Slashdot Mirror


Atari C&Ds Emulators, Site About Asteroids

An anonymous reader writes "Atari Inc. has launched another round of cease-and-desist letters targeted at what remains of its fan community. Having threatened homebrewers for the Atari 2600 and 8-bit systems, as well as emulator authors for mobile platforms like Android, they're now upping the ante by menacing Atari emulator authors on the Dreamcast and sites with Asteroids in the name (though in fairness, that site apparently once hosted a version of the Asteroids game). The working theory is that the company is planning a big push into the mobile market, and is trying to eliminate everything it believes could threaten its latest attempts at reviving the brand name. However, the emulators in question appear to have no copyrighted content from Atari, so it's unclear what exactly Atari believes the infringing material to be."

155 comments

  1. Infringing material... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, the emulators in question appear to have no copyrighted content from Atari, so it's unclear what exactly Atari believes the infringing material to be

    Their trademark.

    1. Re:Infringing material... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      That's one thing I guess. Even so I could care less about this. If what's left of atari wants to slice it's own throat that's their business. Stupid is as stupid does and suing the few remaining fans they have ranks right up there. That's bean counters for ya.

    2. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait .. what? No one can create a game where you fly around shooting stuff regardless of the content? HUH?

    3. Re:Infringing material... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      They obviously believe that an "Atari emulator" that emulates, as closely as possible, an actual Atari could feasibly be confused with an actual Atari product. And I have to admit, they have a point.

      Personally I think emulators should be legal, but I have no idea how a lawyer would argue this in court. Probably some sort of disclaimer stating very clearly that it is not associated with or endorsed by Atari would be enough to cover their legal behinds, but even then I'm sure Atari would try to challenge it.

    4. Re:Infringing material... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except they are spamming DMCA notices -- the C standing for Copyright -- and all of the claims made in the notices are about copyright infringement. I hope someone nails Atari to the wall for this bullshit.

      --
      +0 Meh
    5. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying "comparable to TradeMark" is perfectly OK and will stand up in court... What gets you in trouble is representing your product as the trademarked name of the other product. That's why many generic drugs say "Compare to Robitussin (or whatever trademark)".

    6. Re:Infringing material... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I think emulators should be legal, but I have no idea how a lawyer would argue this in court

      The same way the after-market industry argued for car parts. Saying the oil filter is for a Ford V8 is descriptive, not infringement.

    7. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So call it Atari-Compatible, or Atari-Clone -- just like the early PCs were all called IBM-Compatible and IBM-Clones.

    8. Re:Infringing material... by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert but it could be:
      - the logical design of the circuitry is copyrighted?
      - an actual dump of a system ROM is used? (I know that was the case for the Intellivision emulator)

      Personally, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. All the folks that have good vibes from the Atari heydays of the 80s are usually the ones using the emulators; they are also the potential customers. A 10-year old kid is not going to stop buying the XBOX360 re-make just because he can play the 8-bit version for free.

      There's a decent emulator on the XBOX360; has Arcade, Atari 2600 and Intellivision games on it.

      --
      Wearing pants should always be optional.
    9. Re:Infringing material... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 2

      Infogrames has forever tainted the Atari brand to the point that it is almost worthless. They've done more damage than a hundred Tramiels. Their shareholders should be pissed. What an ignominious waste of an incredible legacy.

      --
      +0 Meh
    10. Re:Infringing material... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Except they are spamming DMCA notices

      I can't verify that at the moment, as the dcemulation site is blocked, but the term "cease-and-desist letters" (used in TFS) doesn't specifically only apply to DMCA takedown notices.

    11. Re:Infringing material... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Except they are spamming DMCA notices -- the C standing for Copyright -- and all of the claims made in the notices are about copyright infringement. I hope someone nails Atari to the wall for this bullshit.

      I haven't heard someone say that since Ms. PacMan.

      --
      I8-D
    12. Re:Infringing material... by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      If they were smart, they would stop overestimating the value of the Atari trademark. Most mobile gamers are too young to have a positive reaction to the name itself. The rest are probably old and experienced enough to realise their past achievements are not relevant today. Just find a new name. It is actually possible to launch a succesful brand with a name unknown twenty years ago, you know.

    13. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an expert but it could be:
      - the logical design of the circuitry is copyrighted?

      The patents have expired on the boards used in the Atari 2600. Not sure about their other platforms, but I believe most have expired or have been released to the public domain (e.g. Jaguar).

      - an actual dump of a system ROM is used? (I know that was the case for the Intellivision emulator)

      The Atari 2600 has no BIOS, and no system ROM. As for the other systems, the linked thread points out that none of the distributions include a BIOS ROM -- the user has to supply one himself/herself.

    14. Re:Infringing material... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      circuitry can't be copyrighted

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re:Infringing material... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a copy of the initial post of the DCemu thread linked in the summary:

      I received this cease and desist letter from Atari, are they completely dumb, did you guys get one? Should we be concerned? As far as I know, its still legal to distribute emulators unless some new law passed? and of all the sites, they are referring to my old ass DCEmu archive.

      "Atari, Inc.
      417 5th Avenue
      New York, NY 10016-2204

      Tel: 212-726-6500
      Fax: 212-726-4214
      E-mail: us.legal@atari.com

      August 30, 2011

      Re: seanbajuice.com

      Dear Domain Admin:

      I am writing on behalf of Atari, Inc./Atari Interactive, Inc. (“Atari”) to demand that you immediately and permanently cease and desist from the infringing activities described below and comply with the other demands set forth in this letter.

      Atari is a global producer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment software for all market segments and all interactive game platforms. Atari is the exclusive owner of intellectual property rights, including copyrights and trademarks, in numerous interactive entertainment software products, including those listed below, and vigilantly protects its rights.

      Based on available information, Atari has a good faith belief that the url(s):

      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-atari800.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-DC7800.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-dcs2600.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-lynx.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-stelladc.htm

      infringes its copyright and other intellectual property right by copying, reproducing and/or offering for distribution, display and/or download (including through links to other sites) unauthorized console emulation software and/or unauthorized copies of game products (software) protected by Atari’s copyright rights. Atari’s copyrighted works that have been infringed include:

      Atari 800; Atari 2600; Atari 7800; Atari Lynx

      The infringing material or the material that is the subject of infringing activities (collectively referred to as “Infringing Material”) is listed and/or identified by console and game-related titles or variations thereof, console and game-related descriptions, or images of console and game-related artwork.

      The Infringing Material is in violation of Atari’s exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act. It therefore constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. 501.

      Pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which is codified at 17 USC 512, Atari demands that you 1) expeditiously remove or disable access to the Infringing Material; and 2) take steps to prevent further infringement of Atari’s intellectual property rights at the above referenced URL(s).

      I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described herein is not authorized by Atari, its agent, or the law. The information in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, I affirm I am authorized to act on behalf of Atari whose exclusive copyright rights I believe to be infringed as described herein.

      This notice is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law in this matter. Nor is it intended to be a complete statement of Atari's positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.

      If you have any questions, please contact me by phone 212-726-6500 or email at us.legal@atari.com.

      Thank you.

      Regards,

      Kristen Keller,
      SVP & General Counsel"

      http://pastebin.com/kmkN7zCM

      --
      +0 Meh
    16. Re:Infringing material... by russotto · · Score: 1

      The one I found isn't a DMCA notice, it's a C&D to the owner of the site, not the ISP. But it pretends to be a DMCA notice.

    17. Re:Infringing material... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      To be fair, a few of them do link to Copyrighted ROMs and some give instructions on where/how to obtain copyrighted ROMs. It can be argued that links themselves do not constitute infringement, but they are not always upheld. I have never heard of instructions, being considered infringement. I guess they just wanted to bully people into removing stuff they didnt like.

    18. Re:Infringing material... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Ok, so they are claiming copyright infringement.

      They might be infringing, or they might not. It all depends on how the emulator was written, and whether or not they're providing ROM images or linking to other sites that do. Emulators are legal, but as I understand it there are certain limitations to avoid legal issues. E.g. the IBM-compatible BIOS, which was (legally) reverse-engineered from the IBM PC BIOS. The BIOS in classic Macs, by comparison, has never been reverse-engineered (to my knowledge), so in order to run a Mac classic emulator you have to (legally) obtain a copy of the Mac's BIOS ROM (of which the only way to legally get a copy is to buy an old Mac and use a ROM-dumping utility).

      IANAL, so for advice tailored to their particular situation they'd need to contact a lawyer who specialized in copyright.

    19. Re:Infringing material... by tibit · · Score: 2

      Using a trademark for identification purposes is kosher IIRC.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    20. Re:Infringing material... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      'Their trademark.'

      Since there's no actual trading going on here, where's the violation?

    21. Re:Infringing material... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      BTW, IANAL!

    22. Re:Infringing material... by WillyWanker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullshit. It's more legalized extortion. They know just the threat of a length and expensive lawsuit is enough to get these small operations to shut down, even when Atari knows damned well they don't have a case. Laws and rights don't mean shit if you can't afford to defend them. Welcome to America.

    23. Re:Infringing material... by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Except none of the machine names are currently trademarked (and the one existing "Atari 2600" trademark - not "2600", but "Atari 2600" - is a dead mark).

      --
      FC Closer
    24. Re:Infringing material... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      IANAL, so could you explain why it "pretends to be" but isn't really a DMCA notice?

    25. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "their" trademark. Trademarks aren't property. Their purpose is to avoid consumer confusion. If there is no confusion, there is no "infringement." These sites are using "Atari" descriptively, which is allowed.

    26. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *I* care because it limits my access to emulators. All they have to do is change the name, to e.g. Colleen800 and then use the subline "The Atari TM* 8-bit Emulator" and in small print *TM trademark owned by Atari.
      In the FAQ:
      Q. Why the name change?
      A. We have been bullied by the current owners of Atari to change the name. The current Atari has very little do to with the Atari at all. We do not endorse their current products in any way, in fact, given the legal hassle we have been through, we completely understand if you decide to boycott the current Atari and tell all your friends about it as well.

    27. Re:Infringing material... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      His point is, a DMCA takedown notice is sent to an ISP, not a site owner, in order to compel them to remove the content without requiring the cooperation of the allegedly infringing party. The ISP must comply, in exchange for which they are absolved of any liability in hosting the allegedly infringing content. So, he's technically correct, it's not a DMCA takedown notice in the purest sense, but it fits all the requirements of a DMCA takedown notice excepting who the notice was sent to.

      --
      +0 Meh
    28. Re:Infringing material... by mikael · · Score: 1

      An Atari 400/800/1200(XL) emulator requires copies of the contents of the ROM chips to run (BASIC, Atari-DOS, ASSEMBLER). But for many third-party games that booted directly from disk, that wouldn't apply.

      For the games (consoles, computers) themselves, the ROM codes of many games have been put online. In the past you would need the original hardware and some EPROMS to play the games, but now you can just run the emulator.

      Atari did bring out a retro style joystick controller that had about 100+ original 2600 games in memory. Saw them at the post office for about £10.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    29. Re:Infringing material... by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Because it was sent to the site owner directly, and not to the ISP.

      --
      FC Closer
    30. Re:Infringing material... by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      IANAL
      But what makes most sense is to sue Atari for harrasment, and i think there is court procedures that can't be appealed.
      No really, send them a note for "you have to go to court" via snailmail, ignore them not showing up, and claim damage.

    31. Re:Infringing material... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Their trademark

      Exactly. If they don't protect the name "Atari" from being used by these sites, there's a chance that someone under the age of 30 might actually learn what "Atari" is.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    32. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As some others have pointed out, this seems to be more about trademarks than copyrights, though, and no one said they were sending out DMCA notices, just C&D, which are used for trademark infringement too.

      It doesn't matter if the asteroids site doesn't have any copyright infringement, it's infringing their trademark:

      See http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4005:nuopru.2.15

      Same for the emulator sites.

    33. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, their recent actions will totally alienate gamers.

      The patents are long expired on the 8 bit stuff AND the DCMA and legal precedent provide for preserving out of production works.

    34. Re:Infringing material... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      but really people do you think that the people that use emulators would buy atari retreads? Or worse do you think they would wouldn't buy a good new version of an Atari game?
      This is just a waste. Next they will go after Strella.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    35. Re:Infringing material... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that the BIOS of a machine made in 1975 can be DMCAed shows us why China and India is gonna kick our ass. Can you believe such insanity? our entire industry is building upon the shoulders of the giants that came before but thanks to Valenti (may he rot in hell) and his endless copyrights combined with DMCA garbage the west is pretty much dead with regards to innovation.

      One simply can no longer build on the ideas of the past without a giant minefield of patents and copyrights controlled by absolute douchebags. I should know because I had a nice little idea to bring back the Shareware discs of old. It would have been "DOSBox...in a box" where the old Shareware games could be loaded and played like the old days of pre Win9x. but trying to deal with the douchebags i quickly found that one can't even offer the shareware titles anymore because the pigs that currently hold the rights all want iMoney for them, even if they have NO PRODUCTS being offered or even any hope of porting those titles in the future. We ain't talking Wolf3D here, we are talking about all the funky and weird crap that used to be on those "300 games for $5!" discs.

      I found out if I want to say "Fuck America!" I can have the whole thing made in China no problem, but in the USA? the minefiled makes it more expensive than the highest AAA games, all thanks to endless copyrights and douchebaggery. is it any wonder the USA is in the shitter?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    36. Re:Infringing material... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but its not a part for an Atari product. Its a thing that can use an Atari product. Its closer to a scenario where you build a replica of a Ford V8 and advertise that it accepts all the same parts as a Ford V8.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    37. Re:Infringing material... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Ah, now that's a closer comparison. However, IBM was also staring down an anti trust lawsuit from the government.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM#1969:_Antitrust.2C_the_Unbundling_of_software_and_services

      So they many not have wanted to squash competition too much, lest the gov get trigger happy AT&T style.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    38. Re:Infringing material... by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Check out Wikipedia's info on the Coleco Gemini.

      It's a straight-up off-brand version of the Atari. same games play on it.

      It was found legal because it was built using off the shelf equipment.

      If THAT is legal, an "atari" emulator has to be legal.

      Hell, call it a Coleco Gemini emulator.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    39. Re:Infringing material... by DRBivens · · Score: 1

      Their trademark.

      No, I don't think so. Intellectual Property, perhaps, but the takedown request, which may be seen by following one of the links in TFA, specifically mentions "17 U.S.C. sect. 501", which is copyright, not trademark law. (For trademark law, see the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.)

      This really looks like they think he's distributing their property. He should take a deep breath and send them a letter, clearly stating that he's doing no such thing.

      Here are what appear to be the salient points of Atari's letter:

      Based on available information, Atari has a good faith belief that the url(s):

      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-atari800.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-DC7800.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-dcs2600.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-lynx.htm
      http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-stelladc.htm

      infringes its copyright and other intellectual property right by copying, reproducing and/or offering for distribution, display and/or download (including through links to other sites) unauthorized console emulation software and/or unauthorized copies of game products (software) protected by Atari's copyright rights. Atari's copyrighted works that have been infringed include:

      Atari 800; Atari 2600; Atari 7800; Atari Lynx

      The infringing material or the material that is the subject of infringing activities (collectively referred to as "Infringing Material") is listed and/or identified by console and game-related titles or variations thereof, console and game-related descriptions, or images of console and game-related artwork.

      The Infringing Material is in violation of Atari's exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act. It therefore constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. sect. 501.

      --
      You have the right to remain silent. If you don't, anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
    40. Re:Infringing material... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      I like how the base unit of damage to a company name is the "Tramiel". How much face has Sony lost in the past five years, would you say? 2-3 kiloTramiels?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    41. Re:Infringing material... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If they don't protect the name "Atari" from being used by these sites, there's a chance that someone under the age of 30 might actually learn what "Atari" is.

      When using someone else's trademark in reference to products or services, isn't it usually sufficient to acknowledge that the trademark in question belongs to whoever? You mark the first occurrence of a trademark with the appropriate marks (which /. unhelpfully mangled for me, so they're not included for reference). Once that's done, you then acknowledge it with something like "'Foobar' is a registered trademark of Foobar, Inc." (or whatever); a good place for it would be after your copyright notice (you have one of those, right?). As long as the websites in question were doing that, I wold think Atari doesn't have a leg to stand on.

      #include <ianal.h>

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    42. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but including "Atari" in the name of the emulator was a pretty stupid decision. Give it a new name. Seriously.

      I can write a NES emulator and won't be so much as contacted by Nintendo. If I called it "Nintendonkulous" I would expect a C&D.

    43. Re:Infringing material... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but "Atari" is a trademark and has nothing to do with copyright.

      --
      +0 Meh
    44. Re:Infringing material... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      If you read the letter linked in the summary, the only thing Atari cites are alleged copyright infringements. The letter is a by-the-numbers DMCA takedown notice. Everything that a DMCA takedown notice is supposed to include is included. It's practically boilerplate. The only deviation from the norm is it was apparently not sent to the ISP, it was sent to the site owner. The purpose of a DMCA takedown notice is to force compliance by going to the ISP instead of persuading the site owner to cooperate. It's not clear what Atari's thinking is here but at this stage it looks like intimidation or incompetence.

      --
      +0 Meh
    45. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ANAL, YOU ANAL, WE ALL ANAL.

      The following text is an attempt to not shout.

    46. Re:Infringing material... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I don't know that Jack Tramiel really did all that much damage to Atari. By the time he took over Atari was already reeling. The clones were stomping on everyone by that time.

    47. Re:Infringing material... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, there was also the exit wound he left in Commodore to consider. I've heard that the headaches that Atari caused for Commodore's acquisition of Amiga didn't exactly help.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    48. Re:Infringing material... by dzfoo · · Score: 0

      So, basically, your definition of "building on the ideas of the past" is to make money off of someone else's work?

      Douchebaggery indeed.

              dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    49. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the "not showing up" bit. Always fun.
      One of the more amusing stories I heard from a professor in law school was along these lines.

      The professor's client was going to file for bankruptcy, but had terrible financial records, basically a huge box of stuff crumpled and jammed together. In the course of going through it, they found some papers that seemed to indicate he had about $40,000 in a bank in Omaha left from a business he'd tried there.

      He sent a copy of the papers (such as they were) with his credentials via certified mail asking that that the balance be transferred to a trustee account, since he was declaring bankruptcy. Letter was signed for, but no response nor action taken.

      Bankruptcy papers were filed. Client sent a certified latter to the bank in Omaha stating that they had to send the $40,000, and had two weeks to contest it in court. Letter was signed for, no response.

      There was a judgment entry in the court; the bank was sent another notice of the judgment, and that they were required to wire the $40,000 to the court trustee. They were also told they had two weeks to appeal. No response.

      Finally, the court ordered the sheriff to literally go to the bank and seize the funds. FINALLY the bank responded. As it apparently turned out, the client had owed THEM $40,000, and not the other way around.

      Tough luck, said the court.

      As a matter of law, the bank now owes the client $40,000. They had no fewer than four actual notices and opportunities to respond and contest the claims, the bank easily could have contested the claims, they in fact were in the best position to contest the claims, they could have appealed the judgment, and yet they did nothing.

      The client was rather happy.

    50. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more like you built a kit car that can use a Ford V8 engine.

      Also, one of the sites that was closed made games for 2600s. Which is exactly like making an oil filter for a Ford V8. Or Ford-compatible gasoline.

    51. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even so I could care less about this.

      So you admit, you do have some level of care about this issue?

    52. Re:Infringing material... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Atari 2600s don't have BIOSes. Seriously.

      It sounds surreal, but they simply started executing code directly off the cartridge. (They didn't copy it into console memory...they couldn't, the damn thing had 128 bytes of RAM.)

      There is nothing copyrightable inside an Atari 2600 except the 'video ROM', which emulators obviously don't use. (1)

      Which is why this was found legal. (And, hell, at that point in time there were patents, also. Patents that have since expired.)

      1) The TIA, as it is called, is an utterly surreal video output device, and worth reading about on Wikipedia. You had to provide the data for each line of video in real time...and it didn't bother to inform you when it wanted each line. So programmers literally had to count clock cycles to know when to hand new lines to the video output!

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    53. Re:Infringing material... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      If they are going to crack down on Atari 2600 emulators, I wonder if it would be okay to produce a Coleco Gemini emulator instead? Not likely anyone would try to enforce that trademark if there is anyone who could enforce it in the first place.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    54. Re:Infringing material... by bedouin · · Score: 1

      Look over at AtariAge. The front page has an article about Atari's Greatest Hits for iOS. A lot of people, including myself bought it, just because we're classic gaming fans. They're also the same demographic who bought many of the all in one joysticks and keychains. Just like with music and movies, the biggest fans are naturally the biggest spenders AND downloaders. One day maybe these idiots will understand that.

    55. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1980

    56. Re:Infringing material... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      No dufus my proposal was to offer them a percentage of ALL sales with no bullshit. The plan was a whole 3% for us, 5% for the DOSBox guys as a thank you, and the rest given to the authors after BOM which would have been quite cheap so you are talking more than 80% split between them. I'd also remind that we are talking about shareware titles here that were originally DESIGNED TO BE GIVEN AWAY to build interest in the full apps. I proposed a larger cut for those that gave full games but even if all they offered was the original shareware they would have been given a cut AND a link to any site they wanted to sell other merch AND full credit for something THEY ARE MAKING ZERO PROFITS ON right now.

      Instead what I saw was the same douchebaggery over and over. they'd say "let me get back to you" followed by them finding out what the highest selling app on the iShiny was and then demanding 30% more than that because hey their shit don't stink, right? never mind we are talking about ZERO upfront costs to them, ZERO transfer of rights to me, and ZERO work involved with promotion or anything else from them. hell some of them had the brass balls to demand that we sign our rights over to them so they could do whatever they wanted with OUR work while giving us nothing in return but the right to load a 25 year old piece of shareware on a stick!

      so now I'm looking at doing it in China where guess what? I won't have to pay them shit and can just sell it on a ton of places like chinamart. yet again the west loses because of greedy MBAs, why am I not surprised?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    57. Re:Infringing material... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry MR AC, but the original VCS was prototyped in 1975, and I'm sure their BIOS would have come under copyright then. There are quite a few sites out there with the history of Atari, feel free to look it up. IIRC they had to keep it under wraps until 76 so that a contract one of them had would expire before they could show the hardware at CES, but the original Stella prototype? 1975.

      It was on sale in 77 and only became popular in 1980 with the release of Space Invaders. I should know as I had one of the late 70s Atari machines when they started selling them at Magic Mart (God I'm dating myself, anybody remember Magic Mart?) and ended up selling it in late 82 or early 83 and getting a ColecoVision with the Atari add-on. Man that thing was sweet, but my mom feel in love with DK JR and Yar's Revenge and she'd play those things at like 2AM and I ended up with the beeps and boops stuck in my head. IIRC she actually got such a high score on DK JR she locked the thing up when it rolled over.

      I'm sure someone will expect me to say "those were the days" but frankly i'll take my HD4850 creating 3D worlds that make you want to drool and 8Gb of RAM making everything instant load any day of the week. Its a hell of a lot nicer than waiting on my custom Pong game to load from the VIC20 cassette drive or the screeches that passed for sounds on the VCS.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    58. Re:Infringing material... by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Still, it's their work, so surely they can charge whatever they want for it--or not distribute it at all?

      so now I'm looking at doing it in China where guess what? I won't have to pay them shit and can just sell it on a ton of places like chinamart. yet again the west loses because of greedy MBAs, why am I not surprised?

      Greedy MBAs? Says the guy who's contemplating selling other people's work for profit.

      Look, there's no rationalizing it: you and others want to make money by selling other people's stuff, and just because you don't get access to it (because it is the author's very prerogative to be a dick or a miser) you want to claim some higher moral ground and go ahead and distribute the work anyway. That's not innovation, that's leeching. You are a parasite.

      Sell if you wish, create if you want, innovate if you can; but do not try to claim that somehow making available some old and dusty video game that the author refuses or is unable to continue selling, as progress.

      If you're so passionate about vintage video games, why don't you, you know, make your own? Oh no, that'll be too hard. And why should you when there's all these demand for older games that nobody is making money from right now? Smell like an opportunity!

      I say this as a vintage video game programmer myself. I make my own games, and produce and distribute them independently. I could package my games with some classics to give myself more exposure by marketing my name alongside others'; it's so easy, for as you say, most have been long forgotten by their original authors. But you know what? I firmly believe that is not right. My games shall stand on their own merit, or not at all.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    59. Re:Infringing material... by LocalH · · Score: 1

      The VCS never had a BIOS. Coleco proved that it was legal to clone the 2600 way back then with Expansion Module #1 that you reference. Atari sued them for patent infringement and lost because Coleco used off-the-shelf parts. And this happened when Atari's patents were active.

      Cloning the 2600 is legal, which means that emulation is legal (on top of later court rulings that showed emulation itself to be legal).

      --
      FC Closer
    60. Re:Infringing material... by LocalH · · Score: 1

      The TIA is in no way a "video ROM". And emulators obviously do "use" the TIA, or at least clone the functionality of it, else you'd get no video output. But, thanks to Coleco, cloning the TIA is legal as a settled matter of case law, even if the patents were still active.

      --
      FC Closer
    61. Re:Infringing material... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Pretty much fans are who will buy these and they will buy them out of love.
      Same people that get the emulators.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    62. Re:Infringing material... by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      The damage caused by Sony's testing of their customers to see exactly how much shit they'll put up with before they wise up is more practically rendered using the McBride unit. Tramiels are tiny in comparison to McBrides - making the latter far more suitable for measuring Sony and similar shit bags.

      Example: Sony is pleased to announce that our recent lax management of customer data has caused 160 McBrides (47,000 Tramiels) worth of damage to the company. Stringer, President and CEO of Sony, told investors that he didn't understand why Sony still had customers - but he promised that he personally would piss in the eyes of his customers' children if that's what it takes to finally drive them all away.

    63. Re:Infringing material... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I see. So 1 McBride = 293.75 Tramiels? Important to remember.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    64. Re:Infringing material... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      You're right they can sell it for anything they want and I can just have it made in China where they don't play their little reindeer games, get the picture now Sparky? ALL YOU ARE DOING is taking work away from Americans, that's it, that's all. I can build it in China without paying them dick, and don't forget we are talking code they have ALREADY GIVEN AWAY on literally hundreds of thousands of discs, as that was the whole damned point of shareware.

      So I'll just have it made in China, some Chinese guys can take home their checks to their families, and Americans can go line up for a welfare check, cool with you? Because that is what is gonna happen. I wanted it made here but greedy MBA douchebags wanted more than a triple AAA title for 25 year old shit. That is their right, as is mine to have it made in a country with sane IP laws. Works out great for everyone except those stupid American peasants, don't it? As long as there is a single place that doesn't play your reindeer games YOU HAVE TO COMPETE or someone else gets the business. So I'll just join the likes of GE and hundreds of other companies and offshore it, puts me in some great company. meanwhile Americans lose more work, don't get shit, again shock shock greedy MBA refuse to accept anything but iMoney and fuck American workers, why am I not surprised?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    65. Re:Infringing material... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand what you're trying to say there. If you want to assert the TIA has no actual firmware in it, that is fine, and perhaps true, I have no idea. As the system itself has no BIOS, it is entirely possible there is no video BIOS either.

      But if it has no ROM, then the emulator can't be 'using' it. Uh, duh.

      And I don't know why you decided that 'cloning' has to do with anything. Emulators do not 'clone'. Emulators 'emulate'. You can tell because they're called called emulators, not clones. The software is emulating the functionality of the TIA.

      The lawsuit, and patents, really doesn't have anything to do with that. Pretty much all console patents are for specific tricks to make hardware work slightly better, and do not apply to software emulating the results of those tricks in the slightest. Patents are for methods, a specific way of doing something, and doing something via hardware and doing it via software are so very different that no hardware patent is going to cover software.

      I.e., someone might patent that 'Raising the interrupt line twice in a row with no data pending signals a request to signal startup' or something, which can screw with clone makers who can't 'license' that...but emulators don't care, emulators do not actually have interrupt lines, and thus cannot be in violation of a patent.

      This is, of course, pretending the patents on the Atari are still valid. They are not, but there were hardware patents on pretty much every console, so the most modern consoles have patented methods in them, and yet it's legal to emulate, for example, a PS2. Patent-wise it's legal, at least. (Copyright, DMCA, trademark, perhaps there are issues. But patents? No problem there.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    66. Re:Infringing material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still a takedown notice. They have the option to send it to the ISP, hosting company, etc. if they want to. But legally speaking, it looks much better in court if you try to directly contact the person in question first, and when there are contact details for the site owner available you really should be starting with them and only going to the ISP if you don't get a response.

      The provision allowing filing with an ISP is mostly for when you only have an IP, or the contact info is bad, etc.

    67. Re:Infringing material... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      You lack understanding of basic economics, trademark law and, well, common sense. You keep talking of "greedy MBAs" but being perceived as having around 10% of their education certainly doesn't help whatever cause you are promoting.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  2. Uhh, the games? by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 0

    Sure it's a technicality, as the ROMs aren't art of the emulator, but it's obvious they don't want people playing Atari games, because they probably intend to release thm on the App store.

    But hey, don't let common sense get in the way.

    1. Re:Uhh, the games? by TheBlueCrab · · Score: 1

      So they should go after the sites that host ROMs and such. Emulators are legal, regardless of how people may use them to do illegal things. Courts have stated this in many cases in the past. As long as the emulator authors don't go so far as telling people where to get ROMs and the like, I don't see how Atari would have a leg to stand on.

    2. Re:Uhh, the games? by Endovior · · Score: 1

      So they should go after the sites that host ROMs and such. Emulators are legal, regardless of how people may use them to do illegal things. Courts have stated this in many cases in the past. As long as the emulator authors don't go so far as telling people where to get ROMs and the like, I don't see how Atari would have a leg to stand on.

      This is true... but the fact remains that the average person is notoriously vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. Most people don't want to go to court, even if they'd win, because the amount of money a big corporation can throw into harassing and delaying them in legal ways is very large. Even if you're totally in the right, what's easier... fighting a lengthy legal battle over your right to continue pursuing some hobby you're up to, spending large amounts of your own money in the process? Or simply conceding the point and walking away, losing neither time nor money? That's the philosophy behind why corporations pursue lawsuits that they wouldn't have a chance to win in actual court; the mere threat of going to court is more then enough to convince most people to simply not bother.

    3. Re:Uhh, the games? by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      ... it's obvious they don't want people playing Atari games ...

      Well, I for one am happy to oblige.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    4. Re:Uhh, the games? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You should take your own advice.

      Lame copies are not a replacement for the real thing. This is the basic flaw in all of this nonsense and nonsense like it.

      It makes absolutely no sense to attack the enthusiasts that have been keeping your brand alive for years. If you want to "cash in", then license the use of the original ROMs. You could even improve the emulation experience on the platforms you want better visibility on.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Uhh, the games? by bonch · · Score: 2

      They're not legal if they're using Atari trademarks or linking to Atari ROMs, such as BIOS images.

    6. Re:Uhh, the games? by LocalH · · Score: 2

      The emulator authors are doing neither (unless you can find a trademark for a targeted machine outside of the dead "Atari 2600" mark). The 2600, which is a targeted machine, never had a BIOS. Try again.

      --
      FC Closer
    7. Re:Uhh, the games? by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      Emulators are legal, regardless of how people may use them to do illegal things. Courts have stated this in many cases in the past.

      Got any cites for that? AFAIK there has never been a definitive ruling on the matter; Bleem! ran out of money before they got that far. Haven't researched it though.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    8. Re:Uhh, the games? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And at their price, I would still just go to a yard sale and buy them for 50 cents. Although if they offered the ROM's for $1 each, I'd save myself the trouble.

    9. Re:Uhh, the games? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      This is why it needs to be easier to countersue for your legal expenses and time.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    10. Re:Uhh, the games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bleem came with the copyrighted ps bios.

    11. Re:Uhh, the games? by DJHeRobotExVV · · Score: 2

      Your honor, the defense cites Sony v. Connectix: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/53PQ2D1705.htm

      Although the case in question pertains to whether or not Connectix as a whole were engaging in copyright infringement by way of having "intermediate copies" of the BIOS for the original Sony Playstation, I would submit that the following statement in Judge Canby's ruling on the case is pretty definitive regarding both the legality of emulators as well as the subject matter (trademarks) with regard to which Atari are sending out C&Ds, though it has not been tried in and of itself:

      "The intermediate copies made and used by Connectix during the course of its reverse engineering of the Sony BIOS were protected fair use, necessary to permit Connectix to make its non-infringing Virtual Game Station function with PlayStation games. Any other intermediate copies made by Connectix do not support injunctive relief, even if those copies were infringing. The district court also found that Sony is likely to prevail on its claim that Connectix’s sale of the Virtual Game Station program tarnishes the Sony PlayStation mark under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125. We reverse that ruling as well." [emphasis mine]

    12. Re:Uhh, the games? by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      Your honor, the defense cites Sony v. Connectix: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/53PQ2D1705.htm

      That's one decision, and it's also the only 'emulation' decision I can find doing a full text search of Nimmer on Copyright. That's not "many cases," as claimed. Also, there's no real discussion in Connectix with regards to the actual act of emulation; Connectix constrained its analysis to the issue of copying of Sony's BIOS for the purpose of building/testing the emulator. Not saying it's not 'good' law, but it's not very 'strong' law; it may even be dicta.

      The current Oracle / Google case could prove interesting, as emulation of especially modern environments to me seems roughly akin to implementing an API (which Oracle is claiming can be copyrighted). Example, to build a vintage Macintosh emulator, it's not enough to implement the 68000-series opcodes, you'd also have to in some way implement QuickDraw and the rest of the Toolbox...

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    13. Re:Uhh, the games? by DJHeRobotExVV · · Score: 1

      That's one decision, and it's also the only 'emulation' decision I can find doing a full text search of Nimmer on Copyright. That's not "many cases," as claimed. Also, there's no real discussion in Connectix with regards to the actual act of emulation; Connectix constrained its analysis to the issue of copying of Sony's BIOS for the purpose of building/testing the emulator. Not saying it's not 'good' law, but it's not very 'strong' law; it may even be dicta.

      I can't offer any specific counterpoints with regard to the strength of the ruling as it pertains to the legality of emulators themselves, but I believe one could make a compelling argument that the specific wording of the ruling implies prima facie that emulation is legal by virtue of the unusually specific wording that implies that Connectix's product is non-infringing, thus (if more case law could be established, and I suppose that's the whole point) implying that emulation itself is legal, in lieu of any other infringing activities (cf. BIOS images, ROM images, et al).

      The current Oracle / Google case could prove interesting, as emulation of especially modern environments to me seems roughly akin to implementing an API (which Oracle is claiming can be copyrighted). Example, to build a vintage Macintosh emulator, it's not enough to implement the 68000-series opcodes, you'd also have to in some way implement QuickDraw and the rest of the Toolbox...

      I would disagree. IANAL (though I was raised by one, and Black's Law Dictionary made great toilet reading at age 9), but I am a MAME developer in my spare time, and I can speak directly on the subject of emulating a vintage Macintosh. From the standpoint of the emulator, there is nothing other than the originating address that would imply that it is running its boot ROM versus software loaded off of the disc, and any modern emulator would be sufficiently generic to not have any meaningful behavior (other than ignoring the write if a program tries to write to ROM) based on the source address of a read or write. Therefore, there is nothing meaningfully different in behavior between the original boot ROM and a piece of software running thereupon, from which one can reasonably deduce that there is nothing different between the boot ROM and a piece of software other than the means of loading it into the emulated machine's memory map. On the contrary to your statement, a vintage (pre Macintosh-II) Macintosh emulator, stripped of emulation framework that isn't Macintosh-specific (so, the VIA peripheral controller, SCC8530 serial controller, and a few other off-the-shelf components) would be little other than a simple bitmapped display and a little bit of glue logic for interrupts and battery-backed system parameters.

  3. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lots of people would. For a laugh or nostalgia. Would they pay for the privilege? I doubt it.

  4. First pst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm postig this frommy 2600 with a homebuil tcp stack. It is fast but does drop some pakcets now and again.

  5. Resurrection failures by diodeus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    8-bit Atari is to Atari is like Duke Nukem is to Duke Nukem Forever.

    1. Re:Resurrection failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean way better ...... even if its decades older.

  6. No. by neostorm · · Score: 1

    Sorry Atari, you're not even the same entity you think you used to be. This is like me taking on the name of some deceased man, and trying to claim his property and namesake in retrospect.

    1. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea! I'll be Michael Jackson. I'll also get to molest children without getting in trouble. I'm already white but I'll need to have treatments to turn albino.

  7. Really Atari? by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

    Going after 2600 emulators for Dreamcast?

    Going after emulators for Android is like the RIAA going after bit torrents. Going after emulators for Dreamcast is like the RIAA going after bootleg Edison cylinders.

    (Not that I don't have emulators for the 2600 and NES for my Dreamcast--I do--but still. The phrase "bigger fish to fry" comes to mind.)

    1. Re:Really Atari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going after emulators for Android is like the RIAA going after bit torrents. Going after emulators for Dreamcast is like the RIAA going after bootleg Edison cylinders.

      Well, someday I might not have a platform capable of running a 2600 emulator, but I should at least be able get the Dreamcast emulator running in DosBox under a Win7 VM that's hosted on a 16-core Win10 box. (Yo Dawg, I heard it's emulators all the way down!)

    2. Re:Really Atari? by DanTheManMS · · Score: 1

      Forgive the e-peen waving here, but I've actually emulated a GBA emulating a GBC emulating an NES before (only worked with like 5 specific NES games but still). You could easily take it a few more chains up if you really tried. I know there is a proof-of-concept GBA emulator for the DS, and a DS emulator for the Wii, and a Wii emulator for the computer, but I don't know at which point this particular sequence would break.

    3. Re:Really Atari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it have anything to do with genericized trademark laws? Either for the trademark itself, or for the difficulty of going after emus on modern systems if you don't go after the ones on old systems? IANAL; this process might make sense within the convoluted system that is US Law.

      As for "bigger fish to fry", you can often do better in court against big fish if you successfully fry a lot of small defenseless fish first.

      It's not like they'll lose marketable goodwill. Overall, people haven't stopped buying Big Music in revulsion to the RIAA, or stopped buying Sony's crap over the rootkit et al.

      And the C&D can simply be to prepare the marketing ground by ensuring that the Search Engine results will only be pointing to Atari's re-release.

    4. Re:Really Atari? by Guiness17 · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking - going after a homebrew community that uses hardware that been manufactured in 10 years? Wow...

      --
      Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
  8. Wait .. Atari's still around? by n5vb · · Score: 1

    Who knew?

    *goes back to sleep*

    1. Re:Wait .. Atari's still around? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      In name only. I believe the company that bought the name was known as Infogrames, but acquired the Atari trademark and game library sometime in the early naughties.

      Back in the 90's I worked as an artist on a game for the original Atari in Milpitas, they folded over a decade ago.

    2. Re:Wait .. Atari's still around? by Carrot007 · · Score: 0

      > Back in the 90's I worked as an artist on a game for the original Atari in Milpitas, they folded over a decade ago.

      Well you pass on the maths.

      However the original Atari are surely Atari Inc. They ceased to be in 1984.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    3. Re:Wait .. Atari's still around? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      correct, if anyone was working for atari in the 90's they were just in denial, Pretty sure Time Warner still owned them directly into the ground up till the jag and then traded off to infogames probably as a joke. Which I honestly cant say who makes a shittier game tween those three.

      After that its hard to tell, Atari is like a crack whore, hitting up each company for the opportunity to score another hit.

    4. Re:Wait .. Atari's still around? by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 2

      Atari passed through several hands between Time-Warner and Inforgrames. Before Warner, it was owned by it's founders (Nolan Bushnell, et al). After the North American video game crash, the Tramiels (Commodore's founders) purchased Atari's debt from Time-Warner in the mid-80s for next to nothing. After a reasonable run of actually producing compelling product (Atari ST/TT/Falcon line and the over-hyped and critically bugged Jaguar), they sold it to a disk drive manufacturer in the 90s, who in turn sold it to Hasbro and/or Mattel a few years later, and it eventually wound its way into the hands of Infogrames who ditched their worthless name, took on the Atari moniker, and have been trying their damnedest to ruin it ever since.

      --
      +0 Meh
    5. Re:Wait .. Atari's still around? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      oh yea, totally forgot about Hasbro, I think I still have some Atari foil stickers with a mattel logo in the corner

    6. Re:Wait .. Atari's still around? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      My stint was in 93 and prior to the Jaguar release. As far as who ran the show then, I have no clue -- I was a contractor, worked from home and only met the team in Milpitas once when I was in the Bay Area for a visit since I lived in Seattle back then.

  9. I got a copy of the C&D... by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    It read "Delete yourself! (You got no chance to win!)"

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
  10. VirtualDub's author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. Movie by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    Maybe this recent push has to do with the upcoming Asteroids movie that was announced a while back.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Movie by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Maybe this recent push has to do with the upcoming Asteroids movie that was announced a while back.

      DO NOT WANT.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  12. Ummm... Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The working theory is that the company is planning a big push into the mobile market, and is trying to eliminate everything it believes could threaten its latest attempts at reviving the brand name."

    I hate to tell Atari this because they were so cool in their heyday and all... but their brand name is dead as a doornail now. And running around suing everybody they see won't resuscitate them.

  13. wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait a second here, wasn't the fact that Atari never claimed copyrights on there games, the fact that when a company made third party games and they lost a lawsuit on that made them go bankrupt in the firstplace?

    1. Re:wait what? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure they had copyright on their games, but the main thing is any dink with a rom burner and a afternoon can make their own cart's. This produced a flood of just shat games and rocked consumers confidence, "why pay 60+ bucks just to find out its a shitty broken clone, I am not buying any more of this garbage" much like the PSP

      Add on top of that and the fact that everyone and their brother was making a game system with similar problems and the consumers no matter what lost, so they stopped buying all together.

  14. Ok, maybe they have something new up coming out by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 2

    I grew up on Atari games, maybe they are planning a push into the mobile market. That'd be cool. But suing everyone who still remembers your name is not a good way to generate good will.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Ok, maybe they have something new up coming out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are going down in flames, and decides that suing their fans (who still show interest in their ancient platforms) might provide a small lump sum so they don't end up entirely empty handed.

      It have been seen before, but seems to be increasing as the failed early entertainment producers are floating to the surface now. They are not trying to come back, the company does not exist as such, only the name and some lawyers who are trying to figure out how to best make money from this name. There are no longer engineers at Atari or even idea people, it have long since ceased to be a gaming company.

  15. Dear Atari, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you would like to stay relevant in the modern age, instead of becoming a line item in the analogues of gaming tech. history, you will desist with stupid shit like this. Please wrangle in your legal department or dismiss whichever ass-hat board member thought this was a good idea to begin with. You're doing nothing but pissing off people that would otherwise support you if you actually produced a modern relevant product.

    Sincerely,

    The INTERNET

    1. Re:Dear Atari, by bonch · · Score: 1

      How dare a company protect its trademarks and copyrighted property, such as BIOS ROMs. The nerve! This is the internet--if you have the capability of pirating something, that suddenly makes it okay.

    2. Re:Dear Atari, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the emulators in question do not have any BIOS ROMs included (and the 2600 never had a BIOS to begin with). Try again.

    3. Re:Dear Atari, by mikael · · Score: 1

      Given the bit sizes of the roms (8K), you could probably figure out a mathematical expression that would generate the identical bits ie.

      a0 **b0 + a1 **b1 .. + an ** bn

      Might take some time to find a combination... but it would be an impressive compression algorithm.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Dear Atari, by Shikaku · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Dear Atari, by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      Most of the recipients are not copying BIOS ROMs, um cause there isnt any in a 2600 you dink

    6. Re:Dear Atari, by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I bet most of those sites link to sites that host the game ROMs and other atari systems did have BIOS's even if the 2600 didn't.

      And as far as I know, the "names" of the systems and games are still trademarked. And while some are saying "This isn't the real Atari, they haven't done anything", they most certainly have. Ever hear of Atari Anthology? They've also got an iOS collection out. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ataris-greatest-hits/id422966028?mt=8

    7. Re:Dear Atari, by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      then they need to go after those sites hosting the illegal material, nothing catches crooks faster than to give them a heads up

      and no this Atari has not done anything, the Atari Anthology? you mean the one released 2004ish by Digital Eclipse? yea that's totally Infogrames and that iEmulator is free to download so they are obviously needing to sue

    8. Re:Dear Atari, by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      No, it was released and published by Atari itself...the "developer" was digital eclipse. The PS2 version has the proper ATARI logo and everything. And though we may not like it, Infrogrames IS Atari now. I also do not believe that Digital Eclipse's emulation technology is free to download.

    9. Re:Dear Atari, by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      so there you go this atari has not done shit except release a free emulator, which is not a big mystical deal anymore for the 2600 as its been nailed for atleast a decade

    10. Re:Dear Atari, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh bonch, always siding with the assholes.

    11. Re:Dear Atari, by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Did you search through the US trademark database? The system names are not trademarked. The only one that ever was (that is relevant to this discussion) was the 2600, and that mark has been dead for years.

      --
      FC Closer
    12. Re:Dear Atari, by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Where do you get this "free" nonsense. Atari Anthology was most certainly not free, and I an quite certain that Digital Eclipse did not give away whatever tech/software they had.

    13. Re:Dear Atari, by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      the iphone app you linked to is free dumbass

      I am not going to hold your hand during your argument

    14. Re:Dear Atari, by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      And that iOS app is not Atari Anthology, but a separate thing It's not even by Digital Eclipse. You'll also note that on the sidebar it shows in-app downloads...the app is free, but the games it runs aren't.

  16. Atari is dead before birth by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Do these retards understand that in a couple of years, your iphone is going to have the 3D capability of a PS2? Who's going to play "asteroids" as an iPhone app when Sega will be releasing Shenmu as an app?

    They are assuming nostalgia value, but seriously, the larger market for the smartphones is 20-somethings who have NO memory of 8-bit Atari games. To them nostalgia is Pokemon and Power Rangers, and the games they played were SNES Starfox or better.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Atari is dead before birth by bonch · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what you think of their business decisions or their target markets (Atari was before my time, but I'd still play a retro Asteroids). That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

    2. Re:Atari is dead before birth by LocalH · · Score: 1

      They don't have the right to go after these emulators, though - they don't infringe "Atari's" copyrights at all. None of them include BIOS images, and the 2600 never had a BIOS to begin with. Also AFAIK all patents are expired on the targeted machines, especially in the case of the 2600. The machine names (2600, 7800, etc) are also not trademarked ("Atari 2600" used to be trademarked, but is a dead mark now).

      Fuck "Atari".

      --
      FC Closer
    3. Re:Atari is dead before birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure you're *behind* on that. A number of cell phones on the market already have better than the 3D capability of a PS2, and they even do it at higher resolutions than the PS2 did.

    4. Re:Atari is dead before birth by Dogtanian · · Score: 1
      Disclaimer; this reply is not an endorsement of Atari being dicks.

      Who's going to play "asteroids" as an iPhone app when Sega will be releasing Shenmu as an app?

      I would- Asteroids is a great game. (Let's ignore that it might suck without physical buttons- that's clearly not the point you were making). Without looking it up on Wikipedia, I genuinely don't know (nor care) what Shenmu is, beyond being a game. I don't claim to be typical, nor a part of the most lucrative market. I say this to show that your personal view (*gasp*) doesn't represent every person on the planet, despite the fact you think it does.

      They are assuming nostalgia value, but seriously, the larger market for the smartphones is 20-somethings who have NO memory of 8-bit Atari games.

      So what? Even if your assertion is correct, that argument has two fundamental flaws.

      Firstly, let's assume that you're correct and that twentysomethings are the largest group of smartphone users. This doesn't mean that there isn't a significant or worthwhile market outside that range, only that it isn't *as* large.

      Secondly, Atari's strength in branding, IP and cultural significance relates very strongly to the late-1970s and early-1980s. Atari was well past its peak and heading for extinction (*) by the 1990s, and- despite the underrated Lynx's cult following- they would be absolutely stupid to focus in that period for nostalgia purposes, because, as you say yourself:-

      To [today's twentysomethings] nostalgia is Pokemon and Power Rangers, and the games they played were SNES Starfox or better.

      Again, so what? Atari has little nostalgic value relating to that time period- that's not their strength- and they can't go back in time and change that. It makes more sense to go with what they've got. They'd be better being a very strong player in a slightly smaller market than going for the 90s/twentysomething market and trying vainly to get them to remember the likes of Checkered Flag for the Atari Jaguar.

      Your logic is akin to saying that *if* the best long-distance runners earn decent money, but American Football players have the potential to earn a lot more, then a good runner should give up his sport and become a rugby player instead.... Even if he's the archetypal skinny-built Ethiopian type that seems to dominate running (i.e. good build for running, very poor for rugby) and always dropped the ball when he played rugby at school!

      Do these retards understand that in a couple of years, your iphone is going to have the 3D capability of a PS2?

      For someone calling others "retards", your own intelligence seems to be sadly lacking if you don't realise that the present-day appeal of such games does *not* rely on their being cutting edge any more, nor that the same argument could be applied to the SNES nostalgia of your coveted twentysomething demographic.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:Atari is dead before birth by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, they're not going after the emulators themselves, but the sites that host them...that also often link to ROM hosting sites, or sneakily tell you where to go to get them. AtariAge has direct links to ROMS!

      Also the "names" are trademarked. So those sites had better be using the ATARI® and 2600â as appropriate.

    6. Re:Atari is dead before birth by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Um, did you ignore me? I searched and found no active marks for any of the specific model numbers, except for a dead mark for "Atari 2600".

      --
      FC Closer
    7. Re:Atari is dead before birth by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      How could ignore you when I hadn't even seen your other post when I posted thi, impatient much?

      The various Atari trademarks are most certainly still active. Check the Atari Anthology box if you don't believe me. And even if the model number isn't still trademarked, the games still are as is the Atari name.

      Look, lets be honest...emulators are used for copyright infringement, we all know this. Sure there's a few homebrew games...but the majority of emulator users don't play them.

  17. Go to hell Atari by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    Your embarrassing rotting zombie corpse was a nuisance 20 years ago, its time someone just shot you in the head. Besides this is not bushnell and crew doing this. its whatever douchbag who got stuck with the atari properties this year as a gag gift.

  18. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    Most of those games are much more fun than most modern chest high wall dirt simulators. Dont get me wrong, I LOVED first person shooters and 3D games ... in 1990 when it was still new and interesting.

  19. good idea! by nege · · Score: 1

    Good point. I haven't played asteroids in a while. Time to fire up the ol emulator.

  20. Re:suing everyone by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I know this one!!

    There's this Triangular Lawyer, flying around, suing at anyone and anything that uses the Atari name! The small targets are single businesses - the larger ones are small companies and clubs, which, when sued, split up and take the emulators and pass them around!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  21. Not surprised. Nolan Bushnell is back. by datajerk · · Score: 1

    Nolan Bushnell (co-founder) of Atari back-in-the-day is back and in charge. Given the success of their 3 million downloads on iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ataris-greatest-hits/id422966028?mt=8) they see $$$ potential.

    I hope the 2600 hardware and home-brew community survives.

    Given the spanking that Nintendo is taking due to mobile gaming, watch out SNES and NES emulators.

  22. Emulated C&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read that as Atari had made an emulator for the cease and desist process.
    That could be a new break out genre.

    1. Re:Emulated C&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparent Steve Jobs is involved, but everyone knows Woz is the brains behind it.

  23. Atari User calls it Deep Impact Event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atari User have an article on this at http://atariuser.blogspot.com . Seems the C&D frenzy continues.

  24. Not really Atari by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its some holding company who bought the rights. What most of us would consider Atari has been gone for a long time now.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Not really Atari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically not just a holding company - Atari is Infogrames with a new skin.

  25. Atari is a global producer blah blah blah by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the letter was produced by moronic marketdroids rather than a buncha bozo barristers.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  26. Why asteroids? by kirkb · · Score: 1

    It's because some jerk-ass lawyer is working through Atari's trademark catalog alphabetically. Next...Breakout?

    Let's all go infringe against Yar's Revenge. We'll be safe for years!

    --
    Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
  27. asteroids.co.uk - letter LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading the C&D letter posted by asteroids.co.uk, I found it amusing that they are claiming trademark on the Cryptic Studios games, considering Atari just sold them off.

  28. Who needs an emulator? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    I have an Atari 400, an 800XL, and a 520ST. They all still work!

    Not much you can do with them. Star Raiders is still fun every once in a while, though.

    1. Re:Who needs an emulator? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      My Atari 800 still works (that bastard was a TANK), but sadly, the floppy drive and all the floppies have gone the way of the original Atari.... :)

      I can still play Centipede though... (one of the only carts I have left.)

      I loved me some Star Raiders though... man, that brings back memories. ;)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    2. Re:Who needs an emulator? by Renegrade · · Score: 1

      I'd love to play with an 800XL. That's like the 8-bit ancestor to my Amiga lineup.

  29. LOL y u mad tho? by atari2600a · · Score: 1

    You'd think they'd at least GOOGLE SONY VS. CONNECTIX. Even Nintendo has an entire page on their site dedicated to emulation FAQs. I suppose they could sue on the grounds of patent infringement...if they hadn't expired 20 years ago. Wait there's the Atari 8-bit BIOS & OS ROMs...that have been reverse engineered, reprogrammed & improved upon. Y U NO THINKING ATARI!? Still, I've been using atari2600a as my standard alias for a decade, can't go back on that now...

  30. Not a smart move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was the owner of the Atari brand, I'll do exactly the opposite by encouraging and supporting the fan base thus providing a cheap advertising campaign.
    I would provide free ROMs from old consoles and in the meantime sell new games or applications. In contrast they are struggling against their fan base, which could have a very negative impact.

  31. Good luck with that, Atari.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah, these corporate lawyer nimrods keep sticking their finger in the dams of the internet, hoping to stem the flow of information, only to find for every leak they stop 50 more leaks appear in it's place.

    Atari, give it up. These emulators have been around far too long to stop them now. There WILL no doubt be many many mirror sites offering the same thing in countries that won't be beholden to the copyright law of the US, if there isn't already.

    Sue all you want, Atari, you will never stop the internet.

  32. atari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's just a company made up of layers right? I mean they don't actually produce anything or contribute to mankind in any way do they?

  33. Fu. Atari you don't own the Video game brands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think Atari can sue over the arcade names, because all that IP belonged to Atari Games when Atari was essentially split in to Atari Inc. (which eventually found its way to the bastards we know today). Atari Games however eventually found its way to Midway which was bought out my Warner Bros. Entertainment.

  34. joke by MasterHundinco · · Score: 1

    So i heard you liked dead consoles, so we put a dead console in your dead console!