From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


"Jim Butterfield" <fjb@pathcom.com> wrote in message news:3f1535e8.1756420@localhost...

Clipped from "The Register".

the
thorny question of who actually owns the core C64 firmware. While the
Amiga was sold off as brand plus technology, Tulip only bought the C64
brand. Now no one knows who has the rights to the firmware. Suing for
brand infringement is the only weapon Tulip and Ironstone have - they
can't fight on copyright infringement grounds.

Wow Jim Butterfield..... :-)

I was thinking about this, who owns the C64 firmware??, does that mean that Vice still i Vice!, but must not be assiciated with the name 'Commodore 64'
or Commodore...sounds crazy...

Also I do not like the idea that a company wants to make money on just the
name & brand, I guess commodore when they where making the C64 did not care
if some one used the C64 or Commodore name to promote a product, as long as they did not tried to 'be' commodore.


Chr..


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:26:01 +0200, "Christian Lyng" <christian.lyng@REMOVETHISishoejby.dk> wrote:

I was thinking about this, who owns the C64 firmware??

Half of the ROM is Commodore Basic; Microsoft could put in a
proprietary claim on this, if there were any money to be made doing
so. (Since MS have reportedly classified QBasic as freely
distributable, it's doubtful that they would want to enforce rights on
an earlier Basic production).

The other half is the Kernal. In view of IBM's failure to safeguard
design rights on the PC BIOS system, it seems to me unlikely that
anyone would wish to claim copyright and demand royalties there. (But
strange things have happened before in the informatic/legal world).

Also I do not like the idea that a company wants to make money on just the >name & brand, I guess commodore when they where making the C64 did not care >if some one used the C64 or Commodore name to promote a product, as long as >they did not tried to 'be' commodore.

When Commodore was a viable operation, they effectively exploited
their brand name with a successful PC line marketed principally in
Europe. With Commodore's demise, the names Commodore and Amiga were
eagerly pursued by European interests. But the whole thing got
muddled somehow, as the profits started to drain away from hardware
sales.

(Just my view of history).

--Jim



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

It will be interesting to see Tulip go after all those individual sites.
If anything it will alienate and piss off the commodore community that
survived on its own without Tulip for many years. I also wonder if they
will go into USA and start expensive lawsuits there...
--
___
/ __|__ Burt /Terminator / /
/ / |_/ www.museum.c64.org / /
\ \__|_\ Adoring C= 64 / 128 and \ \/ /
\___| Getting into Amiga, too... \/\/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Christian Lyng wrote:
|"Jim Butterfield" <fjb@pathcom.com> wrote in message |news:3f1535e8.1756420@localhost...

Clipped from "The Register".

|

the
thorny question of who actually owns the core C64 firmware. While the
Amiga was sold off as brand plus technology, Tulip only bought the C64 brand. Now no one knows who has the rights to the firmware. Suing for
brand infringement is the only weapon Tulip and Ironstone have - they
can't fight on copyright infringement grounds.

|
|Wow Jim Butterfield..... :-)

Boy, those Canadians sure are experts on the Lanham Act, huh?

|I was thinking about this, who owns the C64 firmware??, does that
|mean that Vice still i Vice!, but must not be assiciated with the
|name 'Commodore 64' or Commodore...sounds crazy...

Hey, you don't suppose that Vice needs a copy of some copyrighted ROM
code to run, does it?

|Also I do not like the idea that a company wants to make money on
|just the name & brand, I guess commodore when they where making
|the C64 did not care if some one used the C64 or Commodore name to
|promote a product, as long as they did not tried to 'be' commodore.

Hey, what legislative act in Germany is comparable to the Lanham Act
in the US, I mean, so long as we are dealing with international law?

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307170319260.14763-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>, Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote:

Hey, you don't suppose that Vice needs a copy of some copyrighted ROM
code to run, does it?

Hey, the gist of the whole thing was that nobody knows exactly who
owns the rights to the Commodore technology, including the copyrights
for the ROM codes. We know that much that it isn't Tulip.
Tulip only has rights for the name/brand Commodore.

-Pasi
--
/She smiled one of those shrewd little smiles that women wore when they
wanted to fuddle a man. It seldom meant they knew anything, but they
could make you think they did./ -- The Wheel of Time:"Lord of Chaos"
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

albert@pikkukorppi.cs.tut.fi (Ojala Pasi 'Albert') writes:

nobody knows exactly who owns the rights to the Commodore technology, including the copyrights for the ROM codes. We know that much that
it isn't Tulip. Tulip only has rights for the name/brand Commodore.

When did the split happen; right after the bankrupcy or when the first
buyer (Escom?) sold it again? I don't think it is impossible that Tulip
have bought some of the software and hardware copyrights from Gateway
or whoever owned it without telling the Commodore community loud and
clear about it. Or is there some legal prevention from letting Tulip
acquire this part of the Commodore heritage?



--
Anders Carlsson
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307170319260.14763-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:

Boy, those Canadians sure are experts on the Lanham Act, huh?

Hey, you don't suppose that Vice needs a copy of some copyrighted ROM
code to run, does it?

Hey, what legislative act in Germany is comparable to the Lanham Act
in the US, I mean, so long as we are dealing with international law?

Hmmm.... I thought Tulip was from Netherland (aka Holland aka the land of
the Dutch).



--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Anders Carlsson <anders.carlsson@mds.mdh.se> wrote in news:k2gd6g91eh2.fsf@legolas.mdh.se:

albert@pikkukorppi.cs.tut.fi (Ojala Pasi 'Albert') writes:

nobody knows exactly who owns the rights to the Commodore technology,
including the copyrights for the ROM codes. We know that much that
it isn't Tulip. Tulip only has rights for the name/brand Commodore.

When did the split happen; right after the bankrupcy or when the first
buyer (Escom?) sold it again? I don't think it is impossible that Tulip
have bought some of the software and hardware copyrights from Gateway
or whoever owned it without telling the Commodore community loud and
clear about it. Or is there some legal prevention from letting Tulip
acquire this part of the Commodore heritage?

If I recall right, Gateway bought Commodore patents. It didn't say all Commodore patents. That means, Gateway could had only bought the
Commodore patents pertaining to Amiga. That does mean that Tulip could
had also bought Commodore patents. Do note that patents are ownership of
the parent company when issued. That means Amiga patents are Commodore
patent and there is no such thing as "Amiga patents". Patents were not
issued until after Commodore bought Hi-Toro aka Amiga back in 1984/1985.

So the question is, what were all of the patents purchased by Gateway.
That is the key. Also to note, Tulip purchased more than just trademarks. Remember Gateway was interested in the Amiga. They can give a rats ass
about Commodore patents that have nothing to do with Amiga. Keep in mind
that each patent is an individual patent that can be purchased
individually and the buyer can select the patents of interest and Tulip
could have simply bought the rest.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


Anders Carlsson wrote ...

When did the split happen; right after the bankrupcy or when the first
buyer (Escom?) sold it again? I don't think it is impossible that Tulip
have bought some of the software and hardware copyrights from Gateway
or whoever owned it without telling the Commodore community loud and
clear about it. Or is there some legal prevention from letting Tulip
acquire this part of the Commodore heritage?

Gateway can either sell, or license, any of the former CBM patents or copyrights that they may own to anyone they wish. As a corporation, Gateway
is probably profit driven, just as Tulip is. That may, or may not, be good
for the Commodore community at large. But I have a gut feeling that it will
be bad for those in the CBM community that have worked the hardest to keep Commodore alive.

Even if some of the people at Tulip are in favor of the CBM community, their lawyers may still go after anyone that is even perceived as infringing upon
any of Tulip's intellectual or technological properties.

Maybe not because they were told to do so, but just because that is the kind
of thing that corporate lawyers do, so that it will appear that they are earning their keep.

Gee, I need some rest. I just used the word "that" four times in the same sentence... ;-)

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!







--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307171357450.6851-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:

What, you think Butterfield is Dutch?

NO !!!! I think Jim is a Canadian from the Toronto area.
Matthew, why do you ask me such stupid questions ?

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in news:yQERa.4029$1q6.3554@nwrddc04.gnilink.net:

Gateway can either sell, or license, any of the former CBM patents or copyrights that they may own to anyone they wish. As a corporation,
Gateway is probably profit driven, just as Tulip is. That may, or may
not, be good for the Commodore community at large. But I have a gut
feeling that it will be bad for those in the CBM community that have
worked the hardest to keep Commodore alive.

Even if some of the people at Tulip are in favor of the CBM community,
their lawyers may still go after anyone that is even perceived as
infringing upon any of Tulip's intellectual or technological
properties.

Maybe not because they were told to do so, but just because that is
the kind of thing that corporate lawyers do, so that it will appear
that they are earning their keep.

Gee, I need some rest. I just used the word "that" four times in the
same sentence... ;-)

Yeah but lawyers can not initiate a lawsuit without the corportions
approval. The corporation has to initiate the tasks as the lawyers are in
the business of representing several corporations. I do know one of the
US's top corporate lawyers. One of the lawyers who wrote the AT&T break-
up. Anyway, if I need to deal with those legal issues then I may call
upon him.

Lawyers are the legal represenative but they can not initiate a lawsuit without consent of their client (the corporation). If the corporation
wishes not to take the action into courts then there will not be a case.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, wildstar wrote:

What, you think Butterfield is Dutch?

|
|NO !!!! I think Jim is a Canadian from the Toronto area.
|Matthew, why do you ask me such stupid questions ?

Your amazement is the fuel that drives the engine, I guess.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Etienne von Wettingfeld wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin wrote:
|

|Hmmm.... I thought Tulip was from Netherland (aka Holland aka the
|land of the Dutch).

What, you think Butterfield is Dutch?

|
|He would be called "Boterveld". :)

That has a pleasant ring to it.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


wildstar wrote ...

Lawyers are the legal represenative but they can not initiate a lawsuit >without consent of their client (the corporation). If the corporation
wishes not to take the action into courts then there will not be a case.

Some men are sitting at a table eating lunch.

Lawyer: "Do we have permission to act in the best interest of the
corporation?"

Executive: "Of course. The best interest of the corporation was uppermost
in our minds when we retained your firm."

Then talk around the table returns to football.

'Nuff said.

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!







--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307171610450.15120-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, wildstar wrote:

What, you think Butterfield is Dutch?

|
|NO !!!! I think Jim is a Canadian from the Toronto area.
|Matthew, why do you ask me such stupid questions ?

Your amazement is the fuel that drives the engine, I guess.

Hehehe, ok Matt.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in news:7OKRa.16690$EZ2.1849@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Some men are sitting at a table eating lunch.

Lawyer: "Do we have permission to act in the best interest of the corporation?"

Executive: "Of course. The best interest of the corporation was
uppermost in our minds when we retained your firm."

Then talk around the table returns to football.

'Nuff said.

It can be upheld to the fact that nothing was told to the corporation
what that is. One thing to note that I can simply say they hadn't
mentioned anything of this to the actual company. It is too ambiguous a statement and has no defined point. Where is the corporate policy about
the use then the fiasco of large money use and it falls to the fact they
spent millions of dollars to in a lawsuit just to find that I fall under
legal terms of the US laws on trademark as my business is here. Just
simply for the fact that the trademark is not commercially used and they
suit me because I indicate that my software is made to run on a Commodore
64. Oops, I am within acceptable use and I win and they also have to pay
for my bad ass lawyers.

Boy, is that smart. Since the condition would be made out of Tulip's hide
if I win. The winning point is that I am legally making indication for customer protection. So they are not so much a dumb ass to put that 1541
disk into a 286 with a 5.25" floppy or that 1581 disk into their Windows
PC's 3.5" floppy drive. How smart ? Boy can my customers complain that my product can't be used with their Windows PC. Wow, I have a defence and I
am covering my ass.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

It occurred to me that Anders Carlsson wrote in comp.sys.cbm:

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> writes:

What, you think Butterfield is Dutch?

What!! You dare badmouth one of the few remaing gurus from the
Land of Commodore?

Err, since when it is badmouthing to call someone Dutch? There are
quite a few fellow (and I believe skilled) Dutch Commodorians in
this group, so I could think of more degrading things to be called.

:)

--
Martijn van Buul - Pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing (W. von Braun) --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, wildstar wrote:
|"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in news:qVIRa.25866$kI5.16629 |@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
|
|

What!! You dare badmouth one of the few remaing gurus from the Land of Commodore?

For penance you must get on your knees, bend over, and, on the rubber keyboard of a ZX Spectrum type with your nose, "I repent, but I am not forgiven." 10 times.

Don't let this happen again, or you will have to type in a long program listing in Sinclair Basic.

Best regards,

|
|Why not make him write a HTML parser and viewer program in Sinclar BASIC
|for the the X amount of time. Where X = the age of Jim Butterfield to the |power of how many Commodore users that still use a Commodore (even once a |year).
|
|Wait a minute that is capital punishment. :-P

What crashes more often? The Sinclair, or that Windows program by
Microsoft?

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307180430511.11804-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:

What crashes more often? The Sinclair, or that Windows program by
Microsoft?

So what, then you are comparing kindergarten hardware and software to Doctorates in hardware & software. Ok, Microsoft is not th best. Yet you
are comparing a single tasking system to a multi-tasking system. I bet
you the Sinclair will crash at a 100% range if you tried to run more than
one program at the same time without a taskswitcher or simply can't do
it.

Now, let's think here. Windows is aproximately a development since
1985/1986 in the area of multitasking. Then again, why is there sooo many
bugs or viruses for Windows is because there is 500 Million users and
there is about 1 Million crackers out exploiting flaws in Microsoft
because it is a trend to make this Multi-Billion dollar giant be
embarassed mostly because they think it is fun and it is childish act of showing off to their friends. If there was 500 Million users using
=WiNGS= and a Commodore then we would have an amazing level of
exploitation. For every bit of code written, there is more ways some
ingenious d*ckhead can come up with ways to screw things up. Our sake is
that we are soooo obscure and that these people know nothing or very
little about Commodore and to them writing a virus for those computers
are of no trendiness. If Commodore was "THE" mainstream then we will
certainly have all sorts of exploitation. The biggest key is writing a
code that alters the original files.

Do you think =WiNGS= can handle that kind of exploitation without such damaging. What is our tool to detect and analyze binary. How do we deal
with code that is altering system files. It is sooooo easy to jack things
up that re-install is the only reliable option. There is no such defense.

We haven't been anywhere close to the mainstream in quite some time. Our technology is only clearly known by a smaller percentage of the populous.

Let's just be careful. Windows is doing SOOOOO much more than what you
might think even when you do nothing as it checks ports and otherthings.



--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, wildstar wrote:

Err, since when it is badmouthing to call someone Dutch? There are
quite a few fellow (and I believe skilled) Dutch Commodorians in
this group, so I could think of more degrading things to be called.

|
|An implied insult by Matthew ????? Jim Buttterfield can roll with things.
|So guys don't worry. Jim's cool.

Then why suggest that he was Dutch?

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307181845490.31233-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:

Wings? What's that? Do I have to plug a mouse in to get it to work?

LONG explanation in short, talk to Jolse Maginnis (sp?) and all others
working with =WiNGS=/JOS. They are willing to explain only if you do not
rant before fully understanding. I am quite certain you can use a
Joystick instead. It isn't that hard. Maybe a Lightpen or even a Koala
Pad. It is called drivers. GUI is there too. Oh, don't panic - you'll
have your fun with keyboard action but why spend the time typing this and
that and simply type the stuff you need to type.

Had there been a multiplicity of platforms out there, rather than
some kind of Microsoft-based monolith, it would be that much harder
for viruses to spread.

Only a call to platform independent viruses that learn and morph.

It does many more things than I would ever give it permission to,
for that matter, so what else is new?

Sure but wouldn't you want that firewall keeping assholes out of inside
your computer from remote and automatically launching or even taking
control of your system resources. We are talking about Crackers (media
calls Hackers) who will adapt their knowledge to figure a way to crash
your computer. Commodore users have only been protected via obsurity.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307181849390.31233-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:

Then why suggest that he was Dutch?

I didn't - you are the one that suggested that.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, wildstar wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in |news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307181849390.31233-100000@lab.oregonvos.net:
|
|

Then why suggest that he was Dutch?

|
|I didn't - you are the one that suggested that.

Not me, I was wondering why YOU were suggesting that.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


Anders Carlsson wrote ...

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> writes:

What, you think Butterfield is Dutch?

What!! You dare badmouth one of the few remaing gurus from the
Land of Commodore?

Err, since when it is badmouthing to call someone Dutch? There are
quite a few fellow (and I believe skilled) Dutch Commodorians in
this group, so I could think of more degrading things to be called.

The line you quoted wasn't the one where the badmouthing took place.
It was in this line:

Boy, those Canadians sure are experts on the Lanham Act, huh?

Sorry for the misunderstandings.

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!








--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

wildstar <wildstar128@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns93BCDA8DA72D1wildstar128hotmailco@216.168.3.44:

LONG explanation in short, talk to Jolse Maginnis (sp?) and all others working with =WiNGS=/JOS. They are willing to explain only if you do
not rant before fully understanding. I am quite certain you can use a Joystick instead. It isn't that hard. Maybe a Lightpen or even a Koala

Or, you can be like me and spend most of your time in =WiNGS= at the
command line and not even need a mouse. :)

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113