| Re: C64 Patent [message #165975 is a reply to message #165938] |
Thu, 06 July 2006 18:01   |
![rick balkins[1][2] is currently offline](theme/default/images/offline.png "rick balkins[1][2] is currently offline")
rick balkins[1][2]
Messages: 704
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Hernan Vergara" <hvergara@videocam.net.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0607051325050.28155@localhost...
> Hi AxiMaxi,
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, AxiMaxi wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:34:35 +0930, Hernan Vergara
>> <hvergara@videocam.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> When someone asks for a modern 64, I immediately envision, a computer
>>> that
>>> has mega or gigabyes of memory, high resolution output 1024 x 768 or
>>> whatever as minimum, boots from ROM, has a sound chip (like SID) can be
>>> another chip with 12 or 256 voices(?) :-) it has a startup like the 64
>>> or
>>> 128, IOW to BASIC2006(?), IDE EIDE or whatever is up to snuff today etc
>>> etc... and that it is priced in the $300.00 max to $500.00.
>>>
>>> In other words, a computer that once you open it you can start to
>>> program,
>>> and what you produce looks like the same or better to XBOX, or any of
>>> today's game machines.
>>
>> The first paragraph is contradicting the second:
>> THe power of the C64 was it's simplicity. Anyone could master to type
>> some simple basic code or even assembly to produce graphics.
>
> Is it?
POKE 4290500368,65535
?Why not
32 bit addressing and 16 Bit data. Sounds like what BASIC would look like if
written up for WDC Terbium (whenever it would become available). There is no
excuse. It just a matter of adding an addressing mode for absolute 32 Bit
addressing. Just a Opcode for "LAS" (Load Accumalator Super-Long) where you
would have one byte represent the load address and 4 following bytes would
be the address. It would then load in the data in 16 bit chunks.
"LAS" is a made-up mneumonic for what it might look like. Of course, you
would automatically be in 16 bit data mode.
> You mean to tell me, that given a powerful version of BASIC, I, you or
> anybody else, could not produce good gfx nor music?
>
>
>> Using advanced graphics at a high resolution or programming a
>> music-tune with 256 tracks is a different thing altogether.
>> And having loads more of memory, means a different addressing
>> technique that can't be put in 2 bytes.
>
> There would be a lot of kids wanting to have that opportunity to learn,
> and in the mean tim, I would imagine software packages wold come out to
> help non programmers.... just like it happens with today's PC's?
>
>> If you ask me, there is NO need to reproduce anything like the C64 in
>> a bigger (although not necessarily better) form.
>>
>> If you want retro, go buy a second hand Commodore
>> If you want flashing graphics, stunning sound and gigs of memory, buy
>> a Mac or PC and go learn, say, Visual Basic or C++.
>
> I think that's where you have mistaken me. I don't want retro, I want a
> modern computer that boots from ROM to BASIC, and has all the new
> technology today's computers enjoy.
However, the "digital computer" era has reached the end for new innovative
programs. There is a program for about everything a human being could use a
computer for. There is no more desire for programmers unless it is something
like quantum computing because everything that can be done - basically had
already been done.
> Something wrong with that?
>
> I have a PC, I am not happy with it. :-)
People's interest in programming has declined. My local college had stopped
offering degrees in microcomputer programming and networking. There is more
interest in networking but not in programming. This is because there is no
desire among people to program because any program a person need can be
downloaded or bought and is made. We are already over inundated with
programs for every kind of need. 100s of antivirus programs, 100s or music
players. Windows has BILLIONS of programs that runs directly or indirectly
(via emulation) on it. Including C64 programs. So noone has the desire like
it was in the 80s.
In the 80s, it was part of necessity but then a swarm of programs had been
created over the last 20 years.
|
|
|
|
| Re: C64 Patent [message #165979 is a reply to message #165974] |
Fri, 07 July 2006 01:10 |
Groepaz
Messages: 640
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rick Balkins wrote:
>
> "Anders Carlsson" <anders.carlsson@sfks.se> wrote in message
> news:wkbqs6cpff.fsf@sfks.se...
>
>> Tulip at one point raised a warning finger, in particular about those
>> rip-off companies who used the Commodore trademark, but also spoke about
>> patents for the various buses on C= computers and that a 3rd party
>> hardware manufacturer needed to get a license to sell their stuff.
>> They also hinted that they would protect the intellectual property that
>> once was Commodore's own (mainly early VIC-20 cartridges and alike).
>
> Yes and the SID and any patents that hasn't been extended in anyway years
> ago and any patents that may still be active is not likely to be active
> past 2009 unless they were extended.
>
>> However I think they were sensible enough not try to shut down the whole
>> Commodore retro scene including independent emulators (although they did
>> appoint an official emulator that I've never used), since it would only
>> cause enemies instead of allies.
>
> Alot of this had to do with a voiced concern and I had a part in this
> among others that are remained anonymous. They also could not shut down
> whole libraries of Commodore games because 99% of the games were owned and
> copyrighted by companies like Activision, Epyx, Electronic Arts,
> Mastertronics, ect. Therefore, very few Commodore games were EVER owned by
> Commodore. Commodore had only a very small assortment of games, utilities,
> ect. that they actually owned.
>
> Commodore to this very day has as much to say about Commodore games as
> Microsoft has to say for games, utilities, ect. that are made by
> third-party companies. Microsoft can not speak with legal authority on
> games that has nothing to do with Microsoft except for it being runnable
> on their OS. Only lawyers can speak on behalf of a copyright holder in the
> court of law. RIAA can not legally speak and be held in violation if they
> try to speak in behalf as attornies because it is against the law for
> someone to practice law without passing the bar and received their license
> as an attorney.
>
>> Whether Yeahronimo have inherited these views from Tulip, nobody can
>> tell. If Tulip were only putting out smoke and shadows, they were on thin
>> ice if they had decided to sue anyone who sells new 3rd party C64
>> hardware or shut down a file library (that indeed contains copyright
>> protected files, but of little commercial value and most being clones or
>> rip-offs from arcades, in a related note to that one about Microsoft
>> Basic). With so many shareholders and whatsnot, I doubt a company like
>> that would lie their way to lawsuit, where it would be proven if they
>> have the rights they claim to have.
>
> Yeahronimo - now Commodore International Corp. has the copyrights to any
> material actually copyrighted by Commodore. Even though the BASIC was
> derived from Microsoft - Commodore bought the proprietary rights to the
> version made for the PET and ultimately by the time of the C64, the
> version of BASIC in the C64 was owned entirely by Commodore. So was the
> Kernal and CBM DOS and any of the utilities disks like those for with the
> C-128. (Exception: GEOS, Quantum Link and CP/M and maybe a few others).
> The utilities for detecting the REU for example is owned by Commodore.
> Some games actually made by Commodore and is given a (c) Commodore
> Business Machines (preceded by the year - was owned by Commodore and
> thusly - Commodore International may be able to legally have something to
> say about those programs.
>
> Games like Ace2 by Cascade is owned by Cascade or whomever that acquired
> Cascade (Artronic?). Commodore can not do anything about it unless they
> pick up the copyrights to the companies that are dead.
ladies and gentleman.... and here is the winner for the *drumroll*
stating-the-obvious award july 2006. congratulations!
--
http://www.hitmen-console.org
http://www.gc-linux.org/docs/yagcd.html
http://www.pokefinder.org
http://ftp.pokefinder.org
Wanted dead and alive: Schroedinger's cat
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C64 Patent [message #166013 is a reply to message #165878] |
Sat, 08 July 2006 20:36 |
rick balkins[1][2]
Messages: 704
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Actually, it is 99 years after death of author or death of the current
copyright holder.
But actually, the 99 years after death of author is pertaining to copyrights
of books. You have to look specifically under the copyright laws pertaining
to works for hire. BASIC v2 is a works for hire. When copyrights are
transferred from owner to owner, it is until the remainder of the term.
If I recall, works for hire (works made for a company and thusly copyrighted
by the company and not the actual person) is copyrighted to a prescribed
number of years. We are looking at 75 years.
Since it was done in the United States, look here:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration
How long does a copyright last?
-----------------------------------------
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors,
including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first
publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978,
copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70
years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire,
the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first
publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever
expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary
depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright
protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act
(title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of
copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular
1, Copyright Basics.
----------------------------------------
In US, for books and other material that is produced by an author is
copyrighted for life+70years after death of author. For anonymous work, a
pseudonymous work or a work made for hire, the copyright lasts for 95 years
after its first published or 120 years after its creation. Whichever expires
first. This is for works produced on or after Jan.1, 1978.
For works prior to 1978, - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
Any copyrighted material in their first term and is still active on January
1, 1978 shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured
and is open for renewal at that point - the proprietor of the copyright
shall be entitled to a renewal/extension of the copyright for a further term
of 67 years.
CBM BASIC - (which Commodore acquired proprietory rights to back in
1978-1980 time - before the VIC-20 came out) has a right to renew in
2005-2008. This means that Commodore International could have easily
renew/extend the term for the original PET/CBM BASIC back at that time for
an additional term of 67 years. The version of BASIC in the C64 is not for
renewal until 2077. So guys, CBM BASIC v2 in C64 is not up for grabs until
2077 and it is still in its first term.
Australian laws would not make any real difference. They may honor it for
upto 4 more years.
"Scott Julian" <Scott.Julian@alphaworks.com.au> wrote in message
news:%d7qg.20537$ap3.16766@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi Riccardo,
>
> I think from memory the copyright laws here is Australia say something
> like copyright expires 99 years after the death of the author.
>
> The problem with BASIC V2 used in the C64 is that the author would be
> Microsoft, the licensee would have been Commodore, not sure whether or not
> the licence was transferable from the failed Commodore to the various new
> owners.
>
> So assuming that Commodore had a licence to use BASIC V2 that expired when
> Commodore went bankrupt then we would have to wait 99 years after the
> death of Microsoft to legally be able to play with it?
>
> Now thats a thought :)
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
> "Riccardo Rubini" <rubini@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:44a783b4$0$10067$4fafbaef@reader3.news.tin.it...
>>
>> "Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:44A77BC5.F6E113C0@comcast.net...
>>
>>>> I think the C64 ROM images are copyright protected indefinitely.
>>>> Unlike patents, which last about 20 years.
>>>>
>>> Well, possibly *not* indefinitely, but probably for longer than
>>> anyone posting here is going to be alive...
>>
>> If I am not wrong, copyright and trademarks expire after 100 years, here
>> in Italy. So... Around 2080, somebody could... :-)
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
