I think the person was confused. Substantially rearranging a public domain work could be copyrighted in its own right, but it would still be infringement if the work it is a derivative of was copyrighted itself.
1. Come up with cool original idea.
2. Patent your idea.
3. Submit idea to Google.
4. Sue Google for Patent Infringement.
5. Profit.
Not ??? step necessary!
Oh come on, you can't be as inept to expect Sega to support anything that undermines their money making potential. A good example was when, Sony released a developer version of the PlayStation called the Yaroze (that may not be the exact name) in Japan. They charged several hundred dollars US over system costs. This covered potential profits to an extent. What I'm saying is that Sega is a company that still wants to make money off their system, not an open-source firm. I believe the reason that developers chose Sega was not their tendency to look the other direction, but because of the ease of hacking the system and producing CD media without mod chips that have to be updated constantly to play new commercial media.
As a long time gamer, I support open-source gaming productions because they are a nice addition to the community I think, but I believe it is very naive to expect a company to put their endorsement behind something they make NO money off of. Now if THEY sold the serial cable otoh they may support it limitedly. It's the same situation as how Sony won't support other controllers and memory cards even though many of them are not likely to damage the system in any way, and they can void a warranty if these products are used even if they are totally unrelated to the cause.
In conclusion, I believe that someone should judge their video game console choices on how fun games are only judging in other factors minimally. If one is only getting the system to write software and hack the system, then would it matter if the company is behind you... it never mattered before to the many that have hacked systems before.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the person was confused. Substantially rearranging a public domain work could be copyrighted in its own right, but it would still be infringement if the work it is a derivative of was copyrighted itself.
1. Come up with cool original idea. 2. Patent your idea. 3. Submit idea to Google. 4. Sue Google for Patent Infringement. 5. Profit. Not ??? step necessary!
Oh come on, you can't be as inept to expect Sega to support anything that undermines their money making potential. A good example was when, Sony released a developer version of the PlayStation called the Yaroze (that may not be the exact name) in Japan. They charged several hundred dollars US over system costs. This covered potential profits to an extent. What I'm saying is that Sega is a company that still wants to make money off their system, not an open-source firm. I believe the reason that developers chose Sega was not their tendency to look the other direction, but because of the ease of hacking the system and producing CD media without mod chips that have to be updated constantly to play new commercial media.
As a long time gamer, I support open-source gaming productions because they are a nice addition to the community I think, but I believe it is very naive to expect a company to put their endorsement behind something they make NO money off of. Now if THEY sold the serial cable otoh they may support it limitedly. It's the same situation as how Sony won't support other controllers and memory cards even though many of them are not likely to damage the system in any way, and they can void a warranty if these products are used even if they are totally unrelated to the cause.
In conclusion, I believe that someone should judge their video game console choices on how fun games are only judging in other factors minimally. If one is only getting the system to write software and hack the system, then would it matter if the company is behind you... it never mattered before to the many that have hacked systems before.
Brandon