Main > Main Forum
How do you know your JAMMA PCB is legal?
SavannahLion:
Since Driver-Thingie managed to see the post before I took it down, I've returned it to its original without any further editing as I had desired to do.
I'm only reasonably nice because I respect Saint, not you, Driver-thingie. I will not, however, mince words.
Note:
Rambus v. nVidia is a potential ban, it is still pending further review from the patent office. Second, it is a patent dispute, a similar but unrelated animal and unrelated to this discussion about copyrights.
Pending patent cases are inapplicable to copyright issues. Nintendo v. Tengen is a copyright case, this is the example I gave. Rambus v. nVidia is a patent case, that is the example you gave. The Tengen story is a prime example of how not to violate copyright.
Speaking of Rambus, I did a little research and discovered what I had suspected. I present this information for the benefit of our other members. In a nutshell, Rambus is seen as a fraudulent company. Rambus was a member of JEDEC which helps ensure companies license critical underlying technologies for a reasonable fee. Rambus is disputed to have crafted their patents to capture SDRAM and DDR technologies that were being openly discussed by JEDEC members at the time. Simply put, it's possible that Rambus simply saw where the market was heading and created patents to capture the market.
What both Driver and his friend have failed to point out is the following. Rambus has had 49 (from the article linked to) patent claims against nVidia invalidated last year alone and stands to lose the last three still standing. Probably due to the JEDEC discussions and proof of prior work. What is also failed here is that Driver's question is thus:
--- Quote ---1.) U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Nvidia violated three of five patents held by Rambus which could lead to a possible U.S. ban on the import of some Nvidia products. -- Are those Nvidia cards illegal? YES/NO
--- End quote ---
This question does nothing to consider the role of the patent office rulings as well as Rambus' forced patent licensing to nVidia. Yes, forced. If nVidia is required to license those technologies, they're doing it under their own terms, not Rambus'. :hissy
A point cotmm68030 that seems to support Driver's statement is actually taken out of context. You will need to read the article in its entirety to fully comprehend that sentence.
This is exactly the reason why I, and others on this forum, have told people like you, Driver, to do the research. Examples like this can easily take up entire threads in their dissemination alone. Once again, the outcome of the nVidia v. Rambus issue is irrelevant as this is a copyright discussion not a patent discussion.
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.
Your argument that MAME is illegal per 1201 is incorrect. You have not considered sub section f or g as it would apply to MAME. Nor have you made any determination of the applicability of any other copyright section in this matter. In fact, MAME is protected under the court outcomes of Coleco v. Atari and again under Bleem! v. Sony. Both copyright cases I've have referenced in previous posts. In a nutshell, MAME, by itself, is not illegal.
Driver-Man:
--- Quote from: mmb ---It is illegal to buy stolen goods.
--- End quote ---
Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. [Dowling v. United States (1985)] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law
--- Quote from: Malenko ---driver, please click this link
--- End quote ---
saint: First - the 30-in-1 boards, 48-in-1 boards, and I believe 60-in-1 boards are not MAME derived as far as I know.
FrizzleFried: I also have not heard of any law enforcement agency ever taking action against an operator, supplier, or reseller because of a 39-in-1, 48-in-1, or 60-in-1 board.
Hawk Daddy: In my opinion, the 48 in 1 and 60 in 1 boards, are ok as long as they do not run MAME
==============================
Wrong link apparently. But don't you think MAME should make some more official statement about it before you ask me to destroy my PCBs?
--- Quote from: SavannahLion ---Nintendo v. Tengen
--- End quote ---
Finally we have found some common grounds, but the conclusion was that Tengen Tetris is NOT considered "bootleg", "pirated" nor "illegal".
--- Quote ---Once again, the outcome of the nVidia v. Rambus issue is irrelevant as this is a copyright discussion not a patent discussion.
--- End quote ---
I believe it is very relevant, it all classifies under "Intellectual Property Law", have alike scope and application and is similarly handled in courts. 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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
*** I got your post while it was still there, it was pretty good, and friendly.
newmanfamilyvlogs:
--- Quote from: Driver-Man on September 15, 2010, 05:53:06 am ---
--- Quote from: mmb ---It is illegal to buy stolen goods.
--- End quote ---
Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. [Dowling v. United States (1985)] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: shmokes ---"deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft." - MGM v. Grokster (US Supreme Court)
"Generally such indicia is held to indicate a substantial theft of copyright property; but, taking all the evidence together, I am satisfied that the items selected as tests constitute the bulk of all the items taken, and that they are of small moment in comparison with the whole." Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n (US Supreme Court) (Case involved one company copying information from a reference book published by another company containing information like lists of merchants and manufacturers)
"A CATV that builds an antenna to pick up telecasts in Area B and then transmits it by cable to Area A is reproducing the copyrighted work, not pursuant to a license from the owner of the copyright, but by theft." - Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (US Supreme Court)
"Defendants maintain that, because they are persons of ordinary means, high penalties necessarily are an abuse of discretion. Yet the statute does not require judges to set penalties according to wealth, and we held in BMG Music that serious penalties for the theft of intellectual property are not confined to the wealthy." - Directv, Inc. v. Barczewski (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)
--- End quote ---
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=105787.msg1121163#msg1121163
Driver-Man:
Thank you again cotmm68030. It's interesting to see how "knowingly" and "deliberately" complicate the situation further.
==============
I have good news. I have found evidence Amstard (and ZX Spectrum) roms and ALL THE GAMES and everything are "legal abandonware".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware - "Companies do sometimes voluntarily relinquish copyright on software, putting it into the public domain, or re-license it as free software or as freeware. id Software is an early proponent of this practice... Other examples include Amstrad, which supports emulation and free distribution of CPC and ZX Spectrum hardware ROMs and software..."
Did I get that right, does that really mean what I think? If so, where can we find some official statement about it?
I tried to search Amstrad.com, but no luck.
Turnarcades:
Zzzzz
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version