Arcade Kit Seller Applies for MAME Trademark [updated]

An anonymous reader submits "Zophar's Domain is reporting that the CEO of commerical multi-arcade kit seller UltraCade has applied to trademark the name and logo of the ubiquitous open-source multi-arcade emulator MAME and is planning to sue MAME's authors." Update: 02/21 13:26 GMT by T : UltraCade Technologies CEO David R. Foley contacted Slashdot with an emailed explanation of the filing, reproduced below at his request. Update: 02/21 18:16 GMT by T : Please note that Foley's email specifically states that "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."

"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"

Wait a second

[Cliff.Braun]

Doesn't one have to own the trademark before something is created in its name in order to sue the creators of the something? Otherwise I'd be able to trademark the word bittorrent, and sue the creator. Could someone explain just how this is going to work to me?

Defense fund?

[xtal]

Is there a fund set up yet where we can donate to their legal defense?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who apprecates (immensely!) the efforts of MAME.. god knows I spent enough time in arcades.

Uhh.

[Boinger69]

Wait a second. Doesn't US Copyright law take precedent here. Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't all works copyrighted by default. Couldnt the obvious prior art holders sue ultracade for any usage of their name.

Re:Wait a sec

[E_elven]

Maybe the USPTO should have some sort of a public correspondence site where one could reference a TM or C or P by its number and e.g. point out that this same thing has been done for the past twenty years.

On the other hand, maybe with all the inevitable "M$ is t3H suX0r, dnut garnt n-A PATENTS 2 theys you a55hat!" comments isn't worth it.

Re:Defense fund?

[forkazoo]

MAME doesn't have the same level of widespread use as Xerox Machine, or Kleenex in the general population. But, a much greater percentage of the population blows their noses than use arcade emulators.

If we restrict the thought to only the group of people who would use any sort of arcade emulator, then yes, pretty much all of them are well aware of the name. What's more, nobody uses it in a general way. I've never heard anybody refer to SNES9x as "a type of MAME" or anything like that. I have only ever heard it used to refer specifically to the one and only MAME. Thus, I would suppose MAME has a quide readily defensible trademark, and ought to be able to sue the nostrils off anybody who tries to misappropriate their mark.

Re:False Declaration

[Anonymous Coward]

From 18 U.S.C. 1001:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Looks like trouble in the form of a countersuit, ne?

er..

[XO]

I hate being the voice of reason around here on Slashdot, but this one hit Fark late last night, and no one that i've found with any story on it whatsoever has actually put any weight towards "going to sue anyone" with it.

Has anyone dropped this guy an email saying "hey, that looks like the MAME logo that you just filed a trademark application for. Whatcha gonna do with it?"

Get a grip, people.

And here I thought Ultracade wasn't evil

[cgenman]

For a long time I was happy that Ultracade was attempting to bring back artwork and designs long forgotten, threatening to disappear into the void. They're the last refuge for such games as Strider and Mercs, classics that shouldn't be allowed to disappear from the legal scene in this world. They are hardcore gamers who appreciate the art.

But filing for a trademark on MAME? The project that they got their idea from? That's just low. I could see them trying to sue MAME out of existence for being illegal, promoting piracy, and cutting into the profits of a corporation. But trademark?

Ultracade. Evil? Check.

A Solution

[HunterZ]

Someone should start an e-mail campaign to tell these people that we won't stand for stupid asshole tactics like this.

They have an email address posted on their web site: mailto:[e-mail] [mailto]

Someone else has posted personal info on the author of the site: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140128&c id=11733396 [slashdot.org]

Oh my God, his name appears next to an EA logo on a race car: http://www.davidrfoley.com/Personal%20Web%20Page_f iles/image003.jpg [davidrfoley.com]

Re:Attempted theft. Registration NOT required.

[VGPowerlord]

Have you taken this [uspto.gov] into account when claiming your domain name as a trademark?

On another note, having read over the differences between Trademarks and Servicemarks [uspto.gov], I would think that a website would have a Servicemark rather than a Trademark, because of this piece of text: A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.

For example, Microsoft is a Servicemark, Windows is a Trademark. Google is likely both.

Re:Still has to go under review.

[passthecrackpipe]

Well, I sent the following email to the trademark office. I suggest others do the same (and No, I did not use my slashdot account name as the "From" identity, I used my real name, and my real jobtitle (CEO of services and software firm)

From:
Date: Feb 21, 2005 09:25 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Trademark Application 76627578

CC: Lee Hagelshaw, Attorney of Record, David Foley, Applicant

Dear sirs,

I write to you with respect to trademark application 76627578 - "MAME MULTIPLE ARCADE EMULATOR".

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I am longstanding user of a product that goes by the same name, sporting the same logo. I can, however, assure you that as far as I am aware, there is no affiliation between the original authors of MAME, and the individual or organisation attempting to trademark this name and logo.

You may wish to note that the marque in question appears to have been designed by an unrelated individual, and appears to have been under copyright since 2003. I refer you to http://www.oscarcontrols.com/gallery01.htm Please note the following limited usage statement on the quoted page:

"THE ABOVE DOWNLOADABLE IMAGES ARE PROVIDED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR PERSONAL PRINTING AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED NOR COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART NOR LOANED OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED TO ANY THIRD PARTY, NOR USED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM OSCAR CONTROLS."

Clearly, the quoted marque application seems to violate these terms of usage.

Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, said logo has been in use, for many years, in a commercial manner in many forms. First of all, I would like to inform you that at http://www.mamemarquees.com/ the marque itself is for sale in the form of stick-on marquees. mamemarquees.com is one of many sites selling a similar service. Moreover, many sites, such as http://www.mameworld.com rely in part on the MAME marque for advertisement revenue. In other words, there is widespread - although low-level - commercial use of the MAME marque, in logo as well as text form.

In closing, I would like to inform you that MAME is a so-called "Open Source" project, meaning that the project, the work performed by this project, and any arts, intellectual properties, and other related results of productive work has mainly been performed by individuals on a volunteer basis. These people volunteer their time, skills, and knowledge out of passion for what they do, and make their core work - The MAME application suite - available free of charge, in source code form, for all to use.

This is very similar to making the work available within the public domain, but not exactly, since Open Source Software typically places some obligations onto the user in terms of under what circumstances the work may be re-distributed. This is to protect the work from being "stolen". More information about open source software is available at http://www.opensource.org/ The precise license terms of the MAME body of work can be found here: http://www.mame.net/readme.html

I trust to have given you plenty of information to assist in your handling of the stated application, and am sure that in the face of the information provided to you by myself, and no doubt others, that the said application will be duly rejected. Should you require any adittional information or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards,

Plenty of mails like this will remove any excuse they would have in actually granting the trademark. Please be sure to include both the lawyer as well as the applicant in the mail.

MAME logo copyright?

[spiff42]

I just found this descission on the official MAME forums: http://www.mame.net/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showpost.pl ?Board=mamegeneral&Number=168521&page=&view=&mode= threaded&sb=#Post168521 [mame.net]

Although it suggests UltraCade is merely trying to limit the (indirect) for-profit distribution of ROMs (most of which would be a copyright violation), I really cannot see how this can be achieved by trademarking the MAME logo and name.

Taking a look at the MAME-site regarding the logo http://www.mame.net/features.html [mame.net] one would think that UltraCade cannot use the logo for this purpose: "The MAME logo was designed by chemical and cleaned up by Exodus3D... The usage is free for non-commercial purposes (such as websites), for any commercial purpose (includes use in magazines), please ask a permission from the webmaster.

I wonder if there is an agreement between the MAME developers and UltraCade about the trademarking. As such I agree that the people earning money on building a mame cabinet and selling it for profit are either commiting a crime, or at least suggesting the buyers to commit one. And apart from the copyright violation, this is in direct conflict with the MAME-license.

On the other hand, a lot of people built their own cabinets, and since the ROMs cannot be acquired legally, they too are committing a crime when downloading a romset. In some sense I would consider it a lesser crime since nobody is making money in this case. And since it is not possible to legally acquire these ROMs, I can't see any way of thinking about lost revenue.

But in my opinion this is just another example of a world that is not strictly black and white (or as I like to think of it: a scenario where a single bit is not enough to hold the needed information).

/Spiff

A copy of the email I just sent to David Foley

[Kaosaur]

I'm pretty sleep deprived, emotional about this issue, and incoherent...but here's a copy of what I just sent the guy:

Dear Mr. Foley,

I am writing to express my thoughts to you about your recent filing for Trademark over the MAME logo. I do not intend to flame you or insult you to explain how your actions look to someone from a different perspective than your own but with similar interests, background, and knowledge involving arcade games. Most of this email will be in direct response to the mame.pdf file which you have posted on your site as this is the only statement you have made and the sole bit of information which I will choose to make my response from.

I'll just explain where I'm coming from a little first. I am an arcade enthusiast. In my free time I buy/sell/distribute legitimate game boards and build home JAMMA rigs and full JAMMA cabinets for people. I do this as a hobby, not a business, but I have done it for slight profit in the past. I have never once built a "MAME cabinet", although I have put together the physical hardware for people in the past (sans-PC and extras in the past)...This would include a cabinet built from the standard types of MDF, t-molding, overlays, lights, speakers, marquees, control panels, lexan coverings, RGB monitors (and included the required special video card) and buttons (wired to a keyboard). I have never done more than that for anyone who wanted a MAME cabinet. I have never advertised my services on or done business through eBay and the cabinet building has only ever been done for personal friends, aquaintances or through referalls from distributor friends of mine who wanted to throw me some business because they couldn't be bothered themselves. I have also as a hobby been following the development of MAME over the years and believe that the software has some technical merits and deserves some interest and support. I will also offer that 99.9999% of MAME use is for completely illicit purposes. On the other hand, arcades are one of the loves of my life, and I plan on opening an arcade business (both gaming locations and parts distribution&repair) in the near future.

Here are the bitter facts though, and I may quote some of your statements from your statement.

First and foremost: "I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our marketplace" I do not believe that you understand the reality of your marketplace or are deliberately ignoring it. That is a harsh statement, I know, but I will explain in detail.

You say that you are making an effort to stamp out the commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems in which customers illegally obtain ROMs. Why? It's obvious: It's because this is your competitor, and their illegal actions are damaging to your business.
As a business, it is your responsibility to attempt to surpass your competition and keep them from getting an illegitimate edge on your business. The law is at your disposal for this. Yet you'll find, as you will in most cases where bootlegging (because that's what this really, truly is here) is involved, the authorities are not interested. This is even more aggrevating because eBay, where most of this business is taking place, is raking in the profits and couldn't be bothered and have a reputation for this attitude. So you have a number of legal options: You could go after the bootleggers. You could go after eBay. You would have a tough fight, but there are other corporate and private interests who have pooled their legal and monetary resources to do this and there ARE class action lawsuits against eBay and they ARE under investigation. You would be completely right in doing so as well. Rather than do that, you have decided to make claim to something that you have no legal right to, the MAME trademark, in an effort to either make a statement about these illegal practices, or give you legal leverage against these people in lawsuits. This does not justify your attempt at misuse of Trademark law. Your reco

Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM......

[R.Caley]

There's a restaurant near my home called Wally's. While I've never been there, it's pretty much impossible to miss as it has a big golden W in the exact same proportion as the McD's arch, but upside down.

I think any court would conclude that consumers could tell an M from a W.

Re:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F

[animaal]

Your account is interesting. I am sympathetic to your plight, and I would assume that many other people would be too.

However, I don't think that attempting to trademark "MAME" is the right response. I think the reality of the situation is that MAME (or something similar) will always be available to those who want it and are willing to find it. A trademarked name is never a problem. Just look at Linux - it can't be called UNIX, but that has not stopped its popularity. As you've said, the real problem is those who sell illegally copied roms for a profit. Surely a better solution would be for you and the MAME developers to cooperate - they are also against people profiting from MAME. It makes MAME look like a dodgy product, rather than an enthusiast's tool. With their MAME trademark and product, and your (presumably) more professional legal division, you could all win?

PDF version at ultracade

[AndroidCat]

here [ultracade.com]

Hmm... What about games by companies that are completely gone and no legal permission for ROM images can be obtained? With these people setting themselves up as the gatekeepers for MAME, those games would fall through the cracks. One of those games would be one I worked on, and that kind of pisses me off.

Re:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F

[dmaxwell]

Yes or no. No spin. Are you or are you not attempting to gain MAME trademarks?

Thw /. community continues to amaze

[rockhome]

The whole /. commnuity is a wonderful study in conditional ethics and double standards. People who sell machines that compete with Ultracade based on MAME rely on customers to obtain ILLEGAL copies of the ROMS in question to play the games, or load the ROMS illegally.

When is the /. community going to recognize that as much as they want to be free, some things aren't and ought to be obtained legally. I am sure a large number of this community works for software compaines that generate revenue through the sale of licenses. Would you still have a job if I could sell working, hacked liceneses for pennys on the dollar? No.

Wake up people, not everything is free and you have to deal with it.

Frankly......IMHO...."steal away"

[PortHaven]

Almost all of these games were made in the 80's. They are cultural icons and history. They should ALL have been put in public domain by now and would have if copyright laws had been kept as intended by the framers.

So frankly, I really have very little sympathy. Although, I respect the guy for actually having endeavored to legally bring back many of the classics.

This is unacceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure this guy has a problem with his competitors - certainly he has the moral high ground in selling legal product when his competitors seemingly do not - but stealing the MAME name from it's rightful owners is not the way to do this.

Suppose some new company comes along and sells MAME systems with only 100% legal ROMS. Taking the MAME name would allow him to shut down this new company as well as his illegal competition - and that's just plain wrong. He's clearly just attempting to get a monopoly on the MAME software - and that is VERY contrary to the OpenSource philosophy behind MAME.

If he wants to shut out the 'illegal ROM' competition, he needs to pursuade the lawful owners of the ROM copyrights sue the miscreants. If those owners choose not to do that (as is evidently the case) then that's their decision to make.

It's no business of anyone else to get involved.

But attempting to steal the MAME name from the very people who wrote the software that his business depends on is totally unacceptable. It's probably also a very stupid business decision - in the unlikely event that he succeeds, just how much support does he think he'll get from 'the project formally known as MAME'? There is certain to be a huge backlash from the community that'll do more damage to his business than those competitors ever did.

I don't think he'll succeed in getting the trademark though - this is essentially no different from that guy who tried to register the Linux trademark.

Re:Frankly......IMHO...."steal away"

[WebGangsta]

Almost all of these games were made in the 80's. They are cultural icons and history. They should ALL have been put in public domain by now

This doesn't sound right. Just because something is a 'cultural icon and/or history' doesn't mean that it should be placed in the public domain. As long as the originating company continues to use/update/protect their creation and follow proper trademark protection procedures, they retain the rights to it. (See Disney's on-going protection of Mickey Mouse for more information)

Using your logic, many things -- such as the Coca-Cola bottle shape, or the distinctive sound of a Harley motorcycle -- would have been public domain a long, long time ago. But they're not.

Re:Frankly......IMHO...."steal away"

[dvdeug]

Using your logic, many things -- such as the Coca-Cola bottle shape, or the distinctive sound of a Harley motorcycle -- would have been public domain a long, long time ago. But they're not.

The sound of a Harley is in the public domain; it has always been in the public domain. Their attempt to register it as a trademark fell through on being unable to clearly define it.

Copyright office wants to help abandonware

[EvilStein]

This is quite topical once again.

The text of the Copyright Office post is here [pbp.net] - Why Slashdot keeps rejecting this, who knows.

Anyway, a lot of these MAME games are practically "orphan-ware" anyway, and they want to address the insane copyrights that tie these games up and out of the public domain.

Public comment period, folks... copyright changes *could* happen!

Re:Or...

[wren337]

Actually I was thinking, if someone claims ownership of MAME (the trademark) he could sue them for unfair competition, or something. I'm guessing that as a community effort it would not be easy to "sue MAME" as things stand. By making someone claim ownership he could be trying to locate a responsible party, who he would then sic his lawyers on.

Re:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F

[David Rolfe]

Foley, as a liscensee can't enforce the copyrights of his liscensors.

It's an interesting dilemma.

If I sell a computer, built into a cabinet with a joystick, this is legal. Additionally, if I sell it with MAME included, this is legal.

- If I include ROMs it is illegal (it both violates copyright and the MAME liscense). Only the holders of the copyrights (Capcom, Namco, etc) and whoever enforces MAME's license can go after me.

- If I include instructions for how to illegally download or purchase ROMs, I am breaking the law. This is contributory infringent, or conspiracy to commit infringement (Something along those lines c.f. Napster). Only law enforcement can go after me here at the behest of compeitors and liscensors, but they can't reliably sue me.

- If I include the MAME logo on the cabinent, this is illegal (it violates the copyright on the graphic). The owner of the copyright can sue me.

- The inclusion of other marks and graphics on the cabinet that are not my own can also get me sued by trademark and copyright holders (The likeness of Ms. Pacman, the Pole Position logo, etc).

My questions are these:
- If I advertise that my product is capable of infringing copyright, is this legal?

I make a arcade cabinet with MAME inside and advertise it by saying "Capable of playing 4000 of the games you already own if you have hardware to copy ROMs from your original boards!!"

I can't say "Plays 4000 games you can download for free FROM THE INTERNET!!"

What's The Right Way for someone in this market to level the playing field?

(To the parent poster, "Work[ing] with the MAME group" doesn't seem like a sucessful tactic, as they can only (and already do) cover the sales of MAME with ROMs included. There's no vigilante way to enforce copyrights that you only license.)

(Pardon any typos, I didn't have time to proofread)

Just out of curiosity?

[soop]

Why do we accept these things, sure we bitch, write letters etc. But why doesn't anyone walk up to him in a bar and BitchSlap him? Viglante justice need not just be for crimes ... it needs to be for idiocy as well. Perhpas after he TM mame he can then live in a gated community. Do people figure that with enough income it need not matter if they are well liked?

I say let him try to do what he wants, but who says we have to conform? Time and time again we allow asshats to go through and do stupid things. But if we didn't allow them to it wouldn't happen. So if anybody sees Mr. David R. Foley (no relation to the kids in the hall) ... spit in his face or something similar ... heckle his children, park your car out side his house and blast your horn. Make him realize he's not very well liked. Great he builds a cabinet and now wants to make more money than god from it ... Ugh ... I hate these fools ... as we tread closer and closer to an orwellian society we need to take back our personal freedoms ... copywright, trademark be damned. Hell IBM could try and sue me for using the name IBM but get real .. is anyone going to mistake joe barstool for IBM ?

Bah ... Now I'm going to go beat up a patent holder ... Capitalism be damned ... Money should be made via productivity , not licensing, suing etc.

Arrrgh I love to rant ... thank god for gun control in canada.

Re:This is not a huge deal

[Qubit]

It was pretty foolish for the Ultracade guys to have filed for the mark since they clearly knew there was a prior user.

Yes it certainly was.

I don't know who David Foley is, but it sounds like he's been in the industry/community of working with emulators and ROMs for several years. He's obviously not stupid, but he seems to be playing stupid with this ridiculous application for a trademark.

There are two things going on here:

1) It appears that Mr. Foley is frustrated because he is a selling a commercial product that costs money while there is an open-source product that can be combined with "free" ROMs online. People do not seem to be worried about dowloading ROMs and so they seem to be choosing a free ($0) system over the one he produces. That's simple economics.

If the ROMs were unencumbered by copyright, then Mr. Foely would have no leg to stand on and nobody would listen to him. Some people might purchase his system (customer support, possibly a better product, etc...), but he wouldn't come out and bitch at us as he did today.

But many ROMs online are protected by copyright. It's just that the owners of those copyrights aren't stopping people from uploading/downloading those ROMs. The owners of the copyrights might be trying to protect their copyright -- or they might be happy to let people enjoy ancient games -- but either way, they aren't being completely successful right now.

But hold on -- IIRC, Mr. Foely doesn't own any ROMs, he just licenses them. And Mr. Foely isn't the police, is he? He's not an agent of the law who has been designated to go after people who infringe copyright, has he?

No. Mr. Foely is just a guy who is upset that people (may be) infringing copyright on something that he licensed. And I understand why he's upset. But he can't do anything because he isn't the owner of the copyright.

I think that Mr. Foely is smart enough to know that he is neither the owner nor the police, but he's just trying to use all this mumbo-jumbo to create confusion -- perhaps enough confusion to cover up his attempt to trademark the "MAME" logo...

2) The second thing that Mr. Foely is trying to do is trademark the MAME logo.

I'll be honest with you here and say that I have just given his letter, the original story, etc.. a cursory read and so I might get some facts a bit wrong. If that's the case, please correct me in a comment below.

Okay, so if I understand this correctly, a guy named David Foely is trying to get a trademark (for commercial use) on the name of a software product he didn't create, fund, or otherwise engender or support.

He is also trying to get a trademark on a logo of the same software product -- a piece of graphical artwork that is covered by copyright law[1] that he did not fund, create, etc...

Now I must concede that MAME, being an open-source project, may have put the MAME logo under some license that allows other people to use it. But even if they put that image in the public domain, they [MAME] has been using it as an icon of their project for years (?) and thus it is ridiculous for someone to come along and try to trademark it out from underneath them. Is it not?

And why, anyhow, would Mr. Foley be trademarking this name and image? He claims in his letter that the MAME developers don't want their software used for commercial purposes, and that is the reason for doing this, etc, etc.., but it sounds like he hasn't even asked them if they wanted the "help".

So to sum things up, it looks like Mr. Foely is trying to "help" other people. But from what I can tell, none of these people asked for the help. There are plenty of ways that Mr. Foley can help people, including donating to help fund MAME development or spending time volunteering in his community.

Poor Explanation

[BlizzyMadden]

He still doesn't explain what gives him the right to steal MAME. Because competitors illegally misuse MAME to undermine your own emulator doesn't give you the right to attack the makers of MAME and steal all their hard work. It sounds to me like he is just pissed that his corporate empire's emulator isn't as good as one made by a community of volunteers who do what they do for free because they smply love arcade machines.

Foley Thinks We Are St00pid

[kjs3]

"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."

Apparently, Mr. Foley thinks we're idiots. If he gets his application granted, then he could sue (or otherwise cause problems). And he will. He'll do it the minute he sees a business gain for doing so. It is flatly untrue to contend otherwise.

David R. Foley's update

[lewp]

He may be doing this to protect the poor, uneducated consumers. Honestly, he really might. Of course, I don't really buy this at all, since the class of consumer he talks about isn't going to buy a MAME machine anyway. I'm sure if he surveyed his customer base he'd see that instantly. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of people who understand emulation enough to even think about looking for an arcade emulator like the ones he sells both already know about MAME, and know about the legal issues surrounding game ROMs.

Even if we assume that he is being altruistic, and even if we assume that his potential customers don't know about the legal issues involved, this is the wrong way to go about dealing with it.

To Mr. Foley:

Educate people. Let the copyright holders for the games your competition is distributing illegally know about the infringement going on. Attempt to handle things constructively in a manner that actually makes things better rather than just attempting to find a way to sue your competition out of business, because that's all you're doing.

Ultimately, pirates aren't stealing your work, so getting rid of them isn't your job. I don't care if you worked on an emulation project in college or not. This is about making more money for David Foley, and that's it.

By the way, cost effective for the consumer or not, competitors do have the right (AFAIK) to sell MAME systems without games. If they're being misleading about it, notify the appropriate authorities. If they're providing the games, once again, notify the copyright holders so they can take action (at their discretion, maybe they just don't care anymore, which is their right, and sucks for you for licensing from them).

Just because you don't intend to attempt to slap the MAME folks with a lawsuit (for now, at least; whether you could actually do such a thing is for those more qualified than myself to say), doesn't make you a "good guy". I hate to see IBM ("good") use bullshit legal tactics against Microsoft ("bad") only slightly less than I hate to see the reverse. Both cases generally end up hurting the consumer -- and costing me some of my tax dollars -- anyway.

How can I Transfer Rom Images From Arcade Boards?

[luekj]

I am extremely interested in aquiring equipment to legally transfer rom images from arcade boards bought of of Ebay or other online retailers.

I cannot find any info on this on the net via google.

Can anyone help me find some information on how to buy equipment to transfer roms from the more popular board types (or even all board types) to a pc?

I'd probably make it my new hobby.

Highjack?

[crusher-1]

I could be way off base on this, it's a bit vague as to his "real" motives AFAICT. But, for arguments sake, let's say he does get a trademark for MAME, would he essentially be locking in the development for MAME for his own ends/profits? The issue is not about MAME, it's seems more about trying to get a market lock-in. Isn't this really about the fact that he tried to play it straight and paid for licensing for the roms and is now getting undercut in the market by his competitors that supply a platform and leave it up to the users to obtain the roms themsleves? It's about pirated wares and the unresolved issue around abandonware. It's sounds to me as if he really wants to have exclusive access/use of M.A.M.E. for his business and only his business.

His stance on pirated wares is a smoke screen IMHO. I really can't help but think "he" is the one trying to do and end-around around an end-around. He paid a lot of money to dev and market his product and now is losing money to competitors and his solution is to acquire some sort of exclusive rights to utilize this and lock-out competitors/potential future competitors under the guise of protection against pirateware.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it - and apparently others aren't buying it as well. Which is probably why he's pulling this move in the first place.

Hmmmm! His he related to Mr McBride in some fashion (second cousin, in-law, etc).

Ebay

[realityfighter]

I sent Ebay a nice little letter about this guy. If you've ever tried to communicate with Ebay to get an auction taken down, you know that they only let you request to have auctions cancelled if you're the actual copyright holder of something that's being pirated. Read on...


Dear Ebay:

Recently, a man named David Foley, CEO of an arcade machine maker called UltraCade, has requested that a number of Ebay auctions of arcade cabinets loaded with the Multi-Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) be taken down because they violate his copyrights.

As you know, your policy specifically states that requests of this kind should only be made by the copyright holder. Mr. Foley does not hold the copyright to any of the software his company sells - he is merely a liscensee. Nor does he hold the copyright to the MAME name or logo. Nor does he hold any patent on the design of arcade cabinets or the electronics inside.

Knowing this, I would closely examine any request he may make in the future to remove Ebay auctions on the grounds that they violate his "copyrights," since he holds none.

Sincerely yours,
---me---

It's not that I'm saying his claim about MAME only being used for illegal software isn't valid (although it isn't). I'm just saying that he doesn't have the right (by Ebay's rules) to restrict this theoretical copyright infringement when he doesn't own the copyright to anything involved in the auction. Hmm...maybe Ebay noticed, so now he's filing the MAME trademark to legitimize himself. What a plan!

{sigh}

[ScrewMaster]

I don't know who's right or wrong in this case, and honestly I don't care all that much either way, but I just wish someone would come up with a better term than "rampant piracy". I really hate that phrase and I hear it way too often.