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."
I thought.. ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Backup Copies (Score:2, Interesting)
Nalanthi
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Only for handhelds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nintendo, you fools! (Score:5, Interesting)
Programmer, get thee to a lawyer! (Score:5, Interesting)
- 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.
Debatable (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Does it Matter, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Only for handhelds? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re:Nintendo, you fools! (Score:2, Interesting)
Frankly, I use emulation to check out old games you can't find anymore, or to play games that never made it stateside. Remember "Illusion of Gaia" for the SNES. I loved that game. I loved the first game in that series, "Soul Blazer." The third game, "Terranigma," never made it here, but it was released in the UK. So, I can either buy a copy of the game on eBay and not get to play it because of NTSC/PAL incompatibility, or I can get a ROM, which I did.
Square/Enix can come after me if they want, but they're sorely mistaken if they think I'm depriving them of any sales.
What happened to fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So, is Sony in violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Own a pencil? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, it *hasn't* become acceptable. There's pretty much constant noise about it everywhere you look. What's missing of course is severe action. On the peaceable side of things, we still consume the products of these corporations. We could put them to death in a single business quarter if we would merely cease doing that.
On the other end of the spectrum we get into advocating violence. When someone makes a statement like the guy in the article, wherein EVERYONE's rights are threatened and diminished,
why does that guy live to see the next morning?
Sooner or later, they won't. Right now, we have too much to lose, so we don't tend to resort to violence. If life wasn't so damned cushy and pleasant for everybody, the upper eschelons wouldn't be so smug about how they treat the masses.
I don't think video game copyright control is going to be the catalyst for the revolution, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
A valid arguement against fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)
The very limited archival copy exception to copyright laws is set forth in 17 U.S.C. 117(a)(2), which specifies that the owner of a computer program can make a copy "for archival purposes only." Even if it were otherwise permitted, which it is not, playing a copy of a Nintendo game on the Zodiac system is not "archiving".
While generally I am amoung the first to annunciate my right to fair use, you have to admit that in this case there is a very legitamate and valid difference between media such as a cd and media on which a game is stored, and as such Nintendo makes a strong arguement. While one could do some waving of the hands and talk about hardware upgrades or software cd/dvd players, the plain and simple case in point here is that Nintendo software is meant to be extremely platform dependant. To reiterate this concept, to this day such software is distributed on a piece of plastic that would seem to have broken off a commadore 64.
I dont know...I enjoy emulation but generally (due to hardware limitations more then choice) get my kicks from the plethora of original nintendo, super nintendo, original gameboy, atari, playstation, and arcade emulators available. In retrospect there seems something fair-er about playing such games on under emulation, as many of these systems are no longer produced, and as such the emulator itself becomes - conceptually atleast - an archival copy.
Much wailing and gnashing of teeth... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Fuck them (Score:3, Interesting)
A statement in the back of a manual doesn't remove that right.
Re:Nintendo, you fools! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The strategy behind this (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Typical Slashdot replies (Score:5, Interesting)
(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:The DCMA violates the US constitution (Score:3, Interesting)
What was that tism song again??
The DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fsck them (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Emulation needs memory (Score:2, Interesting)
You could have a pentium emulator on a Z80
No. The L2 cache wouldn't even fit in the Z80's address space. "Turing completeness" does not apply in the real world because real computers have limited memory and thus qualify as Linear Bounded Automata rather than Turing machines.
Re:Fuck them (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Fsck them (Score:2, Interesting)
But when a massive corporation that only exists for profit decides that it's not fair for me to make personal use of the property I already bought, then I'll take a chance with my version being the better one.
Hint from the Parks case: Bullies only win in the short run.
TW
Just to clear it up (Score:2, Interesting)
For that matter, I wasn't aware that Nintendo had moved to an ARM processor for the GBA (and, by extension, the SP). I'd expected them to use some variant of the Dragonball processors popular in the earlier Palms for ease of code portability. Again, I'm dumb, though in my defense I'd been told by a (less-technical-than-me) hardcore-gamer friend that they had.
The lesson: Trust, but Verify. (And, I guess, keep your mouth shut unless you're damn sure you know what you're talking about.)
Anyone know offhand if the ARM chips use a similar instruction set to the 68K's, or the x86, or a choice of either, or neither? The ARM website doesn't really say.
Re:Fuck them (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyway, encryption and copy-protection are two different things; you cannot prevent copying by encryption, because you don't need to decrypt to make a copy -- it will be decrypted anyway at the reading stage. Prove it yourself by copying out a passage of text, in a language you don't understand, with pencil and paper.
DVD-CSS, the thing that started the whole encryption/copy-protection hoo-hah, was NEVER anything to do with copy-protection; it was about creating an illegal cartel of 'authorised' DVD and equipment manufacturers and 'locking out' anybody who didn't fit in with their exclusive little club. Fortunately, in accordance with all the laws of nature it has FAILED spectacularly, and its supporters will soon stop kicking and lie still.
Re:Fuck them (Score:3, Interesting)
handheld emulation (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I should have a lawyer haul around my toolbox for me.
And for those who still don't get it, software tools are just like hardware tools, but the lawyers are trying to make it illegal to do with software what people have been doing with hardware for thousands of years. So if you substitute "screwdriver" for whatever tech or digital tool and the issue suddenly doesn't sound criminal anymore, maybe it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.
Not necessarily defending Nintendo, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I see that the flames have already begun, and that is not an unexpected reaction when a big company threatens a tiny company for alleged infringement on some obscure patent (obscure to most of us normal people anyway).
But please, take a few minutes to follow the links in the story, and you will notice a couple of things:
First, notice how Nintendo is cracking down on a commercial product - this emulator is actually being sold. The company selling this emulator is making money by emulating Nintendo, and while I'm not quite decided on whether this is actually bad or not, I can actually understand where Nintendo is coming from here. He's making money instead of Nintendo - some people will buy the emulator instead of the GBA itself. It makes sense for Nintendo to do something about that. So they are cracking down on a commercial entity competing directly with them by offering something which emulates their product, not some hobbyist who doesn't make a dime from it. Good or bad? That's not up to me to decide.
But wait, there's more!
Very few comments here seem to mention the fact that this emulator isn't even available yet! That's right, the sales are actually pre-sales. People have been paying for promises of a delivery, and it seems that it is delayed already:
Now, we should probably give the author the benefit of the doubt, and I must admit that I do not know how well known or respected he is, but this seems to be a rather convenient time for the author of the emulator to have an excuse for delaying the product.I'm not saying that something fishy is going on here, but there's always that tiny possibility. If you had sold a product which you promised to deliver on a certain date and failed, wouldn't it be convenient to have something to blame, to be able to postpone the release and continue work on it until it is actually finished?
It would of course be silly of this guy to falsely accuse Nintendo of this, as Nintendo would probably be all over him, but people have done stupid things before, out of sheer desperation... Instead of losing face, people have been known to do rather silly things. And I don't have to mention SCO, do I? Not that they have any face left to lose...
But please people, take the time to have a quick look at the links in this story and make up your own minds. Maybe Nintendo is doing something really bad here, or maybe they aren't. Maybe there's more to this story than meets the eye.
Time will tell.
Re:Fuck them (Score:4, Interesting)
Where oh where does that lead us.
Re: Backups (Score:2, Interesting)
But, unlike tapes, CDs, DVDs which a backup can be played on the device it was intended for, a backup of the games can not.
Also, to those who keep crying "fair use", and think that you have the right to backup everything you own, and who play emulated games, how many of those games did you actually pay for?
I'm pretty sure that a good chuck of the people who play emulators, don't own the original game, and most likely have never even owned the console.
Re:Fuck them (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Debatable (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what country YOU live in, but here in the US is there is no question that it is perfectly legal.
There is no question that it is fair use to create a personal backup copy. There are no restrictions about format/storage-media for creating that backup. There is no question that you can store original and play the backup. It is actually smarter tostore the original and play the backup incase the one you're playing gets damaged and you have to preform the copying process multiple times. Even on digital media there's less chance for problems to creep in when you make multiple copies from the original than when you make serial copies of copies.
You can even "store" the CD copy at home and play the tape copy in the car, then when you get home you can "store" the tape copy in the car and play the CD copy. It's only if you play both copies at the same time that fair use becomes debatable.
-
ROMs aren't protected (Score:3, Interesting)
The old game shark for the NES (if I remember correctly) copied the game cartrage into a RAM cartrage and the codes you entered would alter the ram copy.
(Being ram the copy was gone the instant you turnned the NES off)
As I remember the NES cartrage was basicly off the shelf roms and some additional chips. Presumably the locking was in those chips. Once your able to replicate (or fake) the locking chips you can make full cartrages and the game shark proves it can be done.
Yup - greedy bastards (Score:2, Interesting)
Greedy bastards.
Re:Fair use (Score:2, Interesting)
True enough, but you ARE allowed to make a back-up copy of that book as a replacement in the event that the book deteriorates. Don't believe me? Check out your local college library. If it's of decent size and the library's been around a while, you'll find tons of copies of books, each with an explanatory note about the demise of the original and fair use.
In this case, using the "it's out of print it doesn't hurt anyone" argument just doesn't fly.
I actually make this same point myself in response to a previous post. You're preaching to the choir. The problem I have is Nintendo stating it's illegal to back-up your software when it's not, and then leaving you with no recourse in the event that the game no longer plays.
And most of my (and many others') NES carts still work, so if they're not *conveniently* working for you, then maybe the problem is your own mistreatment of them?
My horrible mistreatment of them, yes. Sitting in their dust jackets on the game rack I picked up at K-B on my shelf when I played it frequently; sitting in their dust jackets on the game rack I picked up at K-B in a box in a cool, dry closet now that I play it less frequently. And it's not that they don't work conveniently. I've spent upwards of an hour trying to get some of these carts to work in my deck, and on the off-chance I get anything other than a blue screen, it's filled with garbage characters.
The worst mistreatment of NES carts, in my opinion, was the NES deck itself. I bet carts subjected to the top-loading decks (remember those?) fared MUCH better than front-loaded ones.