Bira Bira attacked by Atari.
Crackers
Well I'll be damned. Atari is threatening to sue The Official Bira Bira
website http://birabira.chaosmagic.com for trademark violation.
Crackers
(Well isn't that silly from hell!!!)
--
Ghastly's Ghastly Comic
http://ghastly.keenspace.com
stonic
Crackers <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Fbn88.17071$5K1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Crackers
"stonic" <scot...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:Hmn88.616$gp.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> What trademark?
They're pissed about the Bira Bira T-Shirt that says "My other computer is
an Atari 2600" and the one that says "My other computer is an Atari 7800".
Crackers
(This should be fun from hell!!!)
John
"Crackers" <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Fbn88.17071$5K1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
So atari has decided to piss off the classic gaming community.
Yes, that seems *very* wise.
Ben Collins
are they willing to talk?
-ben-
Impmon
keyboard with a hammer and typed:
>So atari has decided to piss off the classic gaming community.
>Yes, that seems *very* wise.
First they'd have to get past Judge that a 25 year old trademark is
still alive and kicking despite the fact the original company itself no
longer exists.
Next Atari would have to take on Sean Kelly for selling 2600 multicart
that has many copyrighted games and even sports trademarked image on the
label. I believe Hozer Video would be next as well.
There must be many more web site that are selling homemade Atari related
merchandises than just the Bira-Bira site.
Yeah right, Atari is afraid of losing *pennies* to something that isn't
exactly a big market at all. I think they'd end up paying more to court
than the suit's worth.
Rhindle The Red
What happened, exactly?
--
-Rhindle The Red
"...and there is Rhindle, the Red Dragon, who is the most ferocious of all."
"Impmon" <Imp...@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:dm846ugpd3fb4m3gq...@4ax.com...
Crackers
"Rhindle The Red" <N...@This.Time> wrote in message
news:a3t8pn$98m$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Sorry, I missed this thread.
>
> What happened, exactly?
So far all that has happened is that Cafepress.com has sent me an e-mail
telling me that Infogram is threatening to sue them and me with violation of
copyright and trademark for my "My other computer is an Atari 2600" and "My
other computer is an Atari 7800" T-shirts, etc. up on the Official Bira Bira
webpage ( http://birabira.chaosmagic.com ). Cafepress has given me two days
to prove my case to them and then they're going to close my store. Infogram
did a complete end run around me and went straight for Cafepress.com
realizing that Cafepress.com has more to lose than the new pope of a whacky
internet religion and would probably be more intimidated by the threat of a
lawsuit than I would be.
I find it rather petty that Infogram would come after me because I'm such
small potatoes (infact, not one single Atari Bira Bira T-shirt has been sold
yet). If they really wanted to get up in a piss over people using the name
Atari then why the hell arn't they trying to take on the bands "The Ataris"
and "Atari Teenage Riot"?
As for the validity of Infogram's case against me, it is highly unlikely
they would win in a Canadian court of law. I don't think there's any
"confusion of product" likelyhood and I'm not marketing products that
compete with Atari. Plus the Canadian constitution does grant me freedom of
speech and freedom of religion rights both of which apply in this case.
You know... I've had so many people threaten me with copyright/trademark
violation lawsuits in the past couple of years. The first was a threat of
copyright/trademark violation from a local musician with a band called
"Crackers" who wanted to sue me because my IRL nickname and stagename (I
make my living as a musician) is Crackers. I thoroughly decimated his case
before it ever got to court and he grudgingly gave up. More recent ones
involve lame-assed threats of legal retaliation against parodies printed in
my webcomic. All were completely baseless and evaporated on their own.
Infogram will probably succeed in this case simply because Cafepress.com are
the ones who control my store and I don't think they have the stomach to
stand up to Infogram even though Infogram's case is blatant barattry and is
highly unlikely to stand up in court. Had I complete control over the
printing of my T-shirts I'd be telling Infogram to go pound sand. If
Infogram really wanted to try to take me to court and squash my religious
and free speech rights they'd be welcome to try. In the end they'd be about
as successful as Mattel was when they tried to sue Aqua for
copyright/trademark violation with their Barbie Girl song. If Infogram
really wants to recieve the kind of negative publicity that Mattel got out
of their bogus lawsuit then I say "bring it on". It's not like it's going to
cost me a penny.
Crackers
(Let's go see Judge Judy from hell!!!)
Thomas Jentzsch
must make that case more public and perhaps start something like a
petition.
This must be stopped, else it will become the begin of the end of
classic gaming!
Lee K. Seitz
Crackers <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>So far all that has happened is that Cafepress.com has sent me an e-mail
>telling me that Infogram is threatening to sue them and me with violation of
>Infogram will probably succeed in this case simply because Cafepress.com are
If you're going to fight a lawsuit, you should at least get the suer's
name right. It's Infogrames. Or was your version of their name
supposed to be some kind of insult that went over my head?
--
Lee K. Seitz /"\
lks...@hiwaay.net \ /
http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/ X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML in e-mail and Usenet posts / \
stonic
"old" Atari is their willingness to sue - the major difference being the old
Atari almost always had a very good reason for their lawsuits.
Crackers <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ONn88.17109$5K1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Richard Hutnik
> "stonic" <scot...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:Hmn88.616$gp.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > What trademark?
>
> They're pissed about the Bira Bira T-Shirt that says "My other computer is
> an Atari 2600" and the one that says "My other computer is an Atari 7800".
>
>
> Crackers
> (This should be fun from hell!!!)
A way to skirt that is to make a shirt say, "My other computer is a
2600" and the other one say, "My other computer is a 7800". Those
who would get this joke would know what you meant and Atari COULDN'T
sue you, because you can't copyright a number. Anyhow, they are
idiots for doing that. You are advertising the license, which is good
business for them. Perhaps you could include an Infogrames logo on
the thing for them also.
Sheesh...
- Richard Hutnik
Richard Hutnik
> "stonic" <scot...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:Hmn88.616$gp.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > What trademark?
>
> They're pissed about the Bira Bira T-Shirt that says "My other computer is
> an Atari 2600" and the one that says "My other computer is an Atari 7800".
>
>
> Crackers
> (This should be fun from hell!!!)
Another idea is to run a t-shirt that says: "My other computer is
[censored by a large corporation threatening a lawsuit for mentioning
its name]".
- Richard :-)
PG
Gee, when I went down to the shore last year, just about every store
on the Wildwood boardwalk was selling Atari logo t-shirts. Copying
the Atari logo in this day and age is about as legally unsound as
tearing the tag off your mattress...
Crackers
"Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37bc9e37.02020...@posting.google.com...
> A way to skirt that is to make a shirt say, "My other computer is a
> 2600" and the other one say, "My other computer is a 7800". Those
> who would get this joke would know what you meant and Atari COULDN'T
> sue you, because you can't copyright a number. Anyhow, they are
> idiots for doing that. You are advertising the license, which is good
> business for them. Perhaps you could include an Infogrames logo on
> the thing for them also.
You can't copyright a word either. Their allegations that I'm violating
copyright with the word "Atari" are laughable and unfounded.
Furthermore as in the "Mattel vs. Aqua" case I'm not in violation of
Infogrames' trademarks since I am not using the word "Atari" to market
software, or hardware for which they have the trademarks registered, nor am
I making any use of the Atari Logo (or even font for that matter), nor is
there any risk of product confusion. The T-shirt is being used to promote
the Church of Bira Bira. Infogrames has not registered the word "Atari"
(which is a real Japanese word) as a religious trademark.
I'm just hoping I can manage to keep Cafepress from yanking the store due to
these baseless allegations which are simply a blatant case of barratry on
the part of Infogrames.
If the store does get yanked I'll probably try to launch an e-mail campaign
against Infogrames.
I should get the ACLU on side to champion against what amounts to religious
persecution. ^_^
Crackers
(Help! Help! I'm being repressed from hell!!!)
Dane L. Galden
ignored it in the past for a specific period of time, sometimes they lose
the right to defend their mark.
Dane.
"Crackers" <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ONn88.17109$5K1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Dane L. Galden
to prevail. Also, did Atari ever trademark the names 2600 or 7800?
Dane.
"Crackers" <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:g9q88.26770$l37.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Christopher Paulin
their trademarked name.
Chris
Crackers wrote in message ...
Impmon
smashed the keyboard with a hammer and typed:
>I should get the ACLU on side to champion against what amounts to religious
>persecution. ^_^
>
>Crackers
>(Help! Help! I'm being repressed from hell!!!)
If it makes you feel better, I'm on your side. I didn't see any of the
Fuji logo on your shirts and I don't see much of a ground for their
claims.
(Friends helping friends from hell) ;)
--
To reply, replace "Digi.mon" with "tds.net" in my email address
JerryG
cybp...@hotmail.com wrote:
> As Atari becomes more and more of a pop culture icon along the lines
> of the 70s yellow smiley, merchandising like T-shirts and the like can
> become a very important revenue stream for Infogrames.
>
> Just recently they came out with those Atari cell phone covers, for
> instance.
>
> So in principle I don't think it's unreasonable for Atari to crack
> down (no pun intended) on others attempting to do the same.
>
> But this case is really too small-potato for them to be concerned, of
> course. They've got a lot of expensive legal work to do to stop all
> of this sort of thing.
It makes perfect sense! Infograms wants to make a point and set a legal
precident. So they choose the weakest kid on the block to pick on. If they
follow through on the case and win the precident is set. It wouldn't make
sense for them to pick on some corporation with millions of dollars and
dozens of lawyers to fight the suit! Think about it, if you were to have
one fight to become champion of the world, who would you choose to fight;
Mike Tyson or the skinny kid on the beach who is always getting sand
kicked in his face!
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
JerryG homepage:
http://www.atari2600.com/museum/GamMuseum.html
JerryG tradelist page:
http://www.atari2600.com/museum/JerryG%20Personal%20Things/JGfrtrade.html
JerryG wantlist page:
http://www.atari2600.com/museum/JerryG%20Personal%20Things/JGwantlist.html
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Rhindle The Red
try to stop cases of infringement as you become aware of them (no matter how
small) you can lose control of your copyright when a big one comes along.
So, if they let a little guy slide, when a massive bootlegging operation
starts selling T-shirts, the court could say that Infogrames abandoned their
rights by not going after the little guy.
--
-Rhindle The Red
"...and there is Rhindle, the Red Dragon, who is the most ferocious of all."
"Glenn Saunders" <cybp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j9c56ukg1h48sskkn...@4ax.com...
Rhindle The Red
Infogrames/Atari actually do license.
We've all seen the Atari t-shirts going around and most (if not all) are
legally licensed products. This would, in fact, make confusion with this
persons product likely, as people would think it was just another licensed
t-shirt.
--
-Rhindle The Red
"...and there is Rhindle, the Red Dragon, who is the most ferocious of all."
"Thomas Jentzsch" <tjen...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:4ad730fc.02020...@posting.google.com...
Rhindle The Red
trademark was abandoned in 1995. The copyright to the system would probably
still be in force, however. "Atari 7800" has no trademark record at all.
"Pong", however, is very much alive. "Vectrex" and "Intellivision" are
alive, but for other things unrelated to video games. "Coleco Vision" is
still alive and owned by Hasbro. In all these cases, there is probably
copyright coverage for the images of the systems in question
My suggestion is to remove the trademarked names and remove the images of
the systems. Then you are covered.
As for your other arguments (freedom of speech and religion): freedom of
speech does not mean you can violate copyright and trademark laws and are
you a legally recognized religion? If not, you've got no cover there.
Atari Teenage Riot and the Ataris don't use symbols or images of Atari
products. The word "Atari" can be trademarked separately by different
groups for different uses as long as it will not cause confusion with an
existing trademark. In the case of the rock bands, it's unlikely that
anyone would think they were affiliated with Atari. This is why there are
new trademarks for "Vectrex" and "Intellivision". They are for products so
different from the original that it is allowed. This does not apply to you,
as you are selling product directly competing (in however small a way) with
product that Infogrames sells or licenses.
--
-Rhindle The Red
"...and there is Rhindle, the Red Dragon, who is the most ferocious of all."
"Crackers" <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:g9q88.26770$l37.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Luis Vasquez
around with a legendary company...
Richard Hutnik
Hey, does your shirts feature an actual picture of the system? I was
under the impression from your site that it did. THAT could cause you
possible problems, particularly if it is next to the Bira Bira logo.
- Richard Hutnik
Rhindle The Red
use of the word "Atari" violated copyright?
--
-Rhindle The Red
"...and there is Rhindle, the Red Dragon, who is the most ferocious of all."
"Crackers" <bcrac...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:KFA88.18684$5K1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Xot
> products. The word "Atari" can be trademarked separately by different
> groups for different uses as long as it will not cause confusion with an
> existing trademark. In the case of the rock bands, it's unlikely that
> anyone would think they were affiliated with Atari. This is why there are
> new trademarks for "Vectrex" and "Intellivision". They are for products so
> different from the original that it is allowed. This does not apply to you,
> as you are selling product directly competing (in however small a way) with
> product that Infogrames sells or licenses.
>
I disagree with this point - First thing I thought of when I heard the
name "Atari Teenage Riot" was that the band sampled Atari 2600 sound
effects in their songs. That's about as far a stretch of competing
with Infogrames as Crackers' hardly-mass-marketed shirts are.
Perhaps we should flood Infogrames with displeased e-mails. Crackers
has done a hell of a lot more to keep Atari alive than Infogrames has.
---Xot
(Owns a copy of Rescue Bira Bira from hell!)
On Screen Chaos!
www.sover.net/~conjnxot
Xot
> precident. So they choose the weakest kid on the block to pick on. If they
> follow through on the case and win the precident is set. It wouldn't make
> sense for them to pick on some corporation with millions of dollars and
> dozens of lawyers to fight the suit! Think about it, if you were to have
> one fight to become champion of the world, who would you choose to fight;
> Mike Tyson or the skinny kid on the beach who is always getting sand
> kicked in his face!
>
Well, Tyson I could just have arrested. =)
Seriously, though, you don't suppose this is a first step in the door
kind of thing to start going after stuff like emulated ROMS and
fansites, do you?
Ugh.
Rhindle The Red
court of law, Atari Teenage Riot is a rock band. They don't use the Atari
Fuji or make video games. They are completely different in the eyes of the
law from "Atari", the video game company. That was my point. You can use a
name that someone else has trademarked if there is no similarity in the
items identified by the name and there will be no confusion. No matter how
much they sample Atari sounds (and I didn't think they did, but I don't
really know their music) you still wouldn't confuse them for Atari. But
using pictures of the Atari 2600 can easily lead to consumer confusion, and
therefore is (possibly) in violation.
And how many he makes (as long as they are not hand made) doesn't matter
either. He is in violation of copyright (if he is) by making *copies*. Get
it? If he hand draws a T-Shirt, he is *making* the T-Shirt. If he has a
printer make twenty T-Shirts, he is *copying* them. This violates
copyright. That's why Kinko's won't print a poster for you unless you use
no copyrighted material, or have permission to use it. Even a simple
photocopy violates copyright.
If he violates Trademark, that can be a whole different matter, and cannot
be taken lightly by any company, no matter how small the infringement.
Sorry that I'm not supportive of breaking copyright or trademark law, but
I'm not. I would like to see him be able to sell his T-shirts *legally*.
Is that so wrong?
--Rhindle The Red
"...and there is Rhindle, the Red Dragon, who is the most ferocious of all."
"Xot" <x...@atari.net> wrote in message
news:c1088d51.02020...@posting.google.com...
I've Got a Loverly Bunch of Coconuts
That would be well within their legal right under the law. Nintendo does it
all the time. Fansites, though? Well ... Paramount and Fox do it with Star
Trek and The Simpsons, respectively. Just because it's legally "right"
doesn't mean everyone has to like it or agree with it. I like fansites, and
it does seem like I is biting the hand that feeds it ...
Crackers
"Rhindle The Red" <N...@This.Time> wrote in message
> But they can copyright the image of their system. Did they actually say
the
> use of the word "Atari" violated copyright?
They can copyright an image of their system, but the system itself falls
under the heading of "useful item" and cannot be "copyrighted" under
Canadian or US law. As far as images go only images of Atari 2600s that they
themselves have created can they claim copyright to. My photo of my Atari
2600 is my copyright.
Basically what they said was I was guilty of selling unauthorized "Atari
Merchandise". I was was not, however selling any Atari merchandise. I was
selling Bira Bira merchandise. The letter looked like a form letter. I don't
even think they looked at the images just searched their stores for the
words "atari".
Crackers
(This is getting annoying from hell!!!)
Jeff Vavasour
> You can't copyright a word either. Their allegations that I'm violating
> copyright with the word "Atari" are laughable and unfounded.
Trademark, not copyright. Anyway, let's be fair, it's clear from the context
that it's the brand Atari being referenced, particularly when you write it in
combination with 2600 (as in "Atari 2600") and show a picture of an Atari 2600
console. It'd be kinda hard to swallow that the word Atari is just there by
coincidence.
> Furthermore as in the "Mattel vs. Aqua" case I'm not in violation of
> Infogrames' trademarks since I am not using the word "Atari" to market
> software, or hardware for which they have the trademarks registered, nor am
> I making any use of the Atari Logo (or even font for that matter), nor is
> there any risk of product confusion.
It's a T-shirt and the Atari brand is marketed on T-shirts, so there is
technically, I suppose, overlap and the potential for confusion.
While I agree they could be doing better things with their time, you gotta see
that, from their perspective, someone's potentially making a profit selling
unlicensed T-shirts featuring their brand. At the same time, there are other
T-shirt companies paying them for the licence. If they didn't defend their
trademark, then the more mainstream T-shirt companies could say, "well, why
are we paying this licence fee then?"
- Jeff
William Cassidy
> kind of thing to start going after stuff like emulated ROMS and
> fansites, do you?
I would say it's practically guaranteed. When Hasbro still owned the
Atari copyrights, they were constantly demanding that ROM sites remove
specific 2600/5200/7800/8bit/Arcade ROMs. It was of course their
right to do so, whether you agree that it was a "good idea" or not.
Infogrames seems more interested in reviving the Atari name than
Hasbro ever was, so I suspect it's only a matter of time.
I think sites like AtariAge and perhaps the cart makers like Sean and
Hozer Video may be hearing from Infogrames' legal department before
too long. And frankly, they don't have a legal leg to stand on,
unlike Crackers. ROMs are copyrighted -- you just can't deny it. So
if there's an Atari multi- or copy-cart you are thinking of picking
up, you might want to get it soon.
I don't know about shutting down the fansites though. Video games
advertising is so inextricably linked with the Internet that most game
companies realize the value of fansites (to create hype and a game
community), as long as the site doesn't distribute copyrighted
material like software. Some companies create official "fansites"
though, and shut down the non-authorized sites. Official fansites are
usually much crappier than real fan sites, unfortunately. Whether
Infogrames does this will depend on how much advertising money they're
willing to throw away.
- William
The Odyssey2 Homepage! - http://www.classicgaming.com/o2home
Smith-Perricone
> may be hearing from Infogrames' legal department before
> too long. And frankly, they don't have a legal leg to stand on,
> unlike Crackers. ROMs are copyrighted -- you just can't deny it.
The only upside that I could see from this would be the freeing up of some
bandwidth on AtariAge.com which might then allow for some good scans of the
actual "Atari Age" magazine. Don't get me wrong, AtariAge.com is great and
I visit it almost daily but who among us doesn't already have all of the
available rom images on our HDs?
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>I think sites like AtariAge and perhaps the cart makers like Sean and
>Hozer Video may be hearing from Infogrames' legal department before
>too long. And frankly, they don't have a legal leg to stand on,
>unlike Crackers. ROMs are copyrighted -- you just can't deny it. So
>if there's an Atari multi- or copy-cart you are thinking of picking
>up, you might want to get it soon.
Let's not get too panicky. That would really only apply to ROMs
Infogrames owned. That's a lot, but not all of them.
Aaron B.
--
"Oh,we are the Buddy Bears we always get along!
Each day we do a little dance and sing a little song!
If you ever disagree it means that you are wrong!
Oh, we are the Buddy Bears we always get along!"
-The Buddy Bears
Albert Yarusso - AtariAge
> The only upside that I could see from this would be the freeing up of some
> bandwidth on AtariAge.com which might then allow for some good scans of the
> actual "Atari Age" magazine. Don't get me wrong, AtariAge.com is great and
> I visit it almost daily but who among us doesn't already have all of the
> available rom images on our HDs?
The rom images, especially for the 2600, are miniscule in size
relative to everything else on the site. The site is running on a
dedicated server and we have tons of storage space available. It's
more a matter of having the time to put up new content like "Atari
Age" scans than a limit of server resources. Right now we're working
on a Lynx section, but after that's done we'll have time to address
some of the backlog, which includes putting complete scans of "Atari
Age" magazine online.
..Al
____________________________________________________________
Albert Yarusso (alb...@AtariAge.com)
AtariAge.com - Atari News, Rarity Guides, Discussion & More!
Xot
> > Seriously, though, you don't suppose this is a first step in the door
> > kind of thing to start going after stuff like emulated ROMS and
> > fansites, do you?
>
> I would say it's practically guaranteed. When Hasbro still owned the
> Atari copyrights, they were constantly demanding that ROM sites remove
> specific 2600/5200/7800/8bit/Arcade ROMs. It was of course their
> right to do so, whether you agree that it was a "good idea" or not.
> Infogrames seems more interested in reviving the Atari name than
> Hasbro ever was, so I suspect it's only a matter of time.
Sigh. Unless they plan on re-releasing the actual 2600 carts, this is
just ridiculous.
>
> I think sites like AtariAge and perhaps the cart makers like Sean and
> Hozer Video may be hearing from Infogrames' legal department before
> too long. And frankly, they don't have a legal leg to stand on,
> unlike Crackers. ROMs are copyrighted -- you just can't deny it. So
> if there's an Atari multi- or copy-cart you are thinking of picking
> up, you might want to get it soon.
Aren't "backups" authorized if you own the original? If I keep a stack
of carts in my closet, and only actually play the multi, that's
perfectly legal, I believe. And there certainly wasn't any software
license agreement like the ones there are today on the first several
generations of 2600 carts. That's another thing that gets to me- if
you read the software licenses now a days, you don't buy the software.
You buy the right to use it - some agreements go so far as to warn you
that the media that it's on is subject to recall by the software
owners.
>
> I don't know about shutting down the fansites though. Video games
> advertising is so inextricably linked with the Internet that most game
> companies realize the value of fansites (to create hype and a game
> community), as long as the site doesn't distribute copyrighted
> material like software. Some companies create official "fansites"
> though, and shut down the non-authorized sites. Official fansites are
> usually much crappier than real fan sites, unfortunately. Whether
> Infogrames does this will depend on how much advertising money they're
> willing to throw away.
And, as far as I'm concerned, Crackers's site is a fan site that
happens to offer a couple items of fan merchandise. I understand the
legal reasons Infogrames is going for him, I really do... but it seems
so... petty.
--Xot
Jeff Vavasour
> just ridiculous.
Why? The fraction of people who use these ROM images to repair actual 2600
carts is undoubtly small. The primary use would be in emulators, and given
the success of Atari Anniversary Edition from Infogrames, isn't it reasonably
that they would want to release emulations of these same games too? Thus, the
ROMs images facilitate illegal competition.
> Aren't "backups" authorized if you own the original?
The precedent has been set for software but not firmware (i.e. ROMs). People
assume that the software precedent extends to firmware but I don't believe
that assumption has been properly tested in court.
> And, as far as I'm concerned, Crackers's site is a fan site that
> happens to offer a couple items of fan merchandise. I understand the
> legal reasons Infogrames is going for him, I really do... but it seems
> so... petty.
I'd speculate that it's not him that's the problem, but the philosophy that if
you give an inch they take a mile. If he's let away with it, then what
happens to the person who takes it one step further, and the one that takes it
further after that? If trademarks aren't defended no matter how small the
scale, that sets a precedent that makes it harder later on.
- Jeff
Mike Dougherty
everyone makes it out to be.
1. Infogrames sells Atari t-shirts.
2. Crackers sells Atari t-shirts.
3. Crackers does not pay Infogrames for the right.
4. This could potentially cut into Infogrames' bottom-line.
5. Infogrames requests that Crackers cease and desist and if he does,
they will not seek legal remedy (ready, money out the wazoo -- or in
the case of Crackers, blood from a turnip).
As for ROMs
1. Some copyright owners still choose to enforce this. The request for
ROM removal is not new, nor will it ever go away. Usually it is
because the company owning the ROM plans to distribute it in some way
or wish to limit the distribution of a game to keep its value high.
2. Mulit-carts that have these ROMs where the copyright is in force
are subject to legal action. Those where the ROMs have been released
into the public domain (ie, Verctrex) do not.
3. Ironically, the comon games are those most likely to have their
copyright enforced because the companies that did the rarer games
typically no longer exist and no one tended to pick up those
copyrights.
4. Copycarts and ROM-hacks would most likely be treated in a manner
similar to multi-carts.
5. Homebrews of systems that can be easily programmed (ie,
Colecovision), that had multiple unlicensed game manufacturers (ie,
2600) or have had their software or encryption sets released into the
public domain (ie, Vectrex, Jaguar) would not be treatened.
6. Software projects for systems that have encryption systems that
still must be reverse engineered and/or required licenses will
continue to be problemmatic.
7. And ROMs for systems that still have support from their
manufaturers will continue to be "verboten."
Mike from Morgantown
Steve 'Flash' Juon
> Atari Teenage Riot and the Ataris don't use symbols or images of Atari
I clearly remember seeing Atari Teenage Riot t-shirts that had a clear
image of the Atari logo in white superimposed over a black background.
Maybe they were bootleg or unauthorized by the group, but they exist.
On a related note, while I was in New Orleans I bought a really nice
t-shirt with the PlayStation logo on it, but the word "Play" had been
substituted with the word "Porn." Legal? I don't know. Funny shit?
You bet. :) When the weather warms up I'm going to wear it all the time!
--
"Besides, what is beer but steak in a glass?" -> shockzilla(OK)
TO REPLY OR SEND MAIL please remove 'nospam'
* http://www.OHHLA.com - "Lyrics to Go"
* http://www.RapReviews.com - comprehensive, honest, REAL
Bust a rhyme! http://www.rhymerator.com
Matthew W. Miller
<gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 9 Feb 2002 18:14:24 -0800, x...@atari.net (Xot) sprachen:
>>you read the software licenses now a days, you don't buy the software.
>>You buy the right to use it
>their "contracts", and the judge threw it out of court. ...
>I believe those stupid "click Yes" contracts you get with software are
>bullshit too.
Alas, not always:
http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/uc/xml/00/08/21/000821ucshrink.xml
Thanks to the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA),
software companies here in the States are able to screw customers six
ways past Sunday and get away with it because their license 'agreements'
said so. You wouldn't happen to know of any rooms available for rent in
your country, would you? I've just about had it with this one.
--
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmi...@columbus.rr.com
Jason Data
That would be one reason to go after the people using the Atari name and
freely dispensing their software and products.
Crackers wrote:
> You can't copyright a word either. Their allegations that I'm violating
> copyright with the word "Atari" are laughable and unfounded.
Trademarks can be a single word. They cost is $250 to register.
Copyrights are $20. Do not confuse the two.
Reading most of these posts, it seems someone got the idea this was a
copyright issue... whereas a Trademark is the case.
> Furthermore as in the "Mattel vs. Aqua" case I'm not in violation of
> Infogrames' trademarks since I am not using the word "Atari" to market
> software, or hardware for which they have the trademarks registered, nor am
> I making any use of the Atari Logo (or even font for that matter), nor is
> there any risk of product confusion. The T-shirt is being used to promote
> the Church of Bira Bira. Infogrames has not registered the word "Atari"
> (which is a real Japanese word) as a religious trademark.
Product confusion may not be the issue. Product infringement might be.
Atari did not market T-Shirts?
What is interesting to know about Trademarks is that the right to
register is easy to establish. "The first party to use a mark in
commerce or files an application in the PTO has the ultimate right to
register."
"The right to use a mark is more difficult to determine." If someone
really questions it, "federal registration can provide significant
advantages to a party involved in a court proceeding." - from basic
facts about trademarks
If you have not sold anything, you PROBABLY have nothing to worry about.
That may not be infringement and can easily be corrected.
Good luck.
Crackers
"Jason Data" <Da...@Zentanyx.com> wrote in message
news:3C79C98B...@Zentanyx.com...
> If you have not sold anything, you PROBABLY have nothing to worry about.
> That may not be infringement and can easily be corrected.
I plead my case and successfully defended myself. The ordeal is over and the
Bira Bira stores are back up and Infogrames and the Church of Bira Bira are
living in peace and harmony now. Turned out to be just a misunderstanding.
Crackers
(All over from hell!!!!)