Would Famicom/2600 clones b legal if they didn't come w/gamz

[Zaxxon]

Does anyone know what legal precedent the Coleco Gemini/Atari lawsuit set? Wouldn't these Famicom and TV Boy clones be legal if they didn't include any copyrighted software/BIOS?

[Ed Oscuro]

Does anyone know what legal precedent the Coleco Gemini/Atari lawsuit set? Wouldn't these Famicom and TV Boy clones be legal if they didn't include any copyrighted software/BIOS?

Yeah, but then they wouldn't play Nintendo software, would they? Nintendo did take out design patents for the NES cartridge design and some other things, but obviously many recent famiclones don't fail that test.

[Zaxxon]

Well, some do come with a cart slot. Does Nintendo have a patent on the cart slot design as well? What's stopping someone from making a CV/MSX/5200/TG-16/INTV on a single, tiny chip with a cart slot like the NES/2600 on a chip? Coleco isn't around anymore to stop anyone. I doubt Infogrames/Atari cares much about the 5200 or other old systems.

[Pantechnicon]

I think it's safe to say that the Atari vs. Coleco suit did not change the fact that enforceable copyrights can and do exist on console hardware. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Coleco was basically the only U.S. company out there that got away with building a clone of a competitor's system. It seems like if there was an unequivocal ruling that stated this thing could still be allowed, then more U.S. companies would have tried to get a piece of this action, and would probably even be making them in some capacity today.

Don't forget to follow the money as well. Meaning: Even if making clone hardware is legal, is it profitable to do so in any market other than piracy? I dunno. It was for PC's. Consider IBM's lawsuits against many manufacturers who simply revers-engineered their XT and AT architectures. Remember when we used call non-Apple PC's "IBM-compatible?" Nowadays IBM is but a bit player in the very technology they helped to standardize.

Back to consoles: You can't consider things like Tandyvision (Radio Shack's Intellivision) or Sears Telegames as "clones" because they were actually mfg'd by their owners and simply licensed to these retail outlets. So what I think happened was that Coleco probably had to either pay some damages or a retroactive license fee (which I guess would mean "damages" as well in this case) to Atari for the Gemini. I'll bet Leonard Herman's book Phoenix: The Fall and Rise of Videogames probably has the answer.

And you can't say that companies like Infogrames nee Atari do not necessarily have an interest in the copyrights on their old hardware. Consider the TV Games 10-in-1 stick. Infogrames is obviously collecting a licensing royalty on that thing, otherwise somebody would have come up with that years ago, and probably with more games built in :LOL.

When Hasbro acquired the Atari intellectual property, one of the first things they did was release the Jaguar and (I think) Lynx hardware into the public domain. One has to wonder why they didn't also free up the 2600, 5300 and 7800's as well? Perhaps because they had future projects like the TV Games stick in mind for these chipsets? Anyway, all of that rests in the new Atari's decision now (French Atari, that is).

[Ed Oscuro]

I agree with Retrotaku. Saying Atari and Infogrames don't care about the classic Atari properties...eh, that's not a wise thing to think. Now Coleco...that's another issue, but there's probably some person or organization that owns the Coleco name. Hasn't there been a handheld 20-in-1 type thing for the Coleco?

MSX? You're running into software piracy issues if you try to take any of the decent games for the system and put them in a system.

Now the NES cart slot? You can't have a patent simply on the cart slot by itself...cartridge slots are nothing new. The design patents are intended to protect a unique shape (i.e. the NES cartridge design) so that it cannot be ripped off. Sort of like Microsoft's infamous "Look and Feel" lawsuit.

[Zaxxon]

@ Ed,
No, you're totally misunderstanding me. I'm sure Inforgrames/Atari cares about it's old Atari games that it can and does endlessly reissue in PC/ps compilations. I'm just refering to the actual Atari 2600/5200/8 bit circuit designs. I don't think they have plans to reissue new, smaller versions of the actual hardware. Those new 10 in 1 joysticks they sell now aren't the actual Atari TIA chips, they're ports of the original games, not the original game code, running on different hardware. I'm talking about if you sold a TV Boy like device w/o any games but with a cart port or built in flash RAM so it can play any 2600/5200/CV/INTV cart/ROM.


but there's probably some person or organization that owns the Coleco name.

Don't use the Coleco name. problem solved


Hasn't there been a handheld 20-in-1 type thing for the Coleco?

None that I've ever seen.


MSX? You're running into software piracy issues if you try to take any of the decent games for the system and put them in a system.

That's exactly what I said I didn't want to do. I know this already.

[FABombjoy]

Remember:

Patents are for devices
Copyrights are for code

Most older devices have had the patents run out on their specific hardware (like Atari's own homebrew chips). When you have systems with BIOS or other forms of embedded software, thats where it gets sticky.

Compaq defeated IBM in court because they could prove that they had engineered a BIOS that performed the same functions as the IBM BIOS, but using completely different code (the hardware was made from common parts, and couldn't be patented). IBM went so far as to publish the BIOS code in the PC manual, thinking that it would give them a clear cut case against would-be clone manufacturers. The defense was able to use that in a side-by-side comparison of Compaq BIOS code to defeat big blue. Doh'!

So, as long as the hardware patents have expired, you're clear on the hardware. You may have to write your own BIOS tho (or license it).

The 2600 has no BIOS, so any former court cases would have had to have been over patented hardware, like the TIA. Damn near everything else has some form of BIOS, and that would be the legal hurdle for producing new-old systems.

[Ed Oscuro]

Words of wisdom go here

OK, I read you now.

As for the patents expiring...never thought of that one.

I should go find out what separates design patents from hardware patents, though.

[Pantechnicon]

Now Coleco...that's another issue, but there's probably some person or organization that owns the Coleco name. Hasn't there been a handheld 20-in-1 type thing for the Coleco?

I believe it was Telegames that actually bought and still owns the patent (thanks, FABombjoy, for clearing that up) rights to the Colecovision. Hence the "Dina" Colecovision-compatible system which they released some time back. These are pretty cool, but now sorta hard to find thanks to a wayward tornado.

As for a handheld Coleco unit, I've never seen one, but it sounds interesting. Links?

[Zaxxon]

I read that Telegames owns the rights to a bunch of CV games but I never read anything about them owning any rights to the hardware. I don't see why they would buy the hardware rights as they never made new hardware. AFAIK the Dina system was made and released by the Bit corp in Asia, thus the extra SG-1000 cart slot, and was just sold here by Telegames.