Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ultracade Question

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 21, 2005 7:43:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Q. Does Ultracade use Mame?

If so, he is biting the had that feeds him.

More about : ultracade question

Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:45:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

HP schrieb:
> Q. Does Ultracade use Mame?

no
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:45:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Roman Scherzer's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
> HP schrieb:
>> Q. Does Ultracade use Mame?
> no

Atleast not admittingly so. There have been some rumors over the years
that he steals bits of MAME's code
Related resources
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:19:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Hellmark schrieb:
> Roman Scherzer's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
> body were:
>
>>HP schrieb:
>>
>>>Q. Does Ultracade use Mame?
>>
>>no
>
>
> Atleast not admittingly so. There have been some rumors over the years
> that he steals bits of MAME's code


yes...but no proof yet
February 22, 2005 3:04:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Ok, so he claims that he only wants to be able to easily take action
against people who sell ROMs for profit under the MAME name. Also, he
is willing to forget the trademark application (a lost cause anyway)
and work with the MAME authors.

The ultracade effort to trademark "MAME" may have been poorly thought
out, but given this explanation I don't see it as part of the usual
evil empire tactics.

MooMoo
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:59:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

he's really saying he wants to stop someone who spends a couple of weeks
building a great machine from scratch from selling it on ebay, being
compensated for time and materials and competing with his machines, though
it seems he's argueing he's doing it for the betterment of the community.

he points to instructions about downloading roms, etc but it seems if i were
to build a machine and give someone the URL to star roms.. they could then,
as the end user, purchase the roms and all would be ok. providing that my
machine's design or artwork didn't infringe on any copyrights. while you
couldn't legally run the games he offers in his machines, it wouldn't take
long for the end user to get online like the rest of it and figure it all
out. at that point it's on them. if they legally bought a gun and decided to
use it in a robbery, it's not the fault of the seller.

that's the bottom line here seems that he'd like to make it illegal to sell
a machine that could potentially be used to run mame and play illegal roms.

not sure how this will pan out but i don't see more people buying his
product as a result (though he states that's not the intended outcome). in
fact, the very people who are not buying his machines are the same people
who still won't be able to afford them if he's successful in shutting down
'illegal arcade machine' sales.

so now it's not only the ROMs that are illegal, but soon the machine itself.
dun dun dunnnnnnn!

the plot thickens.

k.

"moomoo" <maymemoomoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109059464.783351.218730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, so he claims that he only wants to be able to easily take action
> against people who sell ROMs for profit under the MAME name. Also, he
> is willing to forget the trademark application (a lost cause anyway)
> and work with the MAME authors.
>
> The ultracade effort to trademark "MAME" may have been poorly thought
> out, but given this explanation I don't see it as part of the usual
> evil empire tactics.
>
> MooMoo
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:30:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Roman Scherzer" <romanN0Sp4Mscherzer@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:cvd56d$nt5$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hellmark schrieb:
> > Roman Scherzer's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through
his
> > body were:
> >
> >>HP schrieb:
> >>
> >>>Q. Does Ultracade use Mame?
> >>
> >>no
> >
> >
> > Atleast not admittingly so. There have been some rumors over the years
> > that he steals bits of MAME's code
>
>
> yes...but no proof yet

So have Ultracade got the "rights" to the Roms?
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:23:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

moomoo thought about it a bit, then said...
> The ultracade effort to trademark "MAME" may have been poorly thought
> out, but given this explanation I don't see it as part of the usual
> evil empire tactics.

Mr. Foley's goal was to get arcade cabinets that included MAME games off
the market (they are his main competition) - if you can claim to have a
trademark infringement, you can get eBay to instantly pull any auction
that supposedly infringes on your trademark.

His solution? Trademark MAME, so he can get eBay to yank any auction
with MAME in it.

In addition, he's contacted MAME marquee printing services and demanded
royalties for their use of "his" MAME logo.

There's no "flawed but right-minded" side to this guy - he wanted MAME
so that he could make more money, and as soon as he thought he had the
trademark he went after everyone he could find using the MAME logo and
either had them pulled from eBay or demanded royalties unless they
wanted legal action brought against them.

I've seen several emails from him to other MAME-related companies, and
the notes on his site touting his "noble cause" are nothing but a
desparate attempt to spin reality to make him look like less of a
jerk...

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:11:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Hitesh schrieb:
> So have Ultracade got the "rights" to the Roms?

They got some licenced ones, yes.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 3:53:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

What about altering the acyronm?

Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator MAME

Multiple Arcade Game Emulator MAGE

Vast Arcade Machine Emulator VAME

Multiple Video Game Emulator MVGE

Foley's Ultracade Communist Know-Nothing Often Fails Frequently

I think you get the idea...
He can't trademark everything
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 7:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

thought about it a bit, then said...
> What about altering the acyronm?
>
> Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator MAME
>
> Multiple Arcade Game Emulator MAGE
>
> Vast Arcade Machine Emulator VAME
>
> Multiple Video Game Emulator MVGE
>
> Foley's Ultracade Communist Know-Nothing Often Fails Frequently
>
> I think you get the idea...
> He can't trademark everything

On principle I say we don't change a thing, but if it came down to it I
saw a rather good one on the BYOAC discussion:

"General Arcade Machine Emulator" (GAME)

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
February 22, 2005 9:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 22 Feb 2005 00:04:24 -0800, "moomoo" <maymemoomoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ok, so he claims that he only wants to be able to easily take action
>against people who sell ROMs for profit under the MAME name. Also, he
>is willing to forget the trademark application (a lost cause anyway)
>and work with the MAME authors.
>
>The ultracade effort to trademark "MAME" may have been poorly thought
>out, but given this explanation I don't see it as part of the usual
>evil empire tactics.
>
>MooMoo

Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts...

Best solution is to keep the government (and the courts) out of MAME
-- no good can come of it. Even if his intentions are honorable (and I
_doubt_ they are), what happens when his patent is transferred or sold
to a less altruistic (grin) party??

sleeper
February 23, 2005 12:16:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> Foley's Ultracade Communist Know-Nothing Often Fails Frequently

ROTFL!

--
David
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:41:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

>> Foley's Ultracade Communist Know-Nothing Often Fails Frequently

If that last little bit didn't sound so redundant, you'd have a winner there.
:-) Maybe "Fails Fabulously" or something...
February 23, 2005 11:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Ok, trying to obtain the trademark in order to take action against
those who sell homemade arcade machines (the competition) is scummy.
Obviously those who build and sell arcade machines are being
compensated for the labor/materials.

There is a somewhat frustrating problem with the retro emulation
philosophy. The claim that the original copyright holders are no longer
profiting from old games now seems less valid than it was during the
inception of MAME. In the last few years accurate versions of old
arcade games have become popular and are available on most console
platforms. I believe that if not for the popularity of MAME and other
emulators, the console and arcade companies would not have had the
vision to put out these packages. Nonetheless, one can no longer use
the excuse that, "there is no other way to play these games." In a way
it's a catch-22 since these games would not have been available if not
for MAME and other emulators. Once these emulators proved to be
popular, legal alternatives became available.

Also, I often hear that the copyright period for game software is
unreasonably long. Does anyone know what the exact time to expiration
is for a software copyright under US law? Is this even defined?

-moomoo

keith corcoran wrote:
> he's really saying he wants to stop someone who spends a couple of
weeks
> building a great machine from scratch from selling it on ebay, being
> compensated for time and materials and competing with his machines,
though
> it seems he's argueing he's doing it for the betterment of the
community.
>
> he points to instructions about downloading roms, etc but it seems if
i were
> to build a machine and give someone the URL to star roms.. they could
then,
> as the end user, purchase the roms and all would be ok. providing
that my
> machine's design or artwork didn't infringe on any copyrights. while
you
> couldn't legally run the games he offers in his machines, it wouldn't
take
> long for the end user to get online like the rest of it and figure it
all
> out. at that point it's on them. if they legally bought a gun and
decided to
> use it in a robbery, it's not the fault of the seller.
>
> that's the bottom line here seems that he'd like to make it illegal
to sell
> a machine that could potentially be used to run mame and play illegal
roms.
>
> not sure how this will pan out but i don't see more people buying his
> product as a result (though he states that's not the intended
outcome). in
> fact, the very people who are not buying his machines are the same
people
> who still won't be able to afford them if he's successful in shutting
down
> 'illegal arcade machine' sales.
>
> so now it's not only the ROMs that are illegal, but soon the machine
itself.
> dun dun dunnnnnnn!
>
> the plot thickens.
>
> k.
>
> "moomoo" <maymemoomoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109059464.783351.218730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Ok, so he claims that he only wants to be able to easily take
action
> > against people who sell ROMs for profit under the MAME name. Also,
he
> > is willing to forget the trademark application (a lost cause
anyway)
> > and work with the MAME authors.
> >
> > The ultracade effort to trademark "MAME" may have been poorly
thought
> > out, but given this explanation I don't see it as part of the usual
> > evil empire tactics.
> >
> > MooMoo
> >
February 24, 2005 8:07:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* moomoo wrote in alt.games.mame:

> There is a somewhat frustrating problem with the retro emulation
> philosophy. The claim that the original copyright holders are no longer
> profiting from old games now seems less valid than it was during the
> inception of MAME. In the last few years accurate versions of old
> arcade games have become popular and are available on most console
> platforms. I believe that if not for the popularity of MAME and other
> emulators, the console and arcade companies would not have had the
> vision to put out these packages.

I disagree, although I would like to agree. What is more likely is that
people that work for these companies and influenced these releases are
people that grew up with these games and knew that people of the same
age would likely be interested and spend a few bucks on them, they were
right.

--
David
Let the machine do the dirty work.
-- "Elements of Programming Style", Kernighan and Ritchie
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:26:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER thought about it a bit, then said...
> * moomoo wrote in alt.games.mame:
>
> > There is a somewhat frustrating problem with the retro emulation
> > philosophy. The claim that the original copyright holders are no longer
> > profiting from old games now seems less valid than it was during the
> > inception of MAME. In the last few years accurate versions of old
> > arcade games have become popular and are available on most console
> > platforms. I believe that if not for the popularity of MAME and other
> > emulators, the console and arcade companies would not have had the
> > vision to put out these packages.
>
> I disagree, although I would like to agree. What is more likely is that
> people that work for these companies and influenced these releases are
> people that grew up with these games and knew that people of the same
> age would likely be interested and spend a few bucks on them, they were
> right.

The growing popularity of retrogaming may be the undoing of it...first
come the entrepreneurs, then come the lawyers.

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 11:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

> Also, I often hear that the copyright period for game software is
> unreasonably long. Does anyone know what the exact time to expiration
> is for a software copyright under US law? Is this even defined?

Copyrights are now essentially infinite. That's very unfortunate and quite
the opposite of what the founding fathers intended. They wanted a short
copyright to encourage authors to move on and write something new and allow
other authors to build on what others had started. Infinite copyrights
hold no benefit for the consumer, only long established corporations who
reaped the benefits of the shorter copyrights stealing others work but are
now unwilling to share. Ooops I'm starting to go off on a rant again.

Dave




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.853 / Virus Database: 581 - Release Date: 2/12/2005
!