Nintendo Patents Handheld Emulation, Cracks Down 658
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
aren't consumers allowed to make backup copies of their electronic media?
Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
Nintendo's the SCO of the gaming industry (Score:0, Insightful)
If I still bought Nintendo, I would stop after hearing this sort of cheapshot move.
Own a pencil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior art (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the US legal system doesn't rely on prior art or its lack to judge the granting of a patent. That's only relevant to the defending of a patent.
I could patent the apple macintosh now, if it weren't already, and I worded it sufficiently vaguely. It's not like I'd have the resources to defend it if Mr.Steve decided to ream my ass.
On the other hand, Apple Computer could patent the use of a computer near a window as a stress relief device during workdays as opposed to a computer in a cubicle, and there's not a fucking thing you or I could do about it.
It's not meant to make sense
Fair use (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
Their view (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fuck them (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they even had the space to do stuff like that back in 1980. Not on a consumer console.
If 4 digit dates were a problem, I can't even imagine encryption.
Re:Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Fsck them (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Download GPL'd GBA games (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Two words: Filename extension. On my computer, I have .nes set to launch FCE Ultra, .bin set to launch a DGen, and .gba set to launch VisualBoyAdvance.
I don't think there are any freeware Game Boy Advance games in circulation yet.
You think wrong [pdroms.de]. In fact, I myself have made some [pineight.com] and have run them on hardware [mwelectronics.com].
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
I can also make copies and adaptations necessary to run a program on a given computer (17 USC 117 [cornell.edu]).
The moral justifiation that you can download from the internet what you legally have another copy of is not a legal one.
The defense of owning a lawful copy (that is, an original Game Pak) does shift the burden of proof to the copyright owner to prove that the alleged infringer was not capable of making the copy, which raises a question of fact that can preclude summary judgment. The seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that civil suits where at least $20 is at stake will go before a jury, which brings into the picture jury nullification of copyright technicalities such as the DMCA.
Of course, nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice; only your attorney can provide that.
Not out of the ordinary for NOA (Score:3, Insightful)
Nintendo has traditionally been quite thorough in going after piracy and this crack down on emulation is nothing new. Their first breakthrough was discovering a multi-million dollar game piracy ring linked to the Taiwanese government during the NES heyday. Ever since, they have made piracy defense one of their top priorities. Through litigation, hardware design, and choice of media (cartridges vs. CDs with the N64) Nintendo reclaims all lost revenue it can.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it seems pretty reasonable for them to secure their market. Normally I would be aghast that Nintendo is threatening a form of emulation, something I hold dear. But they have a legal basis with this patent, so this is more than just strongarming from a big company (*cough* Sony vs. Bleem *cough*).
There were however some market tactics from Nintendo which I disapprove of such as inventory control. Back then NOA had so much clout, retailers that carried unlicensed Tengen games got a letter: "drop Tengen games or we pull our NES shipments". No license meant no royalty and no NOA quality-control to stop a crapflood of third-party games that destroyed the Atari VCS years before. At least it's good that Nintendo took Tengen to court and took care of matters legally in the end.
Re:Programmer, get thee to a lawyer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior art (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah, I see. So that leaves open a patent for a handhold emulator that can dynamically choose which platform to emulate based on the input file it was asked to load
I mean, seriously, how can you patent something that is a subset of something that is prior art?
Re:Prior art (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda like MAME, running on any portable device?
Or most of the SMS/GG emulators?
Or the GBA/GBC/GB emulators?
see your point, that most people have started ranting with no idea about what they should rant about, but... Prior art for this still most definitely exists.
Re:Nintendo, you fools! (Score:1, Insightful)
Why team up, and share the profits, when they can just file a patent, and keep any potential profits to themselves? That makes much more sense to me. It's also partially what they're doing.
Except for games rereleased on their handhelds.. you know, like, the mario brothers game for snes was rereleased on the GBA.
The games are their "property." They can do what they want with them, including keeping you from playing them
Typical Slashdot replies (Score:3, Insightful)
How is an emulator any different? If a company produces a GBA emulator for a Palm Pilot, even ignoring the fact that guaranteed the majority of it's users would be pirating the games for it (yes - they would, admit it), it's essentially a unlicensed gameboy compatible device.
This patent covers Nintendo against this happening, and is as such a very valid use of a patent, i.e. to protect their business interests from being ripped off by third parties.
Oh and no, I don't expect to be modded up BTW, being as I'm not towing the Slashdot party line of "oh my god, what about fair use?".
Re:Own a pencil? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fuck them (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is everyone so pissed? (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, this is no different than anything Microsoft or Sony has done.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not so much SNES emmulation (Score:4, Insightful)
Emmulating games which are out of print is fine, but games which are still shipping in mass quantities?
sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
I am torn. The free software nut in me wants these legal battles to go away. but the truth is that most or ALL of those games would never have been written for free. I love free software... I am not perfect... but nearly all of the software I use is free.
I can't forget however, that I am the guy that grew up with an NES controller in my hand. I have never been a kid that spent a TON of time on it. I was just as likely to go outside and play as I was to sit down and play nintendo. OTOH I have spent much of my more recent life studying computers and software, and I realize that I owe that to those years of playing good old copyrighted, proprietary, video games.
When I was a kid I didn't worry about making RMS cry. I was too busy trying to figure out what that guy in zelda meant when he said "Master using this And you can have it!". I certainly don't think it should be illegal to make an emulator, or rip your roms for you own use. I strongly believe I should be able to do anything I want with the hardware I own (unless it causes some problem in society, like the death of my neighbors from radiation exposure). This issue DOES illustrate however, what is in my opinion a grey area in the free software movement.
This is the only area where I still have reservations about which side of the fence I want to be on. When I think that great games like Contra wouldn't have been created without the proprietary game market... I feel that maybe us free software guys should be careful what we wish for. Sure there are great free games out now. Bzflag is a good example. But Go look up NES on ebay and think about how many THOUSANDS of console games are out there. I want all these legal troubles to be a thing of the past... but at the same time I DON'T want to hurt the market that created these games.
I just don't know what the answer is anymore.
Downloading ROMs != Making one (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally my ethics with emulation is that if the system is still available to be bought at most places then emulating it is very bad. Anything else I don't mind. Here's my reasoning. You probably would have to go through fifty hoops and pay out of the ass to get an old game that will probably be used so the company that made it isn't making any money off of you anyway. But with current games and consoles the companies haven't fully milked the games for their worth yet so emulation eats into their market, even if a large number of emulator players are downloading and playing ROMs because they can't afford the real game there's still some that are doing it to avoid paying any money. Since these are video games that take anywhere from 6 months to 3 years to make (when was the last time it took a musician 6 months to make an entire album?) for a a week , I'm more inclined to side with the "big bad" company rather than the emulators on this one.
Also, from what I can read (and I'm not a lawyer, of course) the patent is for "software implementation of a handheld video game hardware platform," which means to me that the emulation is for handheld hardware meant for gaming first and foremost. Don't go all "Nintendo's gone too far! They could possibly stop emulation of [blah] on [blah]!" because unless the first one reads "Game Boy" something, Nintendo probably couldn't give a shit. Nintendo's not SCO. Period.
Flame me away, whoo!
Re:Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Nintendo is not the government, and Nintendo manuals are not law books.
Re:Fsck them (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Fuck them (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, though again EULAs could be put forth to attack that position.
but that doesn't grant you any ownership interest in the software on that medium.
This is totally incorrect. You're failing to distinguish between a work as a whole, and a copy as a fixed medium embodying an individual instance of a work.
OBVIOUSLY the owner of a copy has rights pertaining to that copy. You are making the absurd argument that just because you buy a book doesn't mean you have the right to read the story printed in it. You're turning the limited nature of copyrights on its head as well; rights not exclusively granted to the copyright holder either don't exist or follow ordinary property law. Use is not an exclusive right, and thus follows ownership of the material object, just as with any material object.
Why would the UCC render a purported license inoperative? We've looked a fair amount at UCITA and UETA in my e-commerce class with respect to software licensing and it would seem to me that, at least UETA and ESIGN, having effect in most U.S. jurisdictions, emphasize that a license is not invalid merely because it is electronic. Maybe I don't understand your point.
I never mentioned electronic contracts, nor UETA, ESIGN, etc. UCITA is generally worth ignoring as it only exists in two jurisdictions, and several other states have anti-UCITA laws to keep them out.
The issue is this: when you buy something where, after the sale, further terms are proposed, are they binding?
If we treat UCC 2-204 to be controlling, then they probably are (though there must be an opportunity to reject and return per 2-606). OTOH, if we treat 2-207 as being controlling, then there is no obligation by nonmerchant purchasers to accept the additional terms; the original terms stand.
Personally, I'm on the 2-207 side, but this is by no means a resolved issue, and there've been court cases going all different ways on the subject. Plus of course, the UCC is in no small part concerned with protecting customers, and EULAs are nothing other than hostile towards customers. Frankly, I think they ought to be banned as a matter of contract law, as well as in copyright law.
Also, 117 does allow for copies to be "leased, sold, or otherwise transferred" which leads me to believe it would apply to copies of a software program that were licensed (the physical copy that is).
Wow. You didn't even finish reading the entire subsection.
That part of 117 says that if you have made additional copies, they have to follow the original if you no longer posess it. You can't sell an original copy and keep a backup.
I have no clue where you're reading in what you're talking about.
117 also only allows such extra copies to be made "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
Those are adaptation copies, not backup copies. 117 allows two different kinds of copies.
Plus of course, it just says "in conjunction with a machine." It doesn't specify. If Congress wanted to specify, they know how to do so. The proper judicial interpretation of this would be that the machine can be any kind of machine. Congress didn't care, and if that's wrong, can trivially correct it. But given how readily things change in the computer world, it's quite likely that they meant just that.
For example, your needlessly narrow reading would prohibit people from getting a computer that postdates the software. That's absurd -- it would mean I couldn't run a copy of Visicalc for the Apple II on the IIgs for no other reason than that the hardware would be newer than the software.
It would also prevent somewhat unavoidable emulation, such as the 68LC040 emulator on Power Macs. Whole different processor family, but thanks to that, it can keep up.
I think you need to seriously reread 117.
Re:nintendo suxors (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone complaining about fair use and backup copies, but lets be realistic. Very few of you out there have ever ripped a cartridge just to have a backup copy. If people were just making backup copies, Nintendo wouldn't be taking the actions they are taking. When you download a ROM and play it without buying the game, that is stealing. Don't lie to yourself, it's stealing, just like if you walked out of the store with the cartridge under your coat. If you actually like the games you play, you need to buy them or they will stop being made. This is basic economics; supply and demand. You cut off the demand, and they stop supplying. If you must pirate something, pirate an old NES ROM, or something outdated that no longer matters.
Re:Typical Slashdot replies (Score:2, Insightful)
So in other words, there are 100% legal ways for manufacturer B to produce hardware that runs software for manufacturer A's hardware. Otherwise, you'd be stuck buying Toyota gasoline, oil, windshield washer fluid,
Re:Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
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 $30 for a GBA port of a SNES game when you can download the original for free and play it on the Zodiac?
I'm sure the fact that Nintendo is now selling expensive collector editions of its old NES games for the GBA in Japan has nothing to do with this.... It's been huge a success so I suspect they are now looking at re-releasing other classics and are making sure emulation isn't going to spoil business.
Re:Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless Ninetndo makes it possible to restore and play your backed up game, you will have to use a third party device to play the game you payed for.
Re:Nintendo, you fools! (Score:3, Insightful)
as things stand currently they can sell all the old games as 'new' titles for gba, and that's pretty much what they've been doing. "ok, so you want to play arkanoid? hand over 30-40$ and here it is. what you say you already have bought it 3 times? well time to buy it again!".
as they(nintendo) are the only official source of carts there's no free(as in ones that would exist outside of hacker communities) versions of games like arkanoid that are trivial to write even.
Re:Fsck them (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Typical Slashdot replies (Score:3, Insightful)
Company B comes along and starts making printers which use Company A's cartridges.
Their patent on the Gameboy is for the technology they used for interpreting the code on a GB cartridge and providing an interactive gaming experience.
Their patent should not cover *all* technology used to interpret GB cartridge code and produce an interactive gaming experience.
I use WineX to run games designed for Windows on GNU/Linux, am I doing anything wrong? If not, how is this any different from your example?
Re:Fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
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: Backups (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do emulators fit in to this?
It's not a backup of the actual console, it's a piece of software that has been created to "emulate" pieces of hardware (which yes, does contain some software too).
So where does this fit into "fair use"?
From what I've read, this isn't about whether or not you can make a back up of the game (which makes no sense, since how are you going to play a backup without using something that the original game wasn't intended for?), it's about the actual emulators
Re:A valid arguement against fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nintendo KNOWS that emulation, in and of itself, is 100% LEGAL. They also know that in and of itself, dumping ROMs is also 100% LEGAL. The only thing that is illegal, is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material that one does not have license to distribute. If the copyright owner says yes, Nintendo has no say (of course, this only applies to third party games). If you code the ROM yourself, Nintendo has ABSOLUTELY no say.
They know how far they're overreaching. They just want to scare as many people as they can into thinking that they're right.
Nintendo makes great fucking games, but their lawyers are some of the worst bottomfeeders I've ever seen (outside of SCO, anyway).
Off base (Score:1, Insightful)
Which free emulators which satisfy the claims of the patent? You did RTFP, didn't you?
Yeah, competition often has that effect.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
This patent CAN'T be proper (Score:2, Insightful)
#2 - Emulation of a system on a less-powerful system has been around since people were programming Commodore 64 emulators that would run on a 286 or an Amiga.
#3 - They claim that frameskipping is something they invented. BULLSHIT. See the C64/Amiga emulators above, or any other emulator ever written.
#4 - The moving of an emulator from desktop to handheld system isn't anything new. Even if they somehow claim that prior art doesn't exist, handheld systems have forever had games and applications programmed for them, the porting of emulator applications is merely "logical next step" and CANNOT be patentable under patent regulations.
Fuck you, Nintendo.
Re:Fsck them (Score:5, Insightful)
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.