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?'"
So many sleepless nights...
Moreover, is it now FINALLY legal for me to download and use nintendo ROMs?
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
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?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
It'll be a a cold day in hell when executives are charged with infridgement!
There were several reasons:
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.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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."
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).
"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
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
The term of a century for copyright law is chosen more or less just to correspond to the artist's lifetime.
i es'_copyright_length">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /List_of_countries'_copyright_length
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_countr
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.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
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.
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.
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
-
5,426,762 -- "System for determining a truth of software in an information processing apparatus".
-
5,207,426 -- "Controller for a game machine".
-
5,070,479 -- "External memory having an authenticating processor and method of operating same".
-
4,799,635 -- "System for determining authenticity of an external memory used in an information processing apparatus".
-
4,687,200 -- "Multi-directional switch"
None of those would ever have interfered with building an emulator.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.
Covers the physical design of the game controller. Irrelevant for an emulator.
More lockout system stuff. Expires January 24, 2006, anyway.
Still more lockout stuff. Appears to expire December 23, 2005.
This is about how to make a cheap four-direction arrow key switch.
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.