ULTRACADE Discontinued as of 9/01/05

[Crazy Cooter]

http://www.bmigaming.com/ultracade.htm

It's in red.

As always, customer service is #1... There's no mention of it on the Ultracade site anywhere.  Looks like the commercial part of Foley is done.  Now he's concentrating on Arcade Legends for the home.  No wonder he tried to shut down his competition.

[Thenasty]

I think this is his second shutdown. He belly up again before but somehow re-appeared and now again...

[Bones]

As we say in Australia, suck sh**.

[cdbrown]

yes we do 

[NIVO]

blame paige for this one. If he hadnt upped the quality by puttin that marquee on his cab, this would've never happened!

[shmokes]

What about that video pinball thing he's doing...is that still a go?

[Stingray]

What about that video pinball thing he's doing...is that still a go?

Until the next bankruptcy declaration one would assume.

-S

[ChadTower]

The official release of the Pinball cabs is, according to Foley, coming up before Christmas of this year.  If you head over to vpforums.com he has laid his plans out very clearly over there.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

May I be the first to wish his other ventures the same fate.

mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

LOL.

It's funny you guys mention the belly up / change the sign in the window bit.

[ChadTower]

I'm hoping his pinball cabinet succeeds.  It is looking like it will be a product many of us have been hoping for and seems to be fully licensed.

[Thenasty]

Foley don't know what to do......He tries to iliminate competitions cause he's drowning.....Now he trying to get with a MAMEPINBALL to support him cause his tiny brain cells can't handle the thinking/making a software for his scam....Give it up FOLEY, you will never succeed, I think you're just digging your hole deeper and I (WE) get to laught at YOU

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm hoping his pinball cabinet succeeds.

[ChadTower]

There are a number of changes and enhancements that are plainly obvious even from the limited prototype photos.

[Crazy Cooter]

Information taken directly from the internet archive "The Wayback Machine": http://web.archive.org/

---

http://web.archive.org/web/20020929130940/http://www.hyperware.com/
(Sept 29, 2002) - from the "Company" link:

Robert Ligeti is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of HyperWare
David R. Foley Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer

(Sept 29, 2002) - from the "Press" link:
UltraCade Gets a Hot New Look and Feel

[Crazy Cooter]

There are a number of changes and enhancements that are plainly obvious even from the limited prototype photos.

Such as... ?

[ChadTower]

Visual Pinball doesn't display full screen widescreen the way the prototype photos do, AFAIK.  They are also supposedly doing a lot of work on the tables they are releasing, completely vectorizing or even revectorizing the tables to give them a professional, uniform appearance above what they had before.  There is some criticism that they are actually sterilizing them, but this is the approach they are taking.  One of the main developers employed by Foley was posting in the Main forum here not very long ago talking about it.

[Crazy Cooter]

On the VP forums, Foley said they won't be doing any work on the tables themselves.  He said it wasn't cost effective to do so.  That's why he's trying to buy the tables other people have made.

Foley said he's been working on this for 3-years.  Yet he had only 5 tables.  After talking with the guys on the VP forum, he claims to have 15 tables.  He also said he is working with a partner.  My research (grain of salt) shows it to be Mr. Pinball out of Australia, which is strange because I believe they have only had rights to stuff for ~1-year.

He also is asking the VP guys to tell him what they want and he'll try and code it in.  Then he'll give the info to Randy (VP Author) and leave it up to him whether or not to give i back to the community.

[Sephroth57]

i hope the whole VP thing fails and foley walks away pennyless. i hate people who try to make money off other peoples hard work

[ChadTower]

On the VP forums, Foley said they won't be doing any work on the tables themselves.

[missioncontrol]

we need a smiley giving the finger

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What I read was his statements that they were redoing the graphics but not the physical structures of the tables.

So he's only being a partial bastard?


mrC

[Stingray]

How come you can say bastard?

Bastard

---daisies---

-S

[Stingray]

Ah, it only applies to the plural.

-S

[ChadTower]

What I read was his statements that they were redoing the graphics but not the physical structures of the tables.

So he's only being a partial bastard?

No, according to him, and the vpforum seemed to believe him, is that he licensed the Visual Pinball source code legally.

[Crazy Cooter]

That's not how I understood it.

[ChadTower]

That tactic isn't HIS tactic, it's a corporate tactic that is not unusual in the technology industry.

[Stingray]

That tactic isn't HIS tactic, it's a corporate tactic that is not unusual in the technology industry.

Which doesn't make it any less bastardly.

-S

[ChadTower]

Yeah, it sucks when a community based on stealing IP is stolen from.

I agree with the concept of Foley trying to profit off the work of the MAME devs, but IMO, anyone who has MAME and ROMs that aren't licensed are guilty of a crime that is only slightly lesser than Foley's.

[Stingray]

Now that's a little harsh. I have unlicenced roms in my cab. I've never claimed to be the legitimate owner of such, nor have I sent a single C&D letter to anyone, nor have I attempted to trademark any property of which that I had nothing to do with the develpment, nor have I harrassed a single ebay seller and had auctions pulled.

-S

[ChadTower]

But you have profited off of the work of the MAMEdevs, using stolen IP in the process.   Have you paid the MAMEdevs anything? 

Like I said, I consider what Foley did bad, but the fact that the vast majority of those who spoke out against him were also stealing, and also not contributing to the MAMEdevs for their work, the outcry lacked any credibility to me.

[Stingray]

But you have profited off of the work of the MAMEdevs

How so? I've never sold anything MAME related.


   

Have you paid the MAMEdevs anything? 

They've never asked me to. If MAME were shareware I'd have paid for it ages ago, but it's not shareware.

-S

[clanggedin]

oley isn't gome. Just the "Arcade Legends" product. His is actively promoting his Breeders CUp Tournament edition cab on ESPN and other channels. He also has has his other little projects that he's launching before X-mas.

We will never see Foley completely disappear.

[ChadTower]

How so? I've never sold anything MAME related.

By using it.

[lokki]

Unless I am mistaken, they have donation links on their website.  A freeware app that one makes regular use of should result in a small donation to the author.  They don't require it, but it does encourage them to keep on working and produce more things.

You are mistaken, there is no doation links on their website and the mame developers do not get a cent from anyone.
On the other hand there are donation drives to buy pcbs to dump, but all the money goes to toward the purchase of PCBs and none of the developers are making money.

[Stingray]

How so? I've never sold anything MAME related.

By using it.  Sure, it is a "free" app, but usage is profit when the cost is zero.  It's not immoral profit, but it is profit nonetheless.

Not sure I follow you here. Since I only use it for my personal enjoyment, I don't guess I see where the profit comes in.

They've never asked me to. If MAME were shareware I'd have paid for it ages ago, but it's not shareware.

Unless I am mistaken, they have donation links on their website.  A freeware app that one makes regular use of should result in a small donation to the author.  They don't require it, but it does encourage them to keep on working and produce more things.

I agree and would be happy to donate. Can you provide a link? I don't see a donation link on mame.net or macmame.org (I use MacMame, but I understand that it's still MAME, just ported to run on my system).

-S

[Thenasty]

Foley read this messageboard I'm sure....He lurks in here and not say anything....So here is MY ADVISE...

"Give it up Foley, McDonalds has an opening". 

[ChadTower]

Not sure I follow you here. Since I only use it for my personal enjoyment, I don't guess I see where the profit comes in.

Monetary gain is only one definition for the word profit.  Profit can also be described as anything from which you benefit more than you have contributed.  We profit from the existance of this forum, for example, and don't need to make a cent off of it in the process for it to be called profit.

[Stingray]

Okay, I'll concede that I do get a lot of free fun out of both MAME and this forum.

[ChadTower]

Right, and you are not the user I have an issue with.  You're not out there attacking Foley on forums, all self righteous that he is stealing from the MAMEdevs and people with MAME based businesses.  It's not even MAME itself I have issues with nearly as much as the bloated idiots who feel it is their basic right as humans to not only have MAME but any conceivable rom that MAME can be used to play, and god forbid anyone try to intefere with that right or they shall strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger.

[Tiger-Heli]

By using it.  Sure, it is a "free" app, but usage is profit when the cost is zero.  It's not immoral profit, but it is profit nonetheless.

Not sure I follow you here. Since I only use it for my personal enjoyment, I don't guess I see where the profit comes in.

I don't agree with Chad here, but I follow the logic -

You are using MAME for Free and the roms for free.  If you had to code MAME yourself (or hire a programmer to do it) and license the ROMS, it could cost you years of time and thousand of dollars, so (according to Chad), that is your profit.

Examples of why this doesn't hold up:

I primarily use Gimp (www.gimp.org) freeware for photo editing.  It is very similar to PhotoShop, which would cost me about $650, last I heard.  According to me, I would be ripped off about $650 (well at least $500, Photoshop does probably have $150 value in added features over GIMP) if I used Photoshop.  According to Chad, I profited $650 by not buying Photoshop.  Depends how you look at it.

Let's say I'm a Linux user.  I install Linux on all 100 PC's at my office.  To do this with WinXP Pro (at I think $200 a copy), would cost me $20,000.  According to Chad I made a profit of $20,000.  According to me, I avoided an expenditure of $20,000.  Lucky for us, Chad doesn't work for the IRS.

Similar logic most of us can relate to.  Mrs. BYOAC member goes to the mall and spends 100 dollars on clothes that she really doesn't need at 75% off.  In her eyes, she SAVED $300.  In our eyes, we're out $100.

Final hypothetical example - I cut my neighbor's grass last week, without asking for payment, and he fills up my 2 gallon gas can, without asking for payment.

Did I break even, since my labor for mowing the yard was approximately equal to the $6 cost of the gasoline.

Did I profit by $6, since other than time and mower wear and tear, the mowing didn't cost me anything, but the gas would have cost that - plus my time and gas to go get it.

Did I profit by $10 billion dollars - as that is what it might cost me to buy the land rights, set up the drilling rig, pump the crude out of the ground, build a refinery and hire people to refine and test the 2 gallons of gasoline for me.

It all depends on how you look at it.

[ChadTower]

Once again, profit is not only measured in terms of dollars in and dollars out.  Look up the word in a dictionary.

[Crazy Cooter]

Me thinks CT is part Romulan...

[ChadTower]

That's a Star Trek thing, right?

Anyway, I expect the flaming swords of Damocles to start swinging in my direction now.  They always do when I bring this up, since most people would rather bluster and shout about threats than consider what they have and do not have here.

[Stingray]

I'd rather have a beer followed by a nap than shout & bluster, but that could only be because I'm profoundly lazy.

-S

[ChadTower]

In this case, we'll say it is because you're smart enough to know when you have purely benefitted from something that is legally grey, you don't jump up and shout when it becomes legally more grey.

[MaximRecoil]

But you have profited off of the work of the MAMEdevs, using stolen IP in the process.

[ChadTower]

Pure rationalization.  You cannot pretend to be preserving something you do not own.

[MaximRecoil]

Pure rationalization.

[Crazy Cooter]

I think CT is saying you can't legally preserve something you haven't been given the right to preserve.

[MaximRecoil]

I think CT is saying you can't legally preserve something you haven't been given the right to preserve.

What does legality have to do with anything? He claimed a profit on the part of Mame users. There is no profit when both sides get what they want in the deal. Legality has nothing to do with it. If someone gives you a bunch of stolen money to keep safe for them while they are "on the lamb" (lol) and they say that you can spend X amount of it in return for the favor, there is nothing legal about the preservation of the money; neither does either party legally own the money. That doesn't negate the fact that the money is in fact being preserved and that there is no profit to either side.

Words mean stuff.

[ChadTower]

Your analogy is self contradicting.  No profit, yet you're able to spend part of the money in return for your service?

[Stingray]

Words mean stuff.

Heavy.

-S

[Crazy Cooter]

Actually, that would make you an accessory to a crime.

[MaximRecoil]

Your analogy is self contradicting.

[ChadTower]

But we're not talking about money.  I don't buy the "I have 3000 romz on my computer and I'm providing a service" rationalization.  No one makes such claims about mp3, but the theft is the same.

[MaximRecoil]

But we're not talking about money.

[ChadTower]

I am sticking to the subject.  I was talking about the profit of a MAME user, and it was brought up that the user is providing an archival service for roms in return.  I don't call that archival, I call it theft.

[DrewKaree]

Something in this pic applies here.  I'm sure of it

[MaximRecoil]

I am sticking to the subject.

[mccoy178]

I'm going to have to give Maxim the nod on this one.  He is typing way smarter than CT in this thread.  He may not even be remotely correct, but damn does it sound good.

[btoddkelley]

By using it.

[Harry Potter]

Pure rationalization.  You cannot pretend to be preserving something you do not own.

Like the numerous Egyptian artifacts which are in the hands of non-Egyptians?

[ChadTower]

You are comparing historic artifacts thousands of years old to a rom from 1989?

[Daniel270]

Me thinks CT is part Romulan...

I think you meant Ferengi......

[ChadTower]

If I have to be some scifi treacherous species, I'll be a Bothan, thank you very much.

[Harry Potter]

You are comparing historic artifacts thousands of years old to a rom from 1989?

The egyptians were probably saying the same thing 2000 years ago. Change 'roms from 1989' to something like 'The Ark of the Covenant'.  Indy would agree with me.

Point is, without the circulation of roms, we get ridiculous things like NES cartriges sold for $6100US. A double-edged sword no doubt.

[danny_galaga]

exactly. at what point does something become 'historical'?

[Harry Potter]

When you pay $10.95 admission to see it in a museum.

[Daniel270]

If I have to be some scifi treacherous species, I'll be a Bothan, thank you very much.

You sure about that?   How many Bothans died because of smuggled plans??

[ChadTower]

Not many, actually, if one reads the books.  Not nearly as many as when the Yuuzhan Vong started destroying entire planets.

[Crazy Cooter]

Me thinks CT is part Romulan...

I think you meant Ferengi......

I... umm... well... I... what's that over there?

*runs away*

[ChadTower]

The whole "I'm preserving the romzors out of pure love and joy" point would be a lot more convincing if people were downloading and storing them only.  Seeing as how people download games they intend to use, it is still rationalization.

You don't see those archaeologists taking those 3000 year old vases home and putting flowers in them above their fireplaces.

[Tiger-Heli]

CWT - The IRS agent.

Mr. Heli, it has come to our attention that you have downloaded some 5,000 computer roms for use with the MAME emulator.  It has also come to our attention that EVERY one of those roms makes your computer the equivalent of an 80's to 90's arcade cabinet, which would retail for around $1,000 on E-bay.

Based on the above, we deem you to have $5,000,000.00 in unaccounted for assets which are subject to taxation.

Update - Mr. Heli, upon further research, we have found that at least 500 of said ROMS are one-of-a-kind games for which no cabinet or marquee is known to exist.  As such we estimate that these particular games would sell for $11,000 if a cabinet did exist, and since possession of them grants you most of the priviledges of owning said cabinet, this causes an additional $5,000,000.00 in tax liability.

When do you think you could make your first payment to us?

[MaximRecoil]

The whole "I'm preserving the romzors out of pure love and joy" point would be a lot more convincing if people were downloading and storing them only.

[ChadTower]

 

Legally, and morally, rationalized.  It is no different than downloading a copyrighted movie or an mp3.

[MaximRecoil]

 

Legally, and morally, rationalized.

[Crazy Cooter]

I think CT is saying that you profit because you didn't have to pay for the use of the ROM's, yet you benefit from them.  Take the ROM's available from www.starroms.com for example.  You legally should buy these particular titles from them.  But if you didn't, then you got them at a "discounted" price.  These are probably the easiest to discuss since they are available to be purchased from the IP holders.

[MaximRecoil]

I think CT is saying that you profit because you didn't have to pay for the use of the ROM's, yet you benefit from them.

He is actually specifying the use of "Mame" which usually includes ROMs, and he is identifying the Mame devs as the other party that isn't getting paid, therefore the Mame users are "profiting". Here is what he said:

But you have profited off of the work of the MAMEdevs, using stolen IP in the process.

[CheffoJeffo]

Well, the Mame devs are not asking for money because money is not their stated goal. Their stated goal is preservation. They achieve this through widespread distribution which is the most foolproof method of preservation of digital content available. Now, let's say they wanted to go this alone. How much would it cost them to store thousands of copies of Mame and ROMsets on thousands of separate digital storage media in thousands of different locations around the world?

I thought I recalled at least some MAMEDevs wishing that nobody did anything with MAME or ROMS ...

Cheers.

[paigeoliver]

A few minor comments related to various posts.

Windows costs $200 in a retail box, only costs the OEM $10 to $40 (depending on the company and their agreement with microsoft, and the windows version).

It is almost always cheaper to buy a PC prebuilt from a manufacturer (in which case you will be paying for windows) than it is to put one together.

Of the people who DO custom build their own computers the majority of them do it because they are high end gamers. Virtually no games come out for Linux. Therefore said gamers use windows.

Therefore I post the idea that Linux costs more than Windows.


Morally, I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, period. There is no mention of it in the bible, nor any of the other ancient works and ideas that the laws of our modern world are based on. It is a cancer on our society that causes entire lives to be wasted duplicating work that has already been done. Like it or not, the laws of our world are based on ancient ideas that all people seem to almost innately understand. IP has no place there, thats why the public doesn't care. Thats why grandma doesn't think there is anything wrong with copying her slot machine CDROM to give to the other old ladies at the bridge club. So basically, I don't see any difference between a 3000 year old egyptian artifact and a rom from 1989.

And for the record. I think the mamedevs as a group are absolutely full of it. They develop driver after driver using rom archives that they HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO in the first place, but then take an "anti-piracy" stance. How did they write the driver for the military battlezone? The driver must have written itself because there is only one machine and the mamedevs never had it. How about those bootleg images eh? There is no way in THE WORLD to have a legal copy of the data on one of those bootleg boards. Those drivers must have written themselves, and snuck in around the anti-piracy police.

So, what is the difference between the Mamedevs and I? Easy, I'm not doing one thing and saying another.

[MaximRecoil]

Morally, I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, period. There is no mention of it in the bible

Can you imagine Moses trying to copyright the Ten Commandments?

The funny thing about that is, most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible like the NIV are copyrighted.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

[paigeoliver]

Morally, I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, period. There is no mention of it in the bible

Can you imagine Moses trying to copyright the Ten Commandments?

The funny thing about that is, most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible like the NIV are copyrighted.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

[ChadTower]

Thou shalt not steal.

IP is the modern equivalent of physical goods.  The fact that it can be reproduced without physical materials bears no moral relevance here. 

[Stingray]

Thou shalt not steal.

IP is the modern equivalent of physical goods.  The fact that it can be reproduced without physical materials bears no moral relevance here. 

I find the discussion about whether or not IP is protected by the bible to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. However, the above CWT quote covers it.

-S

[RayB]

Oh for f*** sake. Arcade games weren't in the bible. Get rid of yours Paige. They are a false idol.

[Havok]

Thou shalt not steal.

IP is the modern equivalent of physical goods.

[ChadTower]

It cannot be easily duplicated.  You have to desolder ROM chips from those older boards and use expensvie equipment to read them.  That is not easy.  That is the exact definition of circumvention of proper use as well as reverse engineering.


Your whole argument boils down to "I want it and can get it so I am entitled to it."

And people ask why I stopped writing games to be given away.  Users like this would send me nasty emails demanding features and updates.  They would get angry with me for not being fast enough, not being responsive enough, for a ---smurfing--- free product I was writing in time that would have been better spent with my family.  Then when I discovered that someone decompiled it and added in a bunch of stuff I didn't want there, then rereleased it WITH MY NAME... forget that.

Lack of respect of Intellectual Property is a major, major issue with this up and coming generation.  The fact that they are so self righteous about it makes it very difficult to tolerate, too.

[RayB]

Lack of respect of Intellectual Property is a major, major issue with this up and coming generation.

[Stingray]

I've seen the same thing as Ray. Most of the vocal "I am entilted to it for free because I can find it for free" crowd do tend to be teenagers. Most people grow out of this kind of attitude as they mature, and learn to respect the hard work of others.

-S

[CheffoJeffo]

Lack of respect of Intellectual Property is a major, major issue with this up and coming generation.  The fact that they are so self righteous about it makes it very difficult to tolerate, too.

I agree completely (though perhaps not as vehemently) with CT on this.

People seem to feel that they are *entitled* to IP belonging to others. The simple fact that some people share their IP is wonderful (and I wish that more owners of out-of-date IP would release), but it certainly doesn't mean that everybody should and it certainly doesn't mean that they are bad if they don't.

The old OpenSource arguments about why information should be free are getting a little tired ... I have had IP stolen by a bad client who gave it directly to a competitor ... they got a three year jump in their development cycle.

It is easy enough to argue that IP should be free when you haven't spent years creating it and don't depend on it to house, clothe and feed your family.

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

Chad, have you found that these people tend to be teens, or do you have no idea of the age range that thinks/acts like this?

I personally have experienced that type of attitude and it seems to be predominantly high schoolers. Kids old enough to know how to use basic software toolsets, but not mature enough to respect another person's hard work or even fathom what goes into it.

I don't know many teens.

[ChadTower]

The old OpenSource arguments about why information should be free are getting a little tired ... I have had IP stolen by a bad client who gave it directly to a competitor ... they got a three year jump in their development cycle.

The flaw in the OpenSource argument is that arcade roms are not open source.  They are not freely distributable, they are not derivable, and they have no relation to the GPL that governs most open source projects. MAME itself may or may not fall under the GPL, I have no idea.  The roms that MAME uses are commercial software that is not governed by the GPL that allows people to freely distribute GPL software so long as they leave the license/credit information intact.

[Stingray]

I think open source is a great concept and I applaud everyone who works on open source projects. However, it's up to the creator of any work to decide if they want to go the open source route or not. It is their creation, and IMO they have every right to do with it what they will.

-S

[quarterback]

There's not enough Ultracade bashing in this Ultracade thread.

[Stingray]

Ultracade smells like poo-poo.

-S

[ChadTower]

I honestly don't care very much about Ultracade.  One of the grey area MAME users became legally aggressive.  Oh yay, no one could have seen that coming.

[Havok]

IP should expire after a time. For example - ROMS... anything older than 10 years should become public domain. They don't make the hardware for the most part. If a company stays active and continues to sell said product, then by all means, keep it out of the public domain. But this forever thing (or whatever amount of unreasonable time period) is just greedy.

Good thing the wheel was never considered IP, no other company\person would be able to make one.

Oh, and how about the concept of time? Clocks are my IP, you can't use anything that resembles a time piece.

Rubbish!

Oh, and Ultracade stinks like a two day old soiled baby diaper!

[ChadTower]

IP should expire after a time. For example - ROMS... anything older than 10 years should become public domain.

Justify the 10 year period, as opposed to the 75 or whatever years Disney has had Congress make it today.

IP DOES expire after a set amount of time.

[RayB]

Perhaps a more logical copyright law would be one where it expires X years after last use in commerce. Then Disney would have Mickey Mouse forever, but IP that's been abandoned would fall into public domain.

[ChadTower]

Perhaps a more logical copyright law would be one where it expires X years after last use in commerce. Then Disney would have Mickey Mouse forever, but IP that's been abandoned would fall into public domain.

You don't have to use it in commerce to be using it.  Any active use qualifies.  It does seem a bit more reasonable to say "hey, no one has used this IP in 45 years, maybe it should be public domain"... but who is to say the owner doesn't decide in year 47 to use it?  I think the laws are set up to try and mirror physical goods in a way.  No matter how long that box of stuff has been in your attic, I am not entitled to walk up there and take it without your permission.

[Havok]

IP should expire after a time. For example - ROMS... anything older than 10 years should become public domain.

Justify the 10 year period, as opposed to the 75 or whatever years Disney has had Congress make it today.

IP DOES expire after a set amount of time.

[ChadTower]

My opinion - copywrites and the such are for much too long, and I believe can be renewed, so I think they are still not the right solution.

Why are they too long?

[Havok]

No matter how long that box of stuff has been in your attic, I am not entitled to walk up there and take it without your permission.

That's my whole problem with IP - I am not "taking" anything - I never went into your attic, and your crap is still there. Give credit where credit is due, and if you haven't commercially supported your thingey in X number of years, and everyone has pretty much forgotten about it, and I come along and want to do the same thing, then I can use the same "idea" since that's all it is, any way I want...

[Havok]

My opinion - copywrites and the such are for much too long, and I believe can be renewed, so I think they are still not the right solution.

Why are they too long?

From the gov:

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Hello? Too long.

[ChadTower]

You know why it is that long?  An example would be Elvis.  Elvis has long been dead, but how could someone say that his heirs don't deserve the money generated by his work?

If I write an entire #1 album today, but die next week, who gets all that money?  It damn well better be my kids.

The people who do the work deserve ownership and profit.  No one else has a justifiable claim to it.

You keep saying it is too long.  You have not said why it is too long.  I don't think you have a reason other than that you want it for yourself and that is the exact lack of respect I am talking about.  Until you can come up with a justifiable reason, all you are doing is demonstrating the problem.

[Harry Potter]

You know why it is that long?  An example would be Elvis.  Elvis has long been dead, but how could someone say that his heirs don't deserve the money generated by his work?

Elvis should have had a copyright. Then we'd see no ---auto censored--- Elvis impersonators ( or as they preffer: Tribute Artists) 

[CheffoJeffo]

My opinion - copywrites and the such are for much too long, and I believe can be renewed, so I think they are still not the right solution.

Why are they too long?

From the gov:

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Hello? Too long.

Saying that they are too long and explaining WHY they are too long are two very different things.

I happen to agree that these are too long, particularly for abandonware (I like the idea of required excercise of IP rights, or else the IP shifts to PD) , BUT I don't really have a compelling reason as to why ... other than perhaps I'd like unused things to be available to the public domain sooner, which is not a right in any jurisdiction that I am aware of.

Cheers.

[Havok]

You know why it is that long?

[ChadTower]

You're confusing patents with copyrights.  Keep trying, though.

BTW, I don't have a mame machine at all, so turning the magnifying glass back onto me doesn't work.

[CheffoJeffo]

It will be interesting how Apple and Creative work out this new problem: Creative just got the copywrite on the menu system of selecting items on a portable music device. What kind of crap is that? Anyways, Apple is screwed because they have a bazillion iPods out there, that are now infringing on Creative's copywrite. What do you say to that? Should Apple recall all their iPods, since Creative was the first to market with the structure of their menu systems? I think this illustrates my point that creativity is now being stifled, or held hostage for a fee.

This is a patent issue, isn't it ? And all Apple has to do is pay Creative for use of the IP in the patent. While I do think that patents are being given out worldwide for some simply silly things, there are cases where patents are GoodThings.

IIRC, RandyT was looking at patents related to the GP-Wiz49 because he believes the approach is distinct enough that it warrants protection from others who would copy his work. Is that a BadThing ?

Look at open source products. Look how rapidly Linux has improved, as far as features, reliability, and ease of use. Could Linus do all of that? No! There are hundreds of people involved, which would not have been possible if this idotic lawyer conceived concept of IP and Linus was like Foley...

Different issue and you don't highlight the single most important point ... Linus CHOSE to release as Open Source (as did the other contributors). If I write Cheffix on my own and chose not to release it as Open Source, then that is my right and my rights need to be respected.

Please note that I am not trying to be difficult or obnoxious, I'm just trying to point out that there is the matter of choice to consider. The creator of new and distinct intellectual property is afforded certain rights under the law (obviously varying by jurisdiction) and has the right to choose how their creations are distributed and (to a certain extent) used.


Cheers.

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

This is a patent issue, isn't it ? And all Apple has to do is pay Creative for use of the IP in the patent. While I do think that patents are being given out worldwide for some simply silly things, there are cases where patents are GoodThings.

It is a patent issue, not a copyright issue.  All Apple has to do, if they are in violation of Creative's patent, is come up with another way to present menus.  Patents do not stifle creativity.  Patents protect creativity.  Creative came up with a display method and they own it.  Now Apple, if they are in violation of that patent, will have to create a new way to display their menus.  The patent is not on all methods for displaying menus on a mobile device, it is on one particular method.

[Havok]

You're confusing patents with copyrights.

[Havok]

It will be interesting how Apple and Creative work out this new problem: Creative just got the copywrite on the menu system of selecting items on a portable music device. What kind of crap is that? Anyways, Apple is screwed because they have a bazillion iPods out there, that are now infringing on Creative's copywrite. What do you say to that? Should Apple recall all their iPods, since Creative was the first to market with the structure of their menu systems? I think this illustrates my point that creativity is now being stifled, or held hostage for a fee.

This is a patent issue, isn't it ? And all Apple has to do is pay Creative for use of the IP in the patent. While I do think that patents are being given out worldwide for some simply silly things, there are cases where patents are GoodThings.

IIRC, RandyT was looking at patents related to the GP-Wiz49 because he believes the approach is distinct enough that it warrants protection from others who would copy his work. Is that a BadThing ?

Look at open source products. Look how rapidly Linux has improved, as far as features, reliability, and ease of use. Could Linus do all of that? No! There are hundreds of people involved, which would not have been possible if this idotic lawyer conceived concept of IP and Linus was like Foley...

Different issue and you don't highlight the single most important point ... Linus CHOSE to release as Open Source (as did the other contributors). If I write Cheffix on my own and chose not to release it as Open Source, then that is my right and my rights need to be respected.

Please note that I am not trying to be difficult or obnoxious, I'm just trying to point out that there is the matter of choice to consider. The creator of new and distinct intellectual property is afforded certain rights under the law (obviously varying by jurisdiction) and has the right to choose how their creations are distributed and (to a certain extent) used.


Cheers.

Cheers.

I agree. My main point I am trying to make is that if you ABANDON it, and I want to use it many, many years after you stopped caring, supporting, or existing. I should be able to use it for FREE - not profit, and nobody whines about it...

[ChadTower]

Just curious about the Mame deal - more power to you.

No confusion - I'm just talking IP. Copywrites and patents both apply in theory. Just wanted to give some examples. Here's one for you:

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...

[Stingray]

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...  15 years later, I pick it up and make it 50 times better: more features, lots of bells and whistles, make it work on a current O/S. I give you credit, and don't charge a dime for it. What are your thoughts on that scenario?

This question is directed at Chad, but I'm going to giv my take on it anyway. I think it would be great for you to update this hypothetical software provided you asked for and recieved permission to do so. This is exactly why copyright laws are in place, right?

-S

[Havok]

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...

[JamIt]

If my great grandfather wrote a song, and some dork rapper used the same lyrics, but the song hasn't even been heard for 50 years, do I care? No!

Dork rapper?

[ChadTower]

In that case you write your own app.

[Havok]

In that case you write your own app.

[Stingray]

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...  15 years later, I pick it up and make it 50 times better: more features, lots of bells and whistles, make it work on a current O/S. I give you credit, and don't charge a dime for it. What are your thoughts on that scenario?

This question is directed at Chad, but I'm going to giv my take on it anyway. I think it would be great for you to update this hypothetical software provided you asked for and recieved permission to do so. This is exactly why copyright laws are in place, right?

-S

Ah, but what if he is unreachable? Or as a corporate entity no more? The key to my point is that it has been abandoned, and I am not profiting...

Chad raises an interesting question that as a non-programmer, I had not considered. Where would you get the source code if you cannot contact the author or corporate entity that owns this IP?

In any case, I'd have to say that if permission cannot be obtained then the only legal recourse you would have would be to re-write the app. Of course you could just go ahead with it anyway and see what happens. I'm always all for shaking the hornets' nest to see what flies out.

-S

[Stingray]

However, they have abandoned this stuff, in most cases. Since you are so fond of lumping IP into a physical sense: they threw it in the garbage. I picked it out of the garbage, and now I can use it. So there! I am a garbage picker!

Actually, they decided that it wasn't that important anymore and so they stuck it on the high shelf in an unused bedroom. You snuck in and grabbed it when nobody was looking, which would make you a burglar.

-S

[Havok]

By the way, Ultracade sux.

[ChadTower]

Once, again, it comes down to "I want it, I can steal it, so I will."

The law is clear and you have provided no convincing arguments that it should be changed other than that it would be nice for you.

It's not a moral argument, it is a legal one.

[Havok]

Once, again, it comes down to "I want it, I can steal it, so I will."

The law is clear and you have provided no convincing arguments that it should be changed other than that it would be nice for you.

It's not a moral argument, it is a legal one.

Law is anything but clear. You are over-simplifying. Just as in life, in law there are extenuating circumstances, and abandonware in my mind is one of them. It appears to me you are blurring your past experience with a current product that you cared about, and a product that is old and forgotten.

How many e-mails did you get today on that software you stopped writing?

[Dartful Dodger]

People who don't have an intellect can't understand intellectual property. 

You might as well be explaining it to a box of rocks.

[ChadTower]

Ouch, but I think that's the peanut gallery telling me I'm wasting my time.

[Havok]

People who don't have an intellect can't understand intellectual property.

[MaximRecoil]

You're confusing patents with copyrights.

[ChadTower]

Yep, I have considered it in the past.  As I have learned more about MAME, its community, and in general what it is all about, I decided not to build either of those projects.

[MaximRecoil]

Yep, I have considered it in the past.

[ChadTower]

Oh, the LCD I mentioned there wasn't going to be MAME, I don't think.  Every LCD based cab is not MAME.

[Stingray]

You know that Chad only argues for the sake of argument right?

-S

[MaximRecoil]

Oh, the LCD I mentioned there wasn't going to be MAME, I don't think.

[Dartful Dodger]

BUSTED!!!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You know that Chad only argues for the sake of argument right?

-S

WINNER!!!!


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yep, I have considered it in the past.  As I have learned more about MAME, its community, and in general what it is all about, I decided not to build either of those projects.

I'm intrigued...what do you mean by this? I don't get it.



mrC

[ChadTower]

So, you're indicting me for discussing a MAME cab?

[ChadTower]

BTW, I'm also anti 300lb women in bikinis.

I am anti onions.

I am anti stupidity.

I am anti skunky beer.

I am, however, pro beef jerky.

[Crazy Cooter]

One issue that has been overlooked is that when an operator purchased the original game, there was no EULA.

[ChadTower]

Legally, they could go back.  All they have to do is prove they designed the PCB and wrote the code on the PROMs.  Since that would be very easy to do, current laws do apply to these items.

I don't see any use in comparing the wheel and the hammer to a modern PCB.  It isn't comparable. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a EULA that came in the original Op's warranty paperwork.

[Stingray]

BTW, I'm also anti 300lb women in bikinis.

I am anti onions.

I am anti stupidity.

I am anti skunky beer.

I am, however, pro beef jerky.

Aside from the onion thing, I agree with you on all counts.

-S

[ChadTower]

I hate onions.

[Crazy Cooter]

I've never seen a EULA and I was under the impression there was no way to go back.

Otherwise I really need to find the inventor of the wheels family and have them sign a seemingly worthless document that says "Cooter now owns the wheel".

[ChadTower]

Keep in mind that a lot of technology products, even back then, legally came with an implied EULA that included basic things like not being able to alter or reverse engineer the product.

[Stingray]

Onions aren't so bad if you give them a chance. Kind of like you.

-S

[MaximRecoil]

So, you're indicting me for discussing a MAME cab?

[ChadTower]

The original "vague, half thought out idea for an LCD based coffee table MAME cab" may have been close to a year ago but you "mentioned the cab to [your] wife a few weeks ago".

I believe that same day I mentioned putting a flaming moat of lava across the Mexican border, buying extra sharp cheddar more often, and that I didn't like her green shoes.

She was wearing the green shoes when she kicked me.

Hi, I'm Chad.  I say a lot of things.  Duck.

Anyway, while technically, your own actions have nothing to do with the validity of your arguments (i.e. being an alcoholic doesn't automatically render said alcoholic's anti-alcohol arguments null and void; for example); the term "hypocrite" does come to mind.

Hey, my opinion is just as useful and at least as stupid as the next guy's.  Standard disclaimers apply.  Opinions not valid in Vermont, Nevada, and Missouri.

[MaximRecoil]

I believe that same day I mentioned putting a flaming moat of lava across the Mexican border, buying extra sharp cheddar more often, and that I didn't like her green shoes.

Cabot Hunter's Seriously Sharp cheddar is pretty good.

[RayB]

I don't know many teens.

[ChadTower]

Cabot Hunter's Seriously Sharp cheddar is pretty good.

It is, I like that stuff.  Pricey, but good.

[danny_galaga]

When you pay $10.95 admission to see it in a museum.

damn, so i guess the battle of hastings isnt historical.

and since most major museums have free admission, then nothing they have to show is historical either...

[davidrfoley]

First of all, let's be clear on something.  UltraCade Technologies is not going out of business, nor have we discontinued the manufacturing of our flagship multi-game product, UltraCade.  Any information about this has obviously be misrepresented.  We are no longer stocking the 27" UltraCade system due to lack of demand.  We will continue to manufacture and sell the 27" on a order by order basis for our distribution network, but we will not stock the cabinets.  We are continuing the production and stocking of our universal kit and our 19" cabinet.  Most arcade products have a manufacturing run of 6 months to 2 years.  The fact that we have sustained a 5 year run is far beyond what most coin-op products do.  The rumors or any other misinformation that has been spewed here is without merit.

[Stingray]

Shouldn't you be off trying to trademark something?

-S

[davidrfoley]

Cooter, once again you spew misinformation, get your facts straight.  We legally distributed the Microsoft Return of Arcade product for our platform, which happened to be a legal means of distribution.  The CD contained a copy of the Namco ROMs that we used to play the game.  Namco cancelled Microsoft's right ot distribute that product, and Microsoft changed the EULA to prevent it from being used for public performance, which then triggered our discontinuation of the distribution of that product. 

[saint]

Just a reminder to everyone without specifically addressing anyone -- This is an open forum and people are free to speak their minds on their opinions here. However, such opinions should be tempered within the boundaries of the rules I've requested everyone follow in these forums. If you haven't read the rules lately (or at all), please take a moment to do so. Product discussions are open game, hate and flaming should be kept off these boards please, thanks!

--- saint

[ChadTower]

MMM, preemptive moderation.   

[Stingray]

Edit: Moderated myself to save Saint the trouble.

Edit #2: And it's just eating me up inside.

-S

[daywane]

Shouldn't you be off trying to trademark something?

-S

That is just plain funny

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Shouldn't you be off trying to trademark something?

*zing!*



mrC
P.S. Stingray, you are my new hero!

[Crazy Cooter]

Cooter, once again you spew misinformation, get your facts straight.

[ChadTower]

Oh my GOD... there is a FAQ on the WEB that is OUT OF DATE.

Someone call the Web Police!

[RayB]

I agree with you that people should not be selling cabinets saying they play games they aren't legally entitled to play.

[Crazy Cooter]

Oh my GOD... there is a FAQ on the WEB that is OUT OF DATE.

Someone call the Web Police!

They just "updated" it.  Selectively.

CT, you have to admit that a distributor should be accurate on it's representation of the product.  Especially if they were just pointing the finger at other companies for making the same false claims.

[ChadTower]

Sure, a distributor should be accurate, but making a big deal out of an out of date web FAQ on a low traffic web page... all you really did was point out that the FAQ needs updating. 

[Crazy Cooter]

The big deal lies in the "do as I say and not as I do" part.

[davidrfoley]

Yes Cooter, you can extract ROMs from the Microsoft CD that could used with an emulator.  That is how the install worked when we supported the MS CD. 

As for BMI, they are a reseller of our products, and we can not control thier website.  We can only point out when they have incorrect information.  They are not part of our company.

[menace]

"evil corporate overlord"

thats funnier than what I expected from the "guy-who-tried-to-trademark-mame"

I guess it goes with the territory--If you're going to be evil, at least have a good sense of humour about it--i can't think of any bad guys that didn't laugh maniacally at some point or another...

[Stingray]

i can't think of any bad guys that didn't laugh maniacally at some point or another...

-S

[davidrfoley]

NOW THAT'S FUNNY!

Evil Corporate Overlord came from the MAME forums, I thought it was funny.

[ChadTower]

I love that sig.  I don't usually use a sig, but I will use that one.

[Crazy Cooter]

Yes Cooter, you can extract ROMs from the Microsoft CD that could used with an emulator.

[davidrfoley]

We have put BMI on notice to remove it, that is all we can do.  We don't sell those games. 

As for badmouthing you, just giving you some of your own treatment.

[Crazy Cooter]

I've provided links to everything I've ever said.  My "misinformation" is 100% backed up by fact.  Read the fine print  :

[menace]

"Here's the return volley and, oh yes, it was a nicely played shot indeed.
advantage...cooter"
 

In all seriousness I'm impressed that mr. foley registered here and has posted--say what you will about his tactics, he at least was man enough  to face his detractors (however correct or incorrect they may be)  For the record though, I found the whole pulling auctions thing and registering the mame name to be completely unethical and short-sighted.

[ChadTower]

What, does Dave Foley sign papers with his feet?  what kind of signature is that?

[menace]

it's so when he shows up in court for willfully filing a false statement he can claim thats not his signature 

[Hoopz]

As for badmouthing you, just giving you some of your own treatment.

Glad to see that you are about as mature as my little kids. 

[Stingray]

What, does Dave Foley sign papers with his feet?  what kind of signature is that?

It looks a lot like the Evil Mario's signature from Super Mario Sunshine. Coincidence?

-S

[ChadTower]

I still want to play that game.  Haven't got a copy.

[Stingray]

I just got it and am enjoying it every bit as much as I enjoyed Mario 64.

-S

[ChadTower]

Bah, maybe I can trade for a copy locally.  Don't have the cash for a while now.

[davidrfoley]

Cooter, last I checked you were not a member of the MAME team, and we are working very closely with them, so you have no basis for your posts.  Since we have no issue with the MAME team, and they have no issue with us, the dead horse you are beating is starting to smell.

[Crazy Cooter]

You say I provide misinformation, so I provide documentation, then you insult me.  What gives?  That is the actual paperwork filed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.  It's public record.  It's not "misinformation".

[davidrfoley]

The MAME trademark paperwork has nothing to do with your misinformation, I'm referrnig to all of the discussions where you claim there are lawsuits between us and Namco etc etc.

The MAME issue was very clear, we filed a trademark, and then abondoned it once it was filed by Nicola.  We have no issue with the MAME team or the trademark, and it is now properly in the control of the MAME team. 

[Stingray]

Is it just me or is it getting slimey in here? Probably just me.

-S

[ChadTower]

Stop what you are doing until you get home.  You are not allowed to do that at work.

[davidrfoley]

I would tend to agree.  How about we all agree on these points:

1) UltraCade filed a trademark on MAME, and then worked with Aaron Giles to get it filed under Nicola's name, and then abondoned the trademark filing. 

2) Many people didn't like what UltraCade did, and will never buy UltraCade products because of it

3) UltraCade's actions caused the MAME team to create a new program for manufacturers of arcade cabinets to properly work with MAME and only offer legal ROMs available, and could only ship versions of MAME, and now those companies only advertise legal ROMs in accordance with the MAME team terms

4) There is no benefit to continually rehash this topic, we did what we did in order to protect our commerical interest.  We are in this for love of classics AND profits.  Some people think Profits are bad, and anyone attempting to garnish them is bad. 

5) Let's all move forward and discuss topics at hand.  UltraCade is not going away.  If you don't like our products, don't buy them.  If you wish to discuss classic game topics, I/O boards, etc etc, I'm available to discuss them.

6) If you have issues with UltraCade products, or distirbutors, feel free to email david.foley@ultracade.com and I'll address the issues.

7) Let's move forward.

[Harry Potter]

I would tend to agree.  How about we all agree on these points:
1) UltraCade filed a trademark on MAME, and then worked with Aaron Giles to get it filed under Nicola's name, and then abondoned the trademark filing.

And how much time did you let pass before you informed Aaron or any of the MAME team of this trademark bulldust?
I seem to recall you were busted by someone (MooglyGuy?). Could be wrong though.

Just had to reply to him. I feel so dirty now.

[davidrfoley]

the entire MAME team was mailed 5 times, once per month, before the TM filing took place.  They never responded.   Instead of waiting for the TM to go through, I immeadiately announced it.  Had I wished to own the TM, I would currently own it as no one knew about our filing until I made it public.  If my intention was to own it, it would currently be registered in my name.  That was not my intention, my intention was to prevent the commercial explotation using MAME and unclicensed games.  As soon as the date of filing was established, I made it public that the filing took place.  Within a few days I was in direct contact with the MAME team and coordinating the filing under Nicola's name, and preventing it from being left unprotected. 

[Harry Potter]

Thanks for clearing that up.
Still the matter of WHY, but I don't think there's enough room on the server to contain an answer. 

[CheffoJeffo]

I would tend to agree.  How about we all agree on these points:

1) UltraCade filed a trademark on MAME, and then worked with Aaron Giles to get it filed under Nicola's name, and then abondoned the trademark filing. 

2) Many people didn't like what UltraCade did, and will never buy UltraCade products because of it

3) UltraCade's actions caused the MAME team to create a new program for manufacturers of arcade cabinets to properly work with MAME and only offer legal ROMs available, and could only ship versions of MAME, and now those companies only advertise legal ROMs in accordance with the MAME team terms

4) There is no benefit to continually rehash this topic, we did what we did in order to protect our commerical interest.  We are in this for love of classics AND profits.  Some people think Profits are bad, and anyone attempting to garnish them is bad. 

5) Let's all move forward and discuss topics at hand.  UltraCade is not going away.  If you don't like our products, don't buy them.  If you wish to discuss classic game topics, I/O boards, etc etc, I'm available to discuss them.

6) If you have issues with UltraCade products, or distirbutors, feel free to email david.foley@ultracade.com and I'll address the issues.

7) Let's move forward.

I would agree with these points and would love to see this discussion move forward, but I think there is an item '1a' that isn't being addressed (e.g. the actions beyond the filings, like the reported C&D letters and requests for royalties) and are hanging up a lot of people.

Myself, I have limited knowledge of these actions, but as reported on various boards (including earlier in this thread) they extend beyond what many would consider appropriate. I know that those actions and the lack of comment on them are keeping a lot of people from letting this go (of course some people won't ever let it go, but that is their right).

I'm not trying to carry on the bashing, just looking for some clarification/explanation that would allow us to actually move forward.

And I like profits too ... they allow me buy more cabinets ...

Cheers.

[Hoopz]

the entire MAME team was mailed 5 times, once per month, before the TM filing took place. They never responded. Instead of waiting for the TM to go through, I immeadiately announced it. Had I wished to own the TM, I would currently own it as no one knew about our filing until I made it public. If my intention was to own it, it would currently be registered in my name. That was not my intention, my intention was to prevent the commercial explotation using MAME and unclicensed games. As soon as the date of filing was established, I made it public that the filing took place. Within a few days I was in direct contact with the MAME team and coordinating the filing under Nicola's name, and preventing it from being left unprotected.

Ah yes, the "I-am-stealing-it-to-protect-it-as-someone-else-will-try-and-steal-it" theory.  Haven't heard that recently.  I tried using it in 1978, as an 8 year old, but it didn't work.  And pardon the political reference, that is just about as bad as Bill Clinton's attempt to define what sex is.

Most people learn as a child what is right/wrong.  They eventually learn to stop trying to justify things.  Most people that is....

[Stingray]

4) There is no benefit to continually rehash this topic, we did what we did in order to protect our commerical interest.  We are in this for love of classics AND profits.  Some people think Profits are bad, and anyone attempting to garnish them is bad. 

I believe that it's profit at the expense of others (many of whom are just hobbiests trying to make a few bucks on the side doing something they love) that a lot of us take issue with.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't buy the "I only tried to steal it to keep someone else from doing so.

the entire MAME team was mailed 5 times, once per month, before the TM filing took place.  They never responded

For future reference, when you send out a ton of emails ang get no response, that can be interpereted as "not interested".

-S

[ChadTower]

Well, since they were not interested in the trademark... and abuse of that material was hurting Foley's business... and someone had to have the trademark to prevent the abuse... sounds like Foley tried to tell the MAME team to get the trademark, the MAME team was not interested, so Foley tried to get it himself to protect his business.  Then, once the MAME team was notified, by Foley himself, that Foley was registering the trademark, the MAME team decided it had better get the trademark itself.  At this point Foley rescinded his trademark application in deference to the MAME team's application since the MAME team deserves the trademark.

Now, if this is the correct sequence of events, it appears to me that Foley did what he had to do to protect his own business.  What he had to do was force the MAME team to protect its own property from abuse by third parties.

In all of this, all of the outrage and hatred, I haven't seen any real evidence that Foley tried to profit himself from the MAME trademark directly.  I see a lot of miscommunication, a bit of incompetence on Foley's part as well as Ebay's part, and more misinformed anger than even the Net usually has.

Foley... if I'm right on this, it would probably do you some good here to point out where I'm right and where I'm wrong. 

[CheffoJeffo]

In all of this, all of the outrage and hatred, I haven't seen any real evidence that Foley tried to profit himself from the MAME trademark directly.  I see a lot of miscommunication, a bit of incompetence on Foley's part as well as Ebay's part, and more misinformed anger than even the Net usually has.

Not trying to provoke you (while I don't much like the tactics, I believe that the attempt to register the trademark is between him and MAMEDevs and has been settled to their satisfaction), but he did tell emdkay directly that he wanted royalties, didn't he (after explicitly stating that he didn't want to interfere with the hobbyists) ?

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

He, or someone that worked for him?  Once instance could be incompetence on the part of an employee.  It takes more than one instance to prove a pattern.

[CheffoJeffo]

He, or someone that worked for him?  Once instance could be incompetence on the part of an employee.  It takes more than one instance to prove a pattern.

True enough, although the e-mail was signed as if it came from David Foley and he has acknowledged that the exchange took place ... his only comment has been that the e-mails are shown out of context.

Cheers.

[davidrfoley]

My request for royalties was for our licensed characters and games that we have exclusive rights on.

[Edgedamage]

My request for royalties was for our licensed characters and games that we have exclusive rights on.

If you were serious about business you would working on your next product insted of forum surfing. Go and get real licences for visual pinmame/pinball without screwing anyone over. And make a nice machine which in my mind would sell like hotcakes.

[ChadTower]

My request for royalties was for our licensed characters and games that we have exclusive rights on.

So the MAME artwork emdkay was selling had characters on it that you own or own the rights for?

[davidrfoley]

I've already got the licenses for every table every manufactured by Williams and Bally.  We are working on other manufacturers as well.  Part of my job is Public Relations, and when discussions such as this one start off with the title ULTRACADE DISCONTINUED and rumors of our demise are being tossed around, it's my responsability to put a stop them.  This thread turned into a David Foley / UltraCade bashing sessions egged on by a few individuals.  I have made my points clear. 

As for Pinball Legends, take a sneak peak at http://www.hyperware.com/pub/pl/bk2k.mpg to see the work in progress

[Hoopz]

Part of my job is Public Relations,

LMAO!

[davidrfoley]

Yes Chad, he had marquees and side art with unlicensed characters on it.

[ChadTower]

Yes Chad, he had marquees and side art with unlicensed characters on it.

Let me guess... he didn't have a license for the character M.

 

[Stingray]

Yes Chad, he had marquees and side art with unlicensed characters on it.

Lets not leave out the MAME logo now. Okay sure, he didn't have licensce to preproduce it, that's because none was needed until you interfered.

-S

[ChadTower]

Why can't emdkay sell his MAME logos now?  Who is stopping him?  Foley doesn't own the trademark, the MAME team does.

[Tiger-Heli]

What he had to do was force the MAME team to protect its own property from abuse by third parties.

AFAIK, you cannot legally force someone to protect their own property from abuse by third parties.  IANAL, though.

If you come to me and say "I just heard that someone is going to break into your house and steal your MAME cabinet".  And I reply, "Okay, I don't care, it's basically free to a good home anyway.  I've been keeping it here, but if anyone wants it, they can have it.", that doesn't give you the right to then say "Okay, Tiger-Heli is not going to claim his rights to his arcade machine, so I will tell the police he gave it to me, and then no one can take it away illegally."

Now what you could do is inform the police to be on the lookout, and I think the DA could file charges (burglary - most likely), even if I said I didn't want them too - though they probably wouldn't,  but my example is a criminal case, not a civil case.

I don't think you can go to the DA or the judge and say "Person B is stealing Person A's IP and it is hurting my business, so please make Person B stop, because Person A won't answer my E-mails. . . "

[ChadTower]

That's not a parallel analogy.  He didn't just force them to protect it, he told them that if they didn't protect it he was going to take it.  So, they had to act or lose it.  It wasn't act or you may lose it.  It was act or I'm taking it from you.

If you don't want to protect that cab, and the person says someone may take it, you may not lose that cab.  If I tell you to protect that cab or I'm showing up tomorrow with a handtruck to take it myself, you will probably act.

[Stingray]

If I tell you to protect that cab or I'm showing up tomorrow with a handtruck to take it myself, you will probably act.

The action I would be likely to take would be hiding out in the bushes until you show up so I can put two barrels of Granny Clampett's famous rock salt shot into your backside.

-S

[ChadTower]

Someone did that to me when I was 15.  That really hurts.  It's tons of tiny little wounds with salt in them.

[Stingray]

I know. It's non-lethal, but incredibly painfull. Hillbilly technology at it's finest.

-S

[Tiger-Heli]

That's not a parallel analogy.  He didn't just force them to protect it, he told them that if they didn't protect it he was going to take it.  So, they had to act or lose it.  It wasn't act or you may lose it.  It was act or I'm taking it from you.

If you don't want to protect that cab, and the person says someone may take it, you may not lose that cab.  If I tell you to protect that cab or I'm showing up tomorrow with a handtruck to take it myself, you will probably act.

I think you are finally catching on here, Chad.  Foley is claiming that he forced them to protect their trademark, but he can't do that.  He had no legal way to take it.

To get back to my analogy, I have done nothing to protect the cab, and you say "Act or I am taking it from you".  Since I haven't said that I was giving away the cab, I merely did not indicate I would act to protect it, you don't legally have a right to take it.  Announcing your intent to take it is actually a threatened theft, extortion (if you say that you will take it unless I keep Person B from taking it), etc.  Not that it would be enforced.

You are correct that your action to notify me that you are picking up the cab tomorrow will probably force me to act, but you are missing the point that you are stepping outside of your legal rights in making that assertion.

(And you are now contradicting your earlier arguments and taking the side of the "If it's free and not protected, I'm entitled to it", I might add).

[ChadTower]

You can only do it from within about 15 feet, though. 

[ChadTower]

I think you are finally catching on here, Chad.

[Tiger-Heli]

It's hard to say someone has no legal way to do something that they have already done.  His strategy worked.  He likely based his strategy on the fact that the MAME team is not interested in paying 5 figures in attorney fees to fight the case.

You can't really mean that. . .  I hot-wire a car, drive it to Mexico and no one catches me.   Have I already done it?  Yes.  Did I have a legal way to do so?  No.  Your statement above basically boils down to "It's only illegal if you get caught!"

This case isn't about what is right or legal, it is about who wanted to pay what for attorneys.

To some people it's about what's right or legal, to some people it's about money, to some people it's about rationalizations.

I would only be contradicting my statements if I did these things.  Talking about someone else having done so does not contradict my opinions on MAME users.  I haven't said that what he did is RIGHT, only that it was EFFECTIVE.

Not true.  If you say it is wrong for Person A to steal from Person B, but okay for Person C to steal from Person D, you have contradicted yourself, even though you stole nothing.

More accurately your argument seems to break down to "It is wrong for MAME users to steal IP (rom images), but okay for Foley to steal IP (MAME trademark), b/c not doing so would hurt Foley's business, but not doing so for the MAME user would just inconvenience them."

Technically, you are arguing it from the standpoint that Foley's actions were right, or at least  I took "What he had to do was force the MAME team to protect its own property from abuse by third parties." to mean that you thought this was justified, since you didn't qualify it at all, 
however, technically you did not specifically say you supported his actions, so I might have read too much into that. . .

[ChadTower]

You can't really mean that. . .

[Tiger-Heli]

You're mixing civil and criminal law.  Doesn't work that way.

Fair enough, civil law is basically "Anything is legal until some injured party says it isn't."

Read the text that is there, not the subtext you believe to be there.  If you keep reading, you'll note that I specifically asked Foley if it was right to do.  That may have been in the other Ultracade thread, though.  Are you following both or just this one?

I thought this was the only current one    One is more than enough for me to follow, though. . .

[ChadTower]

I thought this was the only current one

[Stingray]

Stay out, have a life.  It's for your own good.

I tried and I failed. The lesson is:  never try.

-S

[Tiger-Heli]

The other one is even longer, and in Arcade Misc.  Stay out, have a life.  It's for your own good.

Yep, good advice.  I wish I'd followed it 

[Harry Potter]

What I'm really surprised at is Dave claiming in one of the posts here he handles Public Relations for his company.

What I don't get is if he handles PR, wouldn't it have occured to him that there would have been a backlash over the whole MAME tm thing? The right thing to do would have been to inform the MAME community of the progress and his exact intentions, as he talks to the Devs.

But Dave replies: The MAME community does not own MAME, the devs do (For more of this, go to the Mame site forums), therefore I'm not obliged to inform anyone outside the Dev team.

But then [person] says: But Dave, like it or not, MAME has a huge following from end-users to contributors (ie. Mr Goodwraith for buying stuff, Guru for dumping roms, just to name a few, not to mention all the coders contributing). You simply cannot dismiss them like an afterthought because they ain't going anywhere. You are supposed to be in the business of attracting people to your product? Instead the opposite you achieved. Simply put, any of the people mentioned are potential customers. And in turn they'll spread the bad word and so on and so on.

May not be much of a loss to you but it's still a loss and not the greatest PR move.

As for your mission to shut down pirates, while admirable, quite useless. They'll simply find another way to sell their crap and in the end all you've done is tick off a large number of people. Let's hope you won't apply the same techniques to the VPinball.    Good luck. 

[whammoed]

What I'm really surprised at is Dave claiming in one of the posts here he handles Public Relations for his company.

What I don't get is if he handles PR, wouldn't it have occured to him that there would have been a backlash over the whole MAME tm thing? The right thing to do would have been to inform the MAME community of the progress and his exact intentions, as he talks to the Devs.

But Dave replies: The MAME community does not own MAME, the devs do (For more of this, go to the Mame site forums), therefore I'm not obliged to inform anyone outside the Dev team.

But then [person] says: But Dave, like it or not, MAME has a huge following from end-users to contributors (ie. Mr Goodwraith for buying stuff, Guru for dumping roms, just to name a few, not to mention all the coders contributing). You simply cannot dismiss them like an afterthought because they ain't going anywhere. You are supposed to be in the business of attracting people to your product? Instead the opposite you achieved. Simply put, any of the people mentioned are potential customers. And in turn they'll spread the bad word and so on and so on.

May not be much of a loss to you but it's still a loss and not the greatest PR move.

As for your mission to shut down pirates, while admirable, quite useless. They'll simply find another way to sell their crap and in the end all you've done is tick off a large number of people. Let's hope you won't apply the same techniques to the VPinball.

[Goz]

It poses an interesting question: Would you buy a product from someone who so many believe to be morally bankrupt (not financially.... morally)?

Are there any unbiased evaluations of the products like light gun control panels, I/O's, etc...?

-Goz

[elvis]

This thread turned into a David Foley / UltraCade bashing sessions

1) What on earth did you expect in a place like this?  Do you really expect everyone to have a 6-month memory and welcome you back with open arms?  I do honestly wonder exactly how your mind works most of the time.

2) Your grammar really does stink.  From your posts here and my email conversations with you, I recommend you invest some time into your ability to properly convey yourself in a written manner.  That's quite a vital skill for someone in "Public Relations".  It's pretty shocking in this day and age when a business owner can't pen a few words correctly.  But that's not really adding to the thread at all, so tuck it under "friendly offtopic advice".

[Harry Potter]

This thread turned into a David Foley / UltraCade bashing sessions

1) What on earth did you expect in a place like this?  Do you really expect everyone to have a 6-month memory and welcome you back with open arms?  I do honestly wonder exactly how your mind works most of the time.

He figured "If it worked for SNAAAKE, it'll work for me". 

[ChadTower]

Q:  Why would anyone here buy his products?

A:   I don't think anyone has.  We here, and the MAME community, are not his customer base.

[Stingray]

Q:  Why would anyone here buy his products?

A:   I don't think anyone has.  We here, and the MAME community, are not his customer base.

Yes, but he does have that new lightgun controller board coming out soon. As much as I'd love to add a real arcade light gun to my cab, I'm afraid that I just cannot bring myself to do business with Ultracade. So, the answer in my case would be no, I won't buy his products.

-S

[ChadTower]

If it's good, and I ever decide to build myself a MAME cab, and I can afford it, I will buy it.

[quarterback]

If it's good, and I ever decide to build myself a MAME cab, and I can afford it, I will buy it.

First I'll claim that it's mine and try to steal it.
Then I'll try and put anybody who's selling it, out of business.
Then I'll tell everybody that I've done them all a favor by proving that it could have been stolen.

[Crazy Cooter]

But for this to apply, I would have to have said what Foley did is either right or wrong.

[ChadTower]

And no.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What he did was legally grey at best, and I'm not justifying it, but if you want to take that stance you'd better drop everything you own and live in a cave.

I find this statement more than hypocritical coming from someone as passionate as you are about protecting the stuff they love. (Your family, etc)

I mean, people are going to kill each other, so why buy a gun? People are going to break into houses, so why lock the door? Rapists are going to rape women, so why protect your wife?

Cooter has every right to fight to protect a hobby he loves, and just because Verizon is a shady company, and he *might* use a Verizon cell phone, doesn't mean he can't concentrate his efforts on defending the MAME project. He has more direct knowledge of this hobby than he does of the inner workings of a telcom giant, so it makes perfect sense that he'd spend his efforts opposing those he sees as a threat to that community, rather than going after a phone company. The tobacco industry was brought down by insiders, same with the savings & loan company, etc..This is how things are done on this planet.

Btw, what Foley did wasn't "grey", it was black and white...he tried to muscle out small-time competition and extort money from them in the process. The only reason he had to "work with the community" was because he was so overzealous in his greed, he jumped the gun and started the extortion before he had secured the Trademark.

You say you aren't justifying, but it seems pretty clear you are. Unless you are just arguing for the sake of argument again?


mrC

Edit: spelling

[ChadTower]

I find this statement more than hypocritical coming from someone as passionate as you are about protecting the stuff they love. (Your family, etc)

I do not care what you find or do not find in any statement.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I find this statement more than hypocritical coming from someone as passionate as you are about protecting the stuff they love. (Your family, etc)

I do not care what you find or do not find in any statement.

Of course. Because I'm right and you can't admit that.



mrC

[ChadTower]

 

[Stingray]

It's awfully early in the week for you two to be going at each other like that.

-S

[ChadTower]

I was sitting here, made a statement at Cooter, and he threw stuff at me.  I don't want to talk to him and told him so.
 
Don't send me to the nurse, I'll hold it in today.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I was sitting here, made a statement at Cooter, and he threw stuff at me.

Making a statement does not amount to "sitting" there. I defended Cooter against a statement you made. A statement you don't even care enough to defend, which makes me wonder why you even make statements like that, at all.

I don't want to talk to him and told him so.

Did you cross your arms and get blue in the face too?   

It's awfully early in the week for you two to be going at each other like that.

lol. Mondays make me cranky.  (EDIT: HA! Looks like I picked the perfect day!)


mrC

[Havok]

Q:

[RayB]

POOT!

[Stingray]

POOT!

Pretty well sums up this entire thread.

-S

[Crazy Cooter]

And no.

[Harry Potter]

As much as I hate to criticise the entertainment this thread has provided, enough is enough.

Foley ain't gonna admit to anything, so CT waving around that trademark application will now achieve zero. Yes he did wrong by the community and yes he is shady, but in the end, he didn't get MAME and that should be all that matters.

I think the time to lay off it may be.................. now

[ChadTower]

CT, please highlight the area that is "legally grey at best":

The first thing I'll point out as grey at best is your constant use of that image.

[Harry Potter]

Oh crap. I wrote the wrong intials. I meant CC. Sorry bout that bro. 

I need a drink.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What I do not understand, however, is why noninvolved parties without any vested interest in the situation would be running around screaming about it. 

Maybe because they can love something other than themselves. 

Anyhow, didn't CC lose business when DF was shutting down eBay auctions and extorting people? How does that make him a 'noninvloved' party?

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to crap on CC's passion anyhow?....talk about non-involved parties, even though I'm not suprised you'd jump to defend a guy like Foley in the very community he tried to destroy, and admitted he couldn't care less about (I wish I could find his lovely quote).



mrC

[Harry Potter]

We're not defending Foley. Just that this poop is getting old.

[ChadTower]

Anyhow, didn't CC lose business when DF was shutting down eBay auctions and extorting people? How does that make him a 'noninvloved' party?

I haven't seen any statements that he has.

[Tiger-Heli]

Anyhow, didn't CC lose business when DF was shutting down eBay auctions and extorting people?

Not that I know of, although I think you can be "involved" in something without having a financial stake it it.

. . .defend a guy like Foley in the very community he tried to destroy, and admitted he couldn't care less about (I wish I could find his lovely quote).

See Stingray's tagline, about 6 replies upward.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yes he did wrong by the community and yes he is shady, but in the end, he didn't get MAME and that should be all that matters.

All that matters, that is, until he can find some other way to exploit the hard work of others. We need people like Cooter to keep an eye on the wolves...and I appreciate his involvement.




mrC

[Tiger-Heli]

We need people like Cooter to keep an eye on the wolves...and I appreciate his involvement.

I do also.

[Harry Potter]

I seriously doubt he'll be exploiting anything, what with so many people keeping an eye on him.
My post was regarding this thread and how repetitive it's getting.

[Stingray]

"There is no denying what took place, and I am never going to convince people what my motives or methods were, and quite frankly I don't care if I do." --David R. Foley

-S

[ChadTower]

See, now the FEMA guy should say THAT.

[Harry Potter]

Good. Now can we get back to posting pics of bacon and cheesecakes? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

TH,

Anyhow, didn't CC lose business when DF was shutting down eBay auctions and extorting people?

Not that I know of, although I think you can be "involved" in something without having a financial stake it it.

I might be confusing him with someone else here, but I agree with your second point anyhow.


CT,

Someone had to take the less popular position here. 

NO. Someone didn't! But, you have every right to do it, but it certainly doesn't come without risk. When you play Devil's Advocate on the BYOAC for a man that pulled a stunt like Foley did...then you are literally advocating for the Devil.

Either way, one thing you have no right to do is criticize Cooter's involvement, since you yourself have questionable interest in MAME cabs, and some apparent disdain for MAME itself, which is essentially the cornerstone on which this community is built.

Like I said above, this current topic has mostly run dry...but we'd be fools (those of us how love this community and love everything about MAME) to sit back and act like it's over. Foley essentially broke into our houses, was caught carrying our collective entertainment center out the door, then when caught tried to claim he's just "letting us know our door was unlocked."

CC and others (and I believe that involves you) can help us make sure that door is bolted shut so the next nefarious character can't sneak his way in. That is as long as you stop questioning people's interest, and stick to the details (as you are capable of doing). But don't expect any sympathy from the majority of people in this camp when it comes to Ultracade or any of it's iterations.



mrC

[ChadTower]

So, I can't question his interest... how would I be expected to understand his interest if I never question it?  I do not believe I said that he had no right to his interest.  I said I do not understand it, and more accurately meant that I do not understand the vehemence behind it.

Those that feel Foley tried to carry our collective entertainment center out the door simply aren't paying attention to the questionable nature of the product to begin with.  I would have an easier time believing that he was trying to steal if he had put out explicitly MAME based products while he was shutting down MAME based merchants.  He didn't do that, and until someone reverse engineers an Ultracade to reveal a MAME engine, I don't see facts in evidence that support many of the claims being made.

[Tiger-Heli]

I might be confusing him with someone else here, but I agree with your second point anyhow.

Probably confusing him with EMDKAY, the marquee printing guy that about the same time that Foley claimed he was trying to trademark MAME to keep people from unfairly profiting on it, got the letters from Foley saying that Foley owned the MAME trademark but they could come to a royalty agreeement, although Foley now claims those letters are out-of-context, although EMDKAY says he only left out some of his cost basis and Foley never stated what he thought was missing . . .

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"There is no denying what took place, and I am never going to convince people what my motives or methods were, and quite frankly I don't care if I do." --David R. Foley

-S

Nice sentiment. Sounds like someone else that posts here....  ahem.

Good. Now can we get back to posting pics of bacon and cheesecakes?

Yeah. I've pretty much said my piece...for now. Here's some Bacon a little Cheesecake.




mrC

[ChadTower]

Foley's statement applies to anyone. 

My statement applies to an individual.

Sticking with the facts:  Mr C just posted a picture of Richard Simmons and called it Cheesecake.

[Harry Potter]

Sticking with the facts:  Mr C just posted a picture of Richard Simmons and called it Cheesecake.

WOAH. I didn't even look at who posted it. I just assumed it was Tommy. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sticking with the facts:  Mr C just posted a picture of Richard Simmons and called it Cheesecake.

Oh, I meant to put cheeseball...Anyhow...What? You don't find him sexy?

ee, now the FEMA guy should say THAT.

He actually did you one better Chad. Today, in front of the Republican run committee, he said,

"I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it..."

[ChadTower]

He actually did you one better Chad. Today, in front of the Republican run committee, he said,

"I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it..."

He does know what he's doing.  He's standing there, reinstalled, taunting the media. 

He's a dumbass.

[Stingray]

Sticking with the facts:  Mr C just posted a picture of Richard Simmons and called it Cheesecake.

Oh, I meant to put cheeseball...Anyhow...What? You don't find him sexy?

He's gotta be sexier than Foley.

-S

[Harry Potter]

Most likely
(I should probably do something more useful now)

[RayB]

Mob rules CT. Mob rules.

[Crazy Cooter]

It is the fine print of the application, taken out of context, and is more suited to the accuracy of the information within the application itself than it is to the mark for which the application is filed.

[Stingray]

CC, I made the same point a few minutes ago in the other thread, although you said it better. In any case signing a document that claims something to be true when you know it is not is a crime isn't it?

-S

[Tiger-Heli]

CC, I made the same point a few minutes ago in the other thread, although you said it better. In any case signing a document that claims something to be true when you know it is not is a crime isn't it?

-S

Actually, chad hit this right in the other thread - depends on the document.

I think signing a trademark application for a mark you are not entitled to is a crime.

My signing a paper saying that the sky is green when I know it's blue is not a crime.  Generally, lying is not illegal unless there's malicious intent or an intent to defraud, otherwise we couldn't have politicians .  . .

[ChadTower]

How is the application itself "taken out of context" when that's exactly what we're discussing?

You did not show an image of the application.

[Crazy Cooter]

prove he didn't believe it

Challenge accepted.

Answer forthcoming in this thread:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=43644.0

[ChadTower]

I probably should have been more specific.  What I meant to say was, "it cannot be proven in a court of law", which is what is relevant here.

Here, dude has already been tried, convited, executed, raped, and pissed on.  Proving it here doesn't have much bearing on the legality of what happened.

[Stingray]

Generally, lying is not illegal unless there's malicious intent or an intent to defraud, ...

Wouldn't this be intent to defraud?

-S

[ChadTower]

Intent is often very, very hard to prove in court.

The whole intent to defraud thing only matters, anyway, if the MAME devs were to sue him were he actually awarded the trademark.  Never would have happened anyway.

[Tiger-Heli]

EDIT:  slight correction, the artist who created that MAME mark would also have a claim.

As would EmdKay and many of the legitimate E-bay sellers.

[ChadTower]

As would EmdKay and many of the legitimate E-bay sellers.

EMDKay was selling images with Mr Do on them, according to the info here.  Mr Do is owned by Foley, and therefore EMDKay was not legally entitled to much more than a C+D letter.

[Crazy Cooter]

EMDKay was selling images with Mr Do on them, according to the info here.

[ChadTower]

It was in either this thread or the other Ultracade thread from this week... I don't have time to sift through it all, given that they are both like a hundred pages.

[Crazy Cooter]

Use the search function.

[ChadTower]

Nuh uh.  You do it.

[Stingray]

As would EmdKay and many of the legitimate E-bay sellers.

EMDKay was selling images with Mr Do on them

That's what Foley claimed, but according to EmdKay it was the MAME logo that was the issue.

-S

[Crazy Cooter]

Nuh uh. You do it.

LOL.  I searched...  I didn't find anything to support your position.

[ChadTower]

Then take Stingray's word for it.  EMDKay didn't present very much of a case for himself, so all we really have is his word against Foley's.  No way to know what is true without seeing what EMDKay was selling for ourselves.

[Crazy Cooter]

HUH?!?  EMDKAY posted the email log.  What did Foley post?  Nothing.

[ChadTower]

Foley posted here that it was the Mr Do IP that was the problem.

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm not seeing where Foley says EMDKAY was selling Mr DO!  Am I missing it?

[Stingray]

This is as close as I can find:

We did not try to "squeeze" money out of anyone.  We own several character rights including Mr. DO!, and we have offered companies who wish to use them an opportunity to legally license them for reproduction.

We work closely with the MAME team to ensure legal use of the MAME emulation system, and proper sales of products that have only legal copies of ROMs. 

Anything else reported is misinformation.

Gotcha.  So just so its clear, you are saying that what emdkay said is untrue.  You did not say he needed to pay royalties for using the MAME logo?  You told him he needed to pay royalties for printing Mr. Do?

davidrfoley, could you please respond to my follow up, I just don't feel like you gave a firm answer to the subject.

In the next post Foley said:

You are correct.

Which I guess is him saying that EmdKay lied and Whammoed was correct in assuming that it was Mr. Do and not the MAME logo that initiated the C&D. Of course you could also see it as Foley admitting that Whammoed was correct in that he (Foley) did not give a firm answer.

-S

[ChadTower]

I would swear it was also Foley who initially brought up Mr Do being the issue earlier in that thread, but I'm too lazy to look for it.

I just don't feel like debating this issue anymore.  I have master debated too much.

[Havok]

Mr. Do stinks -  Dig Dug is better!

[Stingray]

I would swear it was also Foley who initially brought up Mr Do being the issue earlier in that thread, but I'm too lazy to look for it.

His statement: "We own several character rights including Mr. DO!", was the nearest I could find. He definitely says that he owns the rights to Mr. DO!, and he sort of says that EmdKay was printing Mr. DO! stuff without permission, but as I said, you could also take what he said as admitting that he's not giving any firm answers.

-S

[Tiger-Heli]

Stringray is correct as I remember it, but MaximRecoil also posted this (which EMDKAY had posted earlier):

Quote
I'll say it one more time.  The MAME team did not respond to our requests to stop the illegal distribution of MAME on commerical products.  They did not enforce thier trademark, nor thier license agreement.  We took steps to ensure that the TM was enforced and that commerical distribution of MAME was only with a licensed ROMs.

That's all you did, huh?

This was posted earlier (from emdkay):

Quote
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...

Your response to that was:

Quote
Cooter, the exchange you quote is incomplete and taken out of context.

Just stating "incomplete" and "out of context" is just a whole lot of hand waving. You have to show the actual [alleged] "true" context/completeness and how it affects the meaning of your statements. Here is an example:

Quote
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.

Now, you could have said something like this in response:

"Sure, I sent you that email, but you forgot to include the next line where I said "HAH! JUST KIDDING!"

See how that works Foley? Now, how about you enlighten us all in regard to the proper context and completeness of that email exchange which will magically transform plain English into something else?

This is pretty clearly mentioning MAME not Mr.DO!, and I have never heard UltraDave say anything except "out-of-context" without any further explanation.

[Stingray]

This is pretty clearly mentioning MAME not Mr.DO!, and I have never heard UltraDave say anything except "out-of-context" without any further explanation.

Nor have I.

-S

[ChadTower]

Yep... we had decided that it was probably shady, though plausibly simple incompetence because we only have one instance.

[fiscap]

C'mon - let's be sensible about all of this. Who in their right mind is going to buy anything from a guy that looks like this?

[Crazy Cooter]

Foley said "out of context", then EMDKAY asked "how so?" and Foley quit talking about it.  He's avoided several questions like that.  That's how the "misinformation" thing started with me.  I posted and he cried "misinformation!" without answering/clarifying anything.

[whammoed]

Most of Foleys responses on the matter reminded me of a politician.  Think the Clinton/Lewinski deal.
It depends on how you define context...

[DrewKaree]

* DrewKaree looks around

"sooo.......how about that President's Cup and everything?"

"wait....wait, put down the golf club.  I didn't mean anything by it.  No!  NOT THE HORSE, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, NOT THE HORSE!  NOOOOOOOOOO!"

[Havok]

* DrewKaree looks around

"wait....wait, put down the golf club.