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"
Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Funny)
We have a lame idea that borrows heavily from a former but robust lame idea.
We have an opportunity to litigate for revenue as oppose to actually, well , you know, EARNING IT.
Yes, everything seems to be in order here. Hand me the rubber stamp.
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:4, Funny)
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:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
- The proper grounds for evicting illegal manufacturers is copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. And that's very easy to do, since the "official" channels of Internet policing (courts and ISPs) are very pro-copyright - a simple email to the site hosting the content is enough to get some hosting yanked. (In fact, this is exactly how the MAME community has policed commercial sales of MAME [with ROMs] on eBay - it's a routine occurrence, and the "cease-and-desist" notice is efficient and effective.) Why anyone thinks trademark infringement would provide more leverage than copyright infringement is something of a mystery.
- The MAME trademark will only be effective in the U.S. The world isn't nearly as unified about the enforcement of trademark law as they are for copyright (and patent) law. Even trying to enforce the trademark in Canada is likely to be difficult.
- Any illegal-software-sales company that wants to avoid a trademark claim for using MAME can simply... uh... not use the MAME name in its adverts. Most n00b-idiot purchasers of such hardware don't know what "MAME" is, anyway. Their attention latches onto "4,000 arcade games in cabinet for $200!" - they don't know the term "MAME" anyway.
For these reasons, I must doubt UltraCade's stated reason for seeking a trademark on the term MAME. So what's really going on here? More likely, and reading between the lines here, UltraCade wants to block anyone else from selling a cabinet bearing the word "MAME" - even if it's solely a cabinet (with no emulation software of any kind embedded.) This is their true "competition," and it has nothing to do with copyright. There's nothing illegal about selling a hunk of wood and circuitry... unless, of course, there's a trademark issue. This is likely their goal.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:Everything is in order here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, civil procedure issues are probably moot, because the alleged infringers are not interested in having the legality of their "businesses" resolved. Any "company" that vends cabinets loaded with MAME and 4,000 ROMs is probably not going to appear in court. (If it came to that, MAME would have standing - and much stronger grounds - due to infringement of its own copyright.)
This is strictly a police issue: how can we (the legitimate emulation community, including [for the moment] UltraCade) get their auctions canceled, their webspace yanked, their PayPal accounts closed, etc.? And this has nothing to do with trademark law. In fact, bringing in this unrelated body of law only confuses the issue.
The UltraCade lawyers aren't particularly sneaky or clever. They gambled that they couldn't be effective any other way, and apparently ignored the risk of community/market backlash.
This highlights a key point: If UltraCade legitimately wanted to use the MAME trademark as it alleges, why didn't they bring this up with MAME before now? If I wanted to be a guardian angel and spend resources protecting your rights, I think I might mention that plan to you at some point. The post-hoc nature of this justification severely limits its credibility.
- David Stein
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Insightful)
And just in case it is less than clear, this -is- trademark fraud. To apply for a trademark, you have to fill out a form which includes statements to the effect of "we have no knowledge of anyone else using this trademark in the same field of business". In order to apply for this trademark, they have to lie on the form, which is fraud.
Keith
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the PDF is currently down, but I assume it says something similar to the email Foley sent to the Slashdot editors (which has been posted in the story since then). If this is true, then here is a summary of what he said:
1) Foley has licensed ROMs from many of the publishers.
2) Foley uses MAME and his licenses to offer gaming machines for sale.
3) Pirates do not have licensed ROMs from any of the publishers.
4) Pirates use MAME and the illegal ROMs to offer gaming machines for sale.
5) The Pirates' gaming machines are cheaper than Foley's and offer more games than Foley's.
6) To combat the Pirates' (illegal) competition, Foley is trademarking MAME.
While I can sympathize with Foley's concerns about Pirates freely distributing illegal ROMs, the simply fact of the matter is that he does NOT own MAME, has no affiliation to MAME, and has no right to take control of the MAME name, logo, or to trademark them. His application for the trademark is fraudulent. He indicates (in a vague fashion) that he does not intend to sue the creators of MAME, but then he goes on to say this:
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. (Bold emphasis mine.)
"... selling products that only have value when coupled with illegally obtained games." - Hold on there!!! So, if I want to sell a box loaded with MAME, you're going to come after me? Right now he seems to be targeting only those that provide "instructions" about how to get illegal ROMs. But as with everything else in the world
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:
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, this is /. You gotta know how to post these things:
1) Patent other peoples' inventions
2) Sue the inventor for not paying you.
3) ???
4) Profit!!!
You forgot one thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Copyrighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that enough reason to deny Ultracade the trademark? This is just like the guy that tried to steal the Linux trademark from Linus.
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Everything is in order here... (Score:3, Funny)
"Being an asshat" would be a patent. Patents cover a process, and have a mostly fixed timespan. Scott McNealy's patent on being an asshat has finally expired, and now the process of being an asshat has been added to the public domain.
Re:Uh... prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy needs a blanket party, if you know what I mean.
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.
Re:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, the crux of the issue is that you're landing a heavy boot square in the domain of the MAME authors.
You make allusion to them infringing on proprietary copyright and patents. And, in the great tradition of people quoting this, then fail to mention any of them. Please, if you can prove MAME is indeed infringing on Patent and Copyright, please inform us of your findings.
Downloading a ROM for free, yes, that is indeed copyright infringement (not stealing, as you represent your company, please be semantically correct).
But, it seems that, to prevent 'unfair' competition (people providing a harness that can play games on it, if someone purchases a ROM, for cheaper than you can provide), you then decide to put a claim on a name made by others.
While technically legal, you are, in spirit, no better than someone who infringes on other trademarks.
I've heard of MAME (stopped using it, as I couldn't find somewhere to legally purchase the ROMS, and no vendor seemed interested in that activity), but I've never heard of your products.
This absolutely reeks of a company with little market recognition seeking to acquire a name by subterfuge and bad practice.
I would say, if you have an issue with people selling these machines for less than you can produce legitimate ones, you should be working hand in hand with the MAME authors, and providing them with legal backup to chase the makers of these license infringing machines, giving them a stronger position, rather than trying to subvert the name and position.
Much as you may believe you're legally able to do this, I think your grasp of the aftereffects of doing this are lacking. Many emulation enthusiasts may avoid you on principle. I know I will.
I look upon you as a hypocrite. While justifying your move as one to prevent 'theft' of a piece of 'intellectual property' (name and code of a ROM), you 'steal' someone else's property (their name, which is the whole umbrella of their project, thus subverting the project itself).
Your 'plan' seems nothing more than "Someone's taking from what we want, so we'll take something from someone completely different.".
Work with the MAME group, and you may well get good results, if you treat them well.
Work against them, and one name change and a few months later, you'll have the same problem, with a massive PR problem on your hands.
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:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mirrored Forum Posting from MAME.NET by David F (Score:3, Insightful)
If the MAME licence indicates that it is indeed illegal to profit from selling arcade machines w
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.
There's a discussion here. (Score:5, Informative)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
And here I thought Ultracade wasn't evil (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Geez, what a toughie... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Geez, what a toughie... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still has to go under review. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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].
Re:Still has to go under review. (Score:5, Insightful)
Point is, that while the examiner can claim to grant the marque in good faith if he is unaware of any existance of any connection - the mail I (and by now many others) have sent makes it clear to the examiner that there is no basis in trademark regulation to allow this marque to be approved. This shifts the burden of proof back to the applicant, something he would be hard pressed to do.
Nomenclature (Score:3, Informative)
In patents, it's called prior art. In trademarks, it's called prior use in commerce. Big whoop.
Std. Knee-Jerk reaction comment... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a second (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait a second (Score:5, Funny)
Easy. Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about that; that does not make sense. Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, 'what does that have to do with this case?' Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense!
Re:Wait a second (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait a second (Score:3, Funny)
Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you imagine you could put some huge golden arches up in front of a restaurant and not get sued because they were not the exact mathematical curve of the McCarpet ones?
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think any court would conclude that consumers could tell an M from a W.
Re:Wait a second : He will probably get a TM...... (Score:4, Informative)
Defense fund? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure I'm not the only one who apprecates (immensely!) the efforts of MAME.. god knows I spent enough time in arcades.
Re:Defense fund? (Score:5, Funny)
There was -- but they took it down when it would only accept 0.25 at a time.
Re:Defense fund? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Uhh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the topic is trademark law. Trademarks are lost if the holder allows the name to become a generic term (like kleenex, for example). I'm not sure if you have to be the first person to use a term in a particular domain to trademark it, but I imagine you do. (The concept of "prior art" refers to patents only.)
Copyright should apply (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: if he succeeds in getting the trademark on Mame, he could end up with a registered logo that he's at risk of being sued for if he actually uses it in public.
(It'd almost be funny to see him being sued for using it in his first 'cease and decist' letter)
That having been said, sending the USPTO an email about this application with a well-chosen URL from the WayBack machine might torpedo this application (at least I hope so -- IANAL)
__________________
Btw: With SCOXE at risk of being delisted, Darl McBride may be looking for somewhere else to be a public puncing bag.
Re:Copyright should apply (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhh. (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, fuck them. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former ZD employee, I've seen this far too much in emulation, but it's never gone to this degree. This is a very evil way to get a point across, and I really hope, if this actually happens, that a few makers of these arcade games out and sue Ultracade for pulling this shit.
Why the hell would you take out the people who made your bread and butter? All that's going to happen is MAME is going to come out under a different name and be designed in such a way that it won't be compatible with Ultracade arcade boxes. You pull shit like this and alienate your users and fellow authors, you get burned. Ask Marat Fayzullin what I'm talking about.
Re: Oh, fuck them. (Score:3, Funny)
> You know, the biggest problem with emulation nowadays is ego, and apparently the egos of the Ultracade creators got too big.
Well, at least we know they take the concept of "emulation" seriously.
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 campa
David R Foley (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
Re:David R Foley (Score:5, Funny)
Die, you gravy sucking pig. Bastard.
Re:David R Foley (Score:3, Funny)
If you read it aloud and listen carefully, you can here Vogons screaming in agony.
What an asshole.
Re:David R Foley (Score:5, Funny)
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
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
What do they do for an encore, rape Donkey Kong Jr with an Atari controller?
The trade mark hasn't been approved yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
zyro out.
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.
Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
False Declaration (Score:5, Informative)
Attempted theft. Registration NOT required. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Attempted theft. Registration NOT required. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Anyone remember the Linux trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
What this shows us is that the fact that a product name exists and is in wide prior use makes absolutely no difference to the idiots at the USPTO. They can't be bothered to do real research. Their attitude is that they should approve everything and let things be sorted out in drawn out expensive court battles. The whole organization should be burned and razed.
One thing this reminded me of is that, in order to actually be assigned a trademark, you have to state under penalty of perjury that you are the owner and first user of the mark and that you are not aware of anyone else using this mark or name. The sleazy guy in this case (read his resume, which someone else linked to, the fact that he has worked in the music industry doesn't help his case much) appears to have submitted someone elses already copyrighted work in his submission. I'm wondering if he even had the intelligence to make his own copy of the image. Looking at the one on the page linked from this article, it's a bit hard to tell if he just yanked a mame image from somewhere and slapped a TM on it or just drew his own. Unfortunately, it looks like he did recreate it with colored pencil or markers and then scanned it. But maybe not. In any case, the original is obviously still copyright the original creator. If he submitted it and also claimed that he was not aware of anyone already using it, then he's perjured himself. Sadly, none of these sleezes seem to face criminal charges from that sort of thing anymore. It should make decent legal ammunition though if the USPTO does what I expect them to do and grants this trademark.
Re:Anyone remember the Linux trademark? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have seen a quote to that effect. That is really sick. I doubt Congress would step in because most congressmen are or were lawyers. Lawyers like to stay employed like the rest of us, but they also have powerful people in their profession to back that up with IMO unethical considerations.
Well, it's perfectly obvious what he's attempting (Score:5, Insightful)
People are starting to realize that he has a crap product that is exorbitantly expensive.
I have some strong ties in the arcade business (operation and distribution) as well as good friends in the emulation community.
When you can get a used DDR machine for less money than one of these things AND bring in more, why bother?
The Ultracade has been pushed on arcades by distributors because they get AMAZING deals on it and make LOTS of markup when they actually sell units to arcades. (A lot of distributors usually shy away from this sort of practice with most games because it's more profitable to "rent" a game out to an arcade and take a cut of the game intake. They do all the service of the machine (including coin emptying) so they can track an unmodified count and it's a good system. They can sell off old machines that aren't bringing in money and keep most of the money IN the business rather than moving through it.) The problem for the arcades is that they're pretty much grabbed by the balls. Their businesses are for the most part dying and old games still bring in enough draw to warrant keeping them around...but they can't devote all the space to multiple cabinets so they just get one of these puppies....
I wish our arcade industry was more like in Asia..where everyone gets the newest thing and you have multiple level/floor arcades and you just keep what brings in money. Times are tough over here though.
Anyway, this guy is just trying to solidify his business and since he has a crap business model, he's trying to bully out the competition while the opportunity to do so is still there. I hope people fight him tooth and nail and his company goes bankrupt.
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]
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.
Re:This is not a huge deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, thank you! The fact that people have them all confused and muddled in their minds is a testament to how harmful the term "Intellectual Property" is.
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
How about a termination on trademark claim.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So why not try to extend this rule to termination on ANY action against an author or contributor of the work, where the item at issue is part of the Open Source software product, including litigation due to the name of the original?
Without the specific restriction of the issue being PATENT infringement. Someone shouldn't be able to legally take open source stuff, sue to SHUT DOWN the original project, or try to supplant them in name, but then continue to use the product on the original license.
It's a huge Betrayal of trust, and it SHOULD result in termination of the evil company's rights, as a reasonable penalty, right?
er.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
This should be posted front page (Score:5, Insightful)
The news item: Obviously he is intending to profit from these arcade games. MAME never did that.
So I think he is no better than someone selling bootleg DVD's.
Last time I checked many of these companies who wrote these games are still about. They probably have thier own MAME cabinets to show clients the good old days.
I have a feeling this guy is in for some stick.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I must, must, must go RTFM now. This seems just beyond reason - even here in the US where things like this do happen.
I have to admit that this is confusing to me ... so, by the same token, could I build a soapbox derby racer, slap on, say, a Datsun logo (assuming that it wasn't trademarked, of course), and then proceded to go after the original logo and concept designers??
Wow.A Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
They have an email address posted on their web site: mailto:support@ultracade.com [mailto]
Someone else has posted personal info on the author of the site: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140128&
Oh my God, his name appears next to an EA logo on a race car: http://www.davidrfoley.com/Personal%20Web%20Page_
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
He's trying to stop theft with theft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any scenario where the trademark doesn't end up in the hands of the people who developed the software and created the name and logo is just asking for trouble down the road.
Re:Foley responded to my email (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess he's never heard of the "Right of First Sale". I couldn't find the license agreement on StarROM's site, but unless they were extremely clever, such a clause would likely not be legally enforcable (although, IANAL).
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...
I wonder what will happen if another company tries to start "legitimately" selling arcade machines? What guarantees do we have that UltraCade is only going to go after "bad nasty pirates"? What assurances do we have that this won't be used to create a monopoly? We have none. In fact, we have the opposite; if UltraCade succesfully trademarks MAME, then they MUST pursue any infringing use of that trademark, otherwise they risk loosing it. This means the authors of MAME will have to enter into some kind of legal agreement with UltraCade, or else stop using the MAME name.
Open Letter (Score:3, Insightful)
I read your comments at http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf. Respectfully sir, the trademark to MAME is not yours. Well reasoned good intentions do not change the basic fact that you are attempting to steal something as surely as the machine vendors you complain about.
If your goals are genuine, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. You already know the wrong way. The right way is to solicit a contract from the many authors of MAME that would enable you to hold the trademark in trust for the described purpose of taking action against lawbreaking commercial sellers as you describe.
Their side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Their side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
STFU, morons.
I will now spin this story to put me in the most positive light without discussing what I'm really doing or why.
We are trying to compete in the court room since we aren't doing so hot lately in the open market. And what do you expect? Our competitors are mean...and fat...and crooks. It's not fair!
These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.
We only care about how much money we can make. We couldn't care less about you bunch of losers sitting in your mothers' basements typing on your blogs and chatting with other adolescent dipshits.
I am awesome.
We can sell you a bunch of cool games! Sale ends soon! Buy today!
Did I mention I was awesome? Well, I am.
Even though I'm awesome, I'm also a bit of a sucker.
No Fair! Other people didn't play by our rules and now we can't make as much money! It's not fair, I tell you! They're STEALING! (Well, not really stealing...more like...infringing copyrights...but, that just doesn't have that same ring to it.)
What a giant load of... (Score:4, Insightful)
And what exactly will stealing a logo and name do to stop them? He can't copyright the code, so these guys would simply remove all reference to "MAME" from their code and continue to sell it. Totally irrelevant.
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.
Aside from the irritating use of "they're" (you wanted "their", buddy), what's whipping us into action (here we are, so easily lead astray. And I thought you said you were writing to an intelligent audience?) is the fact that you're trying to steal via copyright a work that has been used for years by another party. No chance this would hold up to a court challenge. Whether or not you plan to sue the authors of MAME is not the primary issue, as you would lose. The issue is theft.
As to the legality of ROMs (IANAL), according to the DMCA, I am entitled to own a backup copy of digital media that I own. If I am unable to create that backup for myself, I can have someone else generate it for me. So if you actually own the cart, then yes you can legally download a ROM image. True, not very cost-effective, but legal.
You can't solve your company's problems by misappropriating other people's property.
Completely Evaded the Subject (Score:4, Insightful)
My questions are these.
Did they legally obtain the rights the the logo and name before filling?
What on earth does going after illegal competitors have to do with getting trademark for a name and logo you didn't create? Did I miss something?
He might want to actually clarify the issue at hand *before* getting on the high horse.
Copyright office wants to help abandonware (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
How to be your own RIAA? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd certainly feel better about this if UltraCade were a non-profit organization or at least a representative body, and not just some company who's figured out an alternate revenue stream.
Re:Good for him (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy ./ing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a sec (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Wait a sec (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if we leave the information properly filed in THEIR system, they have no excuse to be unaware of it.
Sadly, it will probably never happen, but
Re:double standard..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me fill in a little of the picture. There is not one giant section of law called "IP Laws." You have 3 basic branches, copyright, patent, and trademark. You also have tradesecrets and a couple other things. Without copyright, the GNU license that allows Linux to only be distributed with access to source code would not be enforceable. There would be no requirement for anyone modifying and publishing a new Linux to publish their changes. Without copyright everything is essentially the BSD license, whi
Re:double standard..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why the hell was this guy modded down? (Score:3, Funny)
You mean you have a strong desire to look at, kiss and do other things which can't be mentioned with young nerds present to this guy?
Re:Frankly......IMHO...."steal away" (Score:4, Insightful)
You overlooked the original poster's "should" and "as intended by the framers" reference. When the United States was founded, IP concepts were only supposed to last for "limited times," originally about 21 years. Having copyright, trademarks, and patents last for indefinite periods of time was introduced roughly at the turn of the 20th Century as a side effect of the legal and economic fallout of the Industrial Revolution and the US Civil War. If the US was still treating IP as it was originally implemented, Disney, Coca-Cola, et al, would already be public domain.
The question at hand now (and is argued here at /. ad nauseum) is that if this indefinitely long "IP monopoly" state is really a good thing for a culture or not... One of the key reasons IP law was changed was to encourge R&D in companies since modern manufacturing and service expenses are dominated by large up-front fixed costs, as opposed to the older "artisan" system where labor and unit costs were a larger proportion of the equation. The debate is if this legal change has given large organizations (and their legal teams) too much power at the expense of smaller organizations and individuals.