Nintendo v. Tengen
Finally we have found some common grounds, but the conclusion was that Tengen Tetris is NOT considered "bootleg", "pirated" nor "illegal".
Once again, I have never said Tetris was a bootleg or pirated, you inferred that fact on your own. Tengen v Nintendo is a cut and dry case of a copyright violation, yet Tetris (ie, the ROM) is not at issue here. Never was. In fact, if the Atari lawyers didn't ---fudgesicle--- up by taking the copyright and letting the engineers do their thing the outcome would have been reversed. If you had read about the case, you would have known that.
Once again, the outcome of the nVidia v. Rambus issue is irrelevant as this is a copyright discussion not a patent discussion.
I believe it is very relevant, it all classifies under "Intellectual Property Law", have alike scope and application and is similarly handled in courts.
Yes they are under IP, but no, they are not handled similarly in courts. 9th Circuit Court stated in Sony v. Connectix that if Sony wanted to prevent copying of their copyrighted materials for the purposes of reverse engineering, then Sony should have patented it. Furthermore, there are many examples in court where the scope of either (and Trademark) are handled differently because of their application. In short, if copyrights and patents were so similar and alike in their scope and application then you would
not see companies apply for both Patents and Copyrights on the same end consumer products. Sometimes a dizzying number of patents
and copyrights may apply to a particular product.
There is a particular reason why there are entirely separate agencies that handle copyrights and patents.
The point from both these cases, Nintendo v. Tengen and nVidia v. Rambus, is that customers never even needed to worry about anything. -- Customers (end-user) are not supposed to disassemble their hardware to see if there was any IP infringing going on, and they were not required to follow news and read forums to know whether they have suddenly become criminals.
The people that you claim to not know the product they buy (from nVidia or Atari) is banned is a far cry from someone like you who buys a X in 1 board and tries to apply the same.
You have consistently failed requests to cite sources to support your claims. I, on the other hand have either given you direct links to government sites governing the laws in question or have instructed you to Google several sources on your own. In fact, your entire argument is now reduced to the same two "sources" you cite yet did not read or fully researched.
I'm not saying "you are wrong", simply that nothing there says you are right.
It is clear DOWNLOADING and SELLING is illegal. BUYING? Well that is far less clear, it is simply not addressed for the scenario where it is not immediately apparent the item violates any IP, and especially when it is taxed and available in shops everywhere.
Yes, you could make a conclusion that BUYING pirated DVD on the street is illegal, but for something to be "illegal" and "available in stores", that is contradiction to start with.
It's stupid to hang your entire "legal" argument off of paying taxes. California wants to tax marijuana and it allows "medical" marijuana, marijuana is still illegal under federal laws. U.S. federal laws trump state laws. Yet California is still going forward with the ballot measure.

It may be a contradiction to you, makes sense to me.

From the get go, you've been trying to shoehorn one law in an attempt to trump another. I can freely go to a dozen retailers in my area and buy any number of merchandise I know perfectly well violates copyrights and maybe a patent or two. I'll also get taxed for it. I'll even get an itemized receipt. Still doesn't legalize what I buy. And what about when I don't pay taxes for that product? ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, if paying taxes legalizes an illegal product, you can bet the U.S. would have the highest tax income in the world. No U.S. government agency would ever have a budget problem, every citizen would happily pay their taxes.

The mistake here is that you're misappropriating some strange concept that a retailer
must be legal in every aspect, even going so far as to represent one government or another in its taxing. Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, even Wal*Mart broke a few laws to make the sale.
Taxing a product does not make that product legal, period. End of discussion. That's how it is, take it or leave it.
=======
Oh for ---smurfs--- sake.... there's more?
As this is going on, they will have made sure that the FBI starts investigating you and then you will face federal charges.
Would I face federal charges if I BUY Ultracade machines?
You can, but there are usually mitigating factors to consider.
Would I face federal charges if I OPERATE Ultracade machines?
Not enough mitigating factors to make that determination.
Anyway, what is the issue with MAME demanding non-commercial use?
I've linked this once before, I'm not going to bother again. MAME will not.
Besides using Bleem! and Coleco as effective shields, they are also likely using the Reverse Engineering clause in the copyright law to protect their interests. Allowing MAME to be used in a for-profit matter as you describe would shift the legal status of MAME. While Bleem! and Coleco only had to go against one company each, there is no telling what would happen if you get enough irritated copyright holders, some with much deeper pockets than MAME, to go on the attack. Get this through your head, MAMEDev will not risk the future of the project to make a few dollars.
edit: fixed typos and bad markup