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?'"
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.