Slashdot Mirror


The Reality of Patent Expirations for the NES

Tashimojo writes "Gamasutra's running a feature entitled 'Nintendo Entertainment System - Expired Patents Do Not Mean Expired Protection', an interesting read. From the article: 'This article originated when the Gamasutra editors noticed a number of online sources such as Wikipedia stating that it was now completely legal to make NES 'clone' consoles, because all of Nintendo's patents regarding the NES had expired. How true was this statement? We asked game IP lawyer S. Gregory Boyd the question: Are the NES patents expired? If so, is a company free to build and sell new NES-like systems?'"

259 comments

  1. mmmm... Ikari Warriors by kdawgud · · Score: 2, Funny

    So many sleepless nights...

    1. Re:mmmm... Ikari Warriors by The+Standard+Deviant · · Score: 0, Troll

      mmmm... A girlfriend. So many sleepless nights...

    2. Re:mmmm... Ikari Warriors by JAppi · · Score: 2, Informative

      This poster is clearly lying. No one on slashdot has a girlfriend.

    3. Re:mmmm... Ikari Warriors by Lil-Bondy · · Score: 0

      true, it was also the most popular myth (polls)

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
    4. Re:mmmm... Ikari Warriors by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      So many sleepless nights...

      I had that on my Spectrum but the tape was dodgy so it only loaded properly about one time in 10 :( so many wasted afternoons

  2. ROMs? by PopeOptimusPrime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Moreover, is it now FINALLY legal for me to download and use nintendo ROMs?

    1. Re:ROMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright != Patent.

      So no.

    2. Re:ROMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No. The games are copyrighted, and as such will last for all eternity (more or less.) Nice try, though.

    3. Re:ROMs? by linguae · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not until 2080, unless the MPAA/RIAA^W Congress extends copyright again.

    4. Re:ROMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think it is only fair that the great-great-great-grandchildren of the original copyright owner should benefit too.

    5. Re:ROMs? by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, no. But you COULD play your legally purchased Nintendo cartriges on a no name clone of the Nintendo console, provided that the console did not call itself a "Nintendo", "Nintendo clone", "NES", or "NES clone". The terms "Nintendo", "Nintendo Entertainment System", and "NES" are trademarked. Nintendo could potentially sue over the use of these terms. But the hardware itself is generic.

    6. Re:ROMs? by gid13 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could a company advertise to the effect of the following?

      "We copied the Nintendo Entertainment System! Play all your old Nintendo games! Buy the Clonebox today!"

    7. Re:ROMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All they would have to do is market it as "Nintendo-compatible." That's descriptive and there can be no confusion of the customer such as thinking that it is made by Nintendo, since Nintendo would not claim to be compatible with itself. Of course, the lack of a case rarely stops people from legal harassment anyway, but compatibility (interoperability) has been written into many IP laws including the DMCA. IBM didn't successfully sue people over IBM-compatible, afaik, and they have much deeper pockets than Nintendo.

      Presumably the rom code in the consoles to read the cartridge is under copyright though so they'd need to reimplement that in a compatible manner. Although why anyone would want to create a new hardware solution for a platform nobody uses that is emulated at better than full speed on modern hardware is beyond me.

      These are just my personal opinions, YMMV, IANAL

    8. Re:ROMs? by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      If you own the carts, sure.

      Otherwise, no.

    9. Re:ROMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, this is only true if you make the backup copy. It is not legal to download a backed up copy, regardless of whether or not you own the original cartridge. Now, morality-wise, I have no problem with downloading an image of a game I already own, but that wasn't the original question asked.

    10. Re:ROMs? by cshark · · Score: 1

      Or, more to the pont: The great great grandchildren of the stock holders of the original copyright owner. As most are publically traded these days.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    11. Re:ROMs? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The NES didn't have any onboard ROM - the entire program was on the cart.

      Basically, NES On A Chips are now 100% legal. They're a full 98% (actually, they may not have violated the patents if they're not 100% compatible) NES-compatible chipset on a single chip. Wire in the display on the display pins, the controllers on the controller pins, power on the power pins, and the game on the ROM pins, and you have an instant NES.

    12. Re:ROMs? by wft_rtfa · · Score: 1

      Who cares? If I have ROM copies of every Nintendo game on my computer, I doubt anyone cares. Nintendo isn't making money from NES games anymore and many of the publishers have gone out of business. Besides no one is checking my computer to see what NES ROMs I have.

      --
      :-] :0 :-> :-| :->
    13. Re:ROMs? by name773 · · Score: 1

      assuming the authors die in 2010...

      are you planning something?

    14. Re:ROMs? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Copyright assigned to corporations is treated differently since corporations don't tend to die of age.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:ROMs? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Nintendo isn't making money from NES games? Have you looked into the gameboy section of a game store lately? Those "NES Classics" cartridges? And what about their plan to offer a for-pay ROM download service for the Revolution?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    16. Re:ROMs? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      We copied the Nintendo Entertainment System!

      No, that would be infringement. It implies that your product is the same as the trademarked product. It may very well be the same, but you can't say it's the same.

      The rest of it, however, and the link that EoinOL provided, would not constitute improper use of trademark. Saying things like "plays Nintendo games" or "Nintendo compatible" are statements of interoperability.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    17. Re:ROMs? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      >We copied the Nintendo Entertainment System!

      No, that would be infringement.


      I'm going to assume you meant trademark infringment, because that is the only one that even comes close to applying.

      It implies that your product is the same as the trademarked product.

      It says their product is designed as a copy of the otehr product. That is a perfectly true statement, and in no way deceptive about who you are or what you are doing. Trademark infringment is when you use the mark to pretend to be the holder of that mark. Trademark law exists to prevent confusion, so that people know who they are dealing with or what company they are dealing with. If you make and sell Folex watches you are are creating substantial risk of confusion that you *are* Rolex and that these *are* Rolex watches. Merely stating that your product is a functional equivalant of another product is not trademark infringment. For example generic versions of drugs routinely refference the trademarked brand equivalant on the label.

      They should also add subtext explicitly acknowledging the that "Nintendo Entertainment System" is a trademark of Nintendo inc.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:ROMs? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That For-pay NES service could be extremely good (and make the Rev the only next-gen I'll actually buy) or extremely craptastic.

      Has there been any word yet on how much those rom downloads will cost? Is it going to be the same $20-for-15-year-old-game gouging as the gameboy series? Will the roms "expire" a la Napster, or dial in, or what?

    19. Re:ROMs? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Noone knows but the GBA series were that expensive at least in part because GBA carts are expensive to make (more than ten bucks a piece, I think).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:ROMs? by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Noone knows but the GBA series were that expensive at least in part because GBA carts are expensive to make (more than ten bucks a piece, I think).

      That I don't buy for a second, if for no other reason that a GBA cart can hold at least 128 megabits(FF:DoS) and the largest NES game is 8 megabits (Dragon Quest/Warrior 4). The emulation code takes apparently takes up 31 mbit (I found this by looking at rom sizes for the original NES Zelda (1 megabit) and the Classic NES Series (32 mbit). It's pretty clear by playing it, they didn't do any recoding since it has the same sort of glitches the old NES version had (screen/music slowdowns with too many sprites, etc). Even with that overhead, they could get 3-4 games per cart, but they don't even put the two Zelda games on one cart.

      So a good amount of it might be manufacturing cost, but there's plenty room left for fleecing given the design decisions.

      Now that I think about it, I doubt the Rev's download-on-demand will be particularly good at all. Many if not most of the best classic NES games weren't made by Nintendo at all (Castlevania, Megaman, etc) so will likely not be available.

    21. Re:ROMs? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      Although why anyone would want to create a new hardware solution for a platform nobody uses that is emulated at better than full speed on modern hardware is beyond me.

      Come on, how cool would it not be to have a NES style controller that could plug into any TV and had the games built in/loaded via a memory chip? It's like those Joysticks they sell, with Activision games, Atari Games, C64 games, even Sega Megadrive games. It's way cooler than playing them via en emulator.
  3. Where's the business rationale to protect the IP? by b0r1s · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many NES consoles did they sell? How much money could Nintendo possibly lose from clone NES systems?

    If anything, the title familiarity may help them in selling similar titles/lines for Gamecube and Revolution.

    --
    Mooniacs for iOS and Android
  4. Long live nintendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our cloned Overlords.

    1. Re:Long live nintendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to Fark

  5. Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would kind of like to see what people could do if they were allowed to build their own version of the NES. There would be all sorts of cool addons, like Bluetooth controllers and maybe even a portable version.

    The software side would be the real leagl issue. Could people repackage Mario Brothers and do whatever they wanted with our favorite plumber?

    1. Re:Mixed Feelings by Bumjubeo · · Score: 1

      Mario Brothers Do Dallas! Opening Scene "Did someone call a plumber?" (Porno music background) It would be an excellent venture, for adults only. But no on the real side, why repackage an NES, with cool do hickey add-ons, when you can get the nintendo revolution, which hopefully will play the old games.

    2. Re:Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could people repackage Mario Brothers and do whatever they wanted with our favorite plumber?

      Two words: COPYRIGHT REVOLUTION

  6. Master Blaster, Bionic Commando, by leather_helmet · · Score: 1

    ikari warriors...
    just a few nostalgic games that inspired me into the gaming industry

  7. Hmm... by PenisLands · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've seen so many NES knock off "100 in one" game things selling on ebay and in other small video game shops for a long time now. If it is indeed legal for people to make and sell NES like machines now, I wonder what would happen with those. Would they start selling in well known shops?

    1. Re:Hmm... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Story time.

      I know a guy with a shop that sells upright and cocktail-style arcade games. He sells on eBay and some of his products include 39-in-1 boards with classic games combined into one board - he slaps the board into a cabinet and they sell like hotcakes. (Even better is his customized PC-in-a-cabinet-and-load-whatever-you-want-box.) A while back, his eBay account was suspended because eBay was sent a cease and desist letter from Namco. Apparently they do not approve of these multi-game boards and fight them tooth and nail. He was buying these boards from an overseas supplier - and as it turns out, Namco can't do anything to the company making them so they go after the people buying 'em.

      The copyrights on these games hasn't expired, so even if you could legally make a clone console it wouldn't affect the real problem - illegal ROMs.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Makarakalax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obviously, the copyright on the games won't expire for 50 or more years. So no, it isn't legal unless the game publisher specifically says so, since they still have the right to restrict copying of said materials.

    3. Re:Hmm... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      even if they can make a legal nes clone they can't legally include its back catalogue of games and a system that only played nes carts would be of somewhat limited marketability.

      nes knockoffs bundled with a huge rom full of nes games will be as illegal as ever.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Hmm... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      And the guy rightfully deserved to get a C&D. He just wanted to be lazy and sell pirated stuff. At least Nintendo did just a C&D. If it was the music or movie industry he'd be in the poor house overnight. The guy is a bottom feeder and nothing more and unfortionately there are still tons like him selling thier tripe on Ebay.

    5. Re:Hmm... by Apathetic1 · · Score: 1

      The patents on the machines might be expired but the copyrights on the games certainly haven't. Unless they get permission to republish the games from the original copyright holder (such as with the 10-in-1 Atari joysticks), you won't be seeing them in legit shops any time soon.

      --

      My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?

  8. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Informative

    How much money could Nintendo possibly lose from clone NES systems?

    IIRC, Nintendo makes quite a lot of money on their old licenses. Besides the versions they put out for their portable consoles, I believe the Revolution is going to have a sort of classic-gaming-on-demand system in place. They likely want people to pay for their new stuff instead of picking up an old NES or clone console and Nintendo not seeing a dime.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Without games... by external400kdiskette · · Score: 1

    And with most ppl who are still interested in the original NES being aware of roms and emulators it's hard to see to much profiteering at nintendo's expense, not gonna put em in the grave. though speaking of clones it reminds me of that christian game company selling unlicensed cartridges that nintendo wouldn't sue because of fear of bad publicity.

    1. Re:Without games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PEOPLE, you dumbshit. PEOPLE. There is no such thing as a "psn", and the plural is not "ppl".

    2. Re:Without games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to go outside and stand in the middle of a road! O:

    3. Re:Without games... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Sure there is a PSN.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  11. Re:See Digg.com by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0, Offtopic



    I do email them about dupes before stories hit the front page. I've helped stop 3 dupes that I know of. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes I'm WRONG. I've seen one dupe pulled AFTER it hit the front page (I had emailed when I saw it in the Mysterious Future).

    I doubt the "is there a problem with this story" link would even BE there if the intent was to ignore everyone.

    But whatever, dude. Shill away.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  12. Re:See Digg.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think only penny-arcade cares about alexa.com

  13. This hasn't stopped some! by LiNKz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Walk into about any mall these days and you will find these really cheap knock-off's of a Play Station design that can play thousands of games. I played Mario Brothers on one. I thought it was just a small operating down here until I went up north and found the same thing, and a bit more funny (side note), they're Colombian. All of them! :o

    --
    Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
    1. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

      ...and a bit more funny (side note), they're Colombian. All of them!

      So you're saying that if you're really lucky, you'll get your new 10,000-in-1 game machine home, only to find that the box is filled with cocaine! :-o

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    2. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Like, Pegasus?

      I owned one as a kid. They used cartridges that were incompatible with real NES, but the ROMs inside were direct copies of genuine NES ones.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Last year around this time I saw one in a mall near my place also, and they were demoing obvious Nintendo games on it. Heck, the Nintendo logo was still present in the games. A week after I saw on Slashdot an article about Nintendo cracking down on these businesses commiting copyright infringement. I e-mailed Nintendo about the one in the mall near my place, I never received a reply but they were gone soon after. This year I haven't seen any.

    4. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascist copyright enforcer!

    5. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The cartridges were likely Famicom carts, because they were often made in areas where Famicoms were the norm.

      There are adaptors to plug NES carts into a Famicom.

    6. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshole!! Do you call the police when you see people speeding?

    7. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, YES. I wouldn't call on copyright violators, but anything that endangers public safety directly, sure.

      Fucking speeders are just arrogant assholes who think the law doesn't apply to them because a) they believe they are better drivers than everyone else* b) are too lazy/retarted/full-of-themselves to bother.

      *even if they are great drivers, their reaction time suddenly doesn't mean shit when _someone else_ cuts in front of them while they're doing 85mph

    8. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 1

      I don't care if people obtain NES roms online just to play them, but if you are out to make a profit like those guys are, that is what got me to e-mail Nintendo. There isn't even evidence that my e-mail made any difference anyhow.

      Even though this is offtopic...
      If I called the cops on every time I saw someone speeding I would be on the phone the entire time I'm driving and still not be able to report every violation. I rarely see someone else other than myself obeying the speed limit, IMHO it is more certainly a more important problem than video game copyright infringement. But this news story isn't about speeding :-)

    9. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by donnacha · · Score: 1

      Cunt

    10. Re:This hasn't stopped some! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dirty rat.

  14. I still fail to see something. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should -any- restrictions last beyond the period of time that Nintendo is actively manufacturing and selling the system and/or games for it? What "incentive to create" would Nintendo lose if someone did make clones of an old, obsolete system that stopped making them money over a decade ago? TFA talked about "being aware of comprehensive protections" or some garbage like that-I'd say the more important advice is "learn when to let go." And since that's apparently not possible, the law needs to change.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:I still fail to see something. by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what if, say, an oil company purchases the patent for some exciting new fuel technology, and then just sits on it so it won't threaten their business. Seems to me that forcing a company/individual to make an honest attempt to market their product to have any kind of IP law protections MIGHT help some, but fundamentally I think the whole idea of IP law needs to be at least rethought and possibly scrapped altogether.

    2. Re:I still fail to see something. by rm999 · · Score: 1

      nintendo still plans on capitalizing from their old games and system. the NES was an immensely popular system. Everybody had one, and the nostalgia factor is huge. Nintendo rereleased games for the gba, and as i understand it plan on doing so for the revolution too. from their perspective, there is no point letting people who had nothing to do with the creation of the system profit off it.

    3. Re:I still fail to see something. by blibbler · · Score: 0

      How is this different from sombody buying land, not doing anything with it, but still stopping others from having access to it? Should real property law be scrapped altogether, because someone can buy property, and not use it for anything for a number of years? How about somebody who buys a painting and just keeps it in their garage for 20 years, doesn't look at it, and stops others from enjoying it? Should they be forced to let other people enjoy it?

      There is no law against being a jerk.

    4. Re:I still fail to see something. by rm999 · · Score: 1

      I agree that a IP should have to be used to be protected, but companies can just "half-ass" use it to skirt the law.

      And eliminating IP laws entirely would destroy innovation and capitalism as we know it. What's the point of R&D if you are just donating the time and money spent to your competitors?

      The issue of IP is complicated. I am all for reform, but the problem is coming up with reform that doesn't end up harming good companies or the people.

    5. Re:I still fail to see something. by nathanh · · Score: 1
      What "incentive to create" would Nintendo lose if someone did make clones of an old, obsolete system that stopped making them money over a decade ago?

      If Consumer #2472843 [1] spends 100 Pepsi Credits on Nintendo Clone, then that's 100 fewer Pepsi Credits that consumer has readily available to spend on Nintendo New Product.

      [1] I am not a number!

    6. Re:I still fail to see something. by photon317 · · Score: 1


      I agree with you in theory, but the line of reasoning that Nintendo would use is that they might want to design new products based on their old patents, and they should have exclusive right to do so. For example, they might theoretically introduce a miniature retro-NES which contains NES guts + 200 popular oldschool games all bundled inside a single controller with a TV-out (like the other retro games machines in controller form factor we've seen lately).

      --
      11*43+456^2
    7. Re:I still fail to see something. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      There is no law against being a jerk.

      And oddly enough, it's the only thing there actually should be a law against.

    8. Re:I still fail to see something. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      And oddly enough, it's the only thing there actually should be a law against.

      Except it would be unconstitutional, since being a jerk could easily be constued as a form of Free Speech, be it verbal or otherwise.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:I still fail to see something. by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ### Why should -any- restrictions last beyond the period of time that Nintendo is actively manufacturing and selling the system and/or games for it?

      While I agree with you on the general point, Nintendo *is* selling NES games, just resently there was the NES classic series for GBA, soon there will be plenty of NES games for the Revolution for download and the Gamecube also had at least all the NES Zelda titles. While the games maybe old, Nintendo is still using them to make money. Sure, they probally won't sell much original NES systems these days, but the games are still of value.

    10. Re:I still fail to see something. by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1

      It's a catch-22. The very fact that it is considered worthwhile to make a clone would tend to prove that the property still has some value.

    11. Re:I still fail to see something. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which is why I propose adding the amendment, "Scratch all that other stuff. Just don't be a dick. And give some cash to the government so they can afford to judge severe dickery and push the guilty out to sea on a poorly constructed raft. And also to build roads."

    12. Re:I still fail to see something. by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main difference is the intent of the legislation. IP law is designed to encourage innovation, and this use of it does the exact opposite. Real property law has completely different goals.

    13. Re:I still fail to see something. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      a very good point. would definitely mod up if i had the points

    14. Re:I still fail to see something. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      so the problem is someone building a portable clone? the software will still be protected for ages, just the hardware thats the issue. releasing the games without permission is still bound to be illegal for a while. i understand they will want to re-release games occasionally, especially on the portable systems. ocarina of time was released for the gamecube, free with wind waker... i think theyre doing the right thing

    15. Re:I still fail to see something. by maxume · · Score: 1
      And what if, say, an oil company purchases the patent for some exciting new fuel technology

      Then the public will have to wait a woefully long 20 years before they can purchase the technology from a competitor of the oil company. Of course, there is nothing stopping people from using that 'exciting new fuel technology' to power their own car in the meantime. At the very least, they can just do it quietly.

      The oil company wouldn't bother purchasing a patent just to sit on it. They would purchase it to protect their position as an energy supplier. The best way for them to do that would be to utilize the patent.

      Of course, this all assumes that the new technology is cheaper than sucking oil out of the ground and not just 'nicer'...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:I still fail to see something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why they woulnd't just sit on it.

      There are varieties of genetically-engineered (or at least selectively bred) grass that grows to 2 inches and stops. However, the patents have been bought up by lawnmower manufacturers and such. They aren't utilizing them in any way, they are just keeping them out of the hands of the buying public.

    17. Re:I still fail to see something. by spideyct · · Score: 1

      Nintendo has released their classic NES games on their latest handheld devices. I think that means the old "obsolete" stuff is still making money for them.

    18. Re:I still fail to see something. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      IP law is designed to encourage innovation, and this use of it does the exact opposite.
      Real property law has completely different goals.


      That's more like spliting hairs.

      The intent of real property law is to produce the most efficient utilization of those (limited) resources which is expected to ultimately benefit society more than any other system would.

    19. Re:I still fail to see something. by elgaard · · Score: 1

      The difference is that somebody elses land does not pop in my head all the time.

      Land and ideas are very different concepts.

      It is more like me getting the idea of putting a swimming pool on my land, then preventing you from putting a pool on your land, then deciding not to put a pool on my land.

    20. Re:I still fail to see something. by gid13 · · Score: 1

      No, that's communism.

    21. Re:I still fail to see something. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Well, it -seems- like splitting hairs, but "IP" (meaning "intellectual property") is a misuse of language. Even the Constitution, which establishes copyrights and patents, makes clear that they're not property, they're government restrictions. If we look at them as totally separate from real property, we can easily see the difference-land is naturally scarce, ideas are not. Property rights are necessitated by land's natural scarcity, but copyright and patent are an attempt to impose artificial scarcity where no natural scarcity exists, so that an -approximation- of property rights can be imposed upon the approximation of scarcity! There's no equating the two.

      Besides that, the term "IP" lumps together many disparate concepts. Copyrights are not like trademarks, and neither one is like patents. To preserve clarity, each should be discussed individually, and called its proper name. When details are important, it's not "splitting hairs" to bring them up.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    22. Re:I still fail to see something. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      This is already done. See a recent federal court ruling and most city and community laws. If business can somehow be developed through the use of your property, you can be forced to relenquish said property to the city/businessmen who wish to do something with it.

    23. Re:I still fail to see something. by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      Do the math on it. Figure out how much money the oil company would lose by having the miracle fuel system out there, and figure out how much people would be willing to pay for it.

      Remember that any individual oil company only owns a small part of the market, but by owning a fuel-reducing patent, could get *all* of the revenues from that product.

    24. Re:I still fail to see something. by GuidoW · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you live. In certain jurisdictions, if there is a pressing need for the general public to make use of that land, the owner can be forced to.
      In Germany, for example, if there were a pressing shortage of apartments/houses in a certain city because of which a lot of people ended up homeless, someone owning a big, empty apartment building could, theoretically, be forced to rent some of the apartments. (Or so i've been told. IANAL.)

      --
      If it's so secret, then how come I've never heard of it?
    25. Re:I still fail to see something. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they would. I don't tend to buy into the massive conspiracy theories though.

      Another thing, if I held the patent on an energy source that was actually a threat to big oil, I don' think I would sell it for peanuts. So why would the hypothetical inventor?

      Lastly, I don't have any evidence that there aren't such varieties of grass(how could I!), but it sure is easy to say that there are without offering any proof. My point was that the patent will eventually expire.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    26. Re:I still fail to see something. by kesuki · · Score: 1

      [1] I am not a number!

      1214 of 930500, you are a number. resistance is futile.

      besides, nintendo is also planning on selling old 'nes/SNES' games online via a p2p sharing program on the Nintendo Revolution, to try and avoid loosing more market share to sony and microsoft.. At least that's my understanding of part of their strategy to avoid being completely crushed by sony and microsoft. Which considering that the PSP being the awsome portable movie player and porn viewer that it is (and a crappy portable "now loading..." game console) they are in danger of being completely crushed, so they're trying to make their consoles have cool features that draw sales of the console so they can keep developers making games for it.

    27. Re:I still fail to see something. by kreyg · · Score: 1
      I would like to see patent holders required to license their patents for extremely reasonable fees. How "reasonable" is defined is a bit of a problem - perhaps accurate research costs must be made part of the application process, and a license is a small percentage of that.

      Not knowing much about the patent system, isn't that how it's supposed to work? Either you make money selling an invention yourself, or license the rights to somebody else to make it. Preventing others from making something entirely seems to be the exact opposite of the purpose of a patent. It's to encourage and reward invention, not protect a business model.

      --
      sig fault
    28. Re:I still fail to see something. by blibbler · · Score: 1

      "IP Law" isn't monolithic. Different aspects of IP law have different purposes. Patents are intended to encourage and protect innovation. Copyrights are designed to protect creativity. Trademarks are designed to protect brand names. There are many many more fields of "IP Law" that have completely different goals and rules associated with them.
      In general, "IP Law" is designed to acknowledge that there is value to things other than purely physical objects. Many refer to our current "era" as being the "Information Age". The vast majority of the population (at least in first world nations) are employed using their brains rather than their hands. In general, IP law is designed to protect those peoples' work and effort.

      Real Property Law is designed to protect land either used to generate income (such as a farm or rental property) or value stored in Land (such as your home.) The law around chattels is to protect objects that people either created, or purchased with value from their work.

      So broadly, all property law is designed to protect work. Just because someone is not a farmer, or a builder, doesn't mean what they do should not be protected.

      In any case, how is this a case of discouraging innovation? People are trying to create clones of a 20 year old gaming system. This isn't a matter of some people being unable to develop innovative devices because of patents (or copyrights) applied for by Nintendo.

    29. Re:I still fail to see something. by blibbler · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about copyrights or patents?
      if copyrights: are you suggesting that because somebody wrote a good song, you enjoy, you should be entitled to have it for free (more than the enjoyment you already have with it being in your head.

      If you are referring to patents, let me tell you a few stories:
      When I was in grade 8, I derived Pythagorus proof. Surprisingly, I didn't slaughter a goat to celebrate. Is it fair to say that because a 12 year old could prove what Pythagorus did, then what he did was pointless, and overrated?
      When I was in grade 11, I derived the basic rules of Calculus. Leibniz and Newton got a lot of credit for that, but come on, a 15 year old could come up with the same answer.
      Anyone with an undergraduate physics degree (and many who don't) can come up with the theory E=mc^2. Does that mean that Einstein's genius is comparable to an undergraduate?
      The Post-it note is a simple invention that anyone could have come up with - a bit of paper with some weak glue. The paperclip is just a bent piece of wire. What is so special about that?

      My point is that just because an idea can appear trivial and obvious, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected. If you were the first person to envision a large, artificial body of water that could be placed on private property for the use and enjoyment of people, you developed that idea, and registered it at the patent office, then I think that you should have the right to stop a neighbor who just read the idea and wanted one.
      Of course, you weren't the first person to have that idea, and you didn't put any effort into developing it, and so your argument is completely stupid.

    30. Re:I still fail to see something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be different aspects of IP laws, but the intent behind all of the laws is the same. Namely, to do what's in the best interests of society.

      For trademark law, you're just dead wrong. Trademark laws are designed to protect the public from confusion resulting from similar or identical names on two similar products. The consequence of trademark laws results in it offering protection for the names that companies use, but it's important to realize that that was not the original intent of the laws.

      Patent and copyright laws exist, not because of some recognition that creators deserve compensation for their creations, but because it was believed that such protections would encourage creators to share their creations with society. The laws were intended to strike the balance between overly-restrictive (what we have now...resulting in an almost non-existant public domain) and underly-restrictive (resulting in a lack of incentive for creators to share their creations with the public, and, ultimately, a non-existant public domain because creations are not shared). Creators having the sole right to profit from their creations is only a side-effect of the original intent...to maximize the public domain for society's benefit.

      In both cases, the laws were created to correct a perceived problem that would be a detriment to society as a whole.

      As to how it's discouraging innovation, it really isn't. But it is causing a detriment to society. Nintendo is no longer selling their product, so consumers have no chance of buying the product, even if there is demand. The only thing creating that situation is the intellectual property laws that the posters in this thread were saying need to be changed. If there was some provision in IP law saying that abandoned technology fell into the public domain, companies would have the option to produce their clones of the old NES system and the market would decide rather than IP law.

    31. Re:I still fail to see something. by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      Except it would be unconstitutional

      "But if we change the constitution..."

      "Then we can make all sorts of crazy laws!"

    32. Re:I still fail to see something. by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      My point is that just because an idea can appear trivial and obvious, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected.

      So, you're saying that having an idea, simply by being non-trivial and non-obvious, is grounds for preventing anyone else from using that idea for 20 years (what you call being "protected")?

    33. Re:I still fail to see something. by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      by owning a fuel-reducing patent, could get *all* of the revenues from that product.

      Oh right, because *of course* that technology would only be covered by *one* patent...

    34. Re:I still fail to see something. by elgaard · · Score: 1

      We are not talking about credit, genius, etc. We are talking about preventing people from using their own ideas.

      Pythagoras, Einstein, and Newton did not get patents on their ideas.

      They made their brilliant work knowing they could not stop other from using the same knowledge.

      They were even telling other people about their ideas, so that they could use them and build on them.

      ==
      If you were the first person to envision a large, artificial body of water that could be placed on private property for the use and enjoyment of people, you developed that idea, and registered it at the patent office, then I think that you should have the right to stop a neighbor who just read the idea and wanted one.
      ==

      Why? Because of if the neighbour got one it would make me feel less rich? Because I have the right to annoy my neighbour? Because we have to stop the spreading of ideas?

      And what if the neighbour did not read about it, but came up the pool-idea on his own? He should still not be allowed to make a pool?

    35. Re:I still fail to see something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies do this already.

    36. Re:I still fail to see something. by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Having read the article, I'd have to say it's crap, and you can clone the NES to your hearts content. Just don't use the copyrighted bits, which are all about crippling the system -- not a selling point, I can assure you.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    37. Re:I still fail to see something. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing about the difference in scarcity. What I am saying is that the laws regarding real property vs "intellectual property" both have the same goals - maximum utilization ("innovation"), and thus saying that they have completely different goals is incorrect. Whether or not IP laws achieve those goals (any more) is beside my point.

  15. Must... protect... innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the justification used for these IP protections that they foster innovation and business? How can outlawing compatible consoles for a FULL CENTURY after production ceases possibly be construed as fostering innovation or business?

    1. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, because the only way you can get rich innovating is if the law forbids every slacker sitting around doing nothing from immediately copying your invention (or work of art) and (since he doesn't have to pay back the enormous loans you took out to support yourself while developing your idea), undercut you by 50% on price and drive you promptly into bankruptcy.

      The term of a century for copyright law is chosen more or less just to correspond to the artist's lifetime. Patent law is limited to about 20 years, that being the time it's considered "fair" to let you dominate the market for your invention. After that, the generics come, and you better have moved on to something new.

      Patent and copyright law was explicitly written into the Constitution in 1787 probably because the Founders had unpleasant experience with a world in which patent and copyright law was weak. The result was that the only way for an inventor to control his invention enough to make a decent living from it was to keep the details a deep dark secret. That sucks on many fronts: (1) The invention may well die with the inventor, unless he chooses otherwise, has sons to carry on, et cetera. (2) Good ideas that might be indirectly inspired by details of the invention don't occur. There's no cross-fertilization, where one clever invention (e.g. the electric motor) inspires a related invention (e.g. the electric generator) or a supporting structure (e.g. batteries for small electric motors). (3) The practise of the new invention spreads very slowly, since the inventor must personally trust everyone to whom he teaches the invention. He has no ability to teach strangers to use the invention, or even allow strangers to teach other strangers, because he has no legal way to force anyone to stop using his invention if they start to do so unreasonably. Patent law gives an inventor specific and limited rights to control his invention, and that predictability allows him to trust people more easily and spread the new practise faster.

      Patent law is basically a bargain struck between inventors and the public. The public agrees to give the inventor a limited and specific set of rights to profit from his invention, and in exchange the inventor agrees to make the details of his invention public immediately. The key aspect of the patent is the fact that the invention must be completely and thoroughly described before a patent is granted. That means everyone can benefit from understanding the precise details of the invention. Indeed, engineers quite often search existing patents for good ideas that can be developed elsewhere, and frequently find them. It's rare that a good idea leads to only a single worthwhile invention.

    2. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by nunchux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, because the only way you can get rich innovating is if the law forbids every slacker sitting around doing nothing from immediately copying your invention (or work of art) and (since he doesn't have to pay back the enormous loans you took out to support yourself while developing your idea), undercut you by 50% on price and drive you promptly into bankruptcy.

      It should be added that the laws don't just protect a creator from slackers, it protects him from corporations. As much as Disney and Microsoft abuse copyright and patent laws, these laws are also fundamental protection to keep companies with much more money and many more lawyers from stealing (and/or subverting) the intellectual property of the little guy-- be it a lone inventor, a writer, even an upstart tech company with a good idea.

    3. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look into the history of patents if you really believe that they were weak before the addition of them to your Constitution. You might be surprised to find that there were strong beliefs at the time that there should not be any at all because monopolies of any kind were considered harmful to the citizenry. Hell, even corporations had defined lifespans at that time because it was known that they would be able and willing to exert undue influence on government and society.

    4. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I have lots of good ideas that I can patent, but I could develop unless I owned a company like Verizon. Have any tips on how to get a patent, maybe for less than $100? I think I have one idea in particular that is a multimillion idea, but I'm flat broke.

    5. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. On many accounts.

      a) Development costs are not *enormous*. The pharmaceutical industry, poster child of "why we need patents", spends way more on marketing than R&D.

      b) It always infuriates me when anal-ists explain that such and such company's patent expired, and "generics" come, and they're fucked. HE-LLO? McFly? Producing something is producing something. You had 20 years to come up with a cheap and reliable process of doing it, while making billions, and suddenly some random company shows up doing the exact same thing and you can't compete? Well, either you're incredibly inefficient, and the market would be better off without you, or you just can't face your customers and explain to them that you've been ripping them off. Pick one.

      c) Trade secrets work quite well.

      d) I know a grand total of 0 (zero) software engineer who *ever* went looking for a patent because they might gain some insight about anything. So the value of patents to "spread" innovation (at least as far as software is concerned) is exactly zero.

      e) The founding fathers didn't put the "congress shall have the right" clause in the constitution because of what happened with no IP, but because, if they hadn't, patents and copyrights would not have been possible at all. Notice the difference between "congress shall have the right" and "congress must". They picked the former. Between slamming the door shut and losing the key, removing the door altogether, and just leaving it closed, the chose the latest. That should tell you something. Remember also that until 19-something, "foreign" IP just didn't exist as far as the US were concerned.

      f) Patents completely ignore the concept that 2 persons might (and have) come up with the same idea independantely.

      g) "limited and specific". My arse. A monopoly is neither.

    6. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Patent and copyright law was explicitly written into the Constitution in 1787 probably because the Founders had unpleasant experience with a world in which patent and copyright law was weak."

      I had the impression that patents and copyright were grudgingly included due to unpleasant experiences - but not necessarily because the law was weak. Rather, I thought that British patents were given out capriciously - how strong your patent was (duration and coverage) had more to do with how politically connected you were than encouraging progress.

      Thomas Jefferson has a well known quote: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine--as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." I had the impression that he grudgingly accepted patents as a concession to practicality, but not as something that would be philosophically desirable.

    7. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two serious problems with the parent post that should be preventing it from getting modded informative...

      1. Patent and copyright law is not written directly into the constitution. Rather, congress is granted the authority to make such laws for the purpose of promoting the arts. It was intentionally left out of the constitution, because many of the Founders opposed copyright and hoped that it could be eliminated completely, and they didn't want to require a constitutional amendment to do so.

      2. A century has nothing to do with copyright law; copyrights currently last for the author's lifetime plus 70 years. More imporantly, the original founder's copyright law in 1790 stated that copyrights expired after 14 years, and could be renewed at that time for one additional 14 year period. After that, they expired into the public domain, to ensure the works could be built upon. This was considered better than the British system of the time, which was 28 years without need for renewal. In other words, the Founders of the US wanted copyrights to expire at least as frequently than they had under the system they were leaving. Shorter copyrights were considered better. A short confirmation of this information can be found at the Creative Commons Founders Copyright page.

    8. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      I would not be surprised at any such thought. Nor should you be surprised to learn that guilds routinely tried to keep inventions and innovations a secret forever from the general public, and to stifle free-lance innovation.

      Both currents of thought have existed as long as human beings have invented things: the inventors wish to profit from their inventions, and enlightened people have sought to guarantee (but limit) this profit, so as to preserve the goose that lays the golden eggs. On the other side, people who have to pay for the invention what the inventor wants have always wanted to expropriate him, to argue that he has no possessory right to the knowledge, that this or that public good would be best served by disallowing someone to keep a lock on the use of good ideas, for any length of time. The people say to hell with the goose, we want the eggs.

      As I said, patents and copyright and so forth are a delicate truce struck between these opposing forces, a truce that preserves the peace and (hopefully) innovation

    9. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Patents and copyright wasn't written into the US constiution; there's a single paragraph allowing creation of that kind of protection, as congress isn't supposed to have any authority to regulate beyond the constitution.


      There's complications to comparing then and now. It's sometimes said that when you scale a problem by a factor 10, it becomes a different problem. For patents, there's at leasttwo factors (which are part of the problem) that's been scaled by a factor of ten. Invention velocity (the number of inventions done) is much more than 10x higher. Also, the amount of invention that's groundbreaking (as a fraction of the number of inventions done) is at least 10x lower.


      I also suspect that there's at least a 10x factor in "independent duplication of invention" compared to when the laws where first made, and probably a 10x factor in ease of resource allocation to technology (through the stock market and the world being generally affluent.)


      Each single one of these make the problem very different.


      Eivind. (Alas, I won't see replies, as I can't log in here.)

    10. Re:Must... protect... innovation... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      a) Development costs are not *enormous*.

      Some development costs are small, some are large, some are enormous. It depends on the product and on the advance in science and technology needed. Development costs for the first airplane were enormous, both in terms of money and human life. Development costs for the first atomic bomb were enormous, as were and are the costs to develop manned spacecraft or robotic explorers of the Solar System. Developing an entirely new CPU or a much smaller feature-size memory chip is also very expensive.

      The pharmaceutical industry, poster child of "why we need patents", spends way more on marketing than R&D.

      What makes you think so? I'm not a biochemist myself, but I've known a number of them, and everything they tell me certainly suggests it is profoundly long and expensive process to develop new drugs. Just to give you one small clue, I recall a conversation in which a director of a small lab involved in drug discovery was pondering what kind of storage system to buy just to store photographs of the culture plates in which new chemical compounds were tested on bacterial or cancer-cell cultures. The storage capacity needed was in terabytes.

      But suppose you're correct. So what? Whether they spend more or less on marketing doesn't change the fact that they spend a lot on R&D. They really do take a few hundred billion on average to develop a successful new drug, and the numbers are widely available to rationalize that claim. There's no doubt synthetic organic chemists draw high salaries. There's no doubt it takes years and years to develop a new drug. There's no doubt clinical trials are very expensive. There's no doubt nearly all proposed new drugs fail to qualify at some stage in their development.

      Of course, you could argue that they're spending more than they have to, but then you'd also need to argue that they're idiots, spending money they don't have to. That swarms of PhD chemists and biochemists and physicans are just going about the whole damn process wrong, and if they'd only, say, solicit the opinion of a random AC on /. who can think logically, has read the New York Times "Health" section regularly, and has experience in, say, writing clever PHP scripts or speedy C++ code -- why, then they'd finally understand how easy it actually is to design a safe, economical, mass-scale chemical synthesis of a peculiar poison, each 12,000-atom molecule of which fits perfectly into one of the 100,000 receptors on the surface of a cancer cell but doesn't fit into even one of the 100,000 receptors on the surface of a normal cell.

      b) It always infuriates me when anal-ists explain that such and such company's patent expired, and "generics" come, and they're fucked. HE-LLO? McFly? Producing something is producing something. You had 20 years to come up with a cheap and reliable process of doing it, while making billions, and suddenly some random company shows up doing the exact same thing and you can't compete? Well, either you're incredibly inefficient, and the market would be better off without you, or you just can't face your customers and explain to them that you've been ripping them off. Pick one.

      No one said they're fucked per se. But manufacturing generic drugs and inventing and manufacturing proprietary drugs are very different businesses, and one firm can rarely be sucessful at both. So if you are in the business of inventing and manufacturing proprietary drugs, then indeed when your patent expires it is, often, time to get out of the market. Which means you better have a new proprietary drug coming on line, or, indeed, you are fucked.

      Why are they different businesses? Let's think it through a little more. If you invent drugs, you need a big clutch of expensive people who can design and test manufacturing processes (it's very different manufacturing drugs in ton-lots versus doing it in milligram lots on the bench), who can oversee animal a

  16. Re:See Digg.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Alexa was known for their spyware and toolbar...

  17. Clones by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Even if it is okay to sell/make clones of the NES hardware, the actual games themselves (well...most of them) are still protected by copyright(s). The NES came out in the 80s, and copyrights last at least 30 years. I don't see any Transformers yet, so I don't see the games themselves out of copyright yet. Time to pull out my electronics tools.

    P.S. Overly critical guy: You're not critical. You're flamebait.

  18. IP & QM by TeaQuaffer · · Score: 4, Funny
    Law, particularly IP law, has a lot in common with quantum mechanics. In both fields, answers are often given in the form of probabilities rather than certainties.

    I had a lot of trouble in QM. Now I know why all this IP stuff confuses me too. I guess the new expression is "It doesn't take a IP lawyer" rather than "It doesn't take a rocket scientist" SIGH.

    --
    Sola Deo Gloria!
  19. Re:See Digg.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason I come to slashdot is not for the fresh stories, it's for the comments. As much content as Digg has, the comment system is a joke, and the people on there are immature idiots with nothing relevant to say.

  20. Patents from 1995? by qbwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait a minute - they're saying that a patent received in 1995 could apply to a product that was created in 1985. It took a long time for that patent to be processed by the USPTO.

    I also suspect that the 10NES cartridge authentication system is not additionally a console authentication system: the clone NES consoles shouldn't need to verify that the cartridges are authentic to get them to work.

    That leaves it up to trademarks, which I'm sure that it's not to hard work around. You could say that your console "plays games which are designed for the Nintendo Entertainment System (a trademark of Nintendo of America."

    As always, IANAL, though, so take these words with a grain of salt.

    --
    Ewige Blumenkraft.
    1. Re:Patents from 1995? by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait a minute - they're saying that a patent received in 1995 could apply to a product that was created in 1985. It took a long time for that patent to be processed by the USPTO.

      Development on the NES didn't stop in 1985. Many of the controllers, such as the light gun, were developed afterwards, and have their own patents. Also, mapper chips that gave cartriges features such as additional ROM, battery-backed storage, more sound channels, and so on, were being developed for years afterwards.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Patents from 1995? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Also, mapper chips that gave cartriges features such as additional ROM, battery-backed storage, more sound channels, and so on, were being developed for years afterwards.

      How would that apply to cloning the console? All those things are on the cartridge.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  21. Patents are gone, but copyrights live on by CorporalKlinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The patents on the physical, hardware components of the Nintendo may have expired, but the code programmed into the various ROM's both in the console and in games is protected by international copyright. Those copyrights won't expire within most of our lifetimes, so I think it's safe to say that the "true" NES is protected. Whether or not the hardware could successfully be reverse engineered to yield the secrets of the system's operation for later use with completely new software remains to be seen. Still, though, if any of the original NES's code were reused or even used as an example for a new OS for the NES, Nintendo would have a good argument against whoever was duplicating their systems with regard to copyright rules.

    1. Re:Patents are gone, but copyrights live on by Andrew+Tanenbaum · · Score: 1

      Given the existance of emulators for the system, I'm sure that reverse engineering won't be a technical problem

    2. Re:Patents are gone, but copyrights live on by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but there is already a company bringing an NES clone to market right away here, and it's supposed to have 100% compatibility with both the NES and the Famicom. The only thing left is to wait for the patents to expire.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    3. Re:Patents are gone, but copyrights live on by Mr.+Memblers · · Score: 1

      There is no code inside the NES, it's all on the cartridge.

      The lockout chip does have code, but clone systems won't have that (and neither does the official Famicom).

      I've written games for the system and built them on cartridges. Totally legit.

    4. Re:Patents are gone, but copyrights live on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lockout chip was ONLY in the classic US/European NES, The later 'redesigned' US NES, and the original Japanese Famicom had no such lockout. That's why US NES carts have more pins than the Famicom does.

      Besides in Nintendo vs. Atari, Atari only lost because of a technicality. The judge saw nothing wrong with them breaking the lockout mechanism, just with the way Atari did it.

      Sega vs. Accolade, a very similar case, ruled in favor of reverse engineering for compatability.

  22. But why?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With my USB controller, my laptop is already a portable NES.

  23. What about copyrights?? by navycow · · Score: 0

    Just because the patent expired I'm sure there are plenty of copyrights out there to protect the system. However in any case what is the harm to nintendo if they do make consoles? I don't think that they would sell well considering what new stuff is coming on the market, and those that are interested in the Classic games would rather own the original system in my opinion.

  24. Re:See Digg.com by Liselle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're assuming that people come here for news. I'll let you in on a secret: a lot of us don't. We get our news elsewhere.

    The reason people come here is for the bloody comments, and that's why subscribers continue to put up with the "editors", the dupes, the time delay, the left-wing slant, CmdrTaco's whining, and the atrocious color scheme. Digg doesn't have the volume of interesting comments that Slashdot does, and until that happens, you're not going to see a mass exodus.

    I don't usually even read these stories as they "break", I let Slashdotters bitch about Sony/Microsoft/eggplants for a day or two and then come back and read what they have to say.

    Newsflash: not everyone has the same views and/or wants as you do.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  25. Remember Compaq? by Rhett · · Score: 1

    If they could clone an IBM, why can't people clone nintendo?

    1. Re:Remember Compaq? by CorporalKlinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When Compaq reverse engineered the IBM ROM's (I think that was what happened), they had a lot to gain from doing so and thus invested a lot of money and resources in it. Why invest so much money in reverse engineering an old Nintendo, though, when in order to make up the R&D costs you would likely have to charge more than double what people on eBay charge for used, authentic units? I just don't think the market exists to warrant this type of investment.

    2. Re:Remember Compaq? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative
      If they could clone an IBM, why can't people clone nintendo?

      There were several reasons:

      • Software patents were extremely rare in the early 1980s. Nobody would have bothered patenting something as boring as the BIOS.
      • The IBM hardware was little more than an Intel demo board reference design plus a few assorted kludges thrown together by some recent college hires. Back then, people tended to think that you needed to actually do something clever to get a patent, so IBM didn't really patent much of the PC hardware.
      • Much of IBM's top management thought that the PC was a toy in the first couple of years. They just didn't care that much at first.
      • IBM at the time was operating under a restrictive terms from their decades-long anti-trust case. One effect of this was that they didn't really push too hard on any patents.
      • In the mean time, Compaq collected some valuable patents on enhancements they added to PCs, such as multisync monitors that could handle both graphics and text mode. By the time IBM woke up and came looking for license revenue, Compaq had enough collateral to get reasonable terms on a comprehensive patent cross license.
    3. Re:Remember Compaq? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I give you reverse engineered Nintendo.

      That uses an NT6578. Made by Novatek. Single chip NES. Don't know if it's legally reverse engineered.

      I also give you a legally reverse engineered NES clone.

    4. Re:Remember Compaq? by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Then what was fascinating was the people that ripped off Compaq IP to make computers.

      I have an unauth clone of the original Compaq. Less than 50% hardware match (has to be patent infringed on keyboard tho) with some improvements. Surely the software was stolen and certainly had a unpurchased version of DOS when new. Actually had some good improvements that may have stood on their own.

      Terribly interesting as NOTHING inside or outside is labeled above the chip level. Not even any part numbers on anything, even the power supply was unlabeled. THE boot screen simply says bios 23.3.8 or whatever number, no name or brand.

    5. Re:Remember Compaq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DMCA.

    6. Re:Remember Compaq? by speed_of_light · · Score: 1

      The Nintendo Genome Project hasn't finished its research yet (Smash Bros. Melee is an addiction folks.)

  26. Any good NES clones out there? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen the Polystation and similar systems pictured in TFA at one of the souvenir shops at Penn Station in New York, as well as in some of the electronics shops on 8th avenue. For about $50 bucks you get about 100 games built in, so it's a good deal. A friend of mine has an NES clone built into a clone of an N64 controller that outputs to the TV...it also includes an extra controller and light gun that plugs into the main controller, along with 100 or so games. For $35, I bought a Yobo NES clone at the local flea market. You can get the Japanese version from Lik-Sang for USD60. No built-in games, but I don't mind staying partially honest and picking up some old carts for $3-$5 a pop.

    Of course, the best part about the NES knock-offs is the hilarious the packaging. "Best Quality" "Super Graphics" "Super 8-Bit Technology"...usually spelled wrong, and abound the box. One particular box had Spider-Man 2 promotional movie graphics and the device was labelled as Spider Game. Infringing upon Nintendo and Marvel IP...now that's some balls!

    1. Re:Any good NES clones out there? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For about $50 bucks you get about 100 games built in, so it's a good deal. A friend of mine has an NES clone built into a clone of an N64 controller that outputs to the TV...it also includes an extra controller and light gun that plugs into the main controller, along with 100 or so games.

      Your friend needs to chop it up and build one of these.

    2. Re:Any good NES clones out there? by maxume · · Score: 1

      This thing is a bit tighter.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Any good NES clones out there? by pngwen · · Score: 1

      I have a good one called the "fc console" by a company called "yobo". The USA version can play NES games. I've only found 1 exception. It doesn't play gauntlet for whatever reason.

      Still for $40.00, you can't beat it!

      --
      I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    4. Re:Any good NES clones out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still for $40.00, you can't beat it!

      So they saved money by not letting you win?

    5. Re:Any good NES clones out there? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      The Yobo aka NeoFami can actually be had for as low as $25 off of Ebay. Note that it can't play Gauntlet, as well as many other games because it is yet another crappy Famicom/NES clone based on an inaccurate recreation of the NES's circuitry. But guess what is even cheaper than a $25 crappy clone? A $20 refurbished real NES. Oh and it can play all of your NES games.

    6. Re:Any good NES clones out there? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      That's the same one I have (see GP post). I'm actually off to the flea market now to find some more "gray area" NES stuff ;)

  27. Console Repair by l3prador · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, what would be the legal ramifications behind selling repairs of old consoles? And how far can you go and consider it still a repair and not a new console? If the controller ports are busted and you replace them with your own components? The logic board, the power supply? All of the electronics, but keeping the external frame? Why can't you replace the external frame with your own design? Wouldn't selling refurbished things like this be legal? I mean, how much can you replace and still consider it a repair or a refurbishing? Everything that is broken, right? And what's wrong with adding your own modifications, such as wireless controllers and updated video out? How is that different than what Messiah is doing, other than they probably didn't start out with one dead NES for their new ones?

    1. Re:Console Repair by Mr.+Memblers · · Score: 1

      If you bought the hardware, I can't imagine anything that could legally stop someone from reselling it (in pieces, rebuilt, or otherwise).

    2. Re:Console Repair by vesik · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Your initial question reminded me of the "Ship of Theseus" paradox. It's an ancient philosophical question pertaining to identity.

      Check out: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus. html

    3. Re:Console Repair by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      You can buy a hundred used consoles, take them apart, test each piece, and reconstruct new used consoles from the working parts. Completely legal. However, you cannot use the Nintendo name if you alter anything inside, since that would be abusing its trademark. The same goes if you do not mention that it was rebuilt.

      "The decisions of this Court require the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented entity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such a true reconstruction of the entity as to "in fact make a new article," United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, [148 F.2d 416, 425 (2d. Cir. 1945)], after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent. In order to call the monopoly, conferred by the patent grant, into play for a second time, it must, indeed, be a second creation of the patented entity, as, for example, in American Cotton Tie Co. v. Simmons, [106 U.S. 89 (1882)]. Mere replacement of individual unpatented parts, one at a time, whether of the same part repeatedly or different parts successively, is no more than the lawful right of the owner to repair his property." Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961).

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:Console Repair by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The limit would be that you cannot infringe their patents ot copyright or trademark.

      Start with trademark, you either have to avoid using the Nintendo trademarks, or you must be careful to use them properly... such as saying "Compatible with blah blah blah (blah blah blah is a trademake of Nintendo inc).

      Next copyrights... well just don't reproduce their code or whatever. Either use a genuine part contining the oridingal code, or properly reverse engineer the function og teh code and write your own code to do teh same thing.

      And patents... well you'd need to check the patents themselves. Whatever unique components or structures are described would either need to be left out or replaced with a substitute that does not fall within the patent grant, or you'd have to rip that component/structure out of an original unit. Yes that's a bit vague, but the border to patent infringment can get a bit grey, and I haven't read the relevant patents. Basicly don't build new instances of patented things from scratch.

      Design patents... like for the shape of the case... those expire faster than normal patents. They shouldn't be a problem, but if they somehow are still active then you can simply use the original case or mold your new cases in a distinctively different shape. Just don't mold new cases with the same outline.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  28. Phoenix BOIS by glengineer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because Phoenix (remember Phoenix BIOS ??)went and legally reverse engineered the BIOS, and licensed them, and Michael Dell and that pony-tailed Gateway2000 guy made a lot of money and hired a lot of smooth talking lawyers.

    --
    Evil Overlord Rule #86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
  29. You want insightful comments? by Hitto · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Try 4chan.org
    The most honest discussions ever :D

  30. Ron Jeremy by 7Prime · · Score: 1

    I could definitely see Ron Jeremy as Mario... in fact, the similarites are uncanny.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  31. Re:See Digg.com by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

    Fucking eggplants! Where do they get off with stealing slashdot's apache section color scheme?!?

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  32. SlashDot is not Taco's Blog anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sold it long ago. It is not his personal plaything anymore. VA Software/OSDN/WhatEver owns it now.

  33. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by GiSqOd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good point about this helping to market current versions of Zelda, Mario, etc.

    I also think there's a big opportunity for Nintendo to pre-emptively turn this into a cash cow. If they release their OWN "clone" system, they could clean up. They could put together a $35 bundle that had 2 controllers, a small hard drive that had all original Nintendo games, and beat the clone makers at their own game. Even if it was just all games Nintendo made, what gamer geek wouldn't see that as an attractive investment? (In fact, since so many companies that made Nintendo games are now out of business, you could probably put a fair amount of abandonware on there, too.)

    I know I'd rather buy a cheap Nintendo box from, well... Nintendo than one marked "Best Quality Nintendo Wish Set" at the local flea market.

    This will never happen, of course. They're more likely to re-introduce the original Nintendo at $99 and re-release all the games for $39.99, like 1988 all over again. Too bad.

  34. Sony.... by bitkid · · Score: 1

    On a sidenote:
    TFA mentions that executives of companies can be held personally liable in cases of copyright infridgement (prison!). If that is true and if it can indeed be shown that Sony's CD contains LGPL code from LAME, then they have gotten themselfes into deeeeeep sh*t (although I doubt that anything that drastic would happen).

  35. Pffft.... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    while the NES patents are about to expire in 2013, we already got emulators for the GBA, and in-the-works for the DS.

    Just a thought.

  36. Keeping an eye on the money... by jd · · Score: 3, Informative
    It's not bad for Nintendo to keep an eye on the money, but the patents (AFAIK) refer to the hardware (which Nintendo makes nothing from, today) not to the software (which Nintendo MIGHT make money off). The software is still covered by copyright, so the patent stuff is a non-issue there. The hardware is NOT covered by copyright, so the copyright stuff should be a non-issue there.


    Producing a binary-compatiable console that is hardware-compatiable to the NES should (by anything remotely approaching fair and civilized rights) be legal, especially as Nintendo would still be making money off all the things they still make money from. However, the US is dubious on both counts, so don't count on it.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Keeping an eye on the money... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      I agree with your post; however, ... to what end? I mean, if someone can create a binary-compatable console that plays NES games... I seriously doubt they can do it cheaper than you can buy a used NES for (about $25 last I checked).

      --
      sig?
    2. Re:Keeping an eye on the money... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but they can do one for 59.99$ that supports wireless controllers and can also play Famicom games. Would have been nice if they'd packed in a wireless controller though.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    3. Re:Keeping an eye on the money... by josephpate · · Score: 1

      Plus something like the Game Axe (http://www.goldenshop.com.hk/AI-trad/Misc_htm/m_g ameaxe.htm) which is way more portable than any of the old NES Models.

  37. Re:Sony.... Brrr! by DECS · · Score: 4, Funny

    It'll be a a cold day in hell when executives are charged with infridgement!

  38. Keeping the sales cycle going by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Simple, the longer you can play Mario and Zelda on NES, the less you are tempted to play a new version or Mario or Zelda on Super NES, N64, GameCube, or Revolution. If your NES breaks, instead of buying a clone, you have to buy the latest and greatest. If you buy the latest and greatest, quite often you have to buy all new games. That's changing with the revolution which has promised backward compatibility with Gamecube, and PS2 is backward compatible with PS1. But Gamecube isn't anywhere near compatible with NES of course.

    Like all technology companies, they are simply protecting their upgrade revenue stream.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Keeping the sales cycle going by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure it would very nicely protect Ford's "upgrade revenue stream" if only they were allowed to make parts for their cars, and they stopped doing so after a few years. That doesn't mean we should implement that situation and allow them to do so. So why should we do it for Nintendo? If they want to protect "upgrade revenue", let 'em come out with a product that's worth upgrading to, and a Zelda 5003 that blows away the original. THAT, is encouragement to innovate!

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  39. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by forkazoo · · Score: 1

    A clone NES would only get you the ability to play old carts. At this point, very few people would bother to buy a cloNES, and also buy a bunch of used carts to play. Thus, the impact on selling downloads of the old games should be negligible. Most of the people who already have a collection of NES games already have an NES, or could get one used fairly easily.

  40. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

    I dunno... in a few years maybe. Look at the Atari Flashback. It's up to a 2.0 with more games... (granted the 2600 is much older, but the point being, there's some market, however small for nostalgia gaming....)

    And as the system gets older and older, perhaps the nostalgia crowd will want an NES like they did the old 2600. (The NES being very popular as well..)

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  41. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Informative

    They already have. It is called the Classic Series for the GBA. They make a lot of money there. They will also have all those games for free to download on the Revolution. So there is good money in it for them to hold that stuff as their own.

  42. I'm Colombian by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

    And here we have fake "DVD" that are really Video-CD only and also plays nes games.

    However only people who don't know the difference buy them, to find later that it doesn't play DVDs.

    And there are several playstation clones.

    --
    We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    1. Re:I'm Colombian by puto · · Score: 1

      Yo, I am half ass Colombian, pop is from there. And I lived there from age 30-34. I think we should make the rest of the world aware of the saying(dicho) "todo es possible en Colombia" Everything is possible in Colombia.

      You can get VHS, DVD, SVCD, CD, Games, etc, all copied. You can go into a legit store and have the choice of paying full price for the real version, or a fraction for the copy, what is the word in Colombia, achiviado?

      But the parent poster should have realized, that Colombians due to poverty are pretty astute businessmen. Como Turcos. Make and save a buck while they can.

      Colombia has a a chain of shopping centets called San Andresito. These shopping centers have stores which sell products at lower prices without taxes. San Andres is a Colombian Island which is duty free, so these "malls" are tax free.

      Puto

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  43. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    And that is the business rationale for perpetual copyright: If Ron Howard's The Grinch is the *ONLY* movie you can legally watch this Christmas, then innovators like the estate of Dr. Seuss will be well rewarded. Woo.

    Yes, I know you aren't advocating perpetual patents for the good of Nintendo.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  44. Who cares? by Khaed · · Score: 1

    The Revolution will be able to play NES games (as well as SNES and Gamecube, N64 too but who really cares?). NES ROMs exist all over the place. So you can play the games (and other systems) on one system (no more daisy chains of RF adapters!), assuming Nintendo makes it easy and cheap to download them to the system, legally and on your television... or you can download them illegally (no judgment; I have quite a few ROMs), and play them on just about anything.

    I wouldn't buy a knock-off unless it combined more systems. The NES alone isn't worth paying more than the cost of a used NES. I loved a lot of the games, grew up with them, but really. I'm not a huge Nintendo fanboy and I don't have loyalty to them. I just don't care. Why buy some made-in-Taiwan crap version of something you can get for free or (hopefully) play in an officially supported capacity?

    Now, if someone makes a knock-off that plays *any* cartridge based system and had a great controller or supported a variety of controllers, I'd be willing to pay out the nose for it. Just so I could have ONE system hooked up and still play old games. But having decent controllers is a must; Pac-man is more fun with a joystick, but not so much for Mario Brothers.

  45. Re:See Digg.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're currently +1 Insightful, but I see your comedic genius, dear AC.

  46. Revolution by OneIsNotPrime · · Score: 1
    On the other hand consider the business realities. How many NES consoles did Nintendo sell last year? Is it worth it to Nintendo to fight over an obsolete product?

    Given Nintendo's announced plan's for a Revolution download service for older Nintendo games, I would say that is a big yes.

    On another point, I went to a major mall in the Phoenix area and saw a retailer selling the Power Player Super Joy III Emulator. I was quite shocked to see such a blatant case of copyright infringement at a major retail center, and I plan to notify Nintendo's piracy center because it ticks me off that someone is making money by ripping Nintendo off.

    --

    ---

    WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.

    1. Re:Revolution by Eightyford · · Score: 1

      I plan to notify Nintendo's piracy center because it ticks me off that someone is making money by ripping Nintendo off.

      Why?

    2. Re:Revolution by OneIsNotPrime · · Score: 1
      Why?
      Because they are just parasitically siphoning off of someone else's creation. This is not just enjoying Nintendo's work; this is knowingly, illegally, profiting off of them in a public place.

      You don't have a problem with this?

      --

      ---

      WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.

    3. Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no not really.

  47. Re:See Digg.com by JPyun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As much content as Digg has, the comment system is a joke, and the people on there are immature idiots with nothing relevant to say.

    Wait... who modded that "Insightful"...

    It should be +5 Funny

  48. Re:Sony.... Brrr! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    I guess they would have their assets frozen as well.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  49. Who needs an NES clone? by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Informative
    A $10 replacement connector from eBay fixes virtually every dead NES system out there.

    The vast, vast, vast majority of non-functioning NES systems have nothing wrong with them except worn-out connectors. The ones you can get on eBay today are much more solid and long-lasting than the ones that were in the system originally.

    1. Re:Who needs an NES clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a lot of the problem comes from the games as well. Without cleaning the games, the new connector dosnt do too much (Double dragon still freezes up on me!)

    2. Re:Who needs an NES clone? by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      I love my NES but the thing is just too damn old, plus all the carts are packed away somewhere at my parents house. I run an NES emulator with an xbox controller, which is an *extremely* simple mod as the xbox interface is really a usb interface with an extra sensing wire for lightgun type controllers. It runs well on my laptop and is great fun when I got some time to kill. With some of the different sampling techniques that they have developed you actually get a fairly nice look to everything, better than originally anyways.

  50. oh i don't think so by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on. The article was written for wide public consumption by a lawyer, who makes his living giving advice for big bucks, and can be held liable for bad advice for equally big bucks. Realistically, is there any chance at all he'd come right out and publish a direct answer to the extremely interesting question of whether a specific clone system would be legal? When that's a question he can make large amounts of money answering privately?

    Ha ha. What he's done, basically, is give a long-winded "it depends" while strongly implying that anyone who even thinks about getting into this business should begin by hiring a top-notch IP lawyer, such as his own humble self. Golly, what a surprise.

    1. Re:oh i don't think so by torokun · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a law student, soon to be a lawyer, I can tell you that what he's done is basically about the best you can do in lots of cases with our legal system.

      In common law countries, lots of discretion is usually given to judges to determine tough questions. In civil law countries, the statutes basically determine what they can do, and they try to lay everything out in the statutes.

      Thus, civil law tends to be more efficient, more black and white, but common law systems tend to have fairer results. When everything is laid out in the statute in excruciating detail, it's inevitable that there are loopholes, and people exploit these. But in our system, legislatures generally avoid creating loopholes by being more general, and letting the judge and jury make the determination as to whether certain conduct falls within a statute...

      So we research cases to see what previous decisions have found, and try to predict based on these what the court will say. This is the REAL law, and maybe now you can see that it's not so cut and dried.

      I agree that lawyers are not going to give a great legal brief to someone for free, but even a great legal brief often can't answer a question with a clear yes or no. This is something many people don't understand about our legal system.

      What he did in this article was to give people an idea of the issues and the likely conclusion without doing tons of preparation and work on researching the particular case law. That's the most you can reasonably expect from an article like this. So he's not avoiding the issue. He's just giving a reasonable answer with a reasonable amount of work.

  51. teh stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article took an entire page to say nothing. Only the dumbest noob would not know about trademarks, patents and copyrights. The article answered nothing.

    Really lame.

  52. Re:See Digg.com by LordofEntropy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "You're assuming that people come here for news. I'll let you in on a secret: a lot of us don't. We get our news elsewhere. The reason people come here is for the bloody comments..."

    I don't know about you, but I come here for the hot chicks.

    --
    Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
  53. Re:See Digg.com by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "the comment system is a joke, and the people on there are immature idiots with nothing relevant to say."

    Digg, or Slashdot? Honestly, I can't tell which site you're referring to.

    Linus Torvalds himself said "Slashdot is this big public wanking session" where people who don't know what they're talking about come together.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  54. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or, pay $50 for one of those shady "700 in 1" TV games, and note that the cartridge port on the back is a Famicom cartridge port. IIRC, Lik-Sang sells adaptors to run NES games on a Famicom (or a Famiclone in this case).

  55. Sigh by bogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I plan to notify Nintendo's piracy center because it ticks me off that someone is making money by ripping Nintendo off."

    Oh please. How about actually doing something useful for society instead? Give blood, write your congressman about how unfair DRM is, adopt a highway, volunteer to help the less fortunate this Thanksgiving, etc.

    Writing letters to rat on some retailer who actually provides jobs for people in your area so some multi-billion dollar company can collect a few bucks and also enforce the idea that IP lasts forever is about the last thing you should be doing. If your so insistant on doing something for nintendo how about you look up actual coders and people who made the artwork for those old games and send them a few bucks. At least then your heart would be in the right place.

    IP will be the downfall of society as we know it.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Sigh by Mr.+Grimm · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of seeing this same ridiculous excuse. Just because there are larger problems in the world does not mean the smaller ones should be ignored.

    2. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no: you have it all wrong. The OP isn't trying to "solve" a problem -- calling it a problem implies there's actually something that could or should be done about the situation to make it better. The parent isn't telling him or her to tackle bigger problems, just actual problems, rather than merely causing them.

    3. Re:Sigh by OneIsNotPrime · · Score: 1
      You may never see this reply, but I hope you do.
      "Give blood, write your congressman"
      This is irrelevent. It is false to assume that if I take action on this matter, I will lose that same time performing some other humane act. I take the time to do what I consider important, and the time is more likely to come out of my free time or something insignificant to me (like Slashdot posting) than it is to prevent me from doing something else I consider important. This point sounds like more of a debating tactic than any real argument.

      look up actual coders and people who made the artwork for those old games and send them a few bucks
      Ha, right, just like I will look up a chef and buy him a fruit basket when I like eating at a particular restaurant. Instead, I'll eat there regularly and recommend it to others. Just so, if I like a game I'll buy it and recommend it. I doubt that the coders and artists would be real steamed to learn I'm reporting theft of their creations. Black markets and thieves drive up the price for valid consumers, and rip-off the creators (including artists, coders, etc.) of royalties and/or higher salaries. This royally ticks me off as a valid consumer. I suppose this seperates me from the majority of Slashdotters in that I prefer to not even play emulators and I don't download illegal MP3's, but I can understand the position of those who do. On the other hand, reselling these creations and profiting off of it, or defending this behavior, is something I find blatantly immoral and dishonest.
      --

      ---

      WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.

  56. yoda was right by Nykon · · Score: 1

    and so begins the clone wars

    --
    "It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
  57. No by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    No more than it's legal for you to walk into an antique shop and take whatever you want. Any patents are long gone on that stuff.

  58. Missing the point by ACNiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They will lose money off the hardware sales of cloned systems if they are trying to integrate a classic gaming interface in their new system.

    Yes, the basic idea in the story is only about their old hardware, but you don't need an imagination to see the money.

    If I have a ton of legal roms laying around, and CompanyA makes a clone console for $20, and CompanyN makes a new console that plays everything under the sun, plus my old legal roms, but charges $300, which will I buy. That depends on if I want to play new stuff or just my old stuff. If the clone machine exists, and I am not really into new games, then the $20 clone is in my living room without a second thought. If it isn't available to me, I will be more inclined to buy the new system. They haven't forced me to buy it, mind you, and they know I probably won't. But if there is a $20 alternative, I definitely won't.

    Now, actually using some imagination, I can take that a step further. Now I might be inclinde to buy new games. I have the new system, I might as well buy some games for it to see how much better it is.

    This won't happen a lot, but if it happens more than it costs to keep people from cloning the NES, then it is worth it. How many 35+ people have old NES cartridges, and have no inclination to buy a new console.

    1. Re:Missing the point by cbrhea · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm also missing the point of your post.

      You're saying the choice would be between an 8-bit Nintenclone or a next-generation system that just happens to also play 8-bit Nintendo cartridges?

      I can't imagine any next-gen console developer other than Nintendo themselves wanting people to play classic Nintendo games. If that's the case, then the Nintendo Revolution is going to be offering the 8-bit games without the need of a cartridge.

      Also, instead of buying that $20 imaginary clone system, just buy an actual Nintendo. They're available right now.

      What am I missing here?

    2. Re:Missing the point by Mr.+Shiny+And+New · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One thing: old video game systems will increasingly become difficult to hook up to your TV, since they often don't have a straight video+audio output, instead relying on simulating channel 3 on the VHF band. My TV may as well not have a coax-cable input as far as I'm concerned, and the other day I considered hooking up my old Atari before deciding it's be easier to just forget it. I wouldn't be surprised if my next TV doesn't even have a tuner or a cable-tv input, instead having only SVideo, Component Video, DVI or HDMI or whatever.

      So a modern clone of an older game system can provide a nice retro-gaming feel while adding features that make the system more fun to use, i.e. perhaps a built-in library of games, or game-saving features, or wireless controllers, or better integration with home theatre setups, etc etc. Is it worth potentially hundreds of dollars for all these features? Not to me, since I never owned an NES, but maybe to you or someone else who fondly remembers Super Mario 3.

  59. ninetendo should sell old nes's by robgue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i mean they sell old nintendo games on the gameboy, have a nes controller gameboy, they love to rehash old products in new wrapping. why not just sell old school nes clones. find a way to sell the old games through some medium. they should have done this with the 2oth anniverary recently. a limited run in their factories. god knows everyone would buy one for a decent price.

    1. Re:ninetendo should sell old nes's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its called Revolution

  60. Messiah Generation NEX System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gamestop doesn't seem to think that it's gonna be a problem...

    Messiah Generation NEX System

    Saw it on the christmas list in egm. Their website is: playmessiah

  61. Leftwing slant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha .
    Let me guess - you're American, correct? Hehehehehehehehe.

    1. Re:Leftwing slant? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      Let me guess - you're a snobby European, correct?

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  62. Re:See Digg.com by CuriosityKilledWHAT · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    According to Alexa.com, Digg will be overtaking Slashdot's traffic within the month.

    Traffic, maybe someday, if only because of Digg fanboys continually refreshing to read the latest dupes that have been posted and post complaints about them.

    Reach? As in how many different people actually visit daily? Digg has a long way to go yet.

    I'd also wager a much higher % of veteran Slashdot readers don't even allow Alexa to track their browsing habits.

  63. Re:mmmm... Ikari Warriors... On an NES? by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    Personally I don't think I could deal with Ikari Warriors without the independent aim-and-move the arcade provided with the twist-stick...

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  64. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds simple to me. Make a box with a dual hardware interface: CF card and Cart.
    If you have old carts, go at it. If not DL them ala iTunes onto a CF card and play them on your console. 99c a game for old games is cheap enough that people might pay it (or if you're scared of piracy, scramble the DL roms and make the CF socket require scrambled roms). Give a fair cut to nintendo as a licencing fee and they likely will go along with you on the venture. In this case playing nice is good, because even if you are legally "in the right" you don't want a long court case (costs $$$) and an injunction (prevents you from getting $$$).

    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  65. A case of Intellectual Property brainwashing. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    Comments like these just go to show how effect the powers that be (e.g., corporations, government) have been at confusing the issue of so-called “intellectual property” with people. This fundamentally makes people less informed and more vulnerable to abuses of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. For example, this reality distortion could easily cause a lay-person to think that if something is patented, they cannot copy it (which is entirely false).

    Better writings exist on this particular topic than I could hope to produce here, so I'll leave further exploration as an exercise to the reader.

  66. Re:See Digg.com by Liselle · · Score: 1

    I tell you the reason why I like Slashdot in spite of its flaws, and you respond with a quote taken out of context, and several useless anecdotes, in what I'm assuming is an attempt to change my mind. As I said before, not everyone has the same wants/views as you. This is a hard lesson to learn. However, a few words:

    I'm not here for the "broken" mod system or the karma whoring, I explicitly told you I was here for the interesting comments, in BOLD and I couldn't have made it any more clear without throwing a parade outside your house.

    I see stupid +5 comments all the time. It's annoying. I deal with it. I usually read "new" stories at 0, and "old" stories at 3, sometimes dropping down to see the replies made to high-modded comments. I'm not an idiot, even though I see the BSOD and Clippy jokes all the time, there are still astute commenters who correct the posters of the tired Microsoft jokes, and I mod them up whenever I have points. It's easy to find mis-modded comments with no rebuttal, but it's even easier to find long threads where people argue back and forth, and that's usually a good way to see a story from multiple angles.

    I'm happy that Digg is doing well, and they are working on a new system (they really need it, I just hopped over there and it looks like the old days of the AOLers that discovered Usenet), but until said system is unveiled and is proven to work well, I'm not remotely interested in it. The comments right now are inane and useless. So are Slashdot's, but I can filter out most of the idiots and see a nice comment that doesn't tell me how "GAAAAAAAY" something is. And no, I'm not going to go over there and help contribute, because I don't give a shit. I already enjoy Slashdot for what it's still worth.

    The sooner that you understand that this site is full of people just like me, the sooner you'll figure out that your stupid crusade is targetting the wrong audience. Put a link in your sig with a short, non-wanking desc of what Digg is, and quit being a dick. That's my advice to you.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  67. The law only applies to you and I by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Copyright and patent laws were intended to protect someone's intellect, and to allow for works to eventually enter the public domain, ideally to benefit society as a whole once the inventer/creator has made some cash off their idea (IMHO... I'm sure that there's some /. lawyer wannabe getting ready to challenge my definition somewhere).

    But nothing really happens this way anymore it seems. Nowadays, when the public is supposed to see some benefits from something entering the public domain, the big, money hungry companies just find some greedy, two-faced politician who's willing to sell out the people who elected them for some easy cash, and they extend protections, and enact new laws to prevent people from getting what they're legally entitled to.

    And it's sad actually... Do you think that when the cpoyright laws were put into place, the lawmakers were thinking planning for this to happen? If so, then why set a duration in the first place?

    Actually, the fact that they did enact patent laws to protect the little guys (never mind that it's the guys with the money to twist the laws who are reaping all the protection these days), and they did set terms on copyright shows that at one time, politicians and lawmakers were there for the benefit of the people. Nowadays, it's only millionares(sp?) who get elected, largely due to they're having more money, which gives them more visibility. The laws are now so twisted and full of holes that they're totally meaningless.

    And I've seen some arguments in favor of laws extending copyright, and granting new rights to content owners, wherein it's argued that the original types of copyright, and patent laws aren't meaningful anyway, as the people who wrote them couldn't have envisioned what technology would bring to the world, but I think that's fucking insane! This is essentially saying that people who were smart enough to found and develop countries, who studied law, and who developed the world in which we live had no vision, or sense of the future? That's crazy talk...

    And this Nintendo thing's a great example of the problem: They made lots of money off the NES, knowing all the while that the patent laws would eventually expire, allowing anyone to build an NES machine, and now that they have (or are, as the case seems to be), they're suddenly saying "but, but, but..." as they see that people still are interested in this technology.

    I think it's about time that the laws started working for the people again, and those who try to circumvent these laws should be held accountable for violating them. Copyright limits were not put into effect just so that some wealthy, never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives people, who've inherited millions from their ancestors inventions, can use some of that money to keep you and I from getting what we're entitled to.

    But me ranting on my virtual soap box isn't going to change anything, and the population as a whole is too wrapped up in their reality TV, and Paris "Dog face" Hilton sexcapades to realize what they're losing out on. It's just so depressing where we as a society have let ourselves be led to. And the whole while, those passing the laws continue to claim that they're doing so for our best interests.

    George Carlin said it best in last weekends HBO special (and more people should watch it, and listen to what he's saying!): "They (the politicians) don't care about you. They don't." It's up to we, the people, to dig us out of the mess that we've let others make of our legal system.

    Ok... I'm done. the soapbox is free for someone else to rant on. I'm off to download all the NES Roms I can get my hands on! 8)

    1. Re:The law only applies to you and I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the law only applies to you and me. The correct rules are to use 'you and me' if you'd've said 'me' if you were talking about yourself, and to say 'you and I' if you'd've said 'I' if you were talking about yourself. If in doubt, its better to say 'you and me' than 'you and I' because in conjunctions the rules of English agreement often change anyway. (And because it avoids hypercorrection. Being wrong makes you look a bit ignorant; being hypercorrect makes you look the fool.)

      (Note: To abide by the rules that every post correcting someone's grammar contains at least one grammatical error, this post contains at least one grammatical error. There is no prize for finding any.)

  68. The concept of intellectual property is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All intellectual property protection boils down to the same thing: asserting ownership over a number, or a set of numbers. To claim ownership over an intangible is absurd.

  69. thank you by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    an exceedingly important addition, thank you

  70. Not true any more by Steeltoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The term of a century for copyright law is chosen more or less just to correspond to the artist's lifetime.

    That may well have been the intention from the start, but the length is now a lifetime PLUS 70 years: a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countri es'_copyright_length">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /List_of_countries'_copyright_length

    There is now dispute wether current copyright will ever expire, since the media companies like Disney seem to extend the period when the next deadline is coming up.. The company then manage to rip off every folklore and everything in the public domain they can get their hands on, but never give anything back to the public domain, as was the entire intention behind both copyright and patent-laws..

    Patent law is limited to about 20 years, that being the time it's considered "fair" to let you dominate the market for your invention. After that, the generics come, and you better have moved on to something new.

    20 years to stifle the market. 20 years of software is ancient news. What software are you using that is 20 years old, except the RSA-algorithm, which was indeed patented..

    I'm not cynical, but you need to present the correct facts.

    1. Re:Not true any more by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Well, I think "more or less the artist's lifetime" is pretty synonymous with "lifetime PLUS 70 years." That's what the qualifier "more or less" means, you know -- it means "artist's lifetime" is not meant to be taken as precise. So I'm not clear on why you feel that fact is wrong.

      And whether by exploiting loopholes in the law somebody is able to stretch this doesn't really seem relevant to discussing the purpose of the law, does it? The fact that some people get away with murder doesn't change the purpose of the law against murder.

      OK, twenty years of software development is ancient news. But there are other things besides software that are patentable. And what the reasonable lifetime of an innovation is might be different for different inventions, don't you think? Which means just possibly your ex-cathedra wisdom into the appropriate length of a patent, based perhaps on your experience in writing software, might not be a completely sound basis for patents throughout the entire universe of invention. Just a thought.

  71. Marketability? by tepples · · Score: 1

    a system that only played nes carts would be of somewhat limited marketability.

    Oh really? What makes you think that?

    nes knockoffs bundled with a huge rom full of nes games will be as illegal as ever.

    Not if the "huge rom full of nes games" is actually "The Best of PDROMS.de". There's a project going on over at nesdev.com called "Garage Cart" to do just that, and I'm contributing a tetramino game.

    1. Re:Marketability? by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a system that only played nes carts would be of somewhat limited marketability.

      Oh really? What makes you think that?


      1: it would have to be quite bulky and/or not enclose the cart (nes carts aren't exactly small)

      2: if you started seriously marketing them in any one area you'd cause a run on stocks of old nes carts locally. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem if you only sold them online though.

      nes knockoffs bundled with a huge rom full of nes games will be as illegal as ever.

      Not if the "huge rom full of nes games" is actually "The Best of PDROMS.de". There's a project going on over at nesdev.com called "Garage Cart" to do just that, and I'm contributing a tetramino game.

      true but just how good are those PD roms?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:Marketability? by tepples · · Score: 1

      1: it would have to be quite bulky and/or not enclose the cart

      A frontloader could be made that's no bigger than an original PS2. The cart would slide in where the disc slot goes. As for a toploader, "not enclos[ing] the cart" seems to be acceptable, as the cart stuck out of the Famicom, AV Famicom/NES Toploader, Super Famicom/Super NES (both revisions), and Nintendo 64.

      true but just how good are those PD roms?

      Go play my contribution to Garage Cart and see for yourself.

    3. Re:Marketability? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      from a quick test that rom seems like a rather poor tetris clone. it freezes the peice far to quickly making it basically impossible to push it under another one.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Marketability? by tepples · · Score: 1

      it freezes the peice far to quickly making it basically impossible to push it under another one.

      Actually, my tetramino game for NES allows the falling piece to overlap the bottom of the other piece slightly. Try holding left against the other piece. Super Puzzle Fighter II for PS1 and GBA follows exactly the same sliding rule.

  72. Lockout chip is unnecessary by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    I also suspect that the 10NES cartridge authentication system is not additionally a console authentication system: the clone NES consoles shouldn't need to verify that the cartridges are authentic to get them to work.

    In fact, the top-loading version of the NES doesn't contain the lockout chip at all; it just leaves the lockout chip data pins unconnected.

    The Super NES, on the other hand, did use the lockout chip in both directions in some cases. Games using the SA-1 chip (Super Mario RPG; Kirby Super Star) wouldn't start the coprocessor unless the cart detected that the Super NES's lockout chip was authentic and for the correct region.

  73. Generation NEX isn't as compatible as some think by tepples · · Score: 1

    there is already a company bringing an NES clone to market right away here, and it's supposed to have 100% compatibility with both the NES and the Famicom.

    If it's the "Generation NEX", then the claims are BS.

  74. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    How many NES consoles did they sell? How much money could Nintendo possibly lose from clone NES systems?

    If anything, the title familiarity may help them in selling similar titles/lines for Gamecube and Revolution.

    Isn't the Revolution supposed to be backward compatable with all the previous consoles?

  75. Kenyon & Kenyon... the CueCat Litigators by BillX · · Score: 2

    Hmm, the name sounds familiar...where has Slashdot heard that name before?

    BTW - although I'm sure they just meant it as an example, the "10NES" copyright case would have no bearing on developing your own clone console, unless you were specifically designing said console to reject unlicensed cartridges as the actual NES did. The CIC chips on the cartridges authenticate the cart to an official NES, but have no internal connection to the ROMs - failure of the console to implement the authentication would have no effect on playability (you can verify this by cutting the clock pin to the CIC chip in the console*...and play unlicensed carts :) .

    *ironically, this is the same method used in many of the CueCat hacks.

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  76. Re:See Digg.com by Liselle · · Score: 1

    Right, you took Linus Torvalds' quote out of context, not mine. I apologize for assuming you could figure out what I was talking about. My quote, you simply ignored.

    You point out that "Slashdot's comments are widely considered the weakest part of the site". I beleive I called it a worthless anecdote, not only because such a thing is subjective, but also because you presented it as a fact while citing squat.

    You call it "broken", I call it flawed. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Usually it works. Since Digg doesn't have a better system, this is a weak argument to make. I'm not a fool, I can usually distinguish between the +5 Microsoft-hater posts and the +5 I Have Something Interesting to Say posts. I meta-mod when I can, always looking at context, and I don't see the rampant moderation abuses that people always bitch about. Very rarely will I find a post that was truly modded in an unfair way. Moderation is not perfect, but it's better than all posts being rated equally, I guarantee you that.

    You're massaging the "Slashdot is slow" angle like it even matters to me, didn't you read where I said I'll usually let article stew for a couple days so that the comments are more fleshed out? I don't come here for breaking news, and I'm tired of having to beat this point into your thick skull.

    I guess what you can't grasp is that my choice of website is not subject to your approval. I have my reasons, I've been kind enough to share them with you (even though you're a world-class dick), and that's all there is to it. I don't wonder why I visit Slashdot, I sure as shit know exactly why I am here, and it's not for the hot chicks or the cutting edge HTML.

    Not everyone thinks like you. Get the fuck over it, get the fuck out, or just STFU until you can say something useful.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  77. NES has composite video output by tepples · · Score: 1

    One thing: old video game systems will increasingly become difficult to hook up to your TV, since they often don't have a straight video+audio output

    The frontloading NES has two RCA jacks on the side, one for mono audio and one for composite video.

    1. Re:NES has composite video output by cbrhea · · Score: 1

      You can easily purchase adapters, as well.

  78. Homebrew? by tepples · · Score: 1

    (or if you're scared of piracy, scramble the DL roms and make the CF socket require scrambled roms)

    If it can't easily be cracked to run freeware and free software available from pdroms.de, then the homebrew community will shun the device and stick to Nintendulator.

  79. O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This brings me back to the good old days of swaying people from one BBS to another...

  80. There was no "code" in the NES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NES console does not have any ROMs in it. (Neither does a Super NES, except for a 64-byte mask ROM which is used to boot its SPC700 sound chip). As such, you could build an emulator or replacement console for the NES without infringing any *copyrights*. All you're doing is emulating the behaviour of some custom hardware chips.

    However, it would have to play the game cartridges in their original form, or you (or your customers) would run afoul of copyright law when using the ROM data in the cartridges. And of course as mentioned in the TFA, you do have patents and trademarks to worry about.

  81. Is there a +6 Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed 110%. The comments are far more valuable than any of the stories.

  82. Re:See Digg.com by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    I can't tell you how many times I've seen +5 comments that were flat-out, 100% wrong about something. But the mods liked what they saw and modded it up. If you try to correct that person, nobody reads you because you've missed that initial reader wave, and you're buried too deeply in the thread tree. So this uninformed (but popular) opinion spreads and spreads, so that you have a culture of misinformation. For instance, witness all the BSOD and Clippy jokes still making the rounds, when BSODs became rare five years ago, and Clippy hasn't been in a default install of Office since Office XP.

    Hoist by your own petard. I've had two bluescreens in the last month, so I hope this gets modded to +5 just to annoy you (and so I can improve on my already maxed out karma).

    And who brought in the law that you can't make jokes about past events?

  83. Re:Where's the business rationale to protect the I by Phisbut · · Score: 1
    How much money could Nintendo possibly lose from clone NES systems?

    It is more about the "Nintendo" name (and its derivatives) than about the hardware. Unlike patents (which cover hardware), a trademark has to be enforced in order to remain valid. If people started making "NES clones" all around and Nintendo didn't do anything about it, they would lose the trademark on "Nintendo", which would be a very, very bad thing for them.

    Trademark law forces them to prevent people from using their name for making clones and roms.

    --
    After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
    - The Tao of Programming
  84. Trademarks are different by Myria · · Score: 1

    Copyright is ownership of a specific number.
    Patents are ownership of a certain class of numbers *.

    But trademarks are something else entirely. Their true use is fraud and libel prevention - you can't go around using someone else's name to sell your product or bash your competitors'.

    Of course, there have been many recent abuses of trademark law, but at least trademark law has a foundation in reality. I don't see a problem with making a NES clone, but I do have a problem with calling it a NES.

    * Or equivalently, a formula used to generate a class of numbers.

    Melissa

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  85. its called a xbox by luther349 · · Score: 1

    heh you said a system that can play all old games. its called a modded xbox it can play anything from atri to n64 and ps1. snes nes it does it all brother. even a dreamcast emu is in the works. i relly wanna see what the modders do to the 360. couse they pimped the xbox big time. yes i have one yes i have emus yes its modded. but i still have a nice stack of games i bought and buy. pises me off thow sence i am a modder im labled a piret even thow my system contanes all homebrew or emus of old stuff. but then again i do own most of the roms i have on my xbox it just beats pulling out my old systems to play them sence the xbox does a dam good job on almost every game.

    1. Re:its called a xbox by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

      with all the protections that MS is supposedly putting into the 360, homebrew might be impossible on the new one. Remember : M$ made a loss on the individual XBOX sales, so when someone bought it for purposes other than playing the xbox games, M$ lost money overall on that system. They want to avoid the same happening this time around :|

    2. Re:its called a xbox by luther349 · · Score: 1

      they said the same thing abought the xbox and it was cracked. you said when people buy it other to play games lol but what abought those that buy it for both like me and most other people. i still buy games in fact i just got battlefield 2 and getting the new kindom under fire. i got a rather large stack of games. homebrew modders and pirets are 2 diffrent things.

    3. Re:its called a xbox by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the delayed response.

      I appreciate the difference between pirates and homebrew developers, but what I'm reffering to in my previous post is neither.

      A lot of people bought Xbox's and modified them for use as cheap fileservers, distributed computing solutions, renderfarms, and so on and so on, with no intention of ever using them to play games of any kind. Microsoft lost a lot of money on those sales, and are trying hard to prevent a repeat of that.

    4. Re:its called a xbox by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you would be suprised how little those are. even linux boxes can be setup to be both a linux system and a gaming deck kinda like mine. simply turn off linux return to normel xbox mode. your right thow there are some people who do that and essently give homebrew modders a bad name.

    5. Re:its called a xbox by luther349 · · Score: 1

      ill put it this way. i have almost every system there is. from a nes to a xbox. and my xbox gets the most attetion from me. simply couse i dont ned to pull out my old machines to play them anymore. i started that wit my dreacast but my xbox does it mutch better. but the xbox also still gets mre new games vs my ps2. the ps2 homebrew scen never exploded like the xboxes did but thers a few things for it. i jus get the most use out of the xbox including perchesed games. it gives my something only one other system ever did befor and thats choice. if i wanan go play on xbox live i can. if i wanna play some old games i can. if i wanna upload my videos to my xbox and watch them on my tv i can. hell alot of the 360s new features where born from the modding communtay. even the new nintendo is supposed to be able to play everything from nes to gamecube from a libary of games you can buy on-line threw it. if anything the new nintendo has my attenten this time. the 360 isnt all that good i mean shure after its modded its probly gonna be the next xbox. it might take longer but anything can be cracked knothing is perfect. and m$ is relly not knowen for haing the most secure system s.

  86. Actual patent coverage and status by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    OK, let's see what they've got.

    • 5,426,762 -- "System for determining a truth of software in an information processing apparatus".
      That's the lockout system for non-Nintendo game cartridges. You don't want to include that in an emulator. Expires January 24, 2006, anyway.
    • 5,207,426 -- "Controller for a game machine".
      Covers the physical design of the game controller. Irrelevant for an emulator.
    • 5,070,479 -- "External memory having an authenticating processor and method of operating same".
      More lockout system stuff. Expires January 24, 2006, anyway.
    • 4,799,635 -- "System for determining authenticity of an external memory used in an information processing apparatus".
      Still more lockout stuff. Appears to expire December 23, 2005.
    • 4,687,200 -- "Multi-directional switch"
      This is about how to make a cheap four-direction arrow key switch.
    None of those would ever have interfered with building an emulator.

    The design patents cover the "ornamental design" of the case and cartridge. They're irrelevant to an emulator.

    The copyright issues are a separate problem, and probably a bigger one.

  87. Re:See Digg.com by fossa · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to say I agree. I read slashdot for the comments. Sure it's full of idiots. But often when I ask a technical question, or legal question, or just throw out an idea, I get something back that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of.

    The problem with Digg discussions is the lack of threading or nesting. It requires a larger effort to follow a conversation (i.e. reading everything), and so I just don't. Slashdot's nesting makes it easy to skip large sections of comments that I don't care about. It's also easier to find comments I read yesterday and see new replies. I think the Digg (and phpBB which I loathe) style of flat comments is really only workable on small scale sites where it's possible to read everything. But that's just me.

  88. Re:See Digg.com by nunchux · · Score: 1

    Wrong. Linus is a member of the Slashdot community. I don't believe he said that, and if he did please provide sources.
    http://slashdot.org/~linustorvalds

  89. $30 copyright registration?! by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    "Copyright is not immortal, but it is cheaper to register and can last more than a lifetime, literally. The length of copyright protection for works created after 1978 is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation. This means the copyright registrations for the NES system are valid until about 2090. Copyright also has some substantial legal "teeth." Under certain circumstances, it is possible for executives of corporations to have personal liability for copyright infringement. Statutory damages can be as much as $150,000 per instance of infringement plus attorneys fees for egregious cases. Actual damages can be even higher. Prison time is also possible for criminal copyright infringement. All that power for a thirty dollar registration."

    (Boyd in TFA)

    However, while possibly advantageous for Nintendo to stop incoming unlicensed "clones" at the U.S. borders, registration does not seem to be a precondition to any of the above, as appears from the comments of the U.S. Copyright Office's Copyright Basics Circular 1 on the situation prior to 1978.

    Of course, the scary aspect to the "new" legal situation is just how easy (and dangerous under the DMCA&friends) it has become to infringe the "right" of someone('s heirs) who can wield such powers, for almost a century, without even having been required to make a deliberate effort to protect (and keep publishing) one's works in the first place.

  90. Here in the UK? They could. :) by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

    dunno about the US tho'.

  91. Homebrew. by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

    The thing about expired patents on the console itself is that there is not longer any reason that homebrew developers couldn't distribute their own games on the bloody thing - something they won't be able to do on the revolution.

    Sure, the NES isn't exactly a powerhouse, but get some old roms together (smb3?) with some blanks and you might be able to get the kids interested in homebrew. Either that or you can just faff around yourself :P

  92. Still missing the point by ACNiel · · Score: 1

    You are thinking too literally, too small. Sure you can go buy an NES today, but how many actually still exist. Sure you can buy adapters, but they are going to become increasingly hard to find. No one is still producing NES originals. There is a finite number of antiquated machines. If someone was to start cloning those, then they are no longer finite. And might there be any benefit to produce a clone with current video output?

    The whole idea is that Nintendo has something to possibly fear. If they can get even a small gain in new system sales by keeping these clones at bay, they are better off finacially. This isn't about what will obviously happen, it is about what might happen, and what benefits the company financially.

    Too summarize, there is no benefit to Nintendo to allow clones. There might be a benefit to not allow them. If the potential benefit to Nintendo outways the cost to fight them, then they will probably fight.

    There is real money concerns, that is a given. How much of a real threat is the question.

    1. Re:Still missing the point by cbrhea · · Score: 1

      Believe me, Nintendo will NOT release a new 8-bit system. If you think they will do this to fight off someone who can sell a couple hundred clones at $20 a pop, you're crazy.

      They're going to sell the 8-bit games as a tool to sell their new platforms, period.

      You're defeating your own argument, anyways. The games are just as antiquated as the consoles and "are going to become increasingly hard to find". These will not be reproducible by any third party, only Nintendo.

  93. I clearly fail to understand... by swelke · · Score: 1

    How can there be patents on NES hardware dated after 1985 (1984 in japan, etc.) when the hardware was released? If they release the hardware in 1985 and try to patent something in it in 1988 or 1995, haven't they violated a statute of limitations or something? If there is no law against this, then it seems like an excellent way to get around the time limit on patents. Every time your patent on something your company made a long time ago is about to expire, just file for a bunch of newly reworded patents on the same old stuff. The way the patent office (at least in the US) is these days, at least a couple of them will be granted. Voila: eternal patents.

    Seriously though; isn't there some kind of limitation on this?

    --
    Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
  94. Re:See Digg.com by Liselle · · Score: 1

    I don't defend the bad stuff on Slashdot, I just don't give a shit about it. When some twelve-year-old makes a BSOD joke, I ignore it. The moderation system here is not perfect, but it puts the signal to noise ratio at a level that I can decipher without a lot of work: that's the goddamn point in the first place. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep because a Clippy joke hit +5, or some engineer with a PhD only got +3 for his ten-page rebuttal of TFA.

    Yes, you did take Linus's quote out of context, because you forgot the bit at the end. His rib at Slashdot was half-serious at best. Anyway, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I cared what he thinks: I'm not a member of the starry-eyed Linux worship cabal. While I respect his accomplishments, I give his opinion of Slashdot about the same weight I do yours (hint: not much). That Bitkeeper nonsense soured personal respect.

    Yes, I know about Over/Under-rated, but they aren't abused to the extent that you think they are. Usually regular moderation fixes it, all over/under do is get you under the M2 radar (but not under the Editor's radar). Like I said, I read the context of posts in M2, including how they were modded, and I don't usually see over/under bombs on normally modded posts (even Troll/Flamebait).

    I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who gives a crap to begin with about your approval.

    Listen, kiddo, you're the one trying to convince me (or now that I think of it, yourself) that this place sucks. For you to claim at the end that you "don't care" is what is known as a "dirty lie".

    I'm not attached to the juvenile community here... I hardly ever see them, since I browse at +3. I see them when I moderate, since I mod at -1, but that's usually a bad thing for them, because I carry a big stick. Speaking of which, the very first story I ever read on Digg had a bunch of idiots calling something "gay", which sort of undermines any assertation that Slashdot-alternatives are any less juvenile than the original. At least on this site I can filter most of them out. Slashdot may be a polished turd, but Digg doesn't even have the fucking polish.

    We'll all be at Digg while you continue to browse this fantastic HTML4 layout like it's 1999. Seeya.

    I don't care about the damn la... geez, never mind, you're as dumb as a brick. You're leaving? Thank Christ. You were starting to piss me off. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  95. Article is a joke or FUD, can't be sure which by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the article is a bad joke propagated from the same Asshat "IP" pimps who represented Digital Convergence in their insane attempts to redefine 'innovation' to include XOR and MIME64 encoding in the CueCat: fiasco. Still have their hilariously vague Cease and Desist letter. I told em to either FOAD or actually file charges. At least they were bright enough to fold instead of call because I wasn't bluffing.

    Sorry, no patent granted in 1995 could possibly be relevent. The NES itself would be more than sufficent prior art to invalidate it should they try to claim it applies to any of it's technology.

    And maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Atari WIN vs Nintendo over their attempts to use a dependence of a trademarked phrase in their carts to outlaw 3rd party titles? I know history is being rewritten a lot lately so maybe I need to get the latest point revision installed into my brain or something.

    They were correct though that regardless of right, wrong, legal or illegal that Nintendo would likely sue any small outfit attempting a clone into oblivion. And since I don't see enough profit to interest a larger one that pretty much wraps it up for clones.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  96. Re:See Digg.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you did take Linus's quote out of context, because you forgot the bit at the end. His rib at Slashdot was half-serious at best.

    As usual, you're 100% wrong. He ripped on Slashdot. Read the post yourself. The "bit at the end?" All he said was he still visits there sometimes. Give me a fucking break. He called Slashdot a public wanking session by misinformed people, and you can't refute that...it's what he said.

    Linus isn't the only well-known OSS person to rip on Slashdot. Slashdot's actually gotten in trouble in the past for linking to FTPs and other sites without the owner's permission, like on the day of new distro releases, completely fucking over the FTP mirroring system on the release day. I could go on and on and on and on here with endless examples.

    Listen, kiddo, you're the one trying to convince me (or now that I think of it, yourself) that this place sucks. For you to claim at the end that you "don't care" is what is known as a "dirty lie".

    Once again, you have an inflated sense of self-importance. I'm not trying to convince you of squat. I don't give a shit, because you're a Slashbot. You're the one who keeps replying to me.

    Yes, I know about Over/Under-rated, but they aren't abused to the extent that you think they are. Usually regular moderation fixes it, all over/under do is get you under the M2 radar (but not under the Editor's radar). Like I said, I read the context of posts in M2, including how they were modded, and I don't usually see over/under bombs on normally modded posts (even Troll/Flamebait).

    A complete lie. Under/Overrated mods are abused CONSTANTLY. Entire websites are devoted to pointing out comments to mark up or down. My own account was modbombed for TWO WHOLE MONTHS, hence the -1 you see when I post (in a single week, I was at Excellent karma to Terrible karma). Users use scripts to watch a user's posting history page to see when it changes, then they use one of their high karma accounts with mod points to automatically mark you down. If you email Hemos or CmdrTaco about it, they will mention that they'll "look into it" then completely ignore you from then on.

    You're incredibly naive. It's as though you had no idea just how bad Slashdot's system is. Well, people have been pointing all this out for YEARS.

    I don't care about the damn la... geez, never mind, you're as dumb as a brick. You're leaving? Thank Christ. You were starting to piss me off. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    God, you're lame. Gee, I was starting to piss you off? How scary!! You completely ignored every single valid point and just dismissed them so you could defend this ridiculously crappy site. "Well, uh, I don't care about Clippy or moderation abuse. There! That disproves everything you said! I'm a tough guy, and don't hit your ass on the way out, huhuhuhuh!"

    Idiot. Firing up the front page today, I see three more articles that were on Digg DAYS AGO. Already read, already discussed, and done with.

  97. What about DMCA, though? by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

    What about DMCA, though?

  98. Re:See Digg.com by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm not wrong at all.

    Linus calling Slashdot a "public wanking session" on the LKML:

    "Gaah. I don't tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own 'insightful' comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not."

    Yeah, Linus has an account. So do a lot of other people who now despise this place.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  99. Re:See Digg.com by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    By the way, that's not Linus' account.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  100. right-wing falacy by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    the left-wing slant

    Just because something isn't right-wing doesn't make it left-wing. See their arguments on the "biased liberal media" for an example.

  101. Re:mmmm... Ikari Warriors... On an NES? by Tantrum420 · · Score: 1

    >Personally I don't think I could deal with Ikari Warriors without the independent aim-and-move the arcade provided with the twist-stick...

    Then I bet you'll love Ikari Warriors on the X-Box running MAME. I find the triggers are a good substitution for the old twist-stick.

    My $0.05 (keep the change),
    T

  102. fanBoy by eyebits · · Score: 1

    Since you are collecting them...

    Your a bleepin' SEGA Fanboy.

    There you go. You will eventually be a Fanboy of all game systems.