Arcade Kit Seller Applies for MAME Trademark [updated] 829
"Subject: I would hope that you post this to correct your misstated comments on slash dot
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:27:43 -0800
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions aside, they will realize that what we are saying about selling M.A.M.E. machines and the promise of getting 4,000 games for the average consumer can't possibly happen. Unlike most of you reading this, the average consumer looking to buy a machine for their game room has no idea how emulation works, or what is legal and illegal to do. To them, they read an advertisement on a website or on eBay and compare our product with 50 games or an ad for a machine that promises thousands of games, with the promise of instructions about how to obtain those games. Of course, in this skewed environment the average consumer would gravitate towards the thousands of games machine, not realizing that the software and the games are unlicensed and illegal to play. Most consumers who are pointed at a web site selling a 7 DVD set of ROMs have no idea that this is an act of piracy, they were simply instructed to do this by the person selling them their arcade cabinet, and told this is how you get the games.
Now that we have attempted to take legal recourse to prevent illegal competition, the same people, who steal the work of the M.A.M.E. authors, and then profit by selling machines that have no value without the pirated games being made available, turn around and cry foul when we call them on their ways. They run to the M.A.M.E. discussion forums and spread rumors about UltraCade suing the authors of M.A.M.E. or stealing the M.A.M.E. engine. I'm amazed at the response of the community, a community that is being whipped into action by the same people who are stealing and profiting from them and they're efforts. Many people have reacted with hate mail without even considering to look at the facts of the situation, or to realize who is spreading the rumors. They are being spread by those who wish to profit by selling unlicensed games.
The simple fact is that we are attempting to stop the tide of illegal arcade machines, and the promotion of unlicensed games. The M.A.M.E. platform, while a technical marvel, consists of many violations of copyrights and trademarks. The authors have always stated in the documentation that it was not put into the public domain to steal from the game authors or publishers, and they have always been hands off about how to obtain the ROMs. They have also clearly stated that it is not to be used for commercial gains. A majority of the publishers who own the copyrighted material have not paid much attention to this marketplace, as until recently it has not had a huge commercial impact. But now, there are websites and eBay sellers selling machines that directly compete with legitimate publishers like us who publish games from Capcom, Taito, Midway, Atari and others, or publishers like Namco that publish Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga or the Donkey Kong/Mario Bros. machines.
Of the many thousands of games that M.A.M.E. supports, only a minute fraction of them can legally be played on a M.A.M.E. equipped machine, and many can not. There are many fallacies about the legality of owning ROMs and how you can play the game. Many people claim that they have a board set and therefore they can download as many ROMs as they like. The law is very strict. You can transfer the image from the actual original ROM chips, which you legally own, to another piece of hardware, provided that you actually transfer the code from the chips. Just having a board sitting around, and saying I have the right to play it is not the case. Many people point to StarROMs and say that they can then sell the games with the ROMs installed. This is not the case either. StarROMs license prohibits the resale of the game licenses, and only the end user can purchase these ROM images, resellers can not. Our market is further plagued by the rash of 4 in 1, 9 in 1, 24 in 1 39 in 1 and the new 300 in 1 "multicade" boards. These boards come from Taiwan and Hong Kong and contain illegal copies of the ROMs of several games.
This is a complex case amongst companies that are trying to make it about UltraCade stealing something from the M.A.M.E. team. That is not what this is about. This is simply UltraCade Technologies and other publishers doing whatever it takes to protect our commercial interests and prevent other companies from stealing our market by capitalizing on unlicensed games and selling products that only have value when coupled with illegally obtained games. Our application towards a trademark is to simply prevent anyone from commercially marketing an illegal product, nothing more. There have been no lawsuits filed against any of the M.A.M.E. authors, and there have been no claims towards the open source engine, nor will there be We are simply protecting our commercial market, and nothing more. We have no interest in the hobby community. We have no interest in the open source project. Our goal is to simply stop the rampant piracy in our marketplace, and we will use every means at our disposal to do so.
I welcome open discussions about this situation, and will respond to legitimate communications or questions.
-David R. Foley
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
David R. Foley
UltraCade Technologies"
There's a discussion here. (Score:5, Informative)
David R Foley (Score:5, Informative)
TM Law (Score:3, Informative)
HOWEVER, since the MAME folks have been using said name and logo for years, they will be protected BY LAW from being sued by Foley for their continued usage of the marks. This is one way that these particular intellectual property laws protect you from cretins like him
I am not a trademark attorney, but I do IT in an IP firm. This is not legal advice, blah, blah, blah. These laws apply at least in both US and Australia.
Some helpful information for the kids... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure if anyone has any queries about who this gentlemen is, the Us Patent Office [uspto.gov] has the relevant details:
1. Foley, David R.
Address:
Foley, David R.
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
Legal Entity Type: Individual
Country of Citizenship: United States
Re:Geez, what a toughie... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:David R Foley (Score:5, Informative)
David R. Foley
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
And His Lawyer seems to be:
Lee Hagelshaw (Attorney of record)
LEE HAGELSHAW
LEE HAGELSHAW OF TECH LAW
350 TOWNSEND STREET SUITE 406
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
Phone Number: (415) 615-9300
Fax Number: (415) 615-9301
Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
Is this a troll? (Score:5, Informative)
Even if it is real, he has no hope of winning. Trademarks need not be registered to be protected, [cornell.edu] and I think there is more than enough evidence out there to prove conclusively that the logo belongs to the MAME developers.
False Declaration (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy ./ing (Score:2, Informative)
Let's slashdot his phoneline as well!
Attempted theft. Registration NOT required. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhh. (Score:3, Informative)
it is a new application, file an opposition (Score:4, Informative)
The key is getting your trademark application approved. The main impediment is from either already registed trademarks that are similar in name or from people that file oppositions. The process of filing an opposition is described on this USTPO page. [uspto.gov]
As someone who knows a little bit about trademarks I can say that the individual who filed this is really wasting their time -- the only way he could get and keep this trademark is if no one noticed he filed for it.
-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org/ben [exocortex.org]
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Informative)
His motivation for registering the trademark might not have as much to do with defrauding the MAME community as the Slashdot article speculates... this guy is well known for taking down eBay auctions for roms and MAME-supported hardware that compete with his. If he is awarded this trademark, this would give him even more leverage, since no one would be able use the official MAME logo on any auction site or web store, even if they were just selling their own homebrew arcade stick.
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:2, Informative)
There is a big but in this. It should be noted that he will not be able to sue people unless they use the EXACT same image. And I mean EXACT. He may still own the copywrite on it if he really did make it himself, and thus can still sue under that basis for people who use his exact image. But if you look around, most people are using stuff a little fancier, crisper, flashier with backgrounds behind or stylings around the word MAME, and all of those will stand as they are already, and he will not be able to do anything about it. It is the same reason why Microsoft has never wanted to have a true court case involving its trademarking of the word Windows, it has always managed to skirt the issue and or settle cases before rulings could get made to make the case go away before being striped of the TM. If it ever does actually make it to court, it would most likely be stripped in the current court system.
This is not a huge deal (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what will likely happen, assuming that neither side just gives up:
Eventually the mark will be published for opposition, unless the examiner at the PTO has a problem with it first. Since the PTO doesn't perform exhaustive searches (relying on the fact that people rarely invest the time and money to get a federal registration without themselves searching thoroughly and taking pains to avoid conflicts with others) it could easily get to this point. MAME will then have a brief window to file a notice of opposition, claiming that they were using the mark in commerce first, and that it is confusingly similar. This'll result in some discovery on both sides, and evidence and briefs being sumbitted to the TTAB, which will make a decision. I have a hard time seeing that MAME could lose this, but it costs money.
Meanwhile, the MAME folks should really be thinking about just getting a federal registration for their mark to make it easier to deter this sort of thing in the future, but again, it costs money for the initial registration, and for periodic affidavits and renewals that would need to be filed every so often for as long as they wanted to keep the federal registration.
Regarding the copyright issue, it's actually less clear. Ordinarily just because some piece of art is a logo, that doesn't make it uncopyrightable. However, you cannot copyright a name, and you cannot copyright mere variations of typography. Since the MAME logo is basically the stylized word 'MAME' it would have a tough time with copyright. A fancier logo would work better. Still, MAME could always try to register and see what happens. It also costs money, but not much.
As for people talking about prior art, that's patents. There's no such thing for trademark or copyright. Try again.
Read actual status of application (Score:4, Informative)
and copy paste this into an email to:
TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
-------
Regarding:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=seria
This person (David R Foley) is trying to trademark a copyrighted work. I cannot trademark the mona lisa, so I do not think I could copyright MAME, the name or the logo as they are copyright works of art (both the image and text).
For more information of the true owner, please visit:
http://www.mame.net/
Thank you
--------
Optionally include contact info:
David R. Foley
144 S. 3rd Street
Suite 626
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 685-5403
david@davidrfoley.com
There may be fines for fraudulent applications that break copyright laws. (image)
Different address and attournee email (Score:4, Informative)
Here is Foley second address:
1. Foley, David R.
Address:
Foley, David R.
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
Legal Entity Type: Individual
Country of Citizenship: United States
Correspondent
Lee Hagelshaw (Attorney of record)
LEE HAGELSHAW
LEE HAGELSHAW OF TECH LAW
350 TOWNSEND STREET SUITE 406
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
Phone Number: (415) 615-9300
Fax Number: (415) 615-9301
Some googling:
http://www.hagelshaw.com/
E-mail your questions or interest to law@hagelshaw.com
or call: Tel. 415.615-9300 . Fax. 415.615-9301.
Address: 350 Townsend Street, Suite 406, San Francisco, Ca 94107
Copy paste this email to
law@hagelshaw.com
Dear Mr Lee Hagelshaw,
Regarding a trademark application from a Mr David R Foley (see http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
Please let me know if you have any relationship with the aforementioned David R. Foley,
I trust that you will treat this matter with all the serious attention it deserves.
Warmest regards
Re:Uhh. (Score:2, Informative)
It's much more similar to you being a reseller of HP computers and applying for a trademark on their case design.
Re:Anyone remember the Linux trademark? (Score:2, Informative)
Nomenclature (Score:3, Informative)
In patents, it's called prior art. In trademarks, it's called prior use in commerce. Big whoop.
Re:Copyright should apply (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legal system (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Frell Zophar's Domain (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh, fuck them. (Score:3, Informative)
sorry. I couldn't even say that one with a straight face.
I'm not too worried. the image is already copyrighted by Oscar Controls [oscarcontrols.com], and has been in commercial use for ages, as MAMEworld.net uses it for all their banner advertising. not to mention all the people contacting the USPTO on the MAMEdev's behalf.
if I were a MAMEdev, I'd be contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] about this.
maybe a certain Site Admin [zophar.net] or two [vg-network.com] should start a campaign to email the USPTO to make sure this never goes through.
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Informative)
So what you're refering to is piracy from MAME's users. Should the MAME devteam be punished because of what others do with their hard work? Don't think so.
Foley responded to my email (Score:5, Informative)
_____________
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyo
Re:double standard..... (Score:5, Informative)
Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David Fol (Score:1, Informative)
Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will
try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our
marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are
making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems
that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the
customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are
not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator
or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and
not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did
work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games
for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the
arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In
1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade
project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to
classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from
several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible
Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and
built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was
licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed
technology from many of the communities programmers, paying them to use
their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of
the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a
market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game
arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the
market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade
product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing
fees to have the right to sell our games.
In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers
competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a
similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell
it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for
sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you
look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play
over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by
pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with
statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them
do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with
a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or
provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that
will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would
anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal
way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't
think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would
agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games
on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the
argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then
run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost
effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these
games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously
doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone
reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions
aside, they will realize that what we are saying about selling M.A
Ultracade's side of the story? (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf [ultracade.com]
February 21, 2005
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E. emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums. I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80's when I did work on an emulation project in college. In 1994, while working on games for companies like Sega and Williams, we developed an emulation of the arcade games Joust, Defender and Robotron that ran on a Sega Genesis. In 1996, we started the Lucky 8 project which turned into the UltraCade project. In 1998 we were one of the first companies to acquire the rights to classic arcade games from various publishers. We have licensed games from several manufacturers including Capcom, Jaleco, Taito, Stern, Incredible Technologies, Midway, Atari and more. We have started several projects and built prototypes for companies like Sega, based on technology that was licensed from authors from the emulation community. We have licensed technology from many of the community's programmers, paying them to use their code in our products and demonstrations. We have been the leader of the retro arcade movement, and have invested millions of dollars creating a market for retro games. UltraCade was the first successful multi-game arcade machine combining many of the old classics. We further enhanced the market by creating Arcade Legends, our consumer version of the UltraCade product. We have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to have the right to sell our games. In the past couple of years, there has been a huge wave of resellers competing with our UltraCade and Arcade Legends products. They build a similar style cabinet, install a PC in the machine, load M.A.M.E., and sell it for a very low price. Lower than we could ever offer our machines for sale. How? Quite Simple. They profit by stealing others work. If you look at the web sites, and read the eBay ads they offer machines that "Play over 4,000 Classic Arcade Games" They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do. The others that don't, they provide you with an instruction sheet with a link to several web sites where you can illegally download the ROMs, or provide you with the contact information for a CD/DVD duplication house that will sell you a set of ROMs for all 4,000 games for less than $200. Would anyone really buy this arcade machine if they knew that there was no legal way for them to run over 99% of the games that they were promised, I don't think so, and if you really look at this without emotion, I'm sure you would agree. These companies are simply selling the promise of thousands of games on a machine that can not possibly run them legally. I sometimes hear the argument, "well, I could go on eBay and buy up all of these games and then run it", and while plausible, it certainly would not be anywhere near cost effective, and again, if the customer knew that to legally operate these games, they have to spend thousands of dollars buying legal ROMs I seriously doubt that they would consider purchasing a M.A.M.E. machine. Anyone reading this email thread is an intelligent person, and if they put emotions aside, they
Their side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
They're not trying to sue MAME's authors (Score:2, Informative)
Have a read of the following statements from the Ultracade website:
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf [ultracade.com]
http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf [ultracade.com]
Sounds like it was either a false rumor or the bad publicity changed their attitute Ultraquick.
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf [ultracade.com]
David Foley provides a reasoning at least for his actions. While it may not be the correct way of going about it, it is how he plans to fight his "competitors" who use illegal software and piracy methods. I'm not saying that I'm in total agreement with him but I do see his side of things. Perhaps there is another way to deal with it.....?
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still has to go under review. (Score:5, Informative)
The constructive next step is to monitor the status of the application, and when it gets "published for opposition" then file an opposition [uspto.gov].
One convenient way to monitor the status of a pending US trademark application is by means of free software called Feathers [patents.com].
Translation (Score:5, Informative)
I have a business problem. People are selling pirated ROMS for less then I can sell them legally. My problems would go away if I took legal control of your logo and trademark. Can't you see this is a good thing, for me?
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Informative)
Very astute. This is effectively what UltraCade is doing by trying to trademark the term MAME.
Now, I am definitely not nearly as corporation-paranoid as even the average Slashdot member - I would usually take the company at face value in such statements. The problem here is that the stated goal has nothing to do with the stated action. Trademarking MAME will not help UltraCade bust competitors, for several reasons:
Hmm, a dodgy company looking to frustrate its own market for its own gain - could the emulation community be seeing the emergence of is own SCO?
As a final note, I'm curious whether this inaccurate attempt to monopolize a market by laying an inaccurate trademark claim might violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
(IAAL, by the way - the "intellectual property" kind.)
- David Stein
Re:Still has to go under review. (Score:3, Informative)
The opposition idea discussed below, while viable, would require you to have standing and money. Getting the examiner to refuse it with a gentle nudge to the relevant facts would require neither.
Fraud on the PTO (Score:3, Informative)
HOWEVER, on Ultracade's website, there is an open letter [ultracade.com] to the MAME community dated February 21, 2005 in which they write:
"We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos."
In other words, they are admittedly committing fraud on the Trademark Office.
Re:Thw /. community continues to amaze (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F (Score:5, Informative)
Star ROMs [starroms.com]
Our classic arcade ROM database contains over 25 games at prices as low as $2 per title!
StarROMs was established to provide an inexpensive and legal source for classic video games. These are the original games exactly as you played them in the arcade. Now you can legally download the ROM and play the game at home, as often as you like, with your favorite emulator!
I don't know anything about Arcade game ROMs. I found this after Googling for about 5 seconds. I'm sure there are many more ways of getting ROMs legally. So this invalidates UltraCade's argument in that forum post. I wish parent had posted the link to the forum thread as, I'm sure, there would have been many replies to UltraCade's post, stating my point.
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Informative)
What you really wanted was http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf [ultracade.com] which is a reaction to the reaction to your link.
Contents of the document follow:
So the whole problem could theoretically be solved by giving it to someone appropriate.
For those who are wondering about the MAME license [mame.net]:
Also interesting:
Confused and IAAL (Score:2, Informative)
While missappropriation and unfair competition can be enforced via the Trademark Act, filing a trademark application (in my opinion) for a mark that you do not lawfully own does nothing. It would in effect force the hand of the open source developers of MAME so that they would have to oppose the application. Trademark rights are acquired by use of the mark in commerce. The open source project known as MAME has likely been using the mark for way longer than Mr. Foley and his company. This doesn't even take into account the legal requirement in trademark law to pick a mark that you know or reasonably should know is not in use by another.
The issue really is with the third party vendors instructing buyers on where to obtain illegal ROMs. It is not with the MAME trademark itself. Now, could there by vicarious infringement issues? Maybe, but that involves the copyrights on the game code, NOT with the MAME trademark.
A lot of times, clients ask their general business counsel for legal advice on trademarks and frankly, a lot of lawyers are too arrogant to say they don't know. I don't know if that is what happened here, but unless I have misread something, there is NO basis for Mr. Foley's company filing a trademark application for MAME. That is just bad legal advice. His company is not the lawful owner and he knows that there is already a company (i.e. open source project) using the mark in commerce.
Morons like you continue to amaze (Score:3, Informative)
The guy wants the Trademark the Name MAME so he can extort money out of people for using the MAME logo:
An email correspondence with Mr David Foley posted here: http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,3
Message #1:
Comments: Your use of the MAME name and MAME logo is a violation of our registered trademark (USPTO Reg # 76627578). Rather than proceed with legal action against you and your company, and getting lawyers involved, we would like to resolve this directly. Please contact me by Wednsday to discuss. David R. Foley, CEO UltraCade Technologies.
My reply to message #1:
I remember looking up the Mame logo and it had a "dead" indicator
meaning it wasn't registered. I just print arcade marquees for enthusiasts'
cabinets. What information do you need from me, or what are you
requesting?
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #2:
It's not dead, and we own it. If you would like to pay us a royalty on the
graphics that you print, then we could probably come to some compromise.
My reply to message #2:
What type of fee structure are you considering?
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #3:
What do you sell them for, what is your cost of goods?
My reply to message #3:
I see that your status on the Mame logo as a trademark is only pending, and has not actually been granted. The USPTO Reg # you posted below clearly states that your new application is pending - how could you state that you own it? The US Patent and Trademark Office must not condone someone stating that they own a trademark when it is in this status. It can be said with certainty that ultracade is not the proprietor of the Mame logo. I'm certain that you're familiar with Nicola Salmoria. I don't think it would be wise to discuss royalties until you have actually been granted the trademark, wouldn't you agree? I will have to contact the attorney assigned to this trademark showing details of the Mame logo existing before ultracade along with your claim of ownership before considering any sort of royalty fees.
Regards,
Brent Bilis
Message #4:
I'm not looking for a royalty, but rather just an agreement that these will not be sold into commercial establishments. Our goal is to prevent companies from selling machines that are based on the MAME system, because these machines can not legally run 99% of the games on MAME.
Re:Copyrighted (Score:3, Informative)
> trademark if it's tied to someone else's
> copyrighted material unless that, too, is part
> of the agreement.
If the owner of the copyright blocks them from using the trademark it will lapse. Trademarks are not like copyrights. You must use them or lose them.
If what he is trying to register as a trademark is truly the MAME logo and if the MAME authors have been using it publically for years his application should be rejected. The MAME authors (and anyone else who has been using the logo) should file objections, attaching evidence of their use. Go to the USPTO Web site to learn how. You do not have to have a lawyer, though if you wish to spend the money to consult one you are likely to get better results.
The MAME authors might want to contact some of the Free Software support organizations for legal assistance.
Stealing is stealing nonetheless... (Score:1, Informative)
Open Letter to the Slashdot / MAME Community (Score:2, Informative)