Nintendo Patents Handheld Emulation, Cracks Down

mclove writes "Looks like Nintendo has recently been granted a patent that gives them new leverage in their fight against emulators: Patent 6,672,963 mainly appears to cover emulators like UltraHLE that are custom-tailored for particular games, but they're already using it to suppress a new Game Boy Advance emulator for the Tapwave Zodiac, Firestorm gbaZ, and there's no reason to think they won't start leveraging it against anyone else trying to emulate their systems." The reprinted lawyer's letter from Nintendo also notes: "Whether you have an authentic game or not, it is illegal to copy a Nintendo game from a cartridge or to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."

Umm?

[by Anonymous Coward]

'The reprinted lawyer's letter from Nintendo also notes: "Whether you have an authentic game or not, it is illegal to copy a Nintendo game from a cartridge or to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet." '

aren't consumers allowed to make backup copies of their electronic media?

Fuck them

[BiggerIsBetter (682164)]

You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.

Re:Fuck them

[obeythefist (719316)]

Unless the media is protected by encryption or similar copy protection of any kind. The american DMCA prevents circumvention of copy protection, even if you have a legitimate right to make copies, you have no right to bypass copy protection.

Re:Fuck them

[Drakonite (523948)]

Unless the media is protected by encryption or similar copy protection of any kind. The american DMCA prevents circumvention of copy protection, even if you have a legitimate right to make copies, you have no right to bypass copy protection.

As previously reported here on slashdot, there were a few exemptions granted for the DMCA, one of which was to allow backing up of cartridge based games/software.

ROMs are protected

[autopr0n (534291)]

By a locking chip, which prevented duplicates from being used in the system. However, they didn't have anything to prevent copying at the time. Also, hardware encryption is very easy. They could have done DES (or even AES if it had been invented by then) in hardware with almost no cost.

Re:Fuck them

[John Courtland (585609)]

What they used to do is put custom DSP chips in the ROM cartridges, which was possibly not meant to stop piracy, but that seemed to be a side-effect. It basically forced the emulator makers to emulate the on ROM DSP. I think that was the problem for a while with certain Capcom games in MAME, although don't quote me on that.

Re:Fuck them

[Talez (468021)]

The Capcom games you are thinking about are CPS2 games and they were protected by an encrpytion that was very hard to crack. It still hasn't been cracked. They just use custom written programs to dump the data as its decrypted.

Re:Fuck them

[PhotoBoy (684898)]

Most cartridges since the Famicom/NES have had country lock-out chips (kind of like DVD regions) but aside from a few notable examples there wasn't any kind of copy protection- there wasn't much need as cartridge counterfeiting is pretty difficult when there are custom chips like the SuperFX in them.

IIRC Street Fighter Alpha and Star Ocean both did employ encryption but I those were the only ones.

With the widespread availability of flash cartridges for the GBA I'm surprised Nintendo hasn't started throwing its weight around sooner. It's a shame for emulation fans like myself though,

I can understand why they'd go after the Tapwave Zodiac too, it can currently emulate NES games perfectly and SNES emulation is starting to make good progress, who wants to pay $30 for a GBA port of a SNES game when you can download the original for free and play it on the Zodiac?

I'm sure the fact that Nintendo is now selling expensive collector editions of its old NES games for the GBA in Japan has nothing to do with this.... It's been huge a success so I suspect they are now looking at re-releasing other classics and are making sure emulation isn't going to spoil business.

Re:Fuck them

[PainKilleR-CE (597083)]

Actually, if you've ever read the crap that comes with the carts, and this has always been so since I first read them, they explicitly say you're not allowed to copy them for fair use, because they will repair or replace for a reasonable price.

Fortunately, that still doesn't prevent fair use copying from being legal. They can put whatever disclaimers and statements they want to in the packaging and at the end of all of the legal statements it still states that it is all subject to local laws and restrictions.

Re:Fuck them

[LostCluster (625375)]

You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.

Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.

And, if you're defeating an encryption scheme to try to use your "backup copy" in an emulator, now you've really got yourself on the wrong side of the DMCA.

At least Nintendo's sending a polite letter warning that this project is dangerously close if not over the line into foul territory before this project gets into trouble. They should at least talk to lawyers before going any further with their plans.

Re:Fuck them

[zurab (188064)]

You *are* allowed to make backups and fair-use copies. Wailing lawyers don't change this fact.

Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.

Yes, but "fair use" is not limited by backup copies only. The parent poster used the "and" in the sentence, and IMO, correctly so. I can make 2 or 3 copies of the game, but which one I use to play is irrelevant because, I imagine, such copying should fall under fair use.

IANAL, so depending on the law that applies to making digital copies of software, you can even loan them to your friend or brother or whoever. As long as you don't engage in wider/larger scale and/or for-profit distribution, it may well fall under fair use.

Remember that most commercial software comes with an EULA which they contend is a legal agreement between you and distributor/licensor. The EULA may limit your rights further; however, whether these agreements are valid or not is irrelevant in this case. First, Nintendo games don't come with anything that can even remotely resemble an enforceable agreement. Second, I don't think anyone, including Nintendo, will contend or in any way require, that a minor playing a GBA game should legally enter into an EULA-type agreement. Therefore, IMO, regular copyright restrictions with all "fair-use" rights intact should apply to their products.

Re:Fuck them

[Beautyon (214567)]

Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.

If you make a backup copy, and your original cart gets destroyed, where are you supposed to play your backed up copy?. Where are you supposed to restore it to?

Unless Ninetndo makes it possible to restore and play your backed up game, you will have to use a third party device to play the game you payed for.

Re:Fuck them

[Eric Sharkey (1717)]

Wrong.

Fair Use allows you _one_ copy

Show me where in copyright law [copyright.gov] it says that.

Note that clause 2 of paragraph 117 refers to the archival copies in the plural sense.

I have done a great deal of research on the topic of Fair Use

It doesn't really sound like it.

Re:Fsck them

[Erwos (553607)]

A very good point, and one that people sometimes forget. I love it when stores post signs saying "we're not responsible for blah blah". They can SAY that, but just saying it does not make it true.

So, as you said, making backups of your own ROMs only become illegal when Nintendo wins a court case against someone. What they say about the matter only tells you whether they would file suit or not in the first place.

However, I would caution you against ranting about your fair-use "rights" as though it's part of the Constitution. Fair use rights are entirely at the court's interpretation of what is "fair" or not. What you think is fair may not jive with the court's interpretation.

Two relevant links:
http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.html [eff.org]
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ [stanford.edu]

I'm not arguing that downloading ROMs of cartridges you own isn't fair use, only cautioning against making "fair use rights" arguments - because the default opinion of the court is going to be for the copyright holder, unless you can make an extremely good argument. In this case, I think you could, though.

-Erwos

Re:Fsck them

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

Or we could just forget what's legal and simply do what's fair.

It was fair, though not legal, for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.

It was fair, though not legal in many states, for gay people ot have intimate relationships.

It's fair, though possibly not legal, for me to play my legaly purchased games from any media I choose on any platform I choose.

When we start doing what is legal instead of what is fair then we lose our most basic right and one that's not even in the constitution; our right to do no more or less than we would have done to ourselves. When we do what's fair then we might lose in the short term, but everyone wins in the long run.

TW

Re:Fsck them

[ottawanker (597020)]

It was fair, though not legal, for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.

But was it fair? Not to the people who thought that she was stealing their space (though now I'm sure they feel differently, and as a society we have definately changed our perception of fairness in this case).

Were the purges in Russian fair? Depends what side you were on.

Does Nintendo think its fair that you can't emulate their games? Damn straight. Do you think it's fair? Hell no.

'Fairness' is not a useful way of determining right or wrong (or correctness, if you don't like the terminology).

Re:Fsck them

[hey! (33014)]

'Fairness' is not a useful way of determining right or wrong (or correctness, if you don't like the terminology).

Well, if by "fairness" you mean the "sniff test", I agree.

However, it is possible to try to create a definition of fairness that can be used to create criteria of the rightness and wrongness of actions. Jowhn Rawls" [geocities.com] constructed one such theory, which is at its heart very simple. One way of explaining it is to imagine that we are about to sit down to play a game, and have to agree in advance on the rules governing each player's role. The rules are fair if we would agree to it not knowing in advance which role we are going to be assigned.

This is actually a lot like the Jewish concept of tsedaqah, which is usually translated as "rigtheousness" but could also be construed to mean "objective". Objective in this sense: you should remove the overwhelming effect of your subjective stake in the outcome of an action from deciing on whether it is right or wrong. For example you should assist the poor because their condition objectively requires assistance and it won't really hurt you that much to help.

Of course taking this approach means that you then get to argue about whose definition of "fair" is correct. However it's an intrinsically more honest process, because you have to accept the consequences of your definition, whereas the sniff test doesn't put any constraints on you.

Re:Fuck them

[cpt kangarooski (3773)]

Wow.

One, in the absence of a EULA, you do own the copy of the software. So the alleged licensor has to prove that a license existed. Even if there is a purported license, it still might not be operative due to the UCC.

Two, 117 only applies to owned copies of software, not licensed copies.

Not Adobe v. Softman

[LuYu (519260)]

Uhh... It is Softman v. Adobe [cryptome.org], and the order is important because the plaintiff is always first.

Re:Fuck them

[Jeremi (14640)]

Every manual for a Nintendo game specifically states that you cannot back it up. What exactly overrides that?

The fact that Nintendo is not the government, and Nintendo manuals are not law books.

Re:Fuck them

[SEE (7681)]

IANAL, but as I understand it:

Unless you have a contractual relationship with Nintendo that forbids it, you may excercise all the rights granted in 17 U.S. Code 117 with any copy of a work of software you have. That explicitly includes the right to make a copy of, and adapt if necessary, your copy of a work of software if it is an integral step in running it on a machine. What kind of machine is not limited by the US Code, and you don't have a contract with Nintendo limiting that right, which means you have a right to get a ROM reader, copy the game on to your PC, and play it on your PC.

And simply printing the line in the manual does not make it an enforcable contract. For a contractual relationship to exist, there must be evidence of voluntary consent to the terms and consideration granted in exchange for the terms. (Exception; Maryland and Virginia law recongizes shrink-wrap licenses.)

Nintendo can't even show evidence you ever read the no-copy requirements, much less consented to them, and they can show nothing you recieved on the condition of agreeing to it (since you had full rights by default from point of purchase).

(Click-through licenses meet the criteria at least more closely, since you must state you agree. The "consideration" is murkier, but there is at least one case on-point that declares click-throughs an enforcable contract.)

Now, if your copy on your PC is not a copy of the cartridge you own, but someone else's, you're at least arguably violating the law. But you are, under US law, allowed to make your own copy if you have to do it to run the program on a machine of your choice.

Prior art

[Gunnery Sgt. Hartman (221748)]

There has got to be prior art for handheld emmulators. I've ran NES emmulators on my desktop for years now. You can't tell me this hasn't been done before on a handheld. What about the Super Mario Bros. game that I had on my TI-85?

Re:Prior art

[Sparr0 (451780)]

SMB on the TI-85 was more of a port than an emulation. However, TI-85 games on the TI-86 were partially emulated. Or Sega Master System chips in the Game Gear (which may or may not have been real, just came to mind). Or how about every emulator that has ever run on a Palm?

Re:Prior art

[nhaines (622289)]

(Disclaimer: Yes, nhaines as in [e-mail])

SMB for the TI-85 wasn't a port, it was just someone writing a game that looked like the original. It didn't even play like any of the games. It was impressive, though.

Also, TI-85 emulation on the TI-86 was more along the lines of providing ZShell and Usgard ROM call functions, and not so much actual emulation. This is why TI-85 games were limited to 16k or so when you'd run them in YAS: because the TI-86 provided more memory and two configurable memory pages, if I remember correctly, and YAS never did anything fancy other than handling TI-85 assembler shell routines.

Re:Prior art

[LostCluster (625375)]

That's not what the patent claims. The patent is for a handheld emulator that can dynamically chose which platform to emulate based on the input file it was asked to load.

The workaround is to forget about coding that part and just have the user select which platform needs to be emulated.

Re:Prior art

[tcdk (173945)]

That's not what the patent claims. The patent is for a handheld emulator that can dynamically chose which platform to emulate based on the input file it was asked to load. The workaround is to forget about coding that part and just have the user select which platform needs to be emulated.

I can see it now:

LOADING MY_SNES_GAME.ROM....
LOADED...

Please select which emulator to run this ROM on:

1. PS1 (not!)
2. GameBoy (I don't think so)
[H1][BLINK]3. SNES[/BLINK][/H1]
4. Amiga (No way)

Please press a number between 1-4 (which isn't 1, 2 or 4): _

I thought.. ?

[SillySnake (727102)]

I thought patents were only granted for new technology? Handheld emulation has been around for years. How can Nintendo suddenly own it?

Re:I thought.. ?

[L. J. Beauregard (111334)]

You're new here, aren't you?

Own a pencil?

[GoMMiX (748510)]

Things like this are disturbing. It's become acceptable, in today's society, for a company to tell it's customers how they can and can't use their products. It's like a pencil manufacturer selling you a pencil, then saying you can only write on the paper they make. Doesn't make much sense to me, but what would I know.

Re:Own a pencil?

[bangular (736791)]

I'd like to see them stop me from wiping my ass with Rad Racer!!! *blows in cartridge first...*

Re:Own a pencil?

[NanoGator (522640)]

"Things like this are disturbing. It's become acceptable, in today's society, for a company to tell it's customers how they can and can't use their products."

That's not what's happening here. They're telling a company (or team?) trying to sell the product for a profit not to do that. It doesn't help that their site [crimsonfire.com] for it touts "1400 GBA games, 1200 GBC games, 600 GB games"

Not saying I'm siding with Nintendo on this one, but the fact that they're expecting to make a profit ilegally off of Nintendo isn't helping their case any. You'll notice other free emulators are out there and not under legal scrutiny. (Note: That's not to say they won't down the road.)

Frankly, this is a road they should not have tried to travel. Who can seriously look at that system with that emulator and not expect Nintendo to go apeshit over it? Derrrr.

Only for handhelds?

[Creedo (548980)]

Given the repeated mention of an LCD display, does this patent only affect laptops and handhelds?

Re:Only for handhelds?

[tepples (727027)]

"Virtual LCD" means that the emulator emulates an LCD and all its interactions with the emulated CPU, specifically the Hblank and Vblank states and the current scanline number. But still, any Game Boy emulator first published on the Internet before November 28, 2000, is prior art that a reasonably-funded defendant could use to invalidate most or all of this patent.

Nintendo, you fools!

[BenSpinSpace (683543)]

I find it strange and somewhat stupid that Nintendo hasn't tapped into this market... they should be teaming up with the people making emulators, rather than trying to stop the community from doing what they love. It's not like they're going to get any money from the Nintendo/SNES/Etc. at this point anyway. I can understand their frustration with a GBA emulator, but the others... just think of the possibilities, Nintendo!! Surely Nintendo couldn't hurt itself by teaming up with the creators of ZSNES and releasing a commercial version (rather like Linux commercial releases) that includes a bunch of games and some extra features (PDF guides for the games, maybe some touch-ups to the emulator, etc.). Plus, people would get a warm fuzzy feeling for knowing that they'd be collaborating with both Nintendo and emulator creators.

Re:Nintendo, you fools!

[LostCluster (625375)]

Maybe there's a hidden market here...

Release an official emulator for the hardware as a freeware product. Also, release a hardware product that allows the proprietary cartrige to feed games to the emulator over USB. Allow the user to save serial-number tied copies to their hard disk and sell blank cartriges on which lost or destroied games can be restored, even if they're only playable on one specific unit after that's been done.

Then, open up your SDK so that people can make their own game images and release them however they want. They may just end up discovering some new game creation talent this way. Afterall, having better games available can help sell a weaker platform over a stronger one.

If you help the hacker community color between the lines, you'll have less of a threat in the areas where you do have to clamp down, such as the copying and distribution copyright-protected games.

Make it easier to do things the right way, and most (but not quite all) will do it that way instead of a wrong way.

Fair use

[proverbialcow (177020)]

C'mon - you know how in the back of the instruction manual they tell you it's illegal to make any kind of backup of your cartridge because it's unnecessary, and then cover their bets telling you they're not infringing on your statutory rights?

Software is software is software, and you are allowed to back up your software in case the original gets damaged. Period. Most of my old NES carts are unusable because they're so old. So is it unnecessary for me to backup the cart because Nintendo is going to buy me a new cart, or because I'm allowed to download a ROM and play it on an emulator?

(Yes, carts do deteriorate - it's called bit rot. Look into it before you flame.)

So, is Sony in violation?

[IshanCaspian (625325)]

The PS2 contains a PS1 emulator...does that mean the PS2 is in violation of Nintendo's patent?

Programmer, get thee to a lawyer!

[LostCluster (625375)]

These guys seem to have stepped into legal hot water in several places.

- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but the patent Nintendo is claiming is against a program emulates multiple handheld videogame consoles based on analysing its input file to declare what format it has been given and therefore which console it needs to emulate. Now, there's likely was that a multi-platform emulator can step around this limitation, like requiring the user to declare which emulation mode is to be used, but this is definitely something the write of such a program should have a lawyer look over before they release their product.

- Emulating a video game platform is okay, but if there are no legal non-cartrige games available for that platform, there's a problem. The Atari emulator community has managed to not just reverse engineer the platform, but have also reverse engineered development tools for that platform so there are some legal freeware Atari 2600 games in circulation. I don't think there are any freeware Game Boy Advance games in circulation yet.

- You can legally copy your cartriges to your computer (if you can) to make a backup copy that could later be used to restore a lost or damaged cartrige, but you can't legally do anything else with your backup copy and still hide behind the backup fair use shield.

- The moral justifiation that you can download from the internet what you legally have another copy of is not a legal one. Maybe it should be, but under today's laws it isn't so that's not a defense to hide behind.

In short, this seems like a tool that encurages piracy and cannot seem to come up with a "substation non-infringing functionality" yet. It should be held tight to the developer until somebody can come up with one... maybe a lawyer can help find one.

Re:Programmer, get thee to a lawyer!

[Bobdoer (727516)]

I don't think there are any freeware Game Boy Advance games in circulation yet.
Think again [zophar.net].

Re:Programmer, get thee to a lawyer!

[dogles (518286)]

Freeware GBA games do exist. GBA is in fact becoming a rather popular hobbyist platform - there is a free compiler and lots of documentation out there. All you have to do is get a flash ROM, which are cheap and pretty easy to find - you simply upload your games using a USB adaptor into the GBA itself. gbadev.org [gbadev.org] has links to tutorials, places to get flash roms, and links to freeware games that people have created.

Their view

[loraksus (171574)]

The reprinted lawyer's letter from Nintendo also notes: "Whether you have an authentic game or not, it is illegal to copy a Nintendo game from a cartridge or to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."

Basically Nintendo is saying "Now pay us again, you consumer piece of shit."
Apparantly they liked DirectTV's business model (i.e. extortion via letters from lawyers). One has to wonder if this is a first step in something greater.

Debatable

[bperkins (12056)]

"Whether you have an authentic game or not, it is illegal to copy a Nintendo game from a cartridge or to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."

This seems very debatable to me. Has anyone ever been procescuted for downloading something they own?

It's not illegal to make a tape that I can listen to in my car off a CD, so why would copying info from a cartidge be any different?

Is the cartidge form factor enough of a copy protection mechanism that they think it falls under the DMCA?

Re:Debatable

[LostCluster (625375)]

Well, somebody has been gone after for allowing somebody who has proof of ownership of a CD copy song to download a digital copy of that song... That was the lawsuit that brought down the original MP3.com site and turned the joint over to the recording industry's hands.

Does it Matter, really?

[globalar (669767)]

Pirated game roms are just as common as emulators, and are basically illegal. "Archival purposes only" is a complete joke with digital content.

Still, selling an emulator is asking for trouble. What are you making money off of? You are selling a software representation of the system vs. the hardware system. Which is cheaper? - So you are competition for the hardware platform. It doesn't matter if the emulator is legal or not, the company will take you to court over it and you will be a small world of hurt (even if you win). As a business, a paid-for emulator is encroaching upon the turf of the emulated machine and whoever owns it. Naturally, this turf will be protected in the interest of the company and shareholders.

Isn't it true most every business to do with a console has to pay royalties to the console's maker (company who controls the platform)? So the company is going to go after you if you are trying to make money off their platform without royalties.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth...

[Thedalek (473015)]

This is already causing quite a stir on one of the more prominant Zodiac message boards [emuboards.com].

A few relevant issues: Since the recent DMCA exemptions [copyright.gov] created by the Library of Congress, Nintendo's claim that "You're not allowed to play roms you own," is only valid for the GBA, since the Gameboy and Gameboy Color are both legally considered obsolete.

At any rate, the patent only refers to emulators running on "limited capability devices" (Cell Phones, PDAs, and embedded entertainment centers), not to emulators running on desktop PCs. Further, it only covers the Gameboy family of systems: NES, SNES, Virtual Boy, N64, Game Cube and DS are not protected at all.

As for prior art, the patent was applied for in 2000, but wasn't granted until Jan. 6 2004, but the patent acknowledges prior art in its own phrasing:

"A number of GAME BOY.RTM. emulators have been written for a variety of different platforms ranging from personal digital assistants to personal computers. However, further improvements are possible and desirable."

Even more interesting is its mention of Aaron Giles' MAME patent.

One thing that really makes me scratch my head: I've known of people getting patents in a matter of months. Was this one constantly rejected over the course of those 4 years or something?

The strategy behind this

[Rolman (120909)]

One of the strongly debated issues about emulators is that they are used to play "abandonware" or software that the copyright holder is assumed will never release again.

Well, that used to be fairly reasonable in the 90's when the arcade and console videogame market were in this huge transition towards fully immersive 3D games; nobody thought there would be a future for 2D, and then many old games were automatically assumed to be abandoned forever.

But, the Gameboy Advance changed all that, we are getting re-releases, remakes and rehashes of great, old games because the GBA is not a "3D powerhouse" and it doesn't need to be. I'm actually happy those games are released again, and so are millions of gamers. Just look at how the insane success of the Famicom Mini games in Japan makes the GBA sell even better than the PS2 [the-magicbox.com]

This is what an emulator really endangers, it makes it more difficult to market an old game, and in fact the argument about "emulators saving good games from the past" is very much reversed as Nintendo can't sell a game to a market that got it for free. And Nintendo of course is trying to (rightfully) protect their IP, it may not be the right way to do it, but what other choices do they have?

OK, I see one alternative. I'm not saying it's good or bad to emulate games, but Nintendo and others should contact the emulators' developers and discuss in good faith about the reality of which games are never going to be released and allow them to be legally distributed and emulated. Of course, this is something very unlikely, but still possible in light of iTunes' success as an alternative distribution model.

Thing is, Nintendo is still a corporation and most of the time it makes decisions that are not popular with gamers, but sometimes you can get good remakes from these decisions. Pac-Man Vs., Super Mario Advance 4 (SMB3) anyone? Nintendo simply doesn't want anyone to compete with their own, official, legal emulators.

I think that for a game to really become abandonware in these new times, it now needs to be abandoned by both the copyright holder AND the consumer, since it is already proven an old game can sell like new. That leaves a lot less room for the emulation scene.

Re-releases of NES games on the GBA

[Neo-Rio-101 (700494)]

Recently in Japan, Nintendo have been re-releasing some of their old 8-bit NES games on the GBA. So you can buy the original Super Mario Bros. on the GBA now, as well as many other old school NES games legally.

This patent no doubt ties in with the fact that Nintendo want to fleece their back-catalogue.

I wonder if they borrowed a certain GBA NES emulator to get the effect though?

Re:Typical Slashdot replies

[dafoomie (521507)]

Imagine for a second that I started up a company that made Gameboys, compatible 100% with the Nintendo Gameboy. Essentially I'd be profiting of the design of the Gameboy without paying any money to Nintendo. This would be wrong. Right?

(I know you're just trolling, but you got modded up somehow.)

You mean like how companies like Compaq made PC's that were 100% compatible with IBM's in the 80's?

As long as you are not violating any copyrights by using Nintendo software, and are not deceiving people into thinking it is a Nintendo product, why shouldn't you be able to make a device that plays Gameboy games? What law says I can't?

I'm not even going to bother addressing your other points.

Re:Typical Slashdot replies

[blincoln (592401)]

Imagine for a second that I started up a company that made Gameboys, compatible 100% with the Nintendo Gameboy.

Something similar was already done in the 80s - several manufacturers made systems or add-ons for their own that were 100% compatible with the Atari 2600.

Atari took at least one of them to court, but it was ruled to be legal.

It wouldn't make much sense to do this now anyway, because there is no profit made on the systems - just the games, which Nintendo still collects the license fees for.

It's not so much SNES emmulation

[metroid composite (710698)]

ROMs have been a real problem with the GBA. A number of games have had ROMs released before the game itself (both Metroid games, for instance, and I think Pokemon as well).

Emmulating games which are out of print is fine, but games which are still shipping in mass quantities?