go away before being striped of the TM. If it ever does actually make it to court, it would most likely be stripped in the current court system.'
How's that so if they managed to force Lindows to change their name? Can you please enlighten me on this one?
Cheers,
Anon. Coward
...of this story...someone registers his stores name and tries to sue him. Pretty funny read too, even if that site has been around for awhile.
Here: Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.
-
l &e ntry=76627578
and copy paste this into an email to:
TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
-------
Regarding:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=seria
This person (David R Foley) is trying to trademark a copyrighted work. I cannot trademark the mona lisa, so I do not think I could copyright MAME, the name or the logo as they are copyright works of art (both the image and text).
For more information of the true owner, please visit:
http://www.mame.net/
Thank you
--------
Optionally include contact info:
David R. Foley
144 S. 3rd Street
Suite 626
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 685-5403
david@davidrfoley.com
There may be fines for fraudulent applications that break copyright laws. (image)
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Its Monty Python, you insensitive clod!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Relax, the trademark / whatever still has to go under review by the government's lawyers, wherein they will CERTAINLY find prior art. I mean, it's not like they could miss out on finding prior art of something that's been around for 8 YEARS? Right? ...
Aw fsck, who am I kidding, they're screwed.
So is that the reason they have that huge style guide for how to reproduce the windows logo?
that dude with the legal knowledge mispelled copyright...
Did anyone else notice that Zophar's frelling Domain pops up stealth under-pop windows with annoying advertising? And I am using Firefox.
I had hoped that Slashdot wouldn't link to stories posted on websites using code that circumvents the most beloved browser's anti pop-up tech. So, anonymous poster drives dollars into his affiliate account and slashdork is complicant in the scheme. You can't tell me there wasn't another source for this story.
This is why I never RTFA!!!
Z0ph4r iz t3h SuX0R!!!11!!
(this is sounding wierd, but I checked the page is on the uspto.gov site... almost too dumb to be true)
e ntry=76627578 ) I would like to bring to your attention his breach of copyright laws. Please refer to www.mame.net for the original owners. I have asked all those who can vouch for this to contact you in kind so that this matter can be resolved.
Here is Foley second address:
1. Foley, David R.
Address:
Foley, David R.
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
Legal Entity Type: Individual
Country of Citizenship: United States
Correspondent
Lee Hagelshaw (Attorney of record)
LEE HAGELSHAW
LEE HAGELSHAW OF TECH LAW
350 TOWNSEND STREET SUITE 406
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
Phone Number: (415) 615-9300
Fax Number: (415) 615-9301
Some googling:
http://www.hagelshaw.com/
E-mail your questions or interest to law@hagelshaw.com
or call: Tel. 415.615-9300 . Fax. 415.615-9301.
Address: 350 Townsend Street, Suite 406, San Francisco, Ca 94107
Copy paste this email to
law@hagelshaw.com
Dear Mr Lee Hagelshaw,
Regarding a trademark application from a Mr David R Foley (see http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
Please let me know if you have any relationship with the aforementioned David R. Foley,
I trust that you will treat this matter with all the serious attention it deserves.
Warmest regards
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
The article summary sez that MAME is open source, but it's sure not gonna pass the OSI or Debian guidelines for Open Source or Free Software. From the license:
MAME is free. Its source code is free. Selling either is not allowed.
Bingo! You've just won a trip to "can never be included by any distro that people can buy CD-ROMs of". But let's go on.
You are not allowed to distribute MAME in any form if you sell, advertise, or publicize illegal CD-ROMs or other media containing ROM images.
Dude, we already know. Or we don't. But it's really none of your business, because we already have to obey the law in the country we reside in. Having your license reference some standard of legality that varies around the world doesn't help.
There are some specific modifications to the source code which go against
the spirit of the project. They are NOT considered a derivative work, and
distribution of executables containing them is strictly forbidden. Such
modifications include, but are not limited to:
- enabling games that are disabled
Oh, so we can't change your code to run certain censored binaries.
- changing the ROM verification commands so that they report missing games
Oh, so we can't tell people that you're censoring those binaries.
- removing the startup information screens
For the most part, I think that's fair---you deserve all the credit. Seriously.
Don't get me wrong. I'm really really happy with MAME and its development. I seriously understand why your license is the way it is. But nobody should think that it's really "Free" or "Open Source" because you've explicitly disallowed people to disagree with you. Any real open source license lets me dissent.
That being said: please kick the shit out of these bozos, and I'll send money or code; whichever you'd prefer.
david r foley
devil for day
do defy rival
fry dead viol
The logo's certainly copyrightable.
So why not try to extend this rule to termination on ANY action against an author or contributor of the work, where the item at issue is part of the Open Source software product, including litigation due to the name of the original?
Without the specific restriction of the issue being PATENT infringement. Someone shouldn't be able to legally take open source stuff, sue to SHUT DOWN the original project, or try to supplant them in name, but then continue to use the product on the original license.
It's a huge Betrayal of trust, and it SHOULD result in termination of the evil company's rights, as a reasonable penalty, right?
http://www.davidrfoley.com/Personal%20Web%20Page_f iles/image003.jpg
Coincidence?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
...to waste this guy's time by selling burned copies of MAME on eBay.
:P
Sell schematics for MAME cabinets... Just download and sell for the cost of printing. It'll waste this guy's time, support MAME and the more-widespread use of MAME and you may even make a few cents per copy skimming a little on shipping.
That way you can "donate" (both time and money)...
The only downside is that it makes eBay money!
And hell, if eBay starts pulling auctions, start filing disputes and provide links to the trademark filing showing that it's not a valid trademark yet.
Hopefully the nightmare of support time that this will cause eBay will get them to not back this asshole in any way whatsoever and make his life more difficult.
Throw him into the Sarlacc Pit.
I hate being the voice of reason around here on Slashdot, but this one hit Fark late last night, and no one that i've found with any story on it whatsoever has actually put any weight towards "going to sue anyone" with it.
Has anyone dropped this guy an email saying "hey, that looks like the MAME logo that you just filed a trademark application for. Whatcha gonna do with it?"
Get a grip, people.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
http://www.hyperware.com/
The news item: Obviously he is intending to profit from these arcade games. MAME never did that.
So I think he is no better than someone selling bootleg DVD's.
Last time I checked many of these companies who wrote these games are still about. They probably have thier own MAME cabinets to show clients the good old days.
I have a feeling this guy is in for some stick.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Do you imagine you could put some huge golden arches up in front of a restaurant and not get sued because they were not the exact mathematical curve of the McCarpet ones?
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
I must, must, must go RTFM now. This seems just beyond reason - even here in the US where things like this do happen.
I have to admit that this is confusing to me ... so, by the same token, could I build a soapbox derby racer, slap on, say, a Datsun logo (assuming that it wasn't trademarked, of course), and then proceded to go after the original logo and concept designers??
Wow.http://tinyurl.com/5su4x
very interesting
For a long time I was happy that Ultracade was attempting to bring back artwork and designs long forgotten, threatening to disappear into the void. They're the last refuge for such games as Strider and Mercs, classics that shouldn't be allowed to disappear from the legal scene in this world. They are hardcore gamers who appreciate the art.
But filing for a trademark on MAME? The project that they got their idea from? That's just low. I could see them trying to sue MAME out of existence for being illegal, promoting piracy, and cutting into the profits of a corporation. But trademark?
Ultracade. Evil? Check.
The ______ Agenda
Can't seem to find my cell.. so I thought I'd toss this up.
David R. Foley
144 S. 3rd Street
Suite 626
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 685-5403
david@davidrfoley.com
Domain: davidrfoley.com
Please people, remember that Karma needs all our help.
Get Google to link every instance of MAME to be found on the web to your own site via their toolbar.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Someone should start an e-mail campaign to tell these people that we won't stand for stupid asshole tactics like this.
c id=11733396
f iles/image003.jpg
They have an email address posted on their web site: mailto:support@ultracade.com
Someone else has posted personal info on the author of the site: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140128&
Oh my God, his name appears next to an EA logo on a race car: http://www.davidrfoley.com/Personal%20Web%20Page_
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Per subject. I withdraw my claim that the case design can't be trademarked.
Ergh -- yup, that's so.
I was thinking mostly of the case as a functional object -- how it goes together, materials used, drive bay and power supply mounting, etc -- and only gave passing thought to appearance. Yall are quite right; the entire outside appearance of it is eligible. Sorry for posting without thinking.
The appearance of the case, not the design. Design includes functional elements (how do the drive bays lock in place?); appearance is limited to visual ones.
i think it's pretty obvious mame.net has been using it for years, the logo shows up in this archive http://web.archive.org/web/20000301045012/www.mame .net/
Since when the hell can you patent something that someone else has done and has been in the public domain for years, and copyright a name that's been in common use for years?
Does this mean I can patent the wheel and sue all auto-manufacturers for it? Maybe I can copyright the word 'the' and collect royalties on it. Hey, maybe I can trademark the word "Christian" and sue all the churches!
Whatever drooling asswipe at the trademark office gave him this trademark needs to be shit canned ASAP. This is gross incompetence.
In patents, it's called prior art. In trademarks, it's called prior use in commerce. Big whoop.
I don't even know what to say. This sort of thing really upsets me. It seems like the defendant should counter-sue and, hopefully, win, although that's doubtful :(
Are your sure the PTO has the same policy for trademarks that they do with patents?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Since when did you join the Deadly Slashdot Assassination Squad?
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Do you even know what the diffrence is between trademarks and "copywrite"? Bleh, who modded this up? Just because something sounds authoritative dosn't mean that is.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
How's that so if they managed to force Lindows to change their name? Can you please enlighten me on this one? They started suing Lindows in country after country, and Lindows decided they didn't want to have to fight the case in every single nation on earth and gave up. Lindows won their case in the United States.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...is that the tards at Ultracade don't understand that the original MAME people can successfully sue their asses over the Trademark and successfully get it and court costs. It happened with Linux, it can most definitely happen in this case.
They wasted the filing fees and they've opened themselves to ridicule and agony that they just didn't have to dish out to themselves.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Wonder why they're so easy for Wookies? See here.
- sm
quantum3d is the company mentioned yesterday on slashdot3 3&tid=184&tid=126&tid=196&tid=137
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/20/02212
Here we have another wonderful example of why lawyers are considered the scum of the earth.
I do wish there was a penalty for being involved in filing stupid/scummy lawsuits, something nice and humane like being hit with a baseball bat. It might cut back on some of these lawsuits.
You're so vain - Foley adaption
You walked into the PTO like you were walking onto a yacht
You had strategially dipped below one eye.
Your scarf it was turquoise
You had one eye in the mirror as you watch yourself gavotte
And all PTO officers dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner and
You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you don't you don't you
You had me several years ago when I was still quite naive
Well, you said that we made such a pretty game
And that you would never cheat
But you gave away the source code and most of it was written by me
I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffe
Clouds in my coffe and
You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you don't you don't you
Well, I hear you went to court and your cause naturally won
Then you flew your learjet up to Washington D.C.
To see the total lapse of the son
Now you're where you should be all the time
And when you're not you're with
Some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend
Wife of a close friend and
You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this song is about you
No no no... Ultracade is trademarking "MAME" to protect it from anyone who would abuse it, using it to pretend their inferior product is MAME. Because OSS projects can't defend IP as well as can corporations. As Ultracade will prove by stealing the mark from the MAME project.
--
make install -not war
Looks like he is almost done with his MBA. Much like killing someone to get into a gang, this trademark fiasco must be his final project.
It should be noted that he will not be able to sue people unless they use the EXACT same image. And I mean EXACT.
Reminds me of the classic dispute between "go.com" and "goto.com" where both had a green circle with white letters "GO" in the middle. There was back and forth lawsuits, injuctions, etc that went on forever. Here's a Google search of such news stories
If you check the top right image on his website it's plain as day that he has teamed up with Electronic Arts to take over the video game industry.
Woe is me.
No, you mean exactly the same. "exact same" comes from another planet.
Read the preceding posts before
writing this pathetic drivel !
Copyright law and trademark are NOT the same.
Not the same !!!
You can trademark Mona Lisa if you want to so
as to sell Mona Lisa brand mood pills for example.
You can't claim copyright on the picture itself since that is in the public domain.
that MAME logo would be under copyright by whoever created it originally - this sleazebag has just committed copyright infringement by registering it as a trademark.
suing for copyright infringement would probably get a quicker resolution to this than trying to establish that the name and logo had been in common use for 8+ years.
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=ai 0U4hMAAADKElhPfisIUyD44otnkoKPWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6 ww
He seems to be into illegal DSS cards too...
This guy's other company makes some really, really nifty small-form-factor PCs (roughly the size of one or two 5.25" drives). This is very nifty, but after this stunt, there's no way in hell this shitbucket will ever see even a cent of my money.
Who are his competitors? So we can buy from them instead?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
and tell him how you feel?
david at ultracade dot com
1. Firebox 0.33
2. ArcadeSpire 0.25
3. The program formerly known as Mame 0.33
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed.
The way to fix this is to let this guy know that this will lead to a magnitude of legal troubles that he cannot imagine. Either he withdraws the bogus application or face lawsuit from pro bono lawyers (who being fans of MAME) may happen to find a million and one reasons to drag him into civil court. He can do the right thing, or be one of many companies/individuals who have been bankrupted due to legal costs.
The great thing about this is that in the United States, you can file a civil suit for almost anything. And it would be simple to file hundreds of them given a team of very determined lawyers.
This guy is a real snake, the only thing I can suggest is why not stick an out of order sign on any ultracade machines you see, stick some gum in the coin slot, the vendors will get the idea, even advise clients etc not to go with the hardware, the only real place you can hurt these sorts of greedy people is in the wallet, a trademark is no good to someone who is bankrupt.
n=numerous
Granted he likely gave this same response to everyone else who wrote him (since my original email was basically a troll that deserved being sent to the recycling bin... hey i was angry :D ) but here it is for everyones reference
_____________
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyo
Ultracade has the right to the trademark on the MAME logo.
The artist who drew the logo in the first place has the right to beat up the Ultracade CEO with a lead pipe.
Easy no?
I said pretty much exactly what you did in my email to Foley "How about I trademark "Foley" so you quit using my name"
This was his actual response (!)
You are welcome to do so. However, you can not prevent me from using my name with a trademark, no more than I can prevent the MAME community from using the name, nor do I care to. I am simply trying to prevent commercial sales of MAME products that promote unlicensed illegal ROMs.
He is a greedy looking assclown.
I know a wanker who looks just like him. He would steal his grandmothers and pawn them if he had a chance. This fuckwit prolly would too.
Maybe he's innocent.
Maybe he simply plans to release a commercial version of Mame, and is planning to negotiate a commercial licence with the Mame authors. If so, he wants to be sure to get this stuff sorted out first.
Or maybe he's just a philanthropist who realises that trademark protection might be important in the future.
Until he actually files suit, we shouldn't assume hostility.
Ladies and gentlemen, start your download managers...
:)
http://www.davidrfoley.com/pp/
http://www.davidrfoley.com/flyer/
http://www.davidrfoley.com/maine-web/
Give 'em hell.
I sue you all. ;)
PS : this is so ridiculous.
*squeak*
Do you imagine you could put some huge golden arches up in front of a restaurant and not get sued because they were not the exact mathematical curve of the McCarpet ones?
I'll bet if I called them the Golden Arcs, and sold a sandwich called the Big Mic, I could get away with it. ;-)
Saw this on the MAME website, in their forums, thought it deserved posting here!
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade
Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will
try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our
marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are
making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems
that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the
customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are
not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator
or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and
not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did
work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games
for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the
arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In
1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade
project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to
classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from
several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible
Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and
built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was
licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed
technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use
their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of
the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a
market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game
arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the
market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade
product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing
fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers
competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a
similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell
it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for
sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you
look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play
over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by
pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with
statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them
do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with
a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or
provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that
will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would
anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal
way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't
think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would
agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games
on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the
argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then
run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost
effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these
games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously
doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone
reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and i
it means i wont be able to continue running games on my mobile phone? not that i could load them, or even when they were loaded ever control them anyway.
Think you can program? Prove it @ the geek challenges
Come on guys
Cunts are the best
why use such a word in a negative way.
it should be used positively.
its an insult to women.
Yeah but Microsoft was bribing the jury in that case.
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the community's programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions aside, they will realize that what we are saying about selling M.A.M.E. machines and the promise of getting 4,000 games for the average consumer can't possibly happen. Unlike most of you reading th
> The named which can be named is not the true named
What use is this string? I can't see how it's of any use to anyone. It means nothing!
-- My reply was his actions are wrong for two reasons: it isn't his to trademark, and it makes no sense to use the trademark to fight these guys. I am against licensing and monopoly on these old games, I loaded up all the games that I have already bought licenses to play on machines that are no longer supported.
I mentioned that he shouldn't target lazaurus burners (in any case). In addition he should clarify his usage of MAME in his products, and credit the driver writers for the games he has licensed. Anyone can buy a license for one version of Pacman on one machine base (not the franchise). Writing a driver to make it work in a emulated environment. That is skill. Whatever his points about legality of boards etc, the whole retro gaming wouldnt exist without the enthusiasts. No operator would have written support for other manuf. boards into thier products. MAME rocks. Don't knock it. --
Quoted From: David R. Foley
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are
making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and
not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible
Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was
licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use
their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a
market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the
market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing
fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play
over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with
statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if t
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I sent him this letter:
I read your comments at http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf. Respectfully sir, the trademark to MAME is not yours. Well reasoned good intentions do not change the basic fact that you are attempting to steal something as surely as the machine vendors you complain about.
If your goals are genuine, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. You already know the wrong way. The right way is to solicit a contract from the many authors of MAME that would enable you to hold the trademark in trust for the described purpose of taking action against lawbreaking commercial sellers as you describe.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade
Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will
try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our
marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are
making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems
that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the
customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are
not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator
or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and
not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did
work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games
for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the
arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In
1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade
project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to
classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from
several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible
Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and
built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was
licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed
technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use
their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of
the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a
market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game
arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the
market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade
product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing
fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers
competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a
similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell
it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for
sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you
look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play
over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by
pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with
statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them
do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with
a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or
provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that
will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would
anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal
way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't
think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would
agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games
on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the
argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then
run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost
effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these
games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously
doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone
reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions
aside, they will realize that what we are saying about selling M.A
David Foley has posted an official statement on the Ultracade site :
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
Our actions to prevent the sale of machines that promote the use of Illegally obtained ROMs has cause quite a stir in the MAME community. I have a suggestion. If the community is all about the legal use of these games, then I suggest that the authors and owners of the original MAME product, step forward, and either through us, or by any other means, establish thier rights to the Trademark, and furthermore, take action to prevent companies that profit by offering thier customers the ability to illegally obtain game ROMs. This is all that we have ever wanted to achieve.
www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf For the record - if it's true the owner is trying to weed out people selling Mame Roms CDs/DVDs, more power to him.. If he's just trying to trademark a logo, to hell with him..
Before jumping to conclusions, did anyone actually consider looking for Ultracade's side of the story?
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
February 21, 2005
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums. I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the community's programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games. In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions aside, they
Well put.
;)
Thank you for the informative reply. Also, for not taking it all too personally, heh.
Vicious lot, aren't we?
As a matter of fact, yes.
There's a restaurant near my home called Wally's. While I've never been there, it's pretty much impossible to miss as it has a big golden W in the exact same proportion as the McD's arch, but upside down. Honestly, I suspect they bought the sign from one that was remodelling or getting bulldozed or something and simply hung it upside down.
It's next door to a McD's. It's been there for over a decade that I'm aware of, and probably much longer. If McD's could have done something by now, they would have. It would appear that the simple act of flipping the sign over is enough to keep Wally's in the clear.
This is an hoax according to the PDF document on their web site. This post seems to be the result of an attempt to sue people selling M.A.M.E machines with illegal ROMS. Since, it's impossible to know who is right or not...
Rather, read his reply instead.
just don't call it McDowels as that has already been used in the film industry.
Clay is moulded to form a cup
yet only the space within
allows the cup to hold water.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
You'd FIGURE they'd use barratry. >.;;
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
so australia's national dish was an early example of
- steal an idea
- be an intimidating asshole about it
- profit
so it seems that the sco group copied that process as well. someone tell yarro, he can use it as evidence of noorda's incompetence.http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
his rant about how it all okay..
The guy who runs Ultracade has made a brief one page statement on the following URL - its linked off ultracades web page - its an interesting point of view, although I don't quite understand the relationship between the cause and his solution. http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
Try this link instead, which isn't broken by the lameness filter. :-)
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the community's programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions aside, they will realize that what we are saying about selling M.A.M.E. machines and the promise of getting 4,
..they'd found Foley's explanation on his site. He doens't intend to sue the creators. He's only interested in taking down pirates who compete with his legit business. It's a crooked tactic but apparently he thinks its justified.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
Summarized: Yes, there is a business interest in this, to put some stop to those advertising competing systems, (often with the MAME name,) that play Thousands of Classic Games! at a lower price point than Ultracade's which only a have a couple dozen. These other systems either come fully loaded with one massive federal copyright violation, or its seller points you to some website to download or purchase the ROMs (illegally.) On the other hand, Ultracade's systems' games are licensed, and for more than a pocket of fairy dust.
If Ultracade has evil world domination plans for the future, I really don't know. Perhaps Foley should've had more involvement in this from the MAME developers; taking care of trademark matters on their behalf (leave them to what they do best, development.) I don't see anything on their website about this, at least not on the front page. Does he have a past history of pissing people off? If not, then for the time being I'll side with him on this one.
Darl... is that you?
What have I told you about your business model!?
... and before you might consider: IBM does not sell arcade games.
Read UltraCade's comment on this matter:
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf
They seem to be friendly, just trying to prevent other companies from abusing MAME and reselling that stuff.
UK law would have Lindows lose that case, anyway: it's a name designed to have a similar sound to the MS trademark and competing with said MS product. IOW, calling it 'Lindows' was a stupid idea in the first place.
Whereas MAME existed way before Ultracade, so per UK law Ultracade would lose its trademark on 'MAME' as soon as MAME objected.
I didn't see this posted so I thought I would add it. You can get it yourself at http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf. I don't know how it really helps, but I would assume that the original MAME authors would be as interested as he is about not allowing people to mootch off their work to make cash, and more so should probably own the tradmarks and copyrights associated with their own sweat and blood. February 21, 2005 An open offer to the M.A.M.E. community. Our recent actions to protect our products have met with a lot of controversy. Many people have been quick to judge and make accusations about what we are attempting to do, and what we have already done. It is my understanding that the spirit of the M.A.M.E. community is ""M.A.M.E.'s purpose is to preserve these decades of videogame history." It is further my understanding that "Selling either is not allowed" with regards to M.A.M.E. Given this understanding, we are willing to help promote these goals and work to provide the original authors with the protection they deserve. Our goal is to prevent the commercial offering of machines with illegally obtained ROMs. I believe our goals can work in parallel. Furthermore, we have a long standing relationship with many publishers of many games, and we are constantly working to obtain more and more licenses for these games. Our goal in filing the trademark for the name M.A.M.E. was simply to give us leverage against those companies that promote and sell machines with M.A.M.E. installed on it, and more importantly, provide their customers with the means to illegally obtain the ROMs. This doesn't help our sales of our products. This doesn't help the community in general. We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos; we simply wish to find ways to prevent illegal distribution of classic arcade games. We will be happy to cancel our application and work with the M.A.M.E. team to assign it to its rightful owners; however we do want to prevent it from being awarded to someone that intends to use it commercially. I am available to work with the community to ensure that this happens, and to help get more games made available to the community at a reasonable price. David R. Foley CEO UltraCade Technologies
Btw. Did you read his A STATEMENT ABOUT THE M.A.M.E. TRADEMARK & ULTRACADE TECHNOLOGIES? There he basically says that it's okay to request trademark to other peoples things in order to protect his own company from piracy. Quite a funny letter.
My quality social news site.com.
would it be possible to change the M.A.M.E liscence from gpl(or whatever it is) to a version the explicitly forbids this guy from ever using either the source code or binaries, then sueing him if he ever tries to, you know, use mame? I can just see it now:
M.A.M.E. - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator
Copyright (C) 1997-2002 by Nicola Salmoria and The MAME Team
This software is free for use by anyone other than David Foley who is a fuckwit and is not allowed to use this software in any way whatsoever. Everyone else have fun!
-and occasionaly a giant moose.
My quality social news site.com.
While still full of it, Foley issued an Open Offer to the M.A.M.E. community stating, among other things, that he was trademarking the M.A.M.E. logo for profit, and to squash his competition (legal or otherwise). It seems particularly interesting that he makes it sound like he's doing MAME a favor, and that he will retract his application if the rightful owners decide to trademark the logo. "We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos; we simply wish to find ways to prevent illegal distribution of classic arcade games. We will be happy to cancel our application and work with the M.A.M.E. team to assign it to its rightful owners; however we do want to prevent it from being awarded to someone that intends to use it commercially." Yeah, right. he and his company are intending to use the trademark comercially. Aditionally, in the official UltraCade statement located here we find ubiquitous buffonery such as these conflicting statements: "In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. ...To them, they read an advertisement on a website or on eBay and compare our product with 50 games or an ad for a machine that promises thousands of games, with the promise of instructions about how to obtain those games. Of course, in this skewed environment the average consumer would gravitate towards the thousands of games machine, not realizing that the software and the games are unlicensed and illegal to play.
"...Now that we have attempted to take legal recourse to prevent illegal competition, the same people, who steal the work of the M.A.M.E. authors, and then profit by selling machines that have no value without the pirated games being made available, turn around and cry foul when we call them on their ways.
"The M.A.M.E. platform, while a technical marvel, consists of many violations of copyrights and trademarks. The authors have always stated in the documentation that it was not put into the public domain to steal from the game authors or publishers, and they have always been hands off about how to obtain the ROMs. They have also clearly stated that it is not to be used for commercial gains."
I can't even put my distaste into words. It's an unforgivable insult to the intelligence of the entire slashdot community that Foley would pull an obvious scam like this and try to tell us we've "misunderstood" him. Additionally, he seems wholely ignorant of the fact he has willfully committed purjury and has attempted the theft of intellectual property in order to leverage a legal cantilever against opposing businesses that he calls thieves and pirates because they are stealing intellectual property!
Ladies and gentelmen, I stand offended.
The only ethical way to do this that I can see would be to approach the MAME authors, and arrange a contract whereby Ultracade pays for THEM to trademark the name in exchange for an exclusive license to the commercial use of the name (which of course they don't need to actually use).
Any scenario where the trademark doesn't end up in the hands of the people who developed the software and created the name and logo is just asking for trouble down the road.
I emailed David this morning about this issue and received an almost instant reply. Sure, he copy and pasted it, but, it was nice that he even went to those efforts. Here goes:
http://www.gonzo-wireless.co.uk/foley.txt
moderators mod this parent up, as it's very informative.
Here they say that the reason to trademark Mame, is to stop piracy? Wtf? Why shouldnt the mame team own the mame trademark, and the company stop piracy using the normal laws for that.
I suggest that the Mame team agrees to no less than owning all the mame trademarks themselves. I do NOT trust this company.
Have a read of the following statements from the Ultracade website:
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf
Sounds like it was either a false rumor or the bad publicity changed their attitute Ultraquick.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail. aspx?x=99742
Robert Lee Hagelshaw<P>
Membership Info<P>
CA Bar Number 99742
Current Status Active
CA Admission Date December 1, 1981
District District 4
County San Francisco
Contact Info<P>
Address 350 Townsend St #406
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone Number (415)615-9300
Fax Number (415)615-9301
e-mail <B>lhagelshaw@aol.com</B>
Undergraduate School Univ of Michigan
Law School Univ of Michigan Law School
Actions
<I>This attorney has no public record of discipline in California.</I>
I got the following letters off the ultracade site:
I tired of the slashdot cliched kneejerk reaction to anybody making money: They must be evil, satanic, despised and loathsome creatures. Something we would pick out between our toes and fling into the gutter.
IT's is your reaction that is the kneejerk. No one who actually read the article suggested that he should be stopped from making money out of his hard work, he should be stopped from stopping others making money from there hard work. He even admits he cant compete and is trying to stop others selling cheap M.A.M.E. boxes finish up with an unsubstantiated acusation of piracy.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do.
So no examples then, don't you need evidence before acussing someone of something? Or has the basic principal of innocent until proven quilty changed? Someone came up with a better business model than you live with it or adapt don't try a decive your way out.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
But you be the judge....
February 21, 2005
An open offer to the M.A.M.E. community.
Our recent actions to protect our products have met with a lot of controversy. Many
people have been quick to judge and make accusations about what we are attempting to
do, and what we have already done. It is my understanding that the spirit of the
M.A.M.E. community is ""M.A.M.E.'s purpose is to preserve these decades of videogame
history." It is further my understanding that "Selling either is not allowed" with
regards to M.A.M.E.
Given this understanding, we are willing to help promote these goals and work to provide
the original authors with the protection they deserve. Our goal is to prevent the
commercial offering of machines with illegally obtained ROMs. I believe our goals can
work in parallel.
Furthermore, we have a long standing relationship with many publishers of many games,
and we are constantly working to obtain more and more licenses for these games.
Our goal in filing the trademark for the name M.A.M.E. was simply to give us leverage
against those companies that promote and sell machines with M.A.M.E. installed on it,
and more importantly, provide their customers with the means to illegally obtain the
ROMs. This doesn't help our sales of our products. This doesn't help the community in
general.
We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos; we simply wish to find ways to
prevent illegal distribution of classic arcade games. We will be happy to cancel our
application and work with the M.A.M.E. team to assign it to its rightful owners; however
we do want to prevent it from being awarded to someone that intends to use it
commercially.
I am available to work with the community to ensure that this happens, and to help get
more games made available to the community at a reasonable price.
David R. Foley
CEO
UltraCade Technologies
The other letter also attempts to clarify Foley's situation:
February 21, 2005
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom,
But are they Microsoft Evil?
As an aside, what is slashdot's evil scale?
Puppy kisses.
Girl kisses.
Reading about a topic before forming an opinion
Trolling
An unkind word about Apple
An unkind word about Monty Python
Stalinist Dictators
Anyone who reads Baron's
The US Government (in whole or in part)
Microsoft
Although it suggests UltraCade is merely trying to limit the (indirect) for-profit distribution of ROMs (most of which would be a copyright violation), I really cannot see how this can be achieved by trademarking the MAME logo and name.
Taking a look at the MAME-site regarding the logo http://www.mame.net/features.html one would think that UltraCade cannot use the logo for this purpose: "The MAME logo was designed by chemical and cleaned up by Exodus3D... The usage is free for non-commercial purposes (such as websites), for any commercial purpose (includes use in magazines), please ask a permission from the webmaster.
I wonder if there is an agreement between the MAME developers and UltraCade about the trademarking. As such I agree that the people earning money on building a mame cabinet and selling it for profit are either commiting a crime, or at least suggesting the buyers to commit one. And apart from the copyright violation, this is in direct conflict with the MAME-license.
On the other hand, a lot of people built their own cabinets, and since the ROMs cannot be acquired legally, they too are committing a crime when downloading a romset. In some sense I would consider it a lesser crime since nobody is making money in this case. And since it is not possible to legally acquire these ROMs, I can't see any way of thinking about lost revenue.
But in my opinion this is just another example of a world that is not strictly black and white (or as I like to think of it: a scenario where a single bit is not enough to hold the needed information).
Quoted text to avoid killing the MAME forums:
I'm pretty sleep deprived, emotional about this issue, and incoherent...but here's a copy of what I just sent the guy:
Dear Mr. Foley,
I am writing to express my thoughts to you about your recent filing for Trademark over the MAME logo. I do not intend to flame you or insult you to explain how your actions look to someone from a different perspective than your own but with similar interests, background, and knowledge involving arcade games. Most of this email will be in direct response to the mame.pdf file which you have posted on your site as this is the only statement you have made and the sole bit of information which I will choose to make my response from.
I'll just explain where I'm coming from a little first. I am an arcade enthusiast. In my free time I buy/sell/distribute legitimate game boards and build home JAMMA rigs and full JAMMA cabinets for people. I do this as a hobby, not a business, but I have done it for slight profit in the past. I have never once built a "MAME cabinet", although I have put together the physical hardware for people in the past (sans-PC and extras in the past)...This would include a cabinet built from the standard types of MDF, t-molding, overlays, lights, speakers, marquees, control panels, lexan coverings, RGB monitors (and included the required special video card) and buttons (wired to a keyboard). I have never done more than that for anyone who wanted a MAME cabinet. I have never advertised my services on or done business through eBay and the cabinet building has only ever been done for personal friends, aquaintances or through referalls from distributor friends of mine who wanted to throw me some business because they couldn't be bothered themselves. I have also as a hobby been following the development of MAME over the years and believe that the software has some technical merits and deserves some interest and support. I will also offer that 99.9999% of MAME use is for completely illicit purposes. On the other hand, arcades are one of the loves of my life, and I plan on opening an arcade business (both gaming locations and parts distribution&repair) in the near future.
Here are the bitter facts though, and I may quote some of your statements from your statement.
First and foremost: "I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace" I do not believe that you understand the reality of your marketplace or are deliberately ignoring it. That is a harsh statement, I know, but I will explain in detail.
You say that you are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems in which customers illegally obtain ROMs. Why? It's obvious: It's because this is your competitor, and their illegal actions are damaging to your business.
As a business, it is your responsibility to attempt to surpass your competition and keep them from getting an illegitimate edge on your business. The law is at your disposal for this. Yet you'll find, as you will in most cases where bootlegging (because that's what this really, truly is here) is involved, the authorities are not interested. This is even more aggrevating because eBay, where most of this business is taking place, is raking in the profits and couldn't be bothered and have a reputation for this attitude. So you have a number of legal options: You could go after the bootleggers. You could go after eBay. You would have a tough fight, but there are other corporate and private interests who have pooled their legal and monetary resources to do this and there ARE class action lawsuits against eBay and they ARE under investigation. You would be completely right in doing so as well. Rather than do that, you have decided to make claim to something that you have no legal right to, the MAME trademark, in an effort to either make a statement about these illegal practices, or give you legal leverage against these people in lawsuits. This does not justify your attempt at misuse of Trademark law. Your reco
There's a period while the trademark application is in process where it is published in the Trademark register for opposition... At that point, flood the letters in, and it will get kicked out.
This thing can be fought and his application WILL be denied.
No. Under trademark law there is a concept known as `passing off'. If you market a product with a name / logo that is sufficiently similar to an existing trademark for there to be confusion between the two then you are regarded in law as attempting to pass off your product as being affiliated with the trademark owner and are liable for prosecution. If the owner of the trademark is aware of this and fails to prosecute then they may be unable to do so at a later date, because the trademark will have become a generic term.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think any court would conclude that consumers could tell an M from a W.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
http://64.233.167.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-29,GGLD:en&q=cache%3Ahtt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidrfoley.com%2Fresume.htm
I just had a thought... What is the CEO of any reasonable company doing responding to a flurry of emails at 3-5am? He literally got back to me within minutes and we're starting a bit of an exchange of views. I'd be really interested to know how large their offices are and how many employees he has.
If Slashdot has a useful byte in it's codebase, this is one it can handle. Hear me out:
./'s system to augment that part of the process and slap these fools down!
Each time someone attempts a ridiculous trademark like this, we get a first posting of the article. Once the trademark application goes up for review in the trademark publication, we ought to see another post (See, perfect for Slashdot!) listing the publication and how to respond and refute the mark.
The US trademark process has a stopgap for jokers who try this. I say we use
Can I get a hell-ya?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Foley's site is down.
[Nelson "HA HA"]
I think Chewie lives on Endor because Ewok females are easy.
....
Or -- Ewok males are small, furry, and helpless.
It's spelled "Chewbacca", but pronounced "Chew Backside"
-kgj
-kgj
Ok I know it's totally of topic, but does any one know where I can get a good quality oak cocktail MAME cabinet in Austria or Germany?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Ultracade have posted a statement in reponse http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf:
"February 21, 2005
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E.
emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our
marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the
commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on
the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim
ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial
marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college.
In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade
games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which
turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade
games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco,
Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built
prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation
community. We have licensed technology from many of the community's programmers, paying them to use their
code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have
invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game
arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends,
our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing
fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade
Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a
very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing
others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic
Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same
4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that
don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download
the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of
ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that
there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you
really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of
thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I
could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be
anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to
spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E.
machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelli
It's a testament to how stupid people are, and how alarmist Slashdot is in ALL posts about Patents, Trademark or Copyright. It's a rare Slashdot article regarding Intellectual Property that doesn't make at least one intentional error, easily verifiable error. And error that is almost NEVER Corrected by the Editors, even though they have no problems issuing updates to other articles that are factually incorrect.
It is intentional. The Slashdot Editors choose the most vitriolic, error prone submissions on Intellectual Property matters on purpose. There can be no other reasonable explianation.
The problem is that to try to claim as a trademark something that already exists is where people will have a problem with this.
In the patent world, if it can be shown that an idea or design was already in use at the time the application was filed, the patent is thrown out.
MAME is already a known name in the tech community, so to come along and try to trademark it after others have established a community/product with that name is where EVERYONE will have an issue. If it went to court, as the MAME team COULD do if they wanted, this trademark would be thrown out.
So, protection of what you do is all fine and dandy, but to try to grab a name of a product that already exists is WRONG. It's not as if MAME were the the name of the product UltraCade has been pushing(up to this point at least). It's like someone hearing that UltraCade was in the planning stages and had the name selected, the product created, but then someone else came along and registered the name of your product after a press announcement went out about it.
So, Mr. Foley, please consider that since MAME was NOT the name of the product you and your company have been working on, that trying to trademark the name will be considered wrong. Most rational people out there will approve of you going after illegal products when yours is legal, but using a cheap method like this will only anger people who would approve of what you do.
I suggest that you talk to the MAME developers(the real ones), and have them help you in any legal issues you have with people selling illegal machines that compete with yours.
An interesting rebuttal to be sure.
Still, the crux of the issue is that you're landing a heavy boot square in the domain of the MAME authors.
You make allusion to them infringing on proprietary copyright and patents. And, in the great tradition of people quoting this, then fail to mention any of them. Please, if you can prove MAME is indeed infringing on Patent and Copyright, please inform us of your findings.
Downloading a ROM for free, yes, that is indeed copyright infringement (not stealing, as you represent your company, please be semantically correct).
But, it seems that, to prevent 'unfair' competition (people providing a harness that can play games on it, if someone purchases a ROM, for cheaper than you can provide), you then decide to put a claim on a name made by others.
While technically legal, you are, in spirit, no better than someone who infringes on other trademarks.
I've heard of MAME (stopped using it, as I couldn't find somewhere to legally purchase the ROMS, and no vendor seemed interested in that activity), but I've never heard of your products.
This absolutely reeks of a company with little market recognition seeking to acquire a name by subterfuge and bad practice.
I would say, if you have an issue with people selling these machines for less than you can produce legitimate ones, you should be working hand in hand with the MAME authors, and providing them with legal backup to chase the makers of these license infringing machines, giving them a stronger position, rather than trying to subvert the name and position.
Much as you may believe you're legally able to do this, I think your grasp of the aftereffects of doing this are lacking. Many emulation enthusiasts may avoid you on principle. I know I will.
I look upon you as a hypocrite. While justifying your move as one to prevent 'theft' of a piece of 'intellectual property' (name and code of a ROM), you 'steal' someone else's property (their name, which is the whole umbrella of their project, thus subverting the project itself).
Your 'plan' seems nothing more than "Someone's taking from what we want, so we'll take something from someone completely different.".
Work with the MAME group, and you may well get good results, if you treat them well.
Work against them, and one name change and a few months later, you'll have the same problem, with a massive PR problem on your hands.
Your account is interesting. I am sympathetic to your plight, and I would assume that many other people would be too.
However, I don't think that attempting to trademark "MAME" is the right response. I think the reality of the situation is that MAME (or something similar) will always be available to those who want it and are willing to find it. A trademarked name is never a problem. Just look at Linux - it can't be called UNIX, but that has not stopped its popularity. As you've said, the real problem is those who sell illegally copied roms for a profit. Surely a better solution would be for you and the MAME developers to cooperate - they are also against people profiting from MAME. It makes MAME look like a dodgy product, rather than an enthusiast's tool. With their MAME trademark and product, and your (presumably) more professional legal division, you could all win?
Guys, I think judgement is premature in this case. Foley and Ultracade are trying to squash those who are using the MAME logo to help sell illegal machines. Ultracade is a legal, operable machine. I've seen it in action, and back at CGE2K I spoke directly with Foley about his product. He is an enthusiast of the old arcade experience, and his machines speak to that enthusiasm. I asked him if his intentions were to give the trademark back to the MAME authors, and he confirmed that he is willing to give the trademark back to the authors. He's not trying to squash MAME, just those who are using it against his company. While I'll admit that it's unorthodox for a company to come out of the blue to trademark a name they neither use, nor have any interest in, I'm not as quick to toss gasoline and matches on them for doing it.
Here is a message from someone who appears to represent Ultracade, giving his side of the argument. Note that he says he does NOT intend to sue the authors of MAME.
None of this is in the least bit relevant to the fact that Mr Foley is attempting to trademark a name over which he has absolutely no claim whatsoever.
It's all the usual self-justifying crap you get from assholes like this.
The fact that he claims to have "created" the market for retro games is a joke, as is his claim that others are "stealing" the MAME work whereas he is using it in some more "legitimate" way. MAME is FOSS.
His issues with pirates have nothing whatsoever to do with MAME; he is just trying to make an end-run around the community and this is the pack of lies he expects us to swallow.
I hope he gets jailed for lying to the trademark office.
Hmm... What about games by companies that are completely gone and no legal permission for ROM images can be obtained? With these people setting themselves up as the gatekeepers for MAME, those games would fall through the cracks. One of those games would be one I worked on, and that kind of pisses me off.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That does not make sense!
-Xen
It sounds somewhat reasonable until you do some reasearch and discover that he's also planning to sue the developers of mame (mamedev) too.
That fact alone makes you realise this guy is just greedy scum. Unfortunately greedy scum also make the best liars too, so his arguments will probably trap most of the uninformed readers out there.
Fuck the hell off and leave MAME alone.
You looked at OJ Simpson?
It would seem important that the PTO person assigned needs to be made aware of the situation. Is there any way to make sure that happens? I doubt new trademarks are open to public comment...
I have a business problem. People are selling pirated ROMS for less then I can sell them legally. My problems would go away if I took legal control of your logo and trademark. Can't you see this is a good thing, for me?
Dear David,
You're an idiot.
Stealing the author's brand so that you can go after completely unrelated parties is cruel, lazy, and excessive.
Your business practices stink, as does your logic in explaining them. I hope you fail miserably.
...and its mind-numbingly slow speeds.
:)
For example, when I clicked on your link.
Managed to punch the [STOP] button before it was halfway loaded.
WHEW!
Yes or no. No spin. Are you or are you not attempting to gain MAME trademarks?
Why should we believe anything you say, when you attempt to trademark an image copyrighted by others.
If you are so against copyright infringement of ROMs, why then do you infringe the copyright of the MAME logo creator?
The whole response smacks of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
It is curious that your attempt to "fight copyright infringement" of ROMs, just happens to also be a weapon against others who legitimately compete against you with MAME cabinets with licensed ROMs. I smell a strawman.
At the rate you are going, it won't be long before we have the entire cast of Wizard of Oz.
Not true, if they can prove that the other's use of the similar mark creates confusion and/or dillution of the mark, the other can be estopped from using their similar mark. Now I have to go back to watching a movie on my SORNY TV.
The whole /. commnuity is a wonderful study in conditional ethics and double standards. People who sell machines that compete with Ultracade based on MAME rely on customers to obtain ILLEGAL copies of the ROMS in question to play the games, or load the ROMS illegally.
/. community going to recognize that as much as they want to be free, some things aren't and ought to be obtained legally. I am sure a large number of this community works for software compaines that generate revenue through the sale of licenses. Would you still have a job if I could sell working, hacked liceneses for pennys on the dollar? No.
When is the
Wake up people, not everything is free and you have to deal with it.
So why doesn't this company give mame.net some cash to trademark MAME and then in return, mame.net allow UltraCade to go after the "MAME" machines using mame.net's trademark.
In one of his open letters, this asshat admits to NOT being the "rightful owner" of the marks he is applying for. Even a hack lawyer should have zero trouble using this.
We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos; we simply wish to find ways to
prevent illegal distribution of classic arcade games. We will be happy to cancel our
application and work with the M.A.M.E. team to assign it to its rightful owners; however
we do want to prevent it from being awarded to someone that intends to use it
commercially.
http://www.starroms.com/
Regardless of intention, trying to trademark something you have no right to so you can "only sue the bad guys" is still illegal. You're taking the rights to something you don't own. It looks like your approach to dealing with the "unfair competition" is to sue them for trademark infringement. That has nothing to do with the legality of distrubuting arcade machines, the bulk of your arguement for your actions.
If the MAME licence indicates that it is indeed illegal to profit from selling arcade machines with MAME installed, then shouldn't you be collaborating with the authors of MAME on this? Yes, it would take more effort, but you wouldn't be stealing someone's trademark.
Assuming it the MAME licence allows selling of machines with MAME preinstalled, then these "illegal arcade machines" are infact perfectly legal. The fact that they have free software installed allows them to beat your price just for the machine. This is how free software works in the commercial market. The return is the exposure MAME gets, which results in more people contributing to it. Since you can't do anything about that, you abuse the legal system to get your way. That's bad for America in general, and won't do much to earn you a good reputation. The only thing illegal going on in this case is the distribution of arcade ROMs. If that's interfering with your market, then you have a case right? Yes, it's more difficult to deal with than simply sueing the makers of MAME arcade machines with a stolen trademark, but it's the legal way to do it, and won't have the possibility of resulting in anymore damage to America's already damaged legal system.
I don't care if he is trying to protect his business. That still doesn't give him the right to try to copyright and trademark someone elses work. And regardless of what he is saying now, if he is allowed to do so, what's to stop him from trying and stamp out MAME in the future?
Anonymous Cowards suck.
You still have no business trademarking MAME's name or logo. Go ask the MAME developers to trademark it themselves.
What happens if one day you sell your company and the new owner finds that they own a trademark to MAME? Do they know what was your motivation? Will they honor it even if they know? What about the MAME developers who had trusted you with the trademark and left it unchallenged? They have trouble of reclaiming the MAME name if someone else has owned it for years.
Bot Assisted Blogging
Look, they've got their money and they aren't interested in doing more work to get more money from their stuff, so it's been abandoened property. Just like Real Property! As they keep trying to get!
So these guys come along and do work to update and make these ROMS useful again. The ROMS now have commercial value again.
However, if you take an abandoned building, fix it up and open it up as a hostel or whatever, the original owner has lost title.
"IP" is either Real and treated as such or just Intellectual and there is no moral imperative in keeping it. Just legal (which can change).
Whether or not your intentions are "right" or not, does not change the fact that you do not own the thing which you are attempting to. In this way, you are attempting to perform the very same act of stealing other people's property that you hold up as the actions which you are attempting to stop of others. Stopping theft is your justification for your own attempted theft. In addition, if you were actually able to get to the point of succeeding in what you are attempting, it is unclear that your "Good Intentions" would survive the continued futility of your actions. It is entirely possible that you would turn the MAME name on the actual owners of the property.
Almost all of these games were made in the 80's. They are cultural icons and history. They should ALL have been put in public domain by now and would have if copyright laws had been kept as intended by the framers.
So frankly, I really have very little sympathy. Although, I respect the guy for actually having endeavored to legally bring back many of the classics.
Then look at the monkey. See the monkey? Look at the monkey!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
"doing whatever it takes to protect our commercial interests and prevent other companies from stealing our market".
Pretty much says it all.
Sure this guy has a problem with his competitors - certainly he has the moral high ground in selling legal product when his competitors seemingly do not - but stealing the MAME name from it's rightful owners is not the way to do this.
Suppose some new company comes along and sells MAME systems with only 100% legal ROMS. Taking the MAME name would allow him to shut down this new company as well as his illegal competition - and that's just plain wrong. He's clearly just attempting to get a monopoly on the MAME software - and that is VERY contrary to the OpenSource philosophy behind MAME.
If he wants to shut out the 'illegal ROM' competition, he needs to pursuade the lawful owners of the ROM copyrights sue the miscreants. If those owners choose not to do that (as is evidently the case) then that's their decision to make.
It's no business of anyone else to get involved.
But attempting to steal the MAME name from the very people who wrote the software that his business depends on is totally unacceptable. It's probably also a very stupid business decision - in the unlikely event that he succeeds, just how much support does he think he'll get from 'the project formally known as MAME'? There is certain to be a huge backlash from the community that'll do more damage to his business than those competitors ever did.
I don't think he'll succeed in getting the trademark though - this is essentially no different from that guy who tried to register the Linux trademark.
I think U are the devil itself.
Sounds like UltraCade does not want to compete with anyone else in the arcade game market. Why go after the MAME people instead of the people selling pirated ROMs? This is like going after the gun maker of a gun used in a murder instead of going after the person who pulled the trigger. Of course the answer is because it is less expensive to go after an open source project than it is to go after other companies.
Would changing the name of the MAME project help in anyway?
and he confirmed that he is willing to give the trademark back to the authors
He can't give it back. The application is either 1) invalid because he had no right to apply or 2) quite valid for some reason that escapes me. If no. 2, there's no way the MAME guys should accept being given it back, because it would legitimize this guy's crazy story about how he has exclusive rights to use that mark.
Ok, ok, that's, I'm sure, not the proper term as applied to trademark law. But still, doesn't the principle of prior-use also carry weight in trademark law? As I recall, back around oh 1994-95 some idiot tried to trademark 'Linux', which wound up in court, and the court eventually transferred the trademark to Linus Torvalds because the mark was already previously used by and on behalf of Linus to describe the kernel project he founded, and the guy was obviously trying to steal a mark he had no right to.
Wouldn't the same apply here to MAME? Wouldn't it just require the MAME authors to step up and object to the copyright registration?
IAAL, and to make a trademark application of the kind that is at issue here, you have to make a declaration that you have a bona fide intent to use the trademark.
HOWEVER, on Ultracade's website, there is an open letter to the MAME community dated February 21, 2005 in which they write:
"We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos."
In other words, they are admittedly committing fraud on the Trademark Office.
This computer is so confusing! I have accidently set it to reload UltraCade.com every 10 seconds and I can't figure out how to make it stop!
I found his problem, his favorite band is The Cure. I wonder if he will try and trademark MP3.
/
http://www.doyousnap.com/portal/albums/7/176.aspx
Man, he's bringing out the big guns, ain't he?
Just want to know -- how is aquiring MAME and insignia as a trademark relevent to stopping "illegal" trade of games and ROMs?
Oh, and the "illegal" part -- maybe in the US. Other jurisdictions, not so clear.
Can't be done on a a copyright basis -- MAME doesn't conflict. And there IS substantial non-infringing use -- so you can't go down that avenue either.
As to trademark; its established already. Nothing you can do EVEN if you aquire it (which would be bizzare).
The problem is the "illegal ROM trade" wrt US jurisdiction. So why not take that on directly?
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Many people claim that they have a board set and therefore they can download as many ROMs as they like. The law is very strict. You can transfer the image from the actual original ROM chips, which you legally own, to another piece of hardware, provided that you actually transfer the code from the chips.
What you have is a physical object. You can transfer the data from that physical object and use it.
Just having a board sitting around, and saying I have the right to play it is not the case.
Or do you have a license to use the data from the physical object, in that case, you can just have a board sitting around and still have the right to play it.
Many people point to StarROMs and say that they can then sell the games with the ROMs installed. This is not the case either. StarROMs license prohibits the resale of the game licenses, and only the end user can purchase these ROM images, resellers can not.
Possibly not.
As codified in section 117 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs) of US copyright law, consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
This, of course, is all still being debated.
I feel for you. You seem to be, so far, an honest company trying to do business in a field dominated by dishonesty. I applaud you for chasing down people who are illegaly selling stolen software (yes, I said stolen, on Slashdot, and I do have my flame retardant underpants on) It has to be incredibly frustrating to know that your competition is undercutting you because they are dishonestly taking advantage of something they have no legal or ethical right to.
Now a bit of advice: Don't do this.
From the tone of your letter, you are trying to do with the name M.A.M.E. the same thing that your dishonest competitors are doing with ROMs. Specificaly, taking something that doesn't belong to you to support your business. Don't go down this path!
I could be wrong. you guys could be the people who wrote MAME, and then it got out of control. But I don't think so. I think you see M.A.M.E. as the facilitator of your dishonest competition and it would be incredibly convinient to declare ownership to stop it.
I'm not saying this because I'm some h4x0r who is upset that you are taking away my cool free stuff. Frankly, if I was, copyrighting the name would mean nothing to me. I'd be just as likely to break a copyright for one word as for a thousand games.
I'm saying this because you don't want to be a crook. You really dont. For your own sake. Look. You didn't write MAME, you didn't come up with the name, or the logo. It doesn't belong to you! Getting some lawyer to tell otherwise doesn't make it any different. You're just doing with lawyers what the ROM traders are doing with email, or ftp, or whatever they are using these days. Taking something that doesn't belong to you because it is to inconvinient to do it otherwise. It's dishonest. If you really have to be dishonest to stay in business, I suggest you get out of this business. Because sooner or later, if you go down that road, even if you get away with it for quite a while, it's going to bite you in the butt.
I don't want to discourage your business, I wouldn't mind an Ultracade myself. And it does make a difference to me that it's legal. I think you ought to keep up pressure on the ROM sellers, and the people who falsely advertise. Even the ones who "advetise" aginst your business by telling hobyists with a nudge and a wink, how they got their illegal roms. I hope you can actualy get some damages from them. Though I know it's hard. That your lawyer bills are probably higher than what you're ever likeley to receive. But then yoe are taking the legal and moral high road. And. please, keep putting out the message that you offer a legal way to get what your competitors are only offering illegaly. I'm all for that.
But if you are going to take something which the copyright legitemately belongs to someone else, you might as well ship a full set of pirated ROMS with the Ultracade. If I'm going to do business with theives, I at least want get the bennifit of it.
Our goal in filing the trademark for the name M.A.M.E. was simply to give us leverage against those companies that promote and sell machines with M.A.M.E. installed on it, and more importantly, provide their customers with the means to illegally obtain the ROMs. This doesn't help our sales of our products. This doesn't help the community in general.
So, reading their 'open letter to the MAME community" posted on their website, they actually DO want the third party buyers to get 'illegal ROMs' ?
Could they decide which side of the fence they are on?
If you're gonna post an open letter, you might actually want to proofread it.
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
I think the guys behind that will be forced to change it further, to something more recognizable and less confusing. You know, like Horny TV.
estopped? Is that the new trademark for stopping crime online? ;)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
That while game companies like Nintendo, and Atari, while fully aware of what is happening to thousands of their games continuie to do nothing about it. People go about downloading ROMs despite being illegal because nothing is done about it. Thus as far as I can discern, these ROMs are "Abandonware" software that while the Copyright is still active, and the company could still take legal action, chooses not to, or that company no longer exists. Since game companies are not trying to stop it then it is Abandonware
Isn't this that guy from Kids in the Hall?
Because the MAME product has been a "public domain" item previously, Software rights owners such as yourself and others, who have legitimate claim to the ROMS that are being unlawfully distributed, frequently supplied with these units, have had no principle figure head to sue for breach of copyright. Does that mean since you are now atempting to take ownership of the MAME trademark you will be the figure head for wich copyright owners can now sue ? since it will be your tradename product expiditing this distribution.
Dear Dave Foley,
I loved your work in Kids in the Hall, you were damn funny. "High Stakes" sucked, though, sorry. And sorry your pal Phil Hartman got killed.
Sincerely,
- A Fan
P.S. please go back to comedy and leave the emulation racket
How can you hope to get a trademark on someone else's well-known product? especially when you compete in the same industry.
Is American trademark law really as bad as it's patent law? Surely not! I hope not!
What's next? Is Microsoft going to go and trademark "Linux" to control it's (miss-)use?
Perhaps the MAME people should apply for the trademark also - I'm sure the law MUST favor someone who actually has a long-term (well known) product with the name being trade-marked...
Yeah whatever and Hitler was cool too. Rememeber that British Prime Minister who said "I have in my hand a piece of paper"
Just becouse you have spent millions of dollors making a little industry out of emulation doesnt meen you have the right to own that industry and if you think theres only room for you in this industry then i dont think that anyone should get the right to own it becouse its not fair. just becouse you spent millions of Dollors doesnt make it fair that was a chance you took theres nothing fair in chance.
I Predict A Riot
I for one do NOT understand how he can trademark the MAME logo if he
A) had nothing to do with the years of work that went into the coding of the free softwareby the authors and the, collectively speaking, decades of beta testing by those who play MAME games. The players/beta-testers discover a new bug, report the error to the MAME designers and the emulation becomes that much more stable. What right does Mr. Foley have to what would amount to vicarious ownership of the decades of collective work of what is perfectly legal software?
B) He did not and has nothing to do with the creation of the MAME logo, so how can he have a legal right to trademark it? IANAL, so could someone please explain this one to me?
I CAN understand Mr. Foley's concern as a businessman wanting to stop Illegal ROM distribution, especially by vendors who flagrantly break the law or deliberately encourage it. However, he is going about it in what certainly looks to me like typical, lazy corporate bullying:
make a poor pretense at taking the moral high ground by claiming to be merely be fighting piracy to protect his legitimate business, finding the best lawyers money can buy, and then quashing software innovation when copyright-infringement is not relevant to the logo (since it was not created/taken by such means...yet).
I have no problem with his current efforts to stop illegal ROM distribution: it's the legal and correct way to go, but he just lost all moral high ground and became as bad as the lawbreakers he wants to stop with this corporate trademark SNAFU (pun intended).
As the owner of a MAME arcade control panel who legally bought the rights to a collection of CAPCOM games on a single CD, I am left incredulous at the hypocrisy of Mr. Foley's efforts to fight copyright infingement by doing what is, for all practical purposes the same thing: TAKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO HIM THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH YEARS OF WORK AND THEN MAKING A PROFIT ON IT.
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I see MAME as a project to preserve history of the games, they can be preserved in a romset and be played with an emulator so they can inspire software developers in the future or help in research. As a software developer, I understand the piracy issue but I don't think the best way of action is to stop the MAME project because I believe the matter here is not to make money. UltraCade is making money using other people's work (OK, in a legal way), they buy the licenses because "money" is the only language they speak and the only thing they want. They are trying to survive selling abandonware and I don't believe that's fair. This may be as pointless as trying to buy fragments of history (like the independence of any country) and sue all the authors writing this fragments in their books.
STFU, morons.
I will now spin this story to put me in the most positive light without discussing what I'm really doing or why.
We are trying to compete in the court room since we aren't doing so hot lately in the open market. And what do you expect? Our competitors are mean...and fat...and crooks. It's not fair!
These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.
We only care about how much money we can make. We couldn't care less about you bunch of losers sitting in your mothers' basements typing on your blogs and chatting with other adolescent dipshits.
I am awesome.
We can sell you a bunch of cool games! Sale ends soon! Buy today!
Did I mention I was awesome? Well, I am.
Even though I'm awesome, I'm also a bit of a sucker.
No Fair! Other people didn't play by our rules and now we can't make as much money! It's not fair, I tell you! They're STEALING! (Well, not really stealing...more like...infringing copyrights...but, that just doesn't have that same ring to it.)
Just to correct one point - there is nothing "technically legal" about this. I sympathize with the guy in terms of the unfair competition (specifically - people selling boxes laden with illegal ROMs). However, MAME itself doesn't do anything illegal, and whining on about how technically people who own the original games can't legally play them in an emulated environment doesn't give him any more or less of a legal claim to the MAME trademark.
Just because he has a legitimate grievance with some people selling boxes on eBay does not give him the right to infringe on the MAME developers' existing legal trademark rights, whether registered or not. He is now violating the law by filing and using a fraudulent trademark claim, which he is entirely well aware is fraudulent, to prosecute third parties with whom he has a grievance. This is not legal, it is not moral and it is not ethical.
If he wants to make money off of MAME, then he should be offering legal ROM bundles that work with MAME for sale and prosecuting those who sell systems packaged with illegal ROMs - this does not require making any fraudulent trademark claims at all.
Arcade game ROMs can be obtained legally:
Star ROMs
Our classic arcade ROM database contains over 25 games at prices as low as $2 per title!
StarROMs was established to provide an inexpensive and legal source for classic video games. These are the original games exactly as you played them in the arcade. Now you can legally download the ROM and play the game at home, as often as you like, with your favorite emulator!
I don't know anything about Arcade game ROMs. I found this after Googling for about 5 seconds. I'm sure there are many more ways of getting ROMs legally. So this invalidates UltraCade's argument in that forum post. I wish parent had posted the link to the forum thread as, I'm sure, there would have been many replies to UltraCade's post, stating my point.
hehe Just kidding. I'm too busy playing WoW to bother with retro arcade games.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do.
And what exactly will stealing a logo and name do to stop them? He can't copyright the code, so these guys would simply remove all reference to "MAME" from their code and continue to sell it. Totally irrelevant.
I'm amazed at the response of the community, a community that is being whipped into action by the same people who are stealing and profiting from them and they're efforts.
Aside from the irritating use of "they're" (you wanted "their", buddy), what's whipping us into action (here we are, so easily lead astray. And I thought you said you were writing to an intelligent audience?) is the fact that you're trying to steal via copyright a work that has been used for years by another party. No chance this would hold up to a court challenge. Whether or not you plan to sue the authors of MAME is not the primary issue, as you would lose. The issue is theft.
As to the legality of ROMs (IANAL), according to the DMCA, I am entitled to own a backup copy of digital media that I own. If I am unable to create that backup for myself, I can have someone else generate it for me. So if you actually own the cart, then yes you can legally download a ROM image. True, not very cost-effective, but legal.
You can't solve your company's problems by misappropriating other people's property.
This isn't about the roms dude. This is about a man trying to TM a product so he can have sole rights to it. This product, however, is NOT one he created. The idea to incorporate many arcades into one machine has been around for decades, long before this guy started. And he has NEVER developed for MAME. Now, I would be completely willing to admit that roms have copyrights and deserve to be protected. But the authors of MAME have these SAME rights. This isn't a question of whether MAME should be legal. It's a question of whether this guy has the right to take over someone else's work and then sue them when they use it in anyway. If this guy wants to LEGALLY sell roms and game machines, then he can write his OWN emulator that is "better" than MAME to do so, or he can point the lawyers to the people that are currently breaking the law to compete with him. But it's not ethical to allow him to just TM the logo and name when he has NOTHING to do with the project.
Now - that being said, I love my MAME box. You should build one. Try it out.
HighSchoolForever.com
Am i the only one who thinks the artwork isn't the coolest thing on the face of the planet? (feel free to flame).
And the name isn't that cool either... it's just an acronym. Why bother trademarking an acronym unless it's something that you invented or originally developed?
To make money and scare people away from your product, just the way the RIAA scares music downloaders. Not a 1:1 analogy, but you get the point.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
The people have ALL the rights to use M.A.M.E logo and name in ANY auction they want to.
You can NEVER, for any reason, claim this name just because you have a market to look after.
I agree that those auctions selling ilegals ROMs *must* be shut down, but the use of the name/logo of mame is not a good argument.
If you can distribute the titles you claim you can, this is enough to close those illegal auctions. Now, leave mame alone, and move around.
PS: i tried to find if you already submited any code for mame, but i had no luck finding neighter a positive or a negative answer to this. so i'm giving you the benefit of doubt.
PS2: if you aren't triyng to *fucking steal* the M.A.M.E logo/name, then disconsider the "bastard" in this post subject.
I agree that this is a complex case. I practice trademark law and I do not understand who advised Mr. Foley to file a trademark application for MAME.
While missappropriation and unfair competition can be enforced via the Trademark Act, filing a trademark application (in my opinion) for a mark that you do not lawfully own does nothing. It would in effect force the hand of the open source developers of MAME so that they would have to oppose the application. Trademark rights are acquired by use of the mark in commerce. The open source project known as MAME has likely been using the mark for way longer than Mr. Foley and his company. This doesn't even take into account the legal requirement in trademark law to pick a mark that you know or reasonably should know is not in use by another.
The issue really is with the third party vendors instructing buyers on where to obtain illegal ROMs. It is not with the MAME trademark itself. Now, could there by vicarious infringement issues? Maybe, but that involves the copyrights on the game code, NOT with the MAME trademark.
A lot of times, clients ask their general business counsel for legal advice on trademarks and frankly, a lot of lawyers are too arrogant to say they don't know. I don't know if that is what happened here, but unless I have misread something, there is NO basis for Mr. Foley's company filing a trademark application for MAME. That is just bad legal advice. His company is not the lawful owner and he knows that there is already a company (i.e. open source project) using the mark in commerce.
I'm sure someone has made this joke already but I've been working hard today, so forgive me.
So, apparently Celebrity Poker Showdown doesn't pay quite as much as it used to and the residuals from Kids in the Hall have dried up.
I wonder what Scott Thompson is up to these days?
> Clay is moulded to form a cup
> yet only the space within
> allows the cup to hold water.
And...what? This passes for philosophical in the eyes of the religious? Think I'll stick with the scientists, if we're after strings which provide an advantage in surviving and perpetuating ourselves in the environment in which we find ourselves!
As the inventor of EyeBall Mark I (1973 version), I have found your Superview patent to infringe on my own patent rights...
Et Coetera...
Tis truly insightful.
So he says they're going after the "cheap" arcade machine providers. After you snuff them out, why not go after the "free" arcade providers?
From the last paragraph:
"This is simply UltraCade Technologies and other publishers doing whatever it takes to protect our commercial interests and prevent other companies from stealing our market by capitalizing on unlicensed games and selling products that only have value when coupled with illegally obtained games."
How does this statement NOT include MAME itself?
lexbaby
"Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce
Is it just me, or did the response take a good two pages yet completely walk around the issue?
My questions are these.
Did they legally obtain the rights the the logo and name before filling?
What on earth does going after illegal competitors have to do with getting trademark for a name and logo you didn't create? Did I miss something?
He might want to actually clarify the issue at hand *before* getting on the high horse.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
This has NOTHING to do with the ILLEGAL Copies of Roms or Links to them.
2 339.msg276462.html#msg276462
The guy wants the Trademark the Name MAME so he can extort money out of people for using the MAME logo:
An email correspondence with Mr David Foley posted here: http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,3
Message #1:
Comments: Your use of the MAME name and MAME logo is a violation of our registered trademark (USPTO Reg # 76627578). Rather than proceed with legal action against you and your company, and getting lawyers involved, we would like to resolve this directly. Please contact me by Wednsday to discuss. David R. Foley, CEO UltraCade Technologies.
My reply to message #1:
I remember looking up the Mame logo and it had a "dead" indicator
meaning it wasn't registered. I just print arcade marquees for enthusiasts'
cabinets. What information do you need from me, or what are you
requesting?
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #2:
It's not dead, and we own it. If you would like to pay us a royalty on the
graphics that you print, then we could probably come to some compromise.
My reply to message #2:
What type of fee structure are you considering?
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #3:
What do you sell them for, what is your cost of goods?
My reply to message #3:
I see that your status on the Mame logo as a trademark is only pending, and has not actually been granted. The USPTO Reg # you posted below clearly states that your new application is pending - how could you state that you own it? The US Patent and Trademark Office must not condone someone stating that they own a trademark when it is in this status. It can be said with certainty that ultracade is not the proprietor of the Mame logo. I'm certain that you're familiar with Nicola Salmoria. I don't think it would be wise to discuss royalties until you have actually been granted the trademark, wouldn't you agree? I will have to contact the attorney assigned to this trademark showing details of the Mame logo existing before ultracade along with your claim of ownership before considering any sort of royalty fees.
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #4:
I'm not looking for a royalty, but rather just an agreement that these will not be sold into commercial establishments. Our goal is to prevent companies from selling machines that are based on the MAME system, because these machines can not legally run 99% of the games on MAME.
So this guy is going to stop pirating of arcade classics by "claiming" ownership of the name of a project that he did not develop. I know this guy needs some leverage, and understand that if M.A.M.E were his he could use it as such. I can't see how this would be any diffrent from Microsft "claiming" ownership of WINE becuase it can be used to run pirated copies of windows. To what ends will this logic deteriorate to?
While I applaud Mr. Foley for his response, it still does not sit well. He complains about others stealing yet that is exactly what he is attempting with the trademark/logo. I don't believe he is that altruistic.
Lindows.
No matter how he spins this, he's trying to screw everyone else so he can make a buck selling something that we should all be stealing in the first place...
These Folks!. And if the Apple Music vs. Apple Computer case is taken at a precedent, we can expect a settlement.
And it explains the original text which seems to have puzzled you, or perhaps some other AC. It's not deep or difficult. It is just slightly indirect, because I was trying to avoid insulting your intelligence.
This passes for philosophical in the eyes of the religious?
No, it passes for obvious in the eyes of the literate. At least those with experience of cups.
Think I'll stick with the scientists, if we're after strings which provide an advantage in surviving and perpetuating ourselves in the environment in which we find ourselves!
Do you imagine that many scientists would have a problem with the idea that cups should be cup shaped, if they are to, you know, be useful as cups?
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
That reply was the lamest justification for stealing a logo/name that I've ever seen.
Is he cutting a deal to payback the Mame developers? No. So why exactly should they be giving away their logo/name to him?
Just a correction to your misunderstanding ot WINE: WINE can't be used to run pirated copies of Windows. WINE provides a Windows-like API that allows one to run programs written FOR the Windows platform under *nix. So, you can't take Windows XP Pro and use WINE to run an unregistered copy of XP Pro. But, you can take WINE and use it to run Quicken or Apple Quicktime WITHOUT needing to have a copy of Windows at all.
He may actually get the trademark. But one thing he should not be granted is the LOGO. He did not pay for the design of the logo. He did not hire the designer. So this part of the application is iffy.
So far he's managed to get several auctions on eBay pulled because they used the word 'Mame' in them.
2 339.msg276342.html#msg276342 2 339.msg276462.html#msg276462
He's also gone after an arcade art printer as can be seen here:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,3
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,3
Do I detect a future interview here? I'd say you need to start a new thread to open a dialog with this guy and /.ers The fact that you posted the update and all the responses to it are buried in the latest comments ( I like to read oldest to newest) is forcing some of us to have to alter our prefrences.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Whatever he is trying to do, if they get the trademark, they can either sue no-one, or sue everyone using the MAME name to point to the M.A.M.E. emulator. Therefore, there is potential for abuse.
I think he should either create a non-profit that is supported by M.A.M.E. programmers and community, or drop the idea. Also, I think that any other company making consoles will be succesful suing UltraCade for unfair business practices if UltraCade pretends to be the supplier of the M.A.M.E. emulator while it isn't.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
All you idiots who assume he's planning on suing the MAME devs... that's not his plan. He's said clearly he wishes to stamp out the unauthorized sales of MAME machines (since MAME isn't permitted to be re-sold anyways).
Though that is his motive, it's still not the right way to go about it--basically stealing the trademark and logo from the MAME devs. If the MAME devs want to stamp out the illegal sales, it should be up to them to do it, not this Foley guy.
Courts found for them IIRC.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
1) The MAME authors GREATLY oppose this trademark.
The fact that he choses to base a businiess around someone elses property and then gets all whiny that its 'his job' to protect it is absurd. And make no mistake, he can deny it all he wants, but UltraCade uses MAME code all over the place.
2) He is shaking down people selling freaking MARQUEE's on eBay. Not ROM CD's, Marquees. He is after some quick royalty money pure and simple.
I don't think he counted on this trademark being noticed so quickly. But it has, and he's about to have a ton of bricks dropped on him.
So the drowning man is MAME and he is the one standing outside of the water. He's trying to kill MAME!! And we can't believe any of his claims that he won't sue the authors of MAME because he states
"Convince yourself
That it is okay to lie."
This is also supported by the above stanza where we see the true motives of his plan
"All he can do is flail,
And try and not sink.
Eventually he will tire."
At no point does the man outside the water actually help him out. He could throw him a line but instead he just hangs around and waits for the drowning.
This is quite topical once again.
The text of the Copyright Office post is here - Why Slashdot keeps rejecting this, who knows.
Anyway, a lot of these MAME games are practically "orphan-ware" anyway, and they want to address the insane copyrights that tie these games up and out of the public domain.
Public comment period, folks... copyright changes *could* happen!
I was thinking this over at lunch; what if this guy knows he won't get the MAME trademark? To stop him from getting it, won't someone have to stand up and say "You can't trademark this, because it's mine"? And at that point, does he have someone to sue for the MAME cabinets he's competing against?
In other words: If he gets the trademark, he wins; if someone stands up to stop him, he wins.
I tried to checkout their website but the Flash was horrible and the sounds drove me nuts.
Tip to UltraCade, your site sucks. If you want me to buy your stuff don't push me away when I try to.
I see his point in wanting to police the blatant piracy that goes on related to MAME. And he should continue with this, bless him.
But he does not own the MAME name, nor its trademark, and his attempt to secure it for his supposedly noble purpose of fighting piracy is not a good enough reason on its own.
Basically, Dave, fuck off.
I'm so sick of everypost on slashdot, someone stupid has to feel the need to defend a companys right to fight against "piracy". by using mame i'm not pirating anything. I paid for all of those games by pumping 9 billion quarters into arcade machines in my youth. Untold hours sneeking into chuck-e-cheese. Now they are free. this guy is a cocknocker. No-one is gonna buy his sh!tty cabinet. I would build my own first. I hope he is reading all of these replies and realizing how screwed he is.
This guys an opportunistic asshole trying to couch what is at best an attempt to eliminate competition in a market in which no one's hands are clean, including his.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Ceo,
You are trying to steal the name of a software project begun long before your stupid product was being built. Nay, others were building these at home long before your product was built.
You are using copyright infringement as the basis to steal someone's acronym name. Give it up, everyone will see through your crap and you will lose.
If I were the author of M.A.M.E., I'd change the licensing agreement to specifically prohibit any company that is in any way affiliated with you, people related to you, or anyone who has worked for you from using the software legally. They have a right to do that on future versions you know.
I'd tread carefully since you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't use the fact that some people infringe, using a piece of software, to steal a trademark of the software.
That's like me saying I want to trademark windows, because some people download illegal mp3's and software, and run them on the OS.
So while you still have a shred of dignity, a legal budget, and credibility, back the fsck off.
l8,
AC
Foley, as a liscensee can't enforce the copyrights of his liscensors.
It's an interesting dilemma.
If I sell a computer, built into a cabinet with a joystick, this is legal. Additionally, if I sell it with MAME included, this is legal.
- If I include ROMs it is illegal (it both violates copyright and the MAME liscense). Only the holders of the copyrights (Capcom, Namco, etc) and whoever enforces MAME's license can go after me.
- If I include instructions for how to illegally download or purchase ROMs, I am breaking the law. This is contributory infringent, or conspiracy to commit infringement (Something along those lines c.f. Napster). Only law enforcement can go after me here at the behest of compeitors and liscensors, but they can't reliably sue me.
- If I include the MAME logo on the cabinent, this is illegal (it violates the copyright on the graphic). The owner of the copyright can sue me.
- The inclusion of other marks and graphics on the cabinet that are not my own can also get me sued by trademark and copyright holders (The likeness of Ms. Pacman, the Pole Position logo, etc).
My questions are these:
- If I advertise that my product is capable of infringing copyright, is this legal?
I make a arcade cabinet with MAME inside and advertise it by saying "Capable of playing 4000 of the games you already own if you have hardware to copy ROMs from your original boards!!"
I can't say "Plays 4000 games you can download for free FROM THE INTERNET!!"
What's The Right Way for someone in this market to level the playing field?
(To the parent poster, "Work[ing] with the MAME group" doesn't seem like a sucessful tactic, as they can only (and already do) cover the sales of MAME with ROMs included. There's no vigilante way to enforce copyrights that you only license.)
(Pardon any typos, I didn't have time to proofread)
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
You did not create MAME, the MAME name, or the MAME logo. What leads you to believe that you have the right to the MAME trademark?
From his resume:
2001-Present University of Phoenix, Online, MBA Organizational Development
What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
It sounds to me as if the application for a trademark was submitted illegally. The part about believing you to be the creator, or something like that seems obviously false. The letter on the website shows without a doubt that you are aware of the existence of a program of the same name, yet you signed the trademark application anyway.
You also stated that you want to use the trademark just as leverage to sue those who are committing crimes. If you are truly interested in this, perhaps you should start collecting information about who is distributing these illegal copies of roms and turn it over to the law, or, *gasp* the actual developers of MAME. You can say that you don't want to make a profit off of the MAME name until youre blue in the face, but since you have other (legal) methods of achieving your goal, which you have not taken, then it makes you, the person who fraudulently submitted an application to USPTO, no better than the people who copy these roms.
Now IANAL, but doesn't the copyright on some of these games expire after a certain amount of time? Unlike Disney, some creators DO allow their creations to fall into the public domain after a while. What about playing these games on MAME?
Oh, wait about fair use laws? According to fair use law, I have the right to download a song off the internet if I already own the song in some comparable digital format. Where does the law state that owning a ROM chip doesn't give you the right to play the game? You say the law is strict, but don't quote it or even mention what the law DOES say.
And they said zombies weren't real!
i'd believe his story had he supported the MAME AUTHORS to obtain the registration in THEIR NAMES, and then to support THEM to go after the copyright violators.
unfortunately, that seems not to have been the step taken.
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
Let's get this straight:
(a) Dave is getting his ass beaten into dust by competing against a free technology in the marketplace.
(b) Dave then decides that since the product (which was the driving force for creating Ultracade) is the key to getting his ass beat, he decides to file for a trademark to try and regulate who does what with software which isn't his and which he doesn't contribute to.
(c) He wants this trademark so that he can litigate and get courts to specify damages from a bunch of hobbyist kids who are selling homebrew cabs.
(d) Profit???
If I were the MAME folks, I would contest the trademark and then come up with a better licensing plan. He's gonna sue them anyway.
Why do we accept these things, sure we bitch, write letters etc. But why doesn't anyone walk up to him in a bar and BitchSlap him? Viglante justice need not just be for crimes ... it needs to be for idiocy as well. Perhpas after he TM mame he can then live in a gated community. Do people figure that with enough income it need not matter if they are well liked?
... spit in his face or something similar ... heckle his children, park your car out side his house and blast your horn. Make him realize he's not very well liked. Great he builds a cabinet and now wants to make more money than god from it ... Ugh ... I hate these fools ... as we tread closer and closer to an orwellian society we need to take back our personal freedoms ... copywright, trademark be damned. Hell IBM could try and sue me for using the name IBM but get real .. is anyone going to mistake joe barstool for IBM ?
... Now I'm going to go beat up a patent holder ... Capitalism be damned ... Money should be made via productivity , not licensing, suing etc.
... thank god for gun control in canada.
I say let him try to do what he wants, but who says we have to conform? Time and time again we allow asshats to go through and do stupid things. But if we didn't allow them to it wouldn't happen. So if anybody sees Mr. David R. Foley (no relation to the kids in the hall)
Bah
Arrrgh I love to rant
Maybe I'm biased, but just from reading his email, it sounds like he's doing the wrong thing for the right reason. On top of it, since he's doing it for a good (or at least legitimate) reason, he feels he's OK and shouldn't be criticized.
Basically he's trademarking something someone else made, without their permission right? or did I miss something?
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
"[MAME defacto] have also clearly stated that [MAME] is not to be used for commercial gains." - This Asshat.
Like selling arcade machines?
Whether the software is legal or not, this guy is still selling machines preloaded with MAME for commercial games. MAME doesnt say "mame is not to be sold for commercial games with illegal roms," they say "not to be sold for commercial gains," period.
I see his point, but he's still an asshat. You cant go around registering trademarks which you have no grounds for ownership of and not expect people to get pissed off. Beyond that though, dont go lording around virtue and morality when you yourself are in strict violation of the same laws, if not legally, ethically. I understand that there is absolutely zero legal obligation to obey the MAME developers "not for gains restriction", hell, you even seem to be a reasonable case for not legalizing the not-for-gains restriction. but you have to be farking kidding if you expect to be allowed to not only break the ethical laws, but to then turn around and claim you are now the legal authority of MAME.
Your marginal hypocracy is far outshaddowed by your extreme stupidity and asshatedness. Please go back to running what could be a good buisness quietly and without incidence.
Myren
Hard to believe all the self-rightous drivel coming out of this guy/company.
I certainly hope -not- they have a good foothold on the non-enthusiast market, without it, pissing the enthusiast maket will sink them into oblivion. Actually, pissing the enthusiast market will kill you if they're technically savvy and they gang up on you... Which looks very likely.
Revenge: The pleasure of the gods.
This has NOTHING to do with the ILLEGAL Copies of Roms or Links to them. The guy wants the Trademark the Name MAME so he can extort money out of people for using the MAME logo: An email correspondence with Mr David Foley posted here: http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32 339.msg276462.html#msg276462
Message #1:
Comments: Your use of the MAME name and MAME logo is a violation of our registered trademark (USPTO Reg # 76627578). Rather than proceed with legal action against you and your company, and getting lawyers involved, we would like to resolve this directly. Please contact me by Wednsday to discuss. David R. Foley, CEO UltraCade Technologies.
My reply to message #1:
I remember looking up the Mame logo and it had a "dead" indicator
meaning it wasn't registered. I just print arcade marquees for enthusiasts'
cabinets. What information do you need from me, or what are you
requesting?
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #2:
It's not dead, and we own it. If you would like to pay us a royalty on the
graphics that you print, then we could probably come to some compromise.
My reply to message #2:
What type of fee structure are you considering?
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #3:
What do you sell them for, what is your cost of goods?
My reply to message #3:
I see that your status on the Mame logo as a trademark is only pending, and has not actually been granted. The USPTO Reg # you posted below clearly states that your new application is pending - how could you state that you own it? The US Patent and Trademark Office must not condone someone stating that they own a trademark when it is in this status. It can be said with certainty that ultracade is not the proprietor of the Mame logo. I'm certain that you're familiar with Nicola Salmoria. I don't think it would be wise to discuss royalties until you have actually been granted the trademark, wouldn't you agree? I will have to contact the attorney assigned to this trademark showing details of the Mame logo existing before ultracade along with your claim of ownership before considering any sort of royalty fees.
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #4:
I'm not looking for a royalty, but rather just an agreement that these will not be sold into commercial establishments. Our goal is to prevent companies from selling machines that are based on the MAME system, because these machines can not legally run 99% of the games on MAME
I don't care if he is trying to protect his business. That still doesn't give him the right to try to copyright and trademark someone elses work. And regardless of what he is saying now, if he is allowed to do so, what's to stop him from trying and stamp out MAME in the future?
I can't believe I had to read down this far to finally see this point made.
It doesn't matter what he says his intentions are. Intentions aren't legally binding. Once he has the trademark he can do what he wishes.
This is not his trademark to apply for. It is not up to him to police those who use the logo, it's not his plain and simple.
Assuming he got the trademark, which he shouldn't be allowed to have under any circumstances, his intentions would only allow him to stop people from using that logo to sell their systems. Who cares? They're still going to sell them, and the logo for MAME isn't some sort of universal symbol for classic emulation, not to the mainstream public.
Unless these people are completely stupid there is a hidden agenda here. His claimed intentions with the trademark don't add up.
Furthermore, I'd really like to know why he's filing for a trademark as an individual. Is this standard practice? Is there a difference between corporate and individual trademarks that grants, or removes certain benefits or drawbacks? I suppose at the very least if he owns the trademark and the company goes belly up, it's still his trademark.
Bah this whole thing smells fishy.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Moral right to "M.A.M.E" rests with the authors of that software. If you do not have their blessing to trademark the term, you are doing wrong.
That is an issue separate from the legal status of ROMs. When you conflate those two issues you engage in an emotional argument, which serves only to balkanize the interested parties.
Your insight into the industry is fascinating, but your letter did not address the issue of a MAME trademark.
He still doesn't explain what gives him the right to steal MAME. Because competitors illegally misuse MAME to undermine your own emulator doesn't give you the right to attack the makers of MAME and steal all their hard work. It sounds to me like he is just pissed that his corporate empire's emulator isn't as good as one made by a community of volunteers who do what they do for free because they smply love arcade machines.
M.I.N.M. Is Not M.A.M.E.
Clearly, you haven't seen "Coming to America"
"They have the golden arches; I have the golden arcs. Their bun has sesame seeds; mine is plain."
I have watched Auntie Mame a few times. It's really a fun movie (although a bit dated). It's too bad this company has decided to take away her right to exist. They should be stopped, and if Auntie had her way, they would have been already, dammit!
Honestly, this is such a strange course of action, if you have no intrest in the open source project, why steal their logo and name. I, as a graphic designer 7 years in the field, know how much work goes into a good logo and a strong Identity system, and how morally wrong it is to steal legal content which others have created. You are trying to steal the identity of another company, you are lowering yourself to the level of those people on ebay stealing games and selling them using mame software to play them, why attack the mame team personally, you of all people should know that the source code is given away for free, what is stopping any other company from compiling their own verson, giving it a different name and logo and selling it on ebay in an arcade box anyway. Honestly you are taking a very idiotic approach to your problem. And... on a slightly different subject... I think you could use a better logo, balloon script is so 1995.
rockhome, I think you are totally missing the point. Ultracade is illegally trying to squash its illegal competition.
At best, this is an act of vigilantism. At worst, it's perjury, attempted theft, lies, flimflam, and deceit that makes Ultracade every bit as bad as its competition.
I got an message pretty early on before this really hit the fan from Mr Foley. "To: "Scott Prior" Subject: Enquiry from MameMarquees From: "David R. Foley" Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:11:23 -0600 Please contact me immeadiately to discuss your unlicensed use of our registrered trademarks. I would much rather come to a licensing agreement than to shut you down, but we must discuss immeadiately or we will have to pursue legal matters." It would seem he wants me to pay him for every marquee / side art / CP / Bezel I print that has MAME on it. I have also heard of other companies that have gotten the same threatening email. Scott http://www.mamemarquees.com/
I actually used this one...
"look at the monkey"
Juror: "mngagagaagh! *pop*"
Genius.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Here are some great! Ultracade files to download: http://www.ultracade.com/downloads/Ultracade-syste m-3.0.pdf
http://www.ultracade.com/downloads/Ultracade-kit-3 .0.pdf
http://www.ultracade.com/downloads/Arcade_Legends_ Manual_Rev1.pdf
http://www.ultracade.com/downloads/tagem_operator_ manual.pdf
I really like the last one, with P/N ??? ??? ????
Professional. Not
If I happen to build an arcade cabinet witha control panel, and house a PC in it, and sell it on eBay...
THERE ISN'T ONE GODDAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Just TRY to sue me and I'll own your company.
Have a nice day,
Kee
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
Apparently, Mr. Foley thinks we're idiots. If he gets his application granted, then he could sue (or otherwise cause problems). And he will. He'll do it the minute he sees a business gain for doing so. It is flatly untrue to contend otherwise.
He may be doing this to protect the poor, uneducated consumers. Honestly, he really might. Of course, I don't really buy this at all, since the class of consumer he talks about isn't going to buy a MAME machine anyway. I'm sure if he surveyed his customer base he'd see that instantly. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of people who understand emulation enough to even think about looking for an arcade emulator like the ones he sells both already know about MAME, and know about the legal issues surrounding game ROMs.
Even if we assume that he is being altruistic, and even if we assume that his potential customers don't know about the legal issues involved, this is the wrong way to go about dealing with it.
To Mr. Foley:
Educate people. Let the copyright holders for the games your competition is distributing illegally know about the infringement going on. Attempt to handle things constructively in a manner that actually makes things better rather than just attempting to find a way to sue your competition out of business, because that's all you're doing.
Ultimately, pirates aren't stealing your work, so getting rid of them isn't your job. I don't care if you worked on an emulation project in college or not. This is about making more money for David Foley, and that's it.
By the way, cost effective for the consumer or not, competitors do have the right (AFAIK) to sell MAME systems without games. If they're being misleading about it, notify the appropriate authorities. If they're providing the games, once again, notify the copyright holders so they can take action (at their discretion, maybe they just don't care anymore, which is their right, and sucks for you for licensing from them).
Just because you don't intend to attempt to slap the MAME folks with a lawsuit (for now, at least; whether you could actually do such a thing is for those more qualified than myself to say), doesn't make you a "good guy". I hate to see IBM ("good") use bullshit legal tactics against Microsoft ("bad") only slightly less than I hate to see the reverse. Both cases generally end up hurting the consumer -- and costing me some of my tax dollars -- anyway.
Game... blouses.
Look into the eyes... not around the eyes, into the eyes... the eyes are all you see and... you're under.
uh Stop your crap! Mame has been around for longer than you can remember and is the reason you have an occupation... and...
You're back.
No one appointed him the MAME Police.
end of story.
I cannot find any info on this on the net via google.
Can anyone help me find some information on how to buy equipment to transfer roms from the more popular board types (or even all board types) to a pc?
I'd probably make it my new hobby.
Many Thanks,
Luke
I could be way off base on this, it's a bit vague as to his "real" motives AFAICT. But, for arguments sake, let's say he does get a trademark for MAME, would he essentially be locking in the development for MAME for his own ends/profits? The issue is not about MAME, it's seems more about trying to get a market lock-in. Isn't this really about the fact that he tried to play it straight and paid for licensing for the roms and is now getting undercut in the market by his competitors that supply a platform and leave it up to the users to obtain the roms themsleves? It's about pirated wares and the unresolved issue around abandonware. It's sounds to me as if he really wants to have exclusive access/use of M.A.M.E. for his business and only his business.
His stance on pirated wares is a smoke screen IMHO. I really can't help but think "he" is the one trying to do and end-around around an end-around. He paid a lot of money to dev and market his product and now is losing money to competitors and his solution is to acquire some sort of exclusive rights to utilize this and lock-out competitors/potential future competitors under the guise of protection against pirateware.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it - and apparently others aren't buying it as well. Which is probably why he's pulling this move in the first place.
Hmmmm! His he related to Mr McBride in some fashion (second cousin, in-law, etc).
I'd certainly feel better about this if UltraCade were a non-profit organization or at least a representative body, and not just some company who's figured out an alternate revenue stream.
Dude, they were never that funny. They were relevant, they were entertaining, they were on topic, but they've always been a bit downhill.
And yes, I read them every day. Religiously. But not because they're necessarily funny. I read them for the same reasons that retired people read Family Circus.
The ______ Agenda
I sent Ebay a nice little letter about this guy. If you've ever tried to communicate with Ebay to get an auction taken down, you know that they only let you request to have auctions cancelled if you're the actual copyright holder of something that's being pirated. Read on...
Dear Ebay:
Recently, a man named David Foley, CEO of an arcade machine maker called UltraCade, has requested that a number of Ebay auctions of arcade cabinets loaded with the Multi-Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) be taken down because they violate his copyrights.
As you know, your policy specifically states that requests of this kind should only be made by the copyright holder. Mr. Foley does not hold the copyright to any of the software his company sells - he is merely a liscensee. Nor does he hold the copyright to the MAME name or logo. Nor does he hold any patent on the design of arcade cabinets or the electronics inside.
Knowing this, I would closely examine any request he may make in the future to remove Ebay auctions on the grounds that they violate his "copyrights," since he holds none.
Sincerely yours,
---me---
It's not that I'm saying his claim about MAME only being used for illegal software isn't valid (although it isn't). I'm just saying that he doesn't have the right (by Ebay's rules) to restrict this theoretical copyright infringement when he doesn't own the copyright to anything involved in the auction. Hmm...maybe Ebay noticed, so now he's filing the MAME trademark to legitimize himself. What a plan!
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
I'm slashdotting with mod points. I followed the link and saw the guy's application to trademark the exact MAME logo and text. For I while I searched for the place to mod it down, and was frustrated that there was none...
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
Isn't it up to the MAME team whether they want to protect against their product being used with illegal games, and how/if they want to enforce that?
Isn't it up to the copyright holders to sue for copyright infringement if they so wish, and not up to him?
Doesn't he lack "standing" (a legal term with a legal definition) to sue?
Person A can't sue because B is (allegedly) committing a civil wrong against person C.
And Person A getting a trademark on person C's stuff to sue B is a violation of C's rights and could suhject A to being sued by C, and a fraudulent trademark wouldn't give A standing to sue B.
A would be UltraCade, B would be the illegal game sellers/users, and C would be MAME.
Is my logic faulty, or is my logic correct and the law isn't logical on this point, or am I right?
Furthermore, even if you agree with UltraCade's actions to eliminate illegal MAME machines (his stated purpose, but once he gets the trademark, who knows...), one must still respect the rule of law.
Allowing a trademark to be granted to a third party would go against the rule of law, regardless of whether it may be for a "noble" cause. "Noble" causes cause a lot of harm, some people think the DMCA was for a "noble cause" (supporting rights of authors, enhancing creation of works, etc - though we know better - it still passed Congress and was signed into law by CLINTON, so the Democrats can hurt our rights too - don't just bash Republicans even though it seems popular on this website to do so).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I don't know who's right or wrong in this case, and honestly I don't care all that much either way, but I just wish someone would come up with a better term than "rampant piracy". I really hate that phrase and I hear it way too often.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
someone on the mame list already contacted starrom's lawyers and they verified the starrom license is 100% transferable.
I think it's not right that UltraCade is doing this. Do they mean that no one will be able to sell a MAME- arcade machine even if it doesn't include the ROMS? These guys are just trying to make as much money as possible and have as much of the market as they can. So they sit down and think of ways to screw people. Most people that buy these machines can find out how to download the ROMs anyway. Just search MAME and ROMS on google and you'll find a couple thousand sites. So is UltraCade going to sue all of the sites distributing the ROMs? And then sue Google because it allows more access to these sites?
Yet another company that got suckered by some other company selling the "rights" to some oldass game that can't make any money in the marketplace anymore. The "pirates" are selling it for what it's worth (practically nothing), have found a bunch of people who wax nostalgic about said oldass game and are willing to pay some nominal amount, and making some $$$ - not much, but something...
...move along...nothing to see here
The company that was stupid enough to license the thing from the scheisters that are licensing the old ass game, paid too much, is bleeding money because they can't compete at the market price, and are crying...
I say "Tough shit". Welcome to the new world - you wanted Globalization, YOU GOT IT! This means you have to compete on a GLOBAL scale - if someone 3/4 around the planet can do it better, faster, and less expensively than you - well, then I might just find them thru the Net... and guess who I'm gonna buy from...
Ok so maybe i read it wrong but It sounds like to me he just wants someone to have the trademark to MAME so people will stop selling MAME which is against MAME's terms(and causing him to lose money). It also sounds like to me that from what he said he DOESN'T use MAME in his products.
Have you ever asked yourself why most people believe that copyrights and trademarks on information and media be assigned to the people who created it?
You did not:
1.) Create the MAME acronym or draw the logo.
2.) Do any work programming MAME.
Before crusading against those who break the law, maybe you should find a method which is more in line with the spirit of the law. Even if what you are trying to do is legal (there is legal precedence that suggests it is not), it does not sit very well with your customers (and potential customers). The sheer volume of comments this atricle has produced should be fairly convincing evidence that what you're doing is pissing a lot of people off. Some of those people are your cusomters / potential customers.
If you want to use the law to save your business, then I'd like to point out that there are already mechanisms in place through which you combat piracy. That's right. You go to the proper copyright holders and request that they protect their copyrights. Since you licence ROM's from many companies, you already have a few contacts to go to. Odds are that their ROM's are among those being pirated. Try explaining to them that the sales of those MAME machines hurts your business, and that you may no longer be able to pay for your licenses if it is allowed to continue.
But if it turns out that you can't find the copyright holders, then it means that they probably aren't being hurt by the sale of those games. And guess what? Copyright is intended to grant temporary monopolies (maybe not so temporary anymore) of reproduction to the creator of a work that they might profit from it. The copyright on the illegal ROMs was not meant to protect you or any business you have. I cannot feel too bad when someone who does not produce anything of their own get screwed by copyright infringement. Why don't you program your own ROM and let it get leaked into illegal circles? I may be more sympathetic then (but I probably won't. Not unless you do it with the intent of making and selling a ROM, not just as a legal tool.)
One more thing. Don't be a moron. Trademarking (Trademarking! Not even copyrighting!) MAME will not stop the sales of arcade cabinets with illegal ROMs on them. They will still be sold and people will still buy them, only it will be done in such a way that the four letters M-A-M-E never get mentioned during the transaction. If the four letters M-A-M-E become bad news for pirates, then they will simply stop using them. Do you really believe that a single trademark (TRADEMARK! not even copyright!) is not enough to stop an entire black market?
Black markets exist because people want things that they cannot get through legal means. If you trademark MAME, it will not change peoples' desires to have cheap, well-stocked arcade machines. They will get them, no matter how many trademarks you have. And if it turns out that by some miracle you actually can stop them from buying them (which would make you the first), what makes you think they will want to buy your higher-priced, less-stocked machines?
What do I suggest? Become a good capitalist. Either do one of the following:
1.) Advertise your plight. Educate people about the illegality of the machines they are buying. Appeal to the hearts and minds of your potential customers. Education can go a long way, and just as some people feel bad for pirating video games, movies and music, so too will some people feel bad for pirating old arcade games. Note that this route isn't likely to work unless you take the moral high ground.
Or (and this is my preference):
2.) Find a way to give people what they want. Make a low cost, well-stocked arcade machine for people to buy. If you can't lower the price or put any more ROM's on your machines, you will have to find some other way to become competitive.
A final request: If you decide that you don't want to evolve to compete with piracy, then try not to hurt too many people as your company tailspins.
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
until we've eliminated the professional pirate community.
-- Howto: Get +5 (1) Whine about M$ (2) Namedrop Gentoo (3) Casually Abuse Mods (4) Namedrop Early Computer Model
I'd like to take a moment and respond to the dribble that has been sent our way in response to this weekend's flurry about our trademark application with regards to MAME. I'd appreciate it if this would be spread to the same websites, blogs, and newsgroups that the unfounded rumors were that resulted in the very juvenile attacks on me personally, and my company. I have been in communication with one of the original MAME authors, and we are will be working together to ensure that the MAME trademark is assigned to the proper individuals and protect it from commercial exploitation, as was our intent all along. We have even offered to pay for all costs associated with that process. During the past three days, I have received many personal attacks and insults from several immature individuals that read a simple headline, and then go off on a child like rant about what they think we are doing. This was followed by several denial of service attacks on our corporate resources, phone calls to my office and cell phone. I received 270 emails in response to this. Most of them were single line insults against me personally. A few were misguided, but well articulated remarks. Even fewer were questions, asking for more information. I took the time to answer each and every message personally, explaining the facts. Many return to email addresses were not valid. Some people refused to listen to my explanation, or didn't care to believe what I told them. A few even apologized for their statements and we started a productive dialog and exchange of ideas. In summary, what we are doing moving forward is: Working directly with the original authors to secure the TM assigned in their name and protect the mark from commercial exploitation as expressed in the MAME distribution license Continuing to work with all major publishers to eliminate all illegal distribution of ROMs. Working on accelerating the rollout of our iROMs(TM) service to bring ROM distribution to the MAME community, following the music industries success in content distribution. We have put together a business model and later this summer will start to roll out affordable, legal ROM images for personal use on PC's running emulation software. We are working with all of the major publishers to get as much contact as possible, available to the general public. Continuing to police eBay and the Internet for sites that reference unlicensed games
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=...&entr y=76627578
http://www.mame.net/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/sho...sb=7# Post168527
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...3&tid =17&tid=10
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32 339.0.html
Has anyone ever told you what makes a hero a hero?
A hero's end and means are good.
It does not matter if your ends are good if the only way you can achieve them is by using questionable means.
Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree.
Would anyone really download MAME if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised? I submit they would, as the multitude of thriving ROM sites attest to.
Also, obligatory IP angle: If not for the ridiculously extended duration of copyright, many of these games would be public domain. Free the damn mouse.
Mr. Foley, What part of you trademarking someone elses work is rumor? What part is dribble? Why are you having ebay close down your competitors auctions when they are using legal roms? WHY are you trying to trademark something that is not yours? It's easy to see you are trying to use this as a "commercial" for your so-called business model. The truth of the matter is that ROMS are available legally for prices much cheaper than you would like to charge. It isn't anyones fault but yours that your "Ultracade" and "Arcade Legends" machines aren't worth stink. IMO, you don't have the business sense to manage something like this properly, as evidenced by your recent actions. I will not conduct any business with you or one of your "business models" ever. The major publishers should be looking at http://www.starroms.com/ That is a reputable company. Your's is not. You, my friend, are an embarrassment to the emulation community. You need to settle down and realize you've made some poor decisions. Word about your ethics is spreading. You are a child that is crying about your history of failing business models. You didn't make money in the commercial market so you spread to the home market. You're not making money there either, so now you want to try and make money of ROMS. You just don't have the business sense it takes to work in this industry anymore. In summary, I encourage everyone to go to starroms (no affiliation) and avoid "Arcade Legends", "Ultracade", and those Universal Video Converters of Mr. Foleys at Happs site. Please look before you buy and make sure there is no affiliation to this guy. Spread the word of his actions. - Cooter JUST SAY NO TO ultracade & arcade legends.