Discussion: Ultracade and the Mame Trademark

[Bones]

His comments look 3/4 reasonable. Looks like he just wants "apples for apples" comparison when advertising cabs for sale.

I really don't see how it could be worth the expense to attempt to enforce it and anything like this that attracts attention to the whole MAME hobby/business is probably not a good thing.

[gprime]

In case his site is down:

http://www.gprime.net/ultracade/

February 21, 2005
Like most things that are spread by rumor, the facts about me, UltraCade Technologies, and the M.A.M.E.
emulation system are quite distorted. I will try and educate anyone who cares to listen about the reality of our
marketplace and what we are doing and what we are not. Simply put, we are making an effort to stamp out the
commercial sales of M.A.M.E. based systems that advertise the ability to play thousands of games while relying on
the customer to obtain the ROMs which can not legally be obtained. What we are not doing is trying to claim
ownership of the M.A.M.E. open source emulator or sue its authors. We are concerned about the commercial
marketplace, and not the readers of the many M.A.M.E. user groups and forums.
I have been working on emulation technology since the mid 80

[Paul Olson]

I just tried it and his extremely annoying flash was working fine, but I didn't find the letters.

Paul

[gprime]

I just tried it and his extremely annoying flash was working fine, but I didn't find the letters.

Paul

There are direct links to the PDFs on the very front of the page. They are not in the flash section.

[mdekkers]

Well, thanks for posting those letters. The synopsis my mind created when reading them is something like:

"We make stuff to sell to people. Other people make something similar, but use an open source component to do this. Because of this and some other reasons not related to the open source bits, they can make their product cheaper then ours (knowing open source, it's probably better then his as well). We don't like this, because now we are forced into a position of competition. In order to stop this, we are claiming trademarks, but we promise to only use it on the bad guys."

Meanwhile back in the real world, there are several real problems with this:

1.) The names and logo's clearly are not his to trademark !!
2.) If you don't vigorously enforce your trademark, you are exposed, as you may stand to lose it come a legal challenge
3.) The names and logo's clearly are not his to trademark !!
4.) He has been trying to enforce it already, on relatively innocent bystanders
5.) The names and logo's clearly are not his to trademark !!

In short, I smell BS.....

[gprime]

I don't even think he's got a chance of successfully registering the MAME trademark. Clearly the MAME project has been using it longer than he has, and the logos aren't even his. With hundreds of Slashdotters emailing their opinions to the appriopriate people, surely it will be rejected.

It blows my mind how he thinks to come off the "good guy" by registering someone elses trademark. I mean, why not ask the MAME guys to do this, if you're really just trying to protect the community from piracy.

If he does win the rights to the trademark, then something is definately not right.

4.) He has been trying to enforce it already, on relatively innocent bystanders

Does anyone know how extreme he is when it comes to eBay and MAME. I agree with fighting auctions selling ROMs, but does he try to remove auctions with regular (legal) hardware ? (ie, MAME cabinets without ROMs, and without implying they get "free roms" with it).

[Fat_Trucker]

Just read both of his 'responses'.

So what he is actually trying to do is eradicate any legal competition to his organisation or products.

By the same argument Toshiba should immediately stop anyone else from selling TV's or DVD players since they might concievably be used to run or view pirate material......correct me if i'm wrong anyone.

Other vendors selling fully functional MAME machines or the technology that makes them possible is not committing any kind of offence or breaking any trade law as far as I am aware so long as they are not involved with the distribution of illegal roms.

He's not trying to protect his interests or his business, he is trying to put his competitors out of business and pervert everything that the open source MAME community stands for. Regardless of any assertations he might make, if he gains control of the MAME trademark it will only be a matter of time before everyone is expected to pay for the privelidge of using anything relating to it....he's simply trying to cash in.

I'm not a vendor, I don't sell anything MAME related or otherwise, I don't buy or download pirated software. I appreciate MAME for the reasons it was intended, I'm just another home-brew enthusiast and regardless of any assertations he makes I think what he is doing is disgusting and hope he and his company quickly fall flat on their arse.

Should he decide to continue with his current course of action I think some kind of organised opposition is in order. The MAME community is surely large enough and resourceful enough to polarise opinion into positive action to the detriment of this despicable individuals business.

[Paul Olson]

Thanks for posting the letters, I still don't see the link on his page.

His argument does sound plausible when he states it, but it doesn't seem to hold up well.

First of all, no matter what he wants to accomplish, he has no right to try to trademark someone elses work.

Second, reread emdkays post a few posts back.  Foley contacted him trying to get royalties, not trying to stop the spread of "MAME piracy".  Emdkay doesn't even do what Foley complains about in his letter.  Emdkay offers an artwork printing service to the hobbyists.  According to Foley's letter, this is not who he is trying to go after.

Paul

[Fat_Trucker]

His comments look 3/4 reasonable. Looks like he just wants "apples for apples" comparison when advertising cabs for sale.

I really don't see how it could be worth the expense to attempt to enforce it and anything like this that attracts attention to the whole MAME hobby/business is probably not a good thing.

Then what he should be doing is taking action against vendors of illegal roms that he owns the copyright or distribution rights to. This doesn't give him a licence to steal someone elses IP because he's making money from the same idea.

[Fat_Trucker]

Thanks for posting the letters, I still don't see the link on his page.

His argument does sound plausible when he states it, but it doesn't seem to hold up well.

First of all, no matter what he wants to accomplish, he has no right to try to trademark someone elses work.

Second, reread emdkays post a few posts back. Foley contacted him trying to get royalties, not trying to stop the spread of "MAME piracy". Emdkay doesn't even do what Foley complains about in his letter. Emdkay offers an artwork printing service to the hobbyists. According to Foley's letter, this is not who he is trying to go after.

Paul

Probably the most important and relevant point in the entire thread. The guy has already struck his colours and if he is allowed to proceed it could be the beginning of the end for the entire community.

[menace]

This is probably the most short sited venture I've ever seen.  First there is no way the guy can get a patent on others work--even a modicum of back ground work will confirm that and secondly, he has just now made it plainly obvious that he is a sleaze-oid trying to make money from others work, and will be referred to as such in all mame and arcade circles--How far do you think ultimarc or oscar controls would have got had they gone this route? 

This guy so needs an --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules-- kicking--if he's going to ebay and stopping legitimate auctions or crying foul to emdkay and others, I would hope that something could be done about that.  Ideas?

[Paul Olson]

I don't know.  I put my cab up on ebay to see if I get a response from them. ($3000 shipping so I don't accidentally lose it  )

OT:  Did I spell response right?  This, and responce both pass the spell checker 

[Fat_Trucker]

I'm no lawyer but I thought if an individual tries to obtain a royalty from someone's work in full recognition of the fact that they hold no rights to that work then that individual can file for damages. Surely it constitutes fraud?.

Could be wrong though.

[Lilwolf]

I don't like how hes doing it...

[shawnzilla]

Any lawyers in the house?

[Fat_Trucker]

But it would appear that he's not trying to stop people using MAME in a commercial capacity, he's just trying to steal the TM so he can cash in on anyone who does.

I don't think anyone on here would deny someone their right to protect their business from piracy or help support moves to eliminate piracy. So surely Mr Foley should be actively targeting people selling illegal roms or machines containing them, not anyone providing a service to the home-brew community. And certainly not trying to obtain money from anyone using the MAME name or logo.

It seems that the vast majority of people who are making money in this community seem to be

[walls83]

Thats it I call the brother/Sister hood to arms. 


Its time to go to war.

[jcoleman]

Note this in his "Open Offer to the MAME Community":

We have no desire to use the M.A.M.E. name or logos; we simply wish to find ways to prevent illegal distribution of classic arcade games.

That is what, in the legal profession (though IANAL), they call "bad faith."  You can't trademark something in order to prevent other people from using it, you have to trademark it because *you* intend to use it.  He's likely already killed his application simply for this reason.

Has anyone seen any comments from the MAME Dev Team on the subject?

Coleman

[APFelon]

This is from R. Belmont:

Mame.Net Forums Link

According to a post by Kevin Steele on alt.games.mame, Foley is already threatening eBay auctions which mention MAME (e.g. Dream Ultimates cabinet kits), and he plans to sue MAMEdev (and Razoola?) over the CPS-2 XOR scheme. Make of that what you will.

I don't have access to that group through either of my NSPs, so I can't verify Belmont's source.

APf

[Witchboard]

There's a thread on the MAME website forums, but I haven't seen an official comment from the MAMEdevs.

[emdkay]

My email correspondence with Mr David Foley:

Message #1:

Comments: Your use of the MAME name and MAME logo is a violation of our registered trademark (USPTO Reg # 76627578).  Rather than proceed with legal action against you and your company, and getting lawyers involved, we would like to resolve this directly.  Please contact me by Wednsday to discuss.  David R. Foley, CEO UltraCade Technologies. 

My reply to message #1:

I remember looking up the Mame logo and it had a "dead" indicator
meaning it wasn't registered.  I just print arcade marquees for enthusiasts'
cabinets.  What information do you need from me, or what are you
requesting?

Regards,
Brent Bilis





Message #2:

It's not dead, and we own it.  If you would like to pay us a royalty on the
graphics that you print, then we could probably come to some compromise.

My reply to message #2:

What type of fee structure are you considering? 

Regards,
Brent Bilis





Message #3:

What do you sell them for, what is your cost of goods?

My reply to message #3:

I see that your status on the Mame logo as a trademark is only pending, and has not actually been granted.  The USPTO Reg # you posted below clearly states that your new application is pending - how could you state that you own it?  The US Patent and Trademark Office must not condone someone stating that they own a trademark when it is in this status.  It can be said with certainty that ultracade is not the proprietor of the Mame logo.  I'm certain that you're familiar with Nicola Salmoria.  I don't think it would be wise to discuss royalties until you have actually been granted the trademark, wouldn't you agree?   I will have to contact the attorney assigned to this trademark showing details of the Mame logo existing before ultracade along with your claim of ownership before considering any sort of royalty fees.

Regards,
Brent Bilis




Message #4:

I

[Witchboard]

I hope you posted this on the MAME forums as well.  This pretty much shows his true intentions of attempting to acquire the MAME trademarks.

[GGKoul]

This guy is looking to line his pockets with $$$ by exploiting the hard work of the MAMEDevs.

[RetroJames]

Wow, talk about the flip flop -


Message #2:

"It's not dead, and we own it.

[GGKoul]

THE NEW MAME LOGO!

[GGKoul]

Some said it best on the MAMEWORLD forum. 

Mame has hurt the sales of his UltraCab and since he can't compete with MAME, he's trying to cash in on MAME's sucesses.

What's next for Ultracab?  Is he going to sue anyone who has made their own Arcade System at home?

[Thenasty]

isn't MAME a musical way way way back....So the name MAME was already existed and wonder what shes got to say ?

[mnm1200]

IANAL but...

I would like to point out:
USC TITLE 15 CHAPTER 22 SUBCHAPTER I

[Gunstar Hero]

What I don't think is being considered in his letters is the fact that...

* - That the MAME logo sells nothing.
B - The ROMS and whatnot are already out there. Who appointed him as the defender of the original authors legal rights?
Q - MAME doesn't compete with Ultracade, being that Ultracade is really a commerical use product and MAME is a personal use freeware program.
4 - That HK and pirate boards/games have and always shall be, if they weren't using MAME I bet they'd be using "Lucky 8" or whatever the hell he claims Ultracade came from, since he OBVIOUSLY didn't use MAME as the basis of Ultracade. 

So whatever. His trying for this trademark needs to be denied.

[Thenasty]

... since he OBVIOUSLY didn't use MAME as the basis of Ultracade.

[KevSteele]

This is from R. Belmont:

Mame.Net Forum Link

According to a post by Kevin Steele on alt.games.mame, Foley is already threatening eBay auctions which mention MAME (e.g. Dream Ultimates cabinet kits), and he plans to sue MAMEdev (and Razoola?) over the CPS-2 XOR scheme. Make of that what you will.

I don't have access to that group through either of my NSPs, so I can't verify Belmont's source.

APf

I've been a bit misquoted. Here's my post on alt.game.mame:

It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and
has hired lawyers in both the US and UK to go after anyone using the
terms, starting with auctions on eBay (apparently, a Dream Arcades
cabinet auction was pulled because it mentioned MAME...)

In addition, it looks like Mr. Foley may be going after the MAME
emulator itself, claiming that the code that circumvents copy protection
in the CP32 emulation violates the law and is illegal.

This story is just breaking, but I'll report what I find as soon as I
know more...

- - - - - -

This is based on emails I've seen from Mr. Foley, including the following quote:

"While the MAME software is open source, the trademark is not.  Open source
also does not mean that MAME and it's code is not violating many copyrights
and patents.  Furthermore, any games the circumvent copy protection, such as
CPS2 games, can not be legally emulated unless a specific license (such as
we have from Capcom) is obtained, therefore, any distribution of MAME that
supports CPS2 games is illegal."

His true colors are coming out, and his "open arms" to the MAME community are concealing daggers...

Kevin

[Gunstar Hero]

I remember in early Ultracades the CPS emulation was remarkably similar to Callus. Same little glitches... eevrything.

I'll bet Ultracade is cobbled together from every other "free" emulator on the net. 

[Fat_Trucker]

Seems that the news needs to be distributed as widely as possible and perhaps lobbying for a wholesale boycott of his products is in order.

Seems likely that a large proportion of his business might come from the retro-games community and in the absence of his apparent willingness to change tack it's down to everyone to vote with their feet (and wallets).

[walls83]

Well hes got a new letter out.

http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf

He will withdraw the application if mame helps him to stop commercial use of mame.

[Witchboard]

We will be happy to cancel our application and work with the M.A.M.E. team to assign it to its rightful owners; however we do want to prevent it from being awarded to someone that intends to use it commercially.

I find this part humorous.

[RetroJames]

Well hes got a new letter out.

http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf

He will withdraw the application if mame helps him to stop commercial use of mame.

I think him cancelling the application is a forgone conclusion.  Hopefully the Mame folks will use thier own resources to protect the logo and name.  He need not be involved, consulted, or otherwise a part of the process.

[walls83]

I think he thought that he could just roll over people but I dont think he realized how many people would come back at him.

[emdkay]

To:  TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
Cc:  lhagelshaw@aol.com, david.foley@ultracade.com

Subject:  Trademark Application 76627578

CC: Lee Hagelshaw, Attorney of Record, David Foley, Applicant

Dear Sirs,

It has come to my attention that there is a pending trademark application pending, Re: (76627578) "MAME - MULTIPLE ARCADE MACHINE EMULATOR".  I have been aware of MAME for years prior to the inception of David Foley's organization.  Examples of the long existence of MAME prior to David Foley's claims of ownership can easily be found by visiting Mame.net.  I also feel it necessary to state that I have been contacted by David Foley requesting that I pay him royalties on artwork that I print containing the Mame logo.  I found this very troubling as Mr Foley is not the owner of this Trademark.  The application is still in the pending status.  As stated in USC TITLE 15 CHAPTER 22 SUBCHAPTER I

[quarterback]

I don't like how hes doing it...

[RetroJames]

To: