Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Sony to Sue Connectix 160

Posted by justin++ from the anyone-else-see-it-coming? dept.
Millennium writes "By now you've all probably heard about Virtual Game Station, the Playstation emulator by Connectix for MacOS. Well, it appears Sony isn't too happy about it. They've filed for an injunction against Connectix, and are planning to sue for intellectual property rights violations. It looks, however, as though the law might not back Connectix up on this one. Either way, it looks as though this case could well bolster or destroy the emulation community, so it's one to follow. " Initially I sided with Connectix, but the more I thought about it, the more complex issue I realize it is. Let me know what you think. Update: It seems as though the IGN story is a rumour - my apologies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony to Sue Connectix More

Sony to Sue Connectix

Comments Filter:
  • Sony are probably concerned about some kind of intrusion on the Net Yaroze console. Seems they've already had problems on that front with folks putting out stuff for PCs--didn't I see some tools that would allow a user with GNU tools to write their own games and play them on a regular PSX?
  • I'm not sure that Sony has a chance here. I mean,
    how do you claim to own an API? I'm sort of
    shocked that the companies that produce games for
    the Playstation aren't upset at this -- this can
    only increase their potential market.

    Anyhow, I think this is bull; imagine if Bill
    Gates were to sue a company whose software allowed
    you to emulate Windows and run Windows
    applications on Linux (aka, shut down WINE through
    whatever means). This isn't that different; Sony
    enjoys a monopoly in the sense that if you want to
    play certain titles, you must own a playstation.

    ----

  • Posted by ElViento98:

    It's one thing for Joe Random guy to make an emulator, however it is quite another to make a product to sell. I'm all for free software, but people have to make their money somewhere.
  • But Windows isn't a MacOS emulator.

    Sure it is. Windows runs MacOS binaries every bit as well as its native binaries.
  • Um, just because they sell it for $129 (not $179), doesn't mean they're making money on it.

    Profit != Retail Price

    Profit = Retail Price - Numerouse Middleman Cuts - Cost of Goods. With the PSX, I'm almost sure that COGs > Retail Price alone. Sony LOSES money on the consoles.
  • How does preventing people from cloning a playstation help to advance the technology, and benefit consumers? It doesn't, in fact it does just the opposite. With intelluctual property, one group (the owners of the property) benefit. EVERYONE ELSE IN EXISTANCE IS deeply HARMED...

    ...AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU ARE A GREEDY SCUMBAG EVIL PIG FASCIST.

    Howdy. I'm A GREEDY SCUMBAG EVIL PIG FASCIST. I really don't give two shits about Playstation. Playstation is merely one of dozens of ways Sony Corp has at its disposal to separate people from their money and time. I'm not "deeply harmed" by their attempt to hoard their IP; I'm thoroughly unmoved.

    But having said that, and not having read the particulars of the case, I support Connectix in this if all they've done is reverse-engineer the thing. That's surely not the same thing as out-and-out theft of IP.

    Standard disclaimer: IANAL.

    --

  • The reason sony doesn't want to see this emu released has nothing to do with the immediate economic impact on playstation sales.

    The model that sony/nintendo/sega work under demands that the system be as closed as possible...

    The programming tools have to be bought from them.
    The distribution has to be handled through them.

    Anything that threatens this model by opening up the distribution of games or the ability for non-licencees to develop games will get lawyers thrown at it.

    They don't care if a few hackers throw some freeware project together... that's not a mass market threat... Connectix's product is. It could set a precident that sony doesn't want to deal with...

    PS. Those who counter that this practice is evil... ask yourself why you can buy a console cabable of generating near-pc quality graphics for less then a good video card...

    --
    OG
  • Anybody know how Connectix developed their emulator?

    This could be very interesting, considering the work by some to get rid of emulators for a lot of the old platforms.

  • dude, you're pretty fscking funny. ignorant, but pretty fscking funny. oh, and sign me up as a greedy scumbag evil pig, you immature twit.

    I can understand people having problems with software patents as there's a lot of duplication of code/effort out there, but hardware patents are a much different thing. You can patent a particular implementation of a hardware system, but you can't patent the generic system idea. Hence AMD, Cyrix, etc. If I develop an idea for how to do something in hardware, I'm gonna patent it. If someone copies my way of doing it, I'll go after them. If someone comes up with another way to do the same thing, more power to them.

    IP laws exist to prevent slimy cretins from getting rich off of other people's hardwork. It doesn't always work out quite that way, and there are some problems with it's current implementation, but IP law is not inherently evil in anyway.

    I'd think that if you ever patented something, you'd want to take advantage of the protections it affords you, but I highly doubt you'll ever even have an idea worth patenting.

    Incidentally, a lot of people have gotten rich off of slaughtering other people. It's the American way (tm).

  • Umm...isn't the the Playstation built from OTS HW plus some control ASICs?

  • Dude, that's pretty fscking funny! The idea that the other hunters would inherently take care of Uhg because he did them a favor! Hah! You obivously know nothing about human nature. Of course you apparently also lack the backbone to affix your name to your comments.

  • > For ages people got by without IP.

    For ages, it also was nigh impossible to cheaply and easily profit off of the work of others. Books could not be quickly and easily produced until the rise of the printing press. Music could not be copied until the rise of the record. The rise of the Industrial Revolution made the mass production of nearly all consumer goods possible. The Digital Age has made it possible to perfectly copy another's work, label it as one's own, and redistribute it with astonishing speed.

    I know this from personal experience. I was commisioned to produce graphics for a fantasy rpg along with a couple of other people. One of the other people producing graphics stole the graphics I produced and received credit and payment for the work I did. Because it was my word against his, and he wasn't going to fess up, I had no real way to receive restitution. The game never ended up shipping, but I still lost out. If I had some way of effectively watermarking the image and not having to worry about someone altering that watermark. Have you ever actually been involved in an IP-related dispute?

    > since many ideas children have tend to have
    > more merit than those of their older
    > counterparts;

    Interesting statement, considering the older counterparts can (and do) get away with taking credit for the works of younger coworkers and because of their reputation. But such is the nature of research.

    Fact is, the idea of eliminating IP law as we know it is supported almost exclusively by academians, who are used to the free exchange of ideas and whose motivations are other than monetary in nature. To suggest that someone would change his opinions if he wasn't in academia is an observation of human nature not an insult (unlike your assertion that I'm some FUD-spreading, unenlightened troll). The world isn't a meritocracy. The world is driven by money and power and greed. Your landlord (or perhaps bank, unless your among the lucky few that truly own their residence) could care less about your contributions to the Linux kernel if you can't make your monthly payments.

    The world is a greedy ugly place. Face it. Honesty won't get you very far when you're dealing with a liar.

  • Funny, I have yet to see anything of substance in your side of the argument. Just lots of ranting about greedy megacorps. Take your rose-colored glasses off. Maybe you'll see how easy it is for dishonest people to take advantage of honest people when there's nothing to back up the claims of the honest people. Without IP law, it's even easier for the rich and powerful to take advantage of the less fortunate, but more creative. Groups like ipnot.org [ipnot.org] operate on the false assumption that all people are inherently honest. However, when your assumptions fail to hold up, so to does your model fail.

  • ipnot.org argues that everyone will be honest. maybe you need to re-read parts of their manifesto.

    perhaps you forget that some people have no care about reputation. only honorable men operate by honorable principles. others will take advantage of every loophole possible. your argument seems to include the acceptance that people will be taken advantage of, and there's no reason to try to prevent it.

    I am willing to acknowledge problems in current copyright law, however I fail to see how the existence of copyright law mandates a heavy handed government presence in the lives of the citizens. If government interference is your main concern, there are far greater issues to worry about. However, nothing I have seen has yet to convince me that IP law must be destroyed.

  • Sony wants to be proprietary with their Playstation, but they realize such a strategy would have doomed them from the start (hence the SDKs and documentation available to anyone with a few hundred dollars). This is a prime example of old company thinking, where they've built an empire around a few little secrets, and it all waits to crumble when those secrets are revealed. In this case, some smart guys have reverse-engineered Sony's little secrets. They have figured out a puzzle, and Sony wants to sue them for it.

    I say, if you're in the proprietary game, you lose when you lose. Someone leak your secret? Did someone reverse-engineer your work? Too bad. You can't sanely tell your customers that by using your product they're now not allowed to be curious, or even have _similar_ ideas. You can't use law to force other bright, motivated people from looking at your work and trying to do better from their own fresh start. Sony built their house of cards, Connectix just brought in the winds.
  • Reverse engineering is NOT an IP theft. How do you think the whole thing of IBM-compatibles came about? Compaq reverse-engineered the BIOS which was the only non-off-the-shelf item to manufacture its first line of IBM-compatibles. I'm sure that IBM was pissed (I don't know if they actually sued), but look where we are now. I understand that SONY doesn't want to become the IBM of the gaming (PS) world, but such is life. As long there is no proof that actual proprietary code was stolen from SONY, they lose.

    Aleks
  • Crap. If Connectix was giving the emualtor away free you might have a point, but they are trying to make a buck of it and that's a big no-no. Connectix has in fact crossed the line here and deserves to be slapped down for it.
  • Of course, the CD drive in a Mac does not have a barcode reader to check for the authenticity of the CD being played, meaning (presumably) that it can play copied games without modifications. Sony might have a problem with that.
  • Too bad Sony didn't want to partner up with this one. As the original Connectix PA said, they lose money on the actual boxes, it's in the games that they make profit.


    So here they have this audience of ravenously hungry gamers who could go out and buy a bunch a games. Probably controllers to, if they had UDB versions of them.


    But no, like so many IP freakouts, this isn't about partnering, it's about protecting. And IP law is so screwed up that if you don't protect like a madman, you can set precedent to lose it. Ick.


    My prediction is that they'll at least win the injunction.

  • Actually, I would have meant Universal Database if anything. But yes, I meant USB.
  • OK, this was an emulator in hardware, and some of the chips were pretty standard (like the 6502 CPU), but it was an emulator nonetheless. Atari sued Coleco, of course, and lost. Hence, this set the precedent that emulators are legal. You can patent ASICs and board layouts. You can copyright the software (BIOS in the case of the PSX) but you can neither patent nor copyright the functionality. This was all settled a long time ago. Only lawyers stand to gain anything from this action.

    This is what also protects WINE, SoftPC, MAME (the emulator, not the ROMs), Linux (a UNIX clone, ne?)
  • You do not have to own a Sony Playstation to play the games. All you need is some technology that is capable of interpreting these games to reproduce their performance.

    There is no intellectual property violation if you independently create this technology from scratch.

    Things like machine instruction sets, programming languages, application interfaces, data formats
    and communication protocols are not intellectual property, only their implementations are.
  • It all goes with the engineering. There are only two cases in which Sony would be correct.

    If Connectix specifically signed an agreement with Sony saying they would not reverse engineer their product.

    If Connectix was given the Playstation API from Sony with Sony's explicit understanding that Connectix was using the API only to develop games.

    Otherwise, Connectix is well within its rights (so long as <FASCIST>WIPO</FASCIST> doesn't pass) to reverse engineer the design and develop their own (alternative) implementation. Where would we be if there wasn't an alternative (royalty free) implementation of Unix? ;)

  • Hello McFly!

    Sony don't make their money on the PSX!

    In fact the rumors are that Sony LOSE money on every PSX sold.

    Where they make bucketloads is the commision from EVERY game sold for the PSX!!!!

    Now, 800,000 imacs...

    They'll be buying PSX games! Sony get $$$$ from every game sold! To every VGS owner!

    And they don't have to lose money on the PlayStation for it :)

    Its really a win/win situation.

    Macs get games,
    Sony gets $$$

    What's to complain about?
  • Interestingly Connectix first trip down emulation lane was with a PC hardware emulator...

    Which is god damn perfect!

    And MS tried to decline them a windows license... and lost :)

    Now they have a PSX Hardware Emulator.

    A Hardware emulator emulates the hardware... NOT the API...

    I don't know if VGS is a hardware emulator... BUT VPC *IS*

    .

    THey also have a JavaVM they are working on. And this one is a REAL virtual machine :)

    Connectix know how to write virtual machines :)

    Their VPC emulator can run about 9 different PC oses!!!
  • Sony actually loses money on every PlayStation they sell. They make it up with the revenues from games. In other words, an emulator actually saves Sony money, as opposed to taking money away from it.

    Yes, I know about the burned CD crack. But you can get a mod chip for a "real" PSX for ten bucks (it actually does cost this; I know a Hotline site which sells them) and get the same effect. Piracy was an issue long before this came out, and will continue to be an issue even if the emulator is destroyed.
  • It takes a hell of a lot more power to emulate something than to do it natively. But if the machine you have is fast enough, emulation can be faster than the real thing. As an example, all Power Macs have emulators for the old 68000-based models. I can use these on my G3/300 and emulate a 68000-based Mac faster than any of 68K Mac ever made.

    It takes lots of computing power to do it, but emulation can be faster than the real thing.
  • Sony has the rights to defend there intellectual property rights, but Connectix should have the right to come up with an emulation scheme so long as they used a black box approach. This is the same suit that IBM tried when cloning took off against Phoenix technologies (I think it was Phoenix, its been a long long time), Phoenix won since they could prove that they didn't actually reverse engineer it nor use any proprietry IBM information. The basically used two groups of engineers, one with physical access to do operations on a computer with an IBM BIOS, and another that could only communicate with those engineers.

    This is obviously a bit different in that a working piece of hardware has been emulated on another piece of hardware but the same principles should apply.

    1) Some CPU core (MIPS?) was emulated in hardware, this has been done in the past and I haven't seen any suits brought about because of this. This wouldn't be Sony's fight anyway, it would be up to the owner of the CPU core.

    2) A variety of proprietary ASICs were emulated for things like 3D rendering, sound, memory access etc. Sony may have a case here, especially if they can prove that reverse engineering was applied. There may well also be patented algorithms involved.

    3) Software was emulated or reproduced as well. This is a touchy issue since if they can prove that any of the code was directly copied from the ROMS then Connectix is very much in trouble. I don't know how much program code is contained in PlayStation hardware v.s. the CD containing the game code, I don't have one of the beasts.

    4) Connectix did endeavour to adhere to all the Sony PlayStation CD restrictions, or so it would appear. For instance the machine will only play North American games and doesn't (as far as I know) support reading in CD image files. This is probably good for Connectix, since they can maintain that they haven't harmed Sony's financial position (all or almost all gaming consoles are sold for less than the hardware and licensing costs (things like RAMBUS cost money to use, Sony PlayStation uses this)) since consumers still have to buy or rent PlayStation CD's.

    Overall its a bit different than the problems facing MAME. The legal issues there are completely involved with the current license holders for the various games exposure to potential financial harm or watering down of copyright status and so on.

    I hope that Connectix makes out OK with this, even if they have to pay some small licensing fee to Sony. A loss here could put a lot of things in jeapordy such as any emulation technologies (Virtual PC, WINE etc.) It's really hard to say since due to the length of time it takes to become a judge very few are technically literate. Also since most come from a fairly similar background (very few people from poor or even lower middle class families ever become a judge) justice isn't always quite as blind as its supposed to be.
  • One reason Sony have for suing: there is probably no way a software emulator running on generic hardware can check for PlayStation copy protection (which consists of a low-level checksum anomaly). Even if there is, patching it to ignore protection/zoning would be easier than modchipping a PSX (especially after the WIPO act when the manufacture and sale of anti-protection hardware becomes restricted). Sony are obliged to protect the integrity of their copy protection and copyright-zoning scheme, which would ultimately affect licensing revenues and the willingness of IP owners to support the PSX format (recall how Hollywood threatened to boycott DVD unless draconian forms of copy protection were implemented).
  • Heres how things work in the console industry (from someone that actually writes games): Sony doesn't make money off of the console, it makes it off of the games. The profit off of a game console to sony isn't that much if you actually think of it, hardware costs a lot, and lets not forget the middle man. There is a large profit margin on games however, media doesnt cost much. Whats the point? To put out a game for the Playstation, you need to PAY Sony. This is where the ultimate revenue for the Playstation comes from. Whats the point? Sony isn't screwed by the Emulator, and I doubt Piracy will raise from this that much, as the Modchip+CDR Piracy method is already dominant. Oh yeah, and on a side note, Microsoft is NOTHING compared to Sony's evil empire.
  • They (Connectix) were selling VGS at Macworld. For only $50 too. I would have bought a copy but I only have a lowly 603e. Time to upgrade...
  • Well if you learned something by reading someone else's work (proprietary or not), then you really don't have basic concepts and ideas, you just have information. Just as I couldn't publish a work of Shakespeare and call it my own and try to make money off of it, I shouldn't be able to find out what some company is doing in their products and then use that information against their wills. To do otherwise would remove commercial incentive to do anything. You may like that, but as for me, I enjoy work; it tends to keep me fed.

    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • Well if Sony tried to claim that you are licensing the games on the CDs they'll lose right away. I've never seen a console game that has a license agreement on it. No license agreement = no license.

    "I wasn't copying it, I was just examining the grooves on this cool new coaster I paid $40 for."


    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • No. The only person who's having their rights "infringed" upon is Intel, AMD, and Cyrix, and there obviously is no crime for making an x86 compatible CPU.


    1. If their rights are infringed, why isn't it a crime?
    2. Aren't AMD and Cyrix criminals for making Intel-compatible chips (apparently Intel, from time to time, thinks so).
    3. Aren't every 80's non-IBM PC manufacturer criminals for using a bus that was reverse engineered from the IBM PC (and thus led to the "PC revolution")?
    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.

  • but IP law is not inherently evil in anyway.
    i disagree. IP is simply a government subsidy. it comes with its mega-corporate lobbiests (disney, microsoft, riaa, etc), and bureaucratic dimwits in symbiotic relationship. see ipnot [ipnot.org] for some discussion of why anyone who cares about freedom must oppose IP law.

    copyright is the source of the next war on drugs.

    information is free, the only question is, are you?
    __

  • so what if they are making money? someone else found a cheaper way to provide the same product, and now sony is sueing instead of competing.

    it's pathetic, but it's the natural result of intellectual property law. there is a better way: ipnot [ipnot.org]
    __

  • i am out of academia. i believe copyright is wrong. you are quick to critisize, but there is no substance to your posts. copyright cannot be justified except as a subsidy. are you for that?
    __
  • I think you grant socialism too much credit.
    i am a capitalist. i am against government redistribution of wealth. and that is why i oppose copyright: it is a government program to channel money from the people to those dubbed "innovative" and "creative" by government bureaucracies.

    you have a right to their code and ideas?
    that's not what i'm saying. i have no right to force them to tell me their ideas. i am saying that they have no right to prevent me from using what they claim are "their ideas", but i could have gotten the information from anywhere (maybe from them, maybe not, maybe indirectly. it doesn't matter). the fundamental principle at work is non-initiation of force. coypright violates that principle (and many others).
    how would you like me taking your doctor's thesis and changing your name to mine and then selling it as my own?
    if you succeed, i suppose i would have to be envious of your salsemanship :). but really, to sell a document and claim authorship sounds like fraud to me, you might want to avoid that. but really, feel free to ruin your own reputation.
    But there has, for a long time, been a realization that inventors and writers and artists need to be protected from others' fraud damaging them.
    copyright does not protect against fraud. and it depends on what you mean by "a long time". for a much longer time, there was no protection and invention flourished. think about the Renaissance.
    __
  • Copyright doesn't prevent fraud, but it does provide a means of obtaining restitution if fraud occurs.
    no. copyright violation has nothing to do with fraud. i could be in total violation of copyright and not commit any fraud at all. if i could make a copy and acknowledge the source, there is no fraud, but it still violates copyright.
    Copyright isn't a government redistribution of wealth. It's a way of insuring that someone is properly rewarded for their effort.
    you just contradicted yourself. you said it's not redistribution, and then you said it is but it's justified. i challenge you to justify it on pragmatic grounds. the burden is yours since it clearly violates principles of privacy and self-determination. remember to count the downside of criminalizing most of the population, invasions of privacy, selective enforcement, concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, etc.
    What if you put your name on code written by someone else ....
    you appear to be primarily concerned with plagerism, not the copying itself. that is a side issue.

    a lot of people are afraid that without copyright someone else will get rich of their idea. but argument applies to that other person too: as soon as they start to make money from an idea, other people will notice and copy it themselves. the result is that everyone gets a little rich from it, and those closest to the creation of the idea get the richest from it since they have a head start.


    __

  • Copyright violation is legally considered fraud.
    i think i'll conclude this thread with this insightful remark by "falathar". ;)
    __
  • My guesss at the reason Sony would be upset is simple. If they did not make it, they dont want anyone else too. Really, how could this hurt them? A bigger market for the games and all. Plus, anyone who would buy a playstation still will. I am not going to go buy a $1000 computer then buy software to play the games. Plus, controllers on computers IMOHO are not as good as consoule controllers.

    On the other hand, if Sony had thought of it first they would be promoting it as "the next great thing". Hell, I would not be suprised if they would bundle software with the real playstation.

    Elwood.

  • there off (Score:1)

    by eo ( 7103 )
    As a Playstation gamer, I should inform you that the Connectix VGS emulator is the same speed as the "real" thing. It has tight requirements though - only original-G3 PowerMacs with ATI video cards.
  • ...the person doesn't actually have to install the chip him/herself. There are people that will install it for another 20 bucks. My local video game rental people do it for 50 bucks including the MOD chip, which is still a bargain considering the money you'll save on the games.

    ---
  • OK... I can see emulators as not being illegal... but MAKING MONEY off of it doesn't seem A)ethical, B)likely to be legal.
  • Having never used a PlayStation and not knowing a great deal about them this comment probably is not authoritative. But according to one posted message [slashdot.org] the CD-ROMs themselves have the PlayStation OS on them, which would make Connectix's new emulator much like VirtualPC, which emulates an Intel chip and its surrounding motherboard.

    If this is the case it is basically impossible to make new games for the PlayStation without Sony's consent, since they won't work without the OS being on the disc, and copying the OS for the purpose of publishing a game would, obviously, be illegal.

  • Uh...chill...

    and uh...like...yah, chill.
  • IMHO the laws governing software/hardware protection should be worded such:

    1)inorder to be covered by copyright, a softwares source code must be available and archived by the government (or government appointed body). This being so no source code will ever be "lost".

    2a)to enforce your copyright on another platform you must have a port of it on said platform. i.e. if you don't want to make a Macintosh/Amiga port, you can not complain is someone emulates it(black box rules still apply) or writes a driver for your hardware.

    2b)to aid the porters, the gov. will supply before mentioned source/driver specs to aid the individuals in porting the program.

    well, this is the gist of what I would like. You give a commercial company 6 months to port or else, if it's the "or else" you have some setup where a group of hackers can go under NDA and port it to any system it's not on yet. The commercial company would still get royalties, but purely based on the same criteria that song writers get thier pay. Of course the ported code would also belong to the commercial company. But god-damnit, I would have X-Com on my mac.
  • Yes, I like this revision very much. The only problem I have with it is the clause concerning to the program's name. Being unable to use the name (assuming a company is being obstinant) would cause confusion. How about, you must hybridize the name, such as adding prefixes. Quicken 98 ported to amiga on PPC becomes AmigaPPC OpenPort Quicken 98 (*breath*) then subtitled a port of Intuit's Quicken 98. Plus a limitation on the payment garnered on the port via contract, to keep a company from forcing a port to charge more than what it cost on the original platform presently.
  • Now, what if Uhg showed all his friends fire. And they all take fire and ignore Uhg. Now Uhg is a pretty poor hunter but he is a good thinker (having 12 more neurons than any other Ooks in Crog valley). Well eventually Uhg dies hungry, ironically after trying to improve fire with black goo called Rhelm big woolies get cuaght in. You see, just as the greatest thing a person can do is allow free use of an invention, a being should be given by the world as much as he gives out. Otherwise why would he share anything if he gets nothing in return? This is real world, greed IS a factor, or your dead. I'm not saying you shouldn't allow everyone to use it, since you should. But also you should get compensated for what you created.

    On a side note, I've read that the inventor of the guillotine lost his head at his own device, hows that for irony.
  • I've heard it said that Sony actually losses money on Playstation consoles and that the real money comes from the games. IF that's true, I don't see how an emulator could hurt their business; in fact; it seems that an emulator could be a real benefit to the market.

    Oh, and Metal Gear Solid kicks ass.
  • One of the reasons that Connectix thought this
    wouldn't be a problem was because Sony loses money on each Playstation unit it sells. They're just sold to create a market for the games, on which Sony collects royalties. Therefore, having a Playstation emulator would only increase the market for which one could write games, bringing in more royalties to Sony. If this model is true, then it would seem that Sony is just being greedy, and is bargaining to get royalties from the Playstation emulator as well as the games.
  • >this can only increase their potential market.

    Yeah, I'm really surprised on this one. I was sure Sony wouldn't get bitchy about this but...hey...big companies are picky as hell about their "intellectual property".

    >imagine if Bill Gates were to sue a company whose >software allowed you to emulate Windows

    Ohh, like, Connectix, for instance? ;)
  • >i'd much rather have a playstation anyways; mac >would be too slow...

    Get a clue, big guy, Macs are powerful desktop computers that can easily emulate wimpy little consoles with 4 MB of RAM that sell for $150.
  • >you get a clue you dumbass the ANY emulation is >slower than the real mccoy

    Oh really? My Apple IIgs emulator runs a lot faster on my Mac. I run MAME as well, and most of the arcade games are much, much faster on my Mac than they were originally.

    It seems I - again - am the one with the clue, and you are just wasting everyone's time. Go read up and learn something about computers, you moron.
  • Do you see a problem with your logic? You heard that Connectix including the PlayStation ROM. Then you go on to say that Connectix is selling it. Since you are that easily convinced, take it from me: you should give me your computer.
  • I personally think that Sony might not have a chance with this suit. Mostly because Connectix did NOT use any actual Sony PSX ROM code in their emulation product.

    There's a big difference legally between using a copyrighted firmware for emulation and a "clean room" developed emulation that doesn't use Sony's firmware code (I believe that Connectix is using the latter).

    As others have pointed out here, Sony makes the majority of its money for the PlayStation from license fees on the games sold for this system. In fact, one of Sony's biggest revenue sources is 989 Studios, their own in-house group of game developers. The success of the NFL GameDay and NHL FaceOff series is a big source of pride for Sony, that's to be sure.

    In short, this could end up being a big PR disaster for Sony if they try to pursue this suit further.
  • Assuming the emulator is allowed to procede... There are some that fear that the release of Connectix' Sony Playstation emulator for the G3 Macs will dissuade game developers from creating games for the Mac market. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it will most likely spur game development. First of all, Connectix has already admitted that the emulation is not perfect. Even the fastest G3 Macs will experience the occasional frame skip as the emulator tries to keep up with what is happening in the game. Also, some bugs may crop up in the emulation that may affect the operation of the game itself. If anything, just like Connectix' Windows emulator, it is only a stopgap measure. Certainly, the presence of Virtual PC did not stop Microsoft from developing Office 98 for the Mac platform. The other reason why it won't dissuade game developers is that sales of the game emulator and the Playstation games themselves will act as an additional gauge to the size of the Mac gaming market. If Connectix reports great success with the emulator, and Playstation games sales spike, it sends a very clear message to the companies involved that there is money to be made. Money is the next reason why games for the MacOS won't stop coming. Although I don't have any hard evidence, in my thinking a game developer makes more money per unit from the computer versions vs. the Playstation versions of a game. This is simply deduced from the fact that Playstation products have to go through additional channels to be sold and the licensing fees and co marketing costs that go to Sony. With the addition of game sprockets in OS 8.6 code named "Veronica" and Apple promising OS level support for OpenGL, it will make porting and co developing games for both the Mac and PC platform incredibly easy. There is one final reason that I think that release of Mac games won't be affected and will pick up considerable steam - the buyers. Apparently, Sega has said the iMac is being sold to the very market it is targeting. If Sega knows this, then the other game producers know it too. It is Marketing 101 to piggyback your products with another that is successful in the very market you're trying to reach. Steve Jobs announcement of 800,000 iMacs sold wasn't just to make us feel good, it was a signal to game developers. If Apple sold that many iMacs in four and a half months, imagine what they will sell in an entire year, at lower prices, with better specs and more colors! In essence, Steve was telling the gaming world that the Mac consumer market will explode in 1999. The fuse was only lit in 1998. Now, where is that catalog with all those Playstation games in it? This opinion is from:

    osOpinion.com [osopinion.com]

  • I don't know anything about IP law, but if Connectix did not steal/buy code from Sony, then how can Sony sue? They might be able to make a scene about using the name PlayStation(tm) on the package or something, but as far as the actual software goes I don't see how they have anything to go with. If Sony wins (as I see it), then that means that all products that provide any support for other company's standards are in trouble. For example, since WordPerfect can import some Microsoft Word documents, does that mean Word Perfect is breaking the law? That's almost like game emulation, isn't it?
  • Bingo! If I were quicker on the posting, I might have said basically the same thing.

    Thomas Cronin
  • Never forget, disclaimers and licenses aren't worth the paper the're printed on if the law doesn't back up their claim.


    the're -- contraction of 'they are'
    their -- possesive; "It is their house"
    there -- "look over there"


    Thomas cronin
  • Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always thought that the economics of the Video Game Industry were similar to the Razor blade industry:

    i.e....Give a way the razors....charge a lot for the razor blades.

    Sony makes a -lot- of money from Royalties from every game that is sold for the playstation. They probably make more from the games then they do from the players themselves.

    Apple sold 800,000 imacs since August. I believe they have sold 1.6 million G3's since their introduction 16 months ago.

    That's 2.4 million computers capable of running Connectix's new emulator. That's a lot of new 'playstations' in homes around the world. All these new users are going to be buying playstation games...which will go directly to Sony's bottom-line.

    Sony should be applauding not suing Connectix.
  • Is it possible to download playstation ROMs?....
    ...They seem a bit large for my 56K modem
  • if some on can figure out a way to emulate something without stealing any sony code i believe that makes the connectix in the right....i believe but i'd much rather have a playstation anyways
    mac would be too slow...
  • you get a clue you dumbass the ANY emulation is slower than the real mccoy
  • Yeah, and open source, free software is something you can. And easily exploitable greed isn't hard to ignore at all.

    Give up. Advocate all you want, you'll never convince all of them, because they know that on a large scale, it won't work.
  • I agree. Sony makes a lot of money off game sales. The last I heard they actually lost money on the PlayStation console sales.
  • Really? And how, exactly, is this different from Connectix releasing a PC emulator? Isn't that violating the rights of other PC manufactuers?

    Instead of purchasing a PC and a Mac, one can simply purchase a speedy Mac, and run VirtualPC on it. Same thing with a Playstation and a desktop computer.

    And don't even start on the issue of pirating. Sure, a patch is d/lable that effectively destroys any location lockouts in VGS. However Connectix can simply do what Sony has done with the latest PSX models; namely, improve the lockouts with each succesive update, making it harder and harder to circumvent.

    I honestly think this emulator is a good thing for Sony, as long as Connectix can keep the lockouts in place. Heck, I've already bought two playstations and haven't pirated a single PSX game. I doubt I'll start pirating now that I can play them on my Mac as well...
  • I think Connectix is in the right here. Emulators are great and I know I would rather play a Playstation game on my 19" monitor rather than my 13" TV.

    If Sony does win, I hope the source gets "leaked."

    -Jeff
  • I have an iMac at home, and the Virtual GameStation runs like a champ. I can play every game expect Parappa and Bust a Groove (music synch isn't the best, but for any other game it works great.).

    I see a lot of problems for sony, who makes most of their money off of the licensing. Now that connectix has made an emulator, its only a matter of time before someone ports GCC to support it. Then we can all make playstation games, and not give any money to Sony. Also, there is already a crack that lets Virtual GameStation read burned cd's, so software piracy is already going to be an issue.

    Sounds like it's time for SOny to rush development of PlayStation II instead of worrying about this. There's not much they can do now... the software is already out there. I feel bad for Connectix because if they lose, they will lose bad. This could potential open up the playstation platform (which is probably a good thing... at least ONE platform out of all those consoles should be open).

    It's also made the Mac platform a great one for games. And a $1000 imac can pretty much rock as a playstation. Just wait until you're sitting next to me on a plane with your color gameboy, and I whip out my powerbook and play Einhander and Tekken 3. :)

    jack.
  • This isn't a matter of whether Sony is making money, it's not a matter of whether Sony did it first even, and it's not a matter of Connectix "stealing" someone else's idea. It's a matter of law. If Sony hold patents that were infringed (and I kinda doubt there are any in this case).

    The possible routes of attack on this are: Trademark infringement (does Connectix blur the line between Sony and Connectix?), Copyright infringement (Do they use any Sony code?), or patent infringement (Does Connectix use any machinery patented by Sony?).

    On the first, Conncectix makes no use of the Sony or Playstation name. On the second, I doubt they use any Sony code, since it's written for a PPC. On the third, there's no machinery at all. The only precedent I know of (granted, I'm no lawyer), is that, legally speaking, software makes a machine of the processor. But it can't possibly be the same machine as the Playstation because it's a different processor, although I suppose arguments could be made here.

    Personally, I think Sony should support the product. I'd like to see a Sony/Apple/Connectix triumvirate. That would produce some neat stuff. No stepped-on toes that way.

    -Tesla
  • No, only if the "proprietary information" was patented. You can reverse engineer all you like. It's perfectly legal. It probably just voids the warranty. Which I don't think was their concern. Obviously, if they broke into Sony and stole ROMS or something, that would be illegal, but that's not what happened. They obviously just reverse engineered the thing. The only available avenue of attack is to prove that the Connectix ware makes the same virtual machine as the Playstation itself, as far as I can see (though IANAL).

    I don't think that's gonna happen.

    -Tesla
  • It was cracked by the time I found a copy.

    -Tesla
  • Law is often about precedent. In about 2 minutes, I found these PSX emulators for Wintel:

    http://www.rollanet.org/~khigh/emulator.htm

    I don't see what Sony can stand on in this. What patent are they claiming has been infringed? Or are they just trying to microsoft away Connectix's money by tangling them in red tape?

    -Tesla
  • well anyway connectix says they were pretty sure getting sued by sony, but that it is a fact that sony actually *pay* for every playstation they sell, and that the money comes from the games only.... so they are not too afraid.
  • And in most civilized countries that license is nil and void exactly because it contains lots of nonsense like that...
  • As of today you shouldn't be talking about this as if it's a done deal. If you read the IGN page you'll see that they say, "Off the Record is IGNPSX's weekly outlet for gossip, rumors, and words on the street. The following is just that: rumor." A quick scan of Reuters will reveal that nothing of this nature has been reported as yet. I've heard (and this is my rumor, IGN, from one of the VGS demonstrators on the MWSF floor), that Connectix DID secure permission from Sony. (Maybe that was off the record, mm?) Besides, it's been reported that since Sony makes money on only the games (and not the PSX hardware, with which they lose money) the VGS would be a welcomed item. For now though we can only speculate.

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz

Close