Author Topic: Discussion: Ultracade and the Mame Trademark (Read 126590 times)

SirPoonga · « **Reply #120 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:47:01 pm »

That is a good point. You can play over 4000 games legally on a "mame" cabinet. It doesn't have to be through mame....

GGKoul · « **Reply #121 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:49:07 pm »

If he suceeds. The MAME project will just go underground and probably change the name of the project.

JODY · « **Reply #122 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:51:08 pm »

Mr. Foley's reason for doing what he did doesn't justify filing a trademark for something he didn't create.

GGKoul · « **Reply #123 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:51:53 pm »

How many people work at Ultracade??? I mean is it a big company or it just Dave and a couple of buddy's?

SirPoonga · « **Reply #124 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:52:03 pm »

Quote from: DreamArcades on February 21, 2005, 02:21:43 pm

MAME isn't legal, and never will be. This is very similar to when Napster was shut down.
...
but as long as you are selling a machine with an engine that has no legal path to use, we will object.

This is a false statement.

Chris · « **Reply #125 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:52:33 pm »

His argument is that StarROMs doesn't count because you can't transfer the license for ROMs purchased from StarROMs, so you can't sell a cabinet with StarROMs ROMs on it.

Fat_Trucker · « **Reply #126 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:54:06 pm »

He also cited that it was similar to the situation with Napster but the two situations are very different.

Napster was dealing in properties that were widely and commercially available and the legal action was backed by the money and weight of the music industry and affected hundreds of interested artists/parties.

MAME deals with a niche market and doesn't support mainstream or commercially available properties and without it, it is arguable whether there would be a market for Ultracade to work in at all. There appears to be a single company (Ultracade)

JODY · « **Reply #127 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:54:26 pm »

Does anyone else remember when Atari released the arcade games they ported to DOS into the public domain?

SirPoonga · « **Reply #128 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:54:58 pm »

Quote from: Chris on February 21, 2005, 02:52:33 pm

His argument is that StarROMs doesn't count because you can't transfer the license for ROMs purchased from StarROMs, so you can't sell a cabinet with StarROMs ROMs on it.

what people do then is register the buyers name tot he roms. That is legal.

Santoro · « **Reply #129 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:55:33 pm »

Quote from: Chris on February 21, 2005, 02:52:33 pm

His argument is that StarROMs doesn't count because you can't transfer the license for ROMs purchased from StarROMs, so you can't sell a cabinet with StarROMs ROMs on it.

You can if you purchase the ROMS in advance in the buyer's name.

SirPoonga · « **Reply #130 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:56:08 pm »

Quote from: Fat_Trucker on February 21, 2005, 02:54:06 pm

He also cited that it was similar to the situation with Napster but the two situations are very different.

Also Napster is a file sharing program, Mame is an emulator.

GGKoul · « **Reply #131 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:56:17 pm »

mame.net WHOIS info

Domain Name: MAME.NET

dmsuchy · « **Reply #132 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:59:57 pm »

Mahuti is correct, we all know this jag is off his rocker but we need to contact ebay so they don't continue to support his propaganda! If I ever sold my cab on ebay I would want to list it stating it can play well over a thousand games and supports MAME and not worry that it will be pulled off because some idiot is worried that it would hurt his sales. I still can't get over the fact that he hides behind a banner of protecting copy righted games and then ask for some pay offs from the marquee printers to use the MAME logo. I'm sure there are programmers out there that could make 4000 little game roms just so you could LEGALLY say you can have 4000 games running on your machine.

shawnzilla · « **Reply #133 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:02:22 pm »

Does anyone have Nicola's email address to remind him of this?

Quote from: GGKoul on February 21, 2005, 02:56:17 pm

mame.net WHOIS info

Domain Name: MAME.NET

GGKoul · « **Reply #134 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:03:18 pm »

Foley, David

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #135 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:05:02 pm »

So has anyone sent in the $75 bucks to trademark ultracade?

Fat_Trucker · « **Reply #136 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:09:07 pm »

Strange. His email responses were coming fairly fast. This is the last one I sent and all of a sudden he has stoppped responding.....wonder why?.

Quote

Thanks again for responding.

I am not trying to be deliberately pedantic but there has already been one member of our community who has been approached by you (or your company) whom you demanded a royalty from for his distribution of MAME branded artwork. There are no shortage of hobbiests who charge for their skills and services in providing artwork and hardware to other hobbiests. This would seem to run contrary to your wish to simply put vendors who 'advertise machines with thousands of roms' out of business.

You have to understand that there are thousands of us dedicated to this hobby and regardless of your stated ambition the fact remains that once in control of the MAME name and logo you could then decide to claim royalties or shut down anyone using the software and or logo for any reason. Indeed judging by the actions demonstrated so far this would seem to be your intention.

I would be far more inclined to actively seek dialogue with the various people involved with the continued development and distribution of MAME and work in partnership with them and if necessary actively assist them in obtaining the relevant trademark.

Trying to trademark someone elses work particularly when this is something they have provided freely simply to promote your own business is not going to be a winning strategy even if your intentions are honest.

Regards,

CJ

A little disturbing that there still appears to have been no official response from any of the MAME team or vendors (mamemarquees, ultimarc etc) with an interest in maintaining the status quo. Hopefully things will start moving soon as regardless of how much we might speculate it requires the people he is attacking directly to help support any kind of credible defence.

mdekkers · « **Reply #137 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:11:14 pm »

Quote from: DarkKobold on February 21, 2005, 02:14:58 pm

Quote
There is a correct way to bring such things to the attention of the Trademark Office, and this is not it.

The constructive next step is to monitor the status of the application, and when it gets "published for opposition" then file an opposition [uspto.gov].
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmep/1500.htm#_Toc536249467

One convenient way to monitor the status of a pending US trademark application is by means of free software called Feathers [patents.com].
http://www.patents.com/feathers/

Thats from slashdot. Nicola needs to get his <auto-censored> together. BTW, to recap:

DarkKobold, the /. poster was actually a bit misleading with that post (he is a laywer, after all) in that the process he outlines is what you would do when you discover that somebody is stealing *your* trademark - This situation is different, in that we are general members of the public, and as such can act as material witnesses to the fact that this guy is breaking the law. What you do when you email the examiner or the trademark office is making them aware of the facts of the case *before* the trademark is awarded, instead of trying to undo the damage *after* the trademark is awarded. Even if the USPTO were, in a fit of insanity, to award the marque to this guy, the fact that these mails have been sent will make the subsequent case easier, since you can point out that it should never have been awarded in the first place - this is way easier then arguing that the marque does not belong to the guy. Former case is simply a procedural matter, whilst the latter case is much more involved, requires testimonies, witnesses, etc.

Popcorrin · « **Reply #138 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:14:31 pm »

I think Mr. Foley realizes he won't be able to trademark the mame logo.

GGKoul · « **Reply #139 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:16:11 pm »

Great Post...

mame.net message thread

Finally, I'm curious (simply that, no more) about the legal ramifications of this application. A patent applicant must file a "Declaration" that avers to the USPTO that he is the true inventor of the invention. Similar averments are required for copyright regiatrations. I don't know whether a trademark applicant must make the same averment regarding the use of a trademark - specifically, that the application is not claiming business goodwill generated by a completely different company - but if so, your application might run afoul of this. I would also be curious to investigate whether the Sherman antitrust act has any bearing on trademarking MAME in order to exclude lawful competitors from the cabinet market.

(Again, these are not legal opinions - merely areas of interest, and a very quick response based on my understanding of the law.)

- David Stein

SirPoonga · « **Reply #140 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:18:11 pm »

Quote from: Fat_Trucker on February 21, 2005, 03:09:07 pm

A little disturbing that there still appears to have been no official response from any of the MAME team or vendors (mamemarquees, ultimarc etc) with an interest in maintaining the status quo.

you aren;t looking hard enough. Go read the mame.net forums. Also we have a couple of companies that have responded to this thread.

Trust me, Nicola should know by now what's going on

rchadd · « **Reply #141 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:23:46 pm »

Quote from: pcolson on February 21, 2005, 12:06:38 am

Looks like the filing fee is $75 for a small entity, or $300 regular.

Thenasty · « **Reply #142 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:26:06 pm »

Quote from: ROM: Spacenight on February 21, 2005, 02:15:53 pm

Guess he went after DreamArcades as well.

Link

pretty soon, he might even go after people who makes SPINNERS, JOYSTICKS HANDLES, CABINET MAKERS etc.... Ahhh! put back you pacifier well you BABY Foley

RayB · « **Reply #143 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:42:07 pm »

I just want to clarify for everyone about trademarks (and keep in mind IANAL, and maybe you should double-check the facts here):

- You do not have to register a trademark to claim it as your trademark. If you use a particular "mark" for your business, you must "announce it to the world" that it is your mark, by adding "TM". Failure to do so puts you at a disadvantage in defending your mark.

- If you register your mark, that's when you use the (R) symbol. Registration offers extra protection. And of course, you gotta use the R symbol. Failure to do so... (

)

- As I see it, the MAME "organization" has dropped the ball in that they never used the "TM" to indicate their mark. It could be argued it's not a trade mark.

Ultracade technically IS a "multiple arcade machine emulator". If Foley hadn't been so stupid as to nab the existing logo, and had one designed for him instead, he could quite possibly get away with getting this tradmark. (I noticed in his official letter he always used "M.A.M.E." with the periods).

So will his current application get rejected? Very likely. Would a second application with his own logo get rejected? 50/50. Like I said, the MAME devs dropped the ball in not adding 'TM' to the use of the acronym.

***I almost forgot too... I have heard about some rules where it is "first to register" rather than "first to create". I do not remember if this is in relation to patents or trademarks. Could someone find out?***

~Ray B.

SirPoonga · « **Reply #144 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:47:08 pm »

David Foley replied on mame.net. An attorney replied to him.

Look at user sfsdfd.

Paul Olson · « **Reply #145 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:05:41 pm »

Been thinking some more on this. Companies selling MAME cabinets do not compete with Ultracade machines. At All! Ultracade is sold for commercial use. MAME cabs are sold for home use.

His new line, Arcade Legends, is a new competitor to the already established home MAME cab market. Dream Arcades should be able to collect damages. Foley misrepresented his status as registered trademark owner. This caused ebay to shut down an auction(s?) of an established direct competitor. That can't be legal.

Paul

jdjuggler · « **Reply #146 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:09:14 pm »

This guy may know more about what Foley is using in his product.
Anyone know this guy?

ebay link

I have emailed USPTO - And Ebay, stating that they may be abetting illegal trademark claims made by David Foley!

I don't want to be shot down if I ever decide to sell my Mame machine on Ebay. This is insane! He is after all of us, don't think for a minute that he will ever "work with the Mame community".
He out for blood and money!

Everyone, Please get involved. Emails, certified letters to USPTO, phone calls, feedback to Ebay support.
Also, we still need some legal help with all of this. Anyone???

JD

edited by saint to fix wrap

SirPoonga · « **Reply #147 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:09:52 pm »

Quote from: pcolson on February 21, 2005, 04:05:41 pm

Been thinking some more on this.

SirPoonga · « **Reply #148 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:13:47 pm »

I was also thinking about this. I do understand Foley's point of view. it can be reasoned that mame cabinets have been taking some of his sales. However, as pointed out, they are for different markets. And Foley has gone aobut it in the wrong way. Registering the trademark (IE trying to steal something that isn't his) is not good business practices. What he should have done is for the cabinets that are illegal to prove they are. Though most on ebay do not come with roms so therefore most are legal. They claim they can play 4000+ games. This is true, legally too. Just download 4000+ shareware games....

IntruderAlert · « **Reply #149 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:18:53 pm »

I'm not sure if you guys saw this second letter posted on the Ultracade site
..looks like he's retracting

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

Quote

February 21, 2005
An open offer to the M.A.M.E. community.
Our recent actions to protect our products have met with a lot of controversy. Many
people have been quick to judge and make accusations about what we are attempting to
do, and what we have already done. It is my understanding that the spirit of the
M.A.M.E. community is

shawnzilla · « **Reply #150 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:25:48 pm »

Still sounds like he's trying to get what he wants using duress as his technique.

Reminds me of a used car sales pitch.

Quote from: IntruderAlert on February 21, 2005, 04:18:53 pm

I'm not sure if you guys saw this second letter posted on the Ultracade site
..looks like he's retracting

http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf
Quote
February 21, 2005
An open offer to the M.A.M.E. community.
Our recent actions to protect our products have met with a lot of controversy. Many
people have been quick to judge and make accusations about what we are attempting to
do, and what we have already done. It is my understanding that the spirit of the
M.A.M.E. community is

Fat_Trucker · « **Reply #151 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:26:42 pm »

Ambiguous language on ebay ads aside.

Mr Foley has already shown that he's sees ownership of the MAME trademark as far more than a sword and shield to fight the dubious legality of some of their competitors.

They have already tried to use their implied ownership of the trademark to obtain royalty payments from people involved with the distribution of MAME branded artwork to the home build community.

Reading through the masses of outraged posts in other forums as well as this one it would appear that they fully intend to make full commercial use of the trademark in terms of both software and branding and have threatened everyone they could find an email address for who are using the MAME logo in whatever capacity.

If Mr Foley wasn't trying to steal the trademark (and thereby years of other peoples graft and dedication) and wasn't trying to squeeze royalties from all the hardworking people involved in making the community so open and successful then I'm sure he would enjoy fairly widespread support and a measure of commercial success for his efforts to pervert the dubious trade in illegal roms.

As it stands though he may have wreaked irreperable damage to his business by repeatedly biting the hand that feeds him.

Chris · « **Reply #152 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:30:01 pm »

Quote from: Fat_Trucker on February 21, 2005, 04:26:42 pm

As it stands though he may have wreaked irreperable damage to his business by repeatedly biting the hand that feeds him.

But we don't feed him. Almost by definition, anyone frequenting Build Your Own Arcade Controls or using MAME isn't in the market for an Ultracade. He claims not to use MAME in Ultracade itself. So anyone making MAME marquees, arcade controls, cabinet plans, frontends, or anbything in support of a build-your-own solution is in competition with him.

RayB · « **Reply #153 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:31:00 pm »

Regardless of his actions or intentions, nobody appointed him the official MAME POLICE. He had the nerve to desrcibe MAME as illegal anyways. So screw him.

That said, someone needs to decompile Ultracade and find out what's ticking underneath... (just in case there's some mame source in there...)

gprime · « **Reply #154 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:32:44 pm »

He shuts down a company that sells MAME machines with *legal* roms from STARroms?

And then he's greedy enough to ask for *royalties* from places printing the MAME logo?

On top of that he tries to register the MAME trademark which clearly isn't his.

..

Does this guy work for SCO?

Fat_Trucker · « **Reply #155 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:37:35 pm »

Surely the main demographic for people that would concievably consider his product as a viable solution for arcade gaming at home would be people who have an interest in the retro/emu community as a whole.

Considering how rapidly the backlash is flying around the retro community (not just MAME sites). He must be alienating many potential customers for his products targeted at the home user and retro enthusiast.

Shape D. · « **Reply #156 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:38:12 pm »

Man thats a lot to read.

This guys a tool. Him stealing the mame logo because its "copyright infringement" is like stealing holloween candy from babys so they don't get cavities. (OK maybe not quite like that.)

I don't buy arcade cabnets from guys who steal candy from babys!

I would love to see what he's packing in these cabnets as well, but theres no way in hell I'm buying one to find out.

<edit> and boo on ebay for not even checking to see if he has a legal right to have these auctions pulled anyways.<edit>

IntruderAlert · « **Reply #157 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:41:44 pm »

he even says that he has no intention of using the MAME name or logo
Instead of protecting the MAME community it sure looks like he'd rather just kill the MAME community and force everyone to buy an Ultracade machine

KevSteele · « **Reply #158 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:46:54 pm »

Quote from: gprime on February 21, 2005, 04:32:44 pm

He shuts down a company that sells MAME machines with *legal* roms from STARroms?

And then he's greedy enough to ask for *royalties* from places printing the MAME logo?

On top of that he tries to register the MAME trademark which clearly isn't his.

..

Does this guy work for SCO?

You forgot "and claims he's doing it all for the good of the community."

Paul Olson · « **Reply #159 on:** February 21, 2005, 05:04:30 pm »

Sir P,

I meant that MAME cabs do not compete with the commercially licenced Ultracade cabs. Ultracade's Arcade Legends Line seems to be designed and marketed for home use. These would be a new competitor to the established MAME cab sellers like Dream Arcades.

Foley (based on posts in this thread) told eBay that he is the registered owner of the trademark. This is a lie. This lie caused eBay to remove an auction posted by one of Foley's competitors, thereby affecting said competitors ability to compete.

Does that make more sense? I think I have a valid point here and I want to make sure everyone understands what I am trying to say.

Paul

Quote

Posted by: SirPoonga Posted on: Today at 01:09:52 PM
Insert Quote
Quote from: pcolson on Today at 01:05:41 PM
Been thinking some more on this. Companies selling MAME cabinets do not compete with Ultracade. At All! Ultracade is sold for commercial use. MAME cabs are sold for home use.

His new line, Arcade Legends, is a new competitor to the already established home MAME cab market. Dream Arcades should be able to collect damages. Foley misrepresented his status as registered trademark owner. That can't be legal.

Paul

You may want to reword what you said.

Quote
Companies selling MAME cabinets do not compete with Ultracade. Ultracade is sold for commercial use. MAME cabs are sold for home use.
....This caused ebay to shut down an auction(s?) of an established direct competitor.

contradictions. It still doesn't mean it isn't wrong.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news