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/
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.
This guy didn't previously work at SCO by any chance?
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
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.
Is there an online application for trademark applications? Openoffice.org, Mozilla. Firefox, KDE... so many projects so little time....
Sean.OutaHere()
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.
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. ;-)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 $4000 cabinet they are peddling on their own for a fraction of the price. If nothing else this is huge publicity for MAME and a huge career ender for Mr. Foley.
What's even more intriguing about all of this though is that Ultracade almost certainly uses the mame core in it's software. It was recently discovered that the same bugs in mame were found in Ultracade. If anyone ever takes the initiative to reverse engineer the code and prove this, the MAME team will have grounds to sue him for everything he's got as Ultracade has been selling their product and making damned good money doing so for the past several years.
Let the litigation begin...
Even better is the 300k animated gif on their front page (which you can shift-reload to your heart's content).
Maybe the USPTO should have some sort of a public correspondence site where one could reference a TM or C or P by its number and e.g. point out that this same thing has been done for the past twenty years.
On the other hand, maybe with all the inevitable "M$ is t3H suX0r, dnut garnt n-A PATENTS 2 theys you a55hat!" comments isn't worth it.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
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
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
Let's slashdot his phoneline as well!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
Let me fill in a little of the picture. There is not one giant section of law called "IP Laws." You have 3 basic branches, copyright, patent, and trademark. You also have tradesecrets and a couple other things. Without copyright, the GNU license that allows Linux to only be distributed with access to source code would not be enforceable. There would be no requirement for anyone modifying and publishing a new Linux to publish their changes. Without copyright everything is essentially the BSD license, which now that it doesn't have the "give us credit" requirement is basically public domain with an attached disclaimer.
Now, you do often hear Slashdotters who want to repeal copyright (these are a minority) or to limit the timeframe in which a copyrights last and also limit the "automatic" elements of getting a copyright--any little peice of shit you scribble on a paper is automatically copyrighted to you, there is no need to register-- (these are a majority).
What I think you must be referring to in regards to linux is the broad notion around here that software patents should not exist. They don't in the EU, so it isn't totally some crazy ass notion only found here on Slashdot. You can't patent math and with that in hand many claim you shouldn't be able to patent programs. There are a few problems with this claim and it is widely debated, but it is crazy to say all slashdotters want it to be abolished.
Now, what I've never heard on Slashdot, though I'm sure it's been said, is that trademarks should be abolished. Trademarks protect your product in much the same way libel laws protect your reputation. Even if this company is granted a trademark trust me, there are provisions in trademark law which won't allow the company to prevent the MAME people from continuing to use the name MAME. Looking at this filing I am also very confident that if it does get accepted it will be invalidated if anything about it ever goes to court. Now, the only thing you might possibly thinking of in regards to slashdotter's hypocrisy with trademarks is that many were really angry at the way ICANN handled trademark disputes on domainnames. For instance for a while they would take away your domain if you registered fordsucks.com and Ford asked them to. This was certainly not a problem with US trademark law that slashdotter's had because it was completely ICANN who was doing it. If Ford had attempted to sue whoever ran fordsucks.com in court they would never have succeeded. Trademark law wasn't the problem, it was poor application of it by ICANN.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
(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
Of course it's worth it! Sure, you may get a fair amount of crapflooding, but in this case you only need ONE good pointer to prior use. As it is the USPTO takes a lot of crap after letting ridiculous stuff slip through. Putting up a public correspondence site will help them with their image as well as making research easier for at least some applications.
Besides, if we leave the information properly filed in THEIR system, they have no excuse to be unaware of it.
Sadly, it will probably never happen, but kudos for the idea.
Your brain is not a computer.
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?
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.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
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.
The problem is that the Patent and Trademark Office takes the perspective that if the patent or trademark is wrong, it'll be sorted out in court, while the court takes the perspective that there must be some creedence to the patent or tradmark since the USPTO granted it.
This guy needs a blanket party, if you know what I mean.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In patents, it's called prior art. In trademarks, it's called prior use in commerce. Big whoop.
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.
I'm using Firefox. It told me it had blocked a popup. That's it.
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
The reason it's bad is because it kills the public domain. Since the Bono act, which made this automatic copyright thing happen, nothing is automatically entering the public domain. The public domain is actually dieing as a concept in America. Consider this: the point of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works. With the Bono Act the government extended the copyrights on hundreds of thousands of already published works. They were already published. How could increasing their protection time under copyright law possibly encourage the creation of new works? The creators of these works saw how long they were protected, agreed to it, and spent the resources to create the works. Going back and giving them a longer protection is a slap in the face to everyone. It is a direct subsidy to media companies worth billions.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
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.
Plenty of mails like this will remove any excuse they would have in actually granting the trademark. Please be sure to include both the lawyer as well as the applicant in the mail.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
The constructive next step is to monitor the status of the application, and when it gets "published for opposition" then file an opposition.
One convenient way to monitor the status of a pending US trademark application is by means of free software called Feathers.
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?
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 is a very misleading post. The stuff you refer to is acutally a post-examination process, and what you want to do is get to the review during or before the review process. Which is what I did. There are numerous places where in the regulations that make this thing fall over, and this is a good a place to start as any. There are many others though.
Point is, that while the examiner can claim to grant the marque in good faith if he is unaware of any existance of any connection - the mail I (and by now many others) have sent makes it clear to the examiner that there is no basis in trademark regulation to allow this marque to be approved. This shifts the burden of proof back to the applicant, something he would be hard pressed to do.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
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?
Yes or no. No spin. Are you or are you not attempting to gain MAME trademarks?
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.
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.
As others mentioned, a well-informed examiner will reject this application. I'd monitor here until an examiner is assigned and email that person.
The opposition idea discussed below, while viable, would require you to have standing and money. Getting the examiner to refuse it with a gentle nudge to the relevant facts would require neither.
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.
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.
1) Why did you register the TM under your name and not Nicola's or the MAME teams's?
2) Why did you keep this secret until it was uncovered nearly a MONTH afterwards?
3) Who told you you could do this?
4) Why didn't you get permission from the COPYRIGHT holder of the mame logo?
5) What right do you have to dictate the ditribution methods of a product not your own.
To me, this letter is a bullshit attempt at justification for what is plainly an act of spite, ill-will and corporate greed. It does nothing to stem the hatred and disrespect this guy so thoroughly deserves.
Well, I actually do this sort of thing for a living, and based on what you have written, I doubt that you do.
You cited and linked to Chapter 12 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, which contains a section 1207.03 that appears to contradict your view that this is the correct time in the procedure to raise your issue.
But we will see what happens with the letter you sent. If it works at this stage I will be quite surprised.
Probably because once it hits, oh lets say the 10 year mark on software, the damn thing IS public domain. Sure the law say's otherwise, but the laws WILL change. We just have the foresight to see WHY it will change. We KNOW we can't buy the hardware to run it anymore. We KNOW NOBODY carries the software anymore. We KNOW the authors aren't making jack anymore. We KNOW that access to classic works allows for a greater understanding and expanded creativity. Quit treating software like other mediums, IT'S NOT THE SAME. It exists within its own timeline, one which flows at a different speed and needs different rules ebb it. And on a side note, I can write a tetris clone in about a page of code nowdays, how in the hell do you justify protecting something thats basically become another trival (and common) programming problem? (The majority of all these games are the evolutionary equivalent of the wheelbarrow compared to the flying cars we have today.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Actually I was thinking, if someone claims ownership of MAME (the trademark) he could sue them for unfair competition, or something. I'm guessing that as a community effort it would not be easy to "sue MAME" as things stand. By making someone claim ownership he could be trying to locate a responsible party, who he would then sic his lawyers on.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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