What has an RC2014 and a Hoover got in common?

[Spencer Owen]

Warning: If you reply with the first funny answer that pops in to your mind, you risk being blocked

So, Hoover, along with Kleenex, Biro, Sellotape, Chapstick along with many other words are specific products belonging to a particular company, but have become the general catch-all word for that generic thing. That's why British people talk about doing the Hoovering, rather than the vacuuming. Or in the US you might need a Band-Aid if you cut yourself instead of a sticking plaster. I know the Aussies are fond of Glad-wrap to wrap their sandwiches instead of plastic film.

I am worried that a similar thing is happening with RC2014 too.  

RC2014 is a trademark under British law, belonging to RFC2795 Ltd (ie my company).  The only place to buy an RC2014 is from z80kits.com or from RFC2795 Ltd on Tindie (Or occasionally at an event I attend and sell directly).  The only RC2014 kits currently available are the;

• RC2014 Micro
• RC2014 Mini
• RC2014 Classic II
• RC2014 Pro
• RC2014 Zed
• RC2014 Zed Pro

And formerly there was the RC2014 Classic (also called The Full Monty), the RC2014 Plus and the RC2014 Mini After Dark.

All of these kits carry the RC2014 name and RC2014 logo, and are labelled as being RFC2795 Compliant.

Any other kit is NOT and RC2014.  The MSX kits from Dino are not an RC2014. The SC114, SC126 or any other SC system from Steve Cousins is not an RC2014. The Minstrel 4D from Tynemouth Software is not an RC2014. A machine built from PCBs by DTronix is not an RC2014.  An RC2040 by ExtKits is not an RC2014. A Z50 Bus based machine is not an RC2014

Just having a 40 pin header with a pinout compatible with the RC2014 does not make a machine an RC2014.  It just means it has some level of compatibility.  Some boards have a subset of that compatibility, some have extra features which go above and beyond the RC2014 spec.

I don't want to sound like I'm having a rant, or upset anybody.  All sellers seem to do a very good job of making the distinction in their listings. But I don't think it is doing anybody any favours by calling a non-RC2014 machine an RC2014, least of all to the creators of compatible machines.  

Spencer

[Alan Cox]

> I don't want to sound like I'm having a rant, or upset anybody. All sellers seem to do a very good job of making the distinction in their listings. But I don't think it is doing anybody any favours by calling a non-RC2014 machine an RC2014, least of all to the creators of compatible machines.

Actually that did remind me that I needed to rename the emulator
github as it was still called 'RC2014' and now has emulators for a
large number of other machines (including stuff totally unrelated to
the bus like Amstrad laptops)

It's now EmulatorKit

> I don't want to sound like I'm having a rant, or upset anybody.

Nope - having dealt with trademark law people I know it's important to
actually defend a mark.

Alan

[Steve Cousins]

Hi Spencer,

Firstly, I agree with your post.

I'm glad you acknowledge that those of us who make "designed for RC2014" products and claim a degree of "compatible with RC2014" try to be clear that our designs are "compatible" and not official RC2014 products, and are made as described on your website "Making your own modules – Designed for RC2014".

I often feel uncomfortable when members of the community comment on this forum about my designs as if they are "RC2014".

Several years ago I was an extremely regular contributor to the RC2014-Z80 group but when I drifted into offering "designed for RC2014" products I backed off and generally now only answer questions on the group so as not to appear to be promoting my designs. I don't create topics about my designs but I can't prevents others from doing these things.

For those who don't know: a few years ago there was much discussion on this forum about ways to extend the RC2014 specification which ultimately resulted in Spencer making a very clear statement that the RC2014 specification will not change:
https://groups.google.com/g/rc2014-z80/c/gWI5sVqUFyc/m/he4KsPi9DQAJ

It also led to a new google group being formed to discuss unofficial extensions to the RC2014 bus and indeed any other retro computers. This new group remains a good choice for those who want to discuss things that are not "RC2014-Z80" specific or go beyond the official RC2014 specification and philosophy.
The group is https://groups.google.com/g/retro-comp

I think over the years new users have joined the community and are unaware of this history and are less clear about the distinction between official RC2014 products and "designed for RC2014" products. Perhaps members who want to discuss "designed for RC2014" products should be encouraged to use the retro-comp forum so as not to confuse and complicate things, especially for new users.

As an aside, I actually think it is a real shame that the RC2014 specification will not be extended to provide a broader and perhaps longer lasting platform. By not extending it many users will move on and alternative systems created that will inevitably not be RC2014 compatible and may end up competing with RC2014.

Steve

[Tadeusz Pycio]

Of course, the rights to the brand are indisputable.

The only question that arises is, what do you call something that looks like an RC2014, meets the electrical and logical specifications of an RC2014, works like an RC2014?
Perhaps a suggestion could be made to use an alternative name, one that does not conflict with RC2014, so as not to undermine the contribution of the community who have devoted their time to developing this platform.

[Andrew Valencia]

I feel like I've seen "compatible with RC2014 hardware" and that's been clear enough.

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 21:44, Tadeusz Pycio <ta...@wp.pl> wrote:
> The only question that arises is, what do you call something that looks like an RC2014, meets the electrical and logical specifications of an RC2014, works like an RC2014?
> Perhaps a suggestion could be made to use an alternative name, one that does not conflict with RC2014, so as not to undermine the contribution of the community who have devoted their time to developing this platform.

For Fuzix and the emulators I've adopted the identifier "rcbus" to
describe them. It's different enough to be clearly not rc2014 but
similar enough I hope not to confuse people wondering where their
emulator or kernel tree went. It's also a name we can hopefully use in
the other place to put together a spec that covers all the non-Z80
behaviours and pin uses and the like.

Alan

[Tadeusz Pycio]

For Fuzix and the emulators I've adopted the identifier "rcbus" to
describe them.

There is a solution. I myself use the "RC80 Bus" designation in modules that exceed the RC2014 standard (A16-A19 address line extensions, I also consistently support the extensions suggested by Steve - IRQ1,IRQ2 for devices that do not support IM2 using CTC as a vector interrupt controller or in Z180 additional interrupt inputs, IEI/IEO cascade). Those that do not use these extensions are given the designation "Designed for RC2014" and here I have a dilemma as to whether I am using this designation correctly in this case.

[Gary S]

"RC80 Bus"  yes I do like that.

Might I suggest that a suitable group be started under that name to clearly distinguish it as "maybe" rc2014 compatible.

Maybe also some open definitions and specs.

Gary.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RC2014-Z80" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rc2014-z80+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rc2014-z80/a6852eae-a7b1-4571-9824-435b780ff074n%40googlegroups.com.

[Greg Holdren]

RC80 sounds like a good reference. But there is really no need to create a new group. retro-comp https://groups.google.com/g/retro-comp serves that purpose which came about from the first round.

Greg

[Wayne Warthen]

Hi Spencer,

Thank you for this reminder.  I firmly respect the RC2014 brand and your rights.  In fact, I wish to sincerely thank you for everything you have done to popularize retro-computing on the Z80.

In my rush to answer questions on this forum, I have probably made some mistakes with my references to RC2014.  I apologize for any such occurrences.

I am actively working on a new stable release of RomWBW (so far overdue).  I will ask for your comments on the documentation before this release is published, although your comments are welcome at any time.

Thanks,

Wayne

[Kande Laber]

As a retro computer newbie I really fail to understand the damage that was done to the RC2014 brand by any unprecise wording. As for me, I happily purchase, solder and run retro kits. Unfortunately, I do not have an unlimited budget for my hobbies. Specifically, I would not have any budget to hire a laywer to proof read my retro computer forum contributions. 

[Spencer Owen]

Hi all,

Thank you for the support and kind responses.  I'd just like to address a few comments, but apologies for not replying to every message directly in this thread.

RCBus or RC80 Bus sound good to me.  It takes the essence of what the bus is without limiting it by what the RC2014 natively supports.

Yes, a trademark needs to be defended - however, I don't see anybody making or selling their stuff as an RC2014 product, so there isn't any trademark infringement.  Indeed, designers seem very happy to point this out and I appreciate this.  One thing I am certainly not doing is calling up my lawyers any time soon!

Originally this group was set up for people that had bought RC2014 kits to discuss their builds, troubleshoot problems and share info on what they have done with their RC2014.  I love the fact that this has spread to a wider definition and I am proud that a variety of systems and CPUs are discussed here.  I know there are other groups around that cater for other machines, and I don't want to drive anybody away from here.  Just that if you're talking about a machine that isn't an RC2014, call it by it's name.  It will help the original designer as well as the rest of the community.

And I'm sorry if I have come across as grumpy.  That's not my intention.

Spencer

[Mark T]

The RC2014 is a really good reference design for anyone wanting to start designing their own add on modules or even a complete system. Any thoughts on when the additions or replacements to an RC2014 system should stop it from being called an RC2014 system? The tale of Trigger’s broom comes to mind.

[Bill Shen]

Spencer,
Thank you for additional clarifications regarding the "RC2014" brand.  I have two questions:
1.  I've published about 40 RC2014-type plug-in boards with various level of compatibility.  I've consciously designed these boards as "Plain Jane" rectangular PC boards without the RC2014 styling of slanted front and rounded back.  My reason is to visually identify my boards as third-party add-on, not the official RC2014 boards.  Is this something you like third-party designers to do, or you don't mind designers copying the RC2014 style?
2.  RC2014 is comprised of a number of plug-in boards.  Additional third-party plug-in boards (sound, video) may be added and some board may be replaced (please forgive my bluntness, but RC2014 CF board has been problematic).  At what point of addition & replacement is the term "RC2014" no longer applicable?  For an example, I can see a custom enclosure with the front label "RC2014 Inside", but that may not be the correct labeling if third party boards are plugged in?

Thank you for your enormous contribution to the retro computer world.  It is in my self interest to support the RC2014 brand; I wouldn't have designed 40 plugs-in and 15 motherboards over last 5 years if I didn't believe in RC2014!  
  Bill

[Phillip Stevens]

My reading of the situation over the years is pretty simple, and it is based on the fact that Spencer’s business and livelihood is based on the production and sale of RC2014 products.

As he clearly noted, the only RC2014 kits currently available are the;

• RC2014 Micro
• RC2014 Mini
• RC2014 Classic II
• RC2014 Pro
• RC2014 Zed
• RC2014 Zed Pro

Anything else is not “an RC2014”. Although it may be “Designed for RC2014”.

I, like quite a few others, sell products or PCBs based on the RC2014 design. In my case they’re always  “ABC Module, designed for RC2014”. I think this is the spirit of what is desired.

If I write about, or publish software, it is always going to be based on a RC2014 Pro and not necessarily work with other things, although this does often happen.

Sorry, but IMHO it is not a fine point of discussion as to where the “line” is. 

It is simply a “Hoover” or is not a hoover, and is something else.

Cheers, Phillip

[Alan Cox]

> Sorry, but IMHO it is not a fine point of discussion as to where the “line” is.
> It is simply a “Hoover” or is not a hoover, and is something else.

There is. It's not an issue for branding actual items. A 3rd party CF
adapter is a 3rd party CF adapter is not RC2014(tm). However when you
start combining them you have to ask what the right wording is.

If I put a third party hose on my Hoover is it still a Hoover ?

It's clearly not a genuine Hoover part, not sold as a Hoover branded
part, but do I now have to ask my wife if she's seen the vacuum
cleaner instead ?

In other words if I've got an RC 2014 pro and I plug a third party
card in it should I no longer say "'I've run this code on my
RC2014...".

Alan

[Spencer Owen]

Hi Bill,

Firstly, thank you for your contributions to the RC2014 community.

1. I love the shape/style of the RC2014 Modules, which is why I made the KiCad layout available a long while ago https://rc2014.co.uk/1377/module-template/  It feels right that people can adopts a common module shape, although I have no objections to anybody modifying this to their needs (like Mr Gelée's tech has done), or going with "Plain Jane" square boards. There are a lot of reasons to change the board size to the needs of the circuit, but if it matches the template then it makes things easier for others to build enclosures around.  There are, however, a couple of links in your 40 RC2014-type plue-in boards, like "RC2014 SBC for Arduino Mega Enclosure" which probably should be "RC2014 Compatible SBC for Arduino Mega Enclosure" or something similar.

2. This was a question that I asked here from a different perspective a few years ago.  I asked "What Is An RC2014" expecting the answer to revolve around the amount of RC2014 ROM Modules sold.  Surprisingly, the answer from the community was around the backplane.  So, from a sales perspective, the amount of full kits, Mini, Micro, and Backplanes, I'm currently looking at 3994 units.  So, by that metric, anything plugged in to an official RC2014 backplane is an RC2014.  However, I feel this is probably quite out of date.  I know that there are a lot of Minstrel 4 machines out there with a Backplane 5 attached, but I doubt that this should qualify as an RC2014 sale, and probably not as the Minstrel 4 being called an RC2014 computer either.  I have to admit, things get a bit murky here.  This is probably a topic that should be debated again.

Spencer

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RC2014-Z80" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rc2014-z80+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rc2014-z80/0fe48c6f-1f64-4f42-ab72-12f13ffdea89n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bill Shen]

Spencer,
Thank you for pointing out RC2014 branding issue in my homepage.  I'll go over my pages carefully in next few days and correct them.  I don't sell kits--don't even have a Tindie account; I tend to give boards away then quickly create a page with some descriptions, design files and software.  So I'm sure I have many places where I've said "RC2014" when I really should've said "RC2014-compatible, or "modified RC2014".

Thinking about my question #2 a bit more:  the official RC2014 products are kits and you've provided excellent supports for your kits.  In fact, RC2014 support is one of the reasons for creating this Google forum.   While third-party add-on for RC2014 are encouraged, you are not obligated to provide support for the add-on boards.  So from the field support point of view, you do need to draw a box around "RC2014" as parts of the computer you can support.  Reminded me of many many years ago when Digital Equipment Corp repairman would remove all the add-on boards, fixed the mini computer that were DEC's boards and declared the computer as fixed.  There were many third-party add-on boards and DEC had no issue with the add-on as a part of their computer, but they will only document/repair/maintain official DEC boards.  I wonder if that's a suitable model for RC2014.
  Bill

[Phillip Stevens]

On Thursday, 2 February 2023 Alan wrote:

> Sorry, but IMHO it is not a fine point of discussion as to where the “line” is.
> It is simply a “Hoover” or is not a hoover, and is something else.

If I put a third party hose on my Hoover is it still a Hoover ?

That’s a fair point. I’m spending most of my time these days under and inside a particular brand of vehicle that has an extensive third party product market, and a huge community of people making modifications to these vehicles. To the extent that it is almost impossible to find a owner with a completely original example.

Still, there is no doubt that the brand loyalty is strong, even when only original chassis rails remain of the original vehicle. So clearly you’re right, yes.

In other words if I've got an RC 2014 pro and I plug a third party
card in it should I no longer say "'I've run this code on my
RC2014...".

Related to Spencer’s situation. A few years ago a small open source design company started making Arduino compatible products (fully respecting the Arduino brand, using their own branding), and they built up a following for that brand, and opened retail sales through a few major retailers giving access to Arduino style products right around Australia.

That worked fine until a larger company from overseas saw the market and offered the retailers a cheaper sourced copy product (a copy of a copy if you will) giving the retailer a better margin. That basically killed the market for this small open sourced local company. It was a sad day in Australia.

Luckily this hasn’t happened to the “retro” market yet (as it remains too small), but it could. It is very difficult to sue a Chinese company, so it is best if the customers are aware of what they’re buying, and who they’re buying from.

Another 2c.

Phillip

[Spencer Owen]

Most British people know of Triggers Broom, which is essentially the same as the Grandfathers Axe, or more generally, the Ship of Theseus.  Replacing every part individually ends up being a brand new item that is also the original.

I honestly don't know where the line is with an RC2014 kit (or a different kit with RC2014 modules).  If you add, say, Ed Brindleys sound card to an RC2014 Classic II, then it's certainly pretty clear that you are still running an RC2014 there as all the original parts are still present.  But I'm not sure where the line is.  So, for example, if you replaced the Z80 CPU Module on an RC2014 Pro with one of Steve Cousins Z180 modules, is that still an RC2014?  Technically, probably no, but I don't think anybody would call the Retro Police on you for calling it an RC2014.  But it's certainly worth mentioning the different CPU module, both to give recognition to Steve for designing it, and for potential diagnostic purposes if you're asking for support on it.  But I do appreciate that particularly with a module computer where things are often swapped or upgraded, that things aren't exactly cut and dry.

I have to admit that when I see posts on here for support, if it does involve somebody else's kit, I do tend to gloss over it without getting too involved.  I hope I'm not as extreme as the DEC engineer mentioned earlier, but the point is that I don't have first hand experience of the other third party boards so I am not always in the best position to offer advice.

Spencer

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RC2014-Z80" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rc2014-z80+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rc2014-z80/df1e3c2d-6bc3-476b-864b-04058a65b1ean%40googlegroups.com.