From: Marko Mäkelä (marko.makela_at_hut.fi)
Date: 2004-06-18 12:07:57
Hi Ruud, Thanks for your very interesting report. > Another point is the makers of hardware like Maurice Randall but also people > like Markus Brenner and the Czechs who produce the IDE64. Particulary those > who produce hardware that is to be connected to the userport or > expansionport. I didn't realise it but these ports are intellectual > properties of Commodore as well. The term "intellectual property" is usually used to refer to copyrights, trademarks and patents. Let's see: copyright covers only the expression of creative works. I don't think that the interface pinouts can be covered by copyright. Trademarks could apply, e.g., your can't sell a product called "Commodore 64 hardware interface" without having permission from the trademark owner. But the name IDE64 should be okay. Finally, yes, the interfaces could be covered on patents. If any were filed, they would have been filed in the very early 1980s at latest, and thus the expiration time of 17 or 20 years must have already passed. > So actually anyone building hardware for these ports has to pay C= a fee > as well. Of course, the new C64 (built inside a joystick) can be a different matter, if its circuit board design is covered by a patent. > - sites publishing games and related software owned by Commodore have to > remove it. It should be noted that Commodore didn't own the rights to most games. But Ironstone probably has agreements with other copyright holders, including at least the current owners of Epyx copyrights, if a previous announcement I read about a re-release of Summer Games, Winter Games etc. is correct. Marko Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.