MAME References in Nintendo Patent!

[MameMaster!]

URL to US Patent Website

FYI -- You'll have to cut and paste the whole link into your toolbar to get to the correct page.

I thought this was interesting.

Apparently Nintendo has two claims--

Claim one- All Emulators are Illegal (they've been saying this for years).

Claim two- They just patented their own GBA Emulator in Jan of this year.

Quite a conundrum there don't 'ya think?

If you read through the patent (link above) there are some references to MAME.

I wonder if this will have any repercussions for MAME?

MameMaster!

 


Edit by moderator: fixed URL

[saint]

Fixed  link...

[Harry Potter]

I wonder if this will have any repercussions for MAME?

Not unless nintendo plans a coin-op version of the gameboy.

[MameMaster!]

...my only point is that this is high profile stuff....especially for Nintendo to be using
references to MAME in its list precedents.

[SirPeale]

Fixed  link...

D'oh!  Didn't see that, boss!

[saint]

Not at all --  Nintendo's stance that third parties emulating Nintendo hardware is illegal (which I do not believe the courts agree with) is not a condemnation of emulators in general. Owning all the intellectual property rights to the GBA, it's consistant for them to support their own in-house developed and sold emulator while still maintaining that home-brew Nintendo emulators are illegal.

Note. I believe emulation has passed the legal test (Bleem vs. Sony, Connectix vs. Sony), and that ROMs are the only legally grey area (if you own them in another form that is. Otherwise the copyright laws are clear enough).

Apparently Nintendo has two claims--
Claim one- All Emulators are Illegal (they've been saying this for years).
Claim two- They just patented their own GBA Emulator in Jan of this year.
Quite a conundrum there don't 'ya think?

[bigmoe]

...my only point is that this is high profile stuff....especially for Nintendo to be using
references to MAME in its list precedents.

Could this possibly serve to legitimize MAME more?  If it is being depended upon to establish a legal patent?

[MameMaster!]

Not at all --  Nintendo's stance that third parties emulating Nintendo hardware is illegal (which I do not believe the courts agree with) is not a condemnation of emulators in general. Owning all the intellectual property rights to the GBA, it's consistant for them to support their own in-house developed and sold emulator while still maintaining that home-brew Nintendo emulators are illegal.

Note. I believe emulation has passed the legal test (Bleem vs. Sony, Connectix vs. Sony), and that ROMs are the only legally grey area (if you own them in another form that is. Otherwise the copyright laws are clear enough).

Apparently Nintendo has two claims--
Claim one- All Emulators are Illegal (they've been saying this for years).
Claim two- They just patented their own GBA Emulator in Jan of this year.
Quite a conundrum there don't 'ya think?

...good point. But didn't they destroy Bleem during that case?
If I recall.....I saw one of the Bleem authors selling off virtually all of his possessions on EBay due to his need to file for bankruptcy.

Rough stuff.

[abrannan]

IIRC, the problem with the Bleem case was that Sony was able to prevent Bleem from being sold for long enough that the debt the company was under (you know, little things like paying like paying it's employees) accumulated too much for Bleem to recover.  It was pretty much the definition of a Phyrric victory for Bleem.