Quote:

First of all, I have asked you time after time to consider the way you react to posts. Use you're knowledge in a constructive manner, and don't try to insult people every time you are right or think you are.

First of all, you didn't.
Second, you've posted time and time again bullshit information as being fact. (Like Dante 2 not scrolling, etc etc etc) It makes you look even more stupid than your appearance already does.
And finally, you made this yourself. I have no more patience with you, with your harassing tactics and real-life violation of my personal space.

Quote:

Second, if you would spend less time laughing your head off and more time thinking or looking things up on the internet you would have found out that I am actually right on this one.

You are comparing apples and oranges. I have claimed nothing about copyrights for chips, only about patents on the technology.

Quote:

Because you are automatically the copyright owner of everything you 'write'. You don't need to do anything to earn copyright, except perhaps claim it before it becomes publicly available.

Again, you are wrong. This is only how it works in HOLLAND. In countries like the USA, you are REQUIRED to state the copyright owner AND date, otherwise your work is automatically public domain.
Furthermore you can register your copyright at the copyright office, for additional protection.

Quote:

I was talking about the original MSX tho, which was pretty much a collection of generic components. Even for the MSX2 the same was applicable by large, except perhaps the V9938 and the odd Engine or FDC.

Oh, you mean all the glue transistors? Because next to a V9938 and the Engine and FDC, there's just some connectors and ROMs in there that are worth mentioning. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

This is what fly asked, and the answer is just that. As long as you don't copy any of the chips and don't use the BIOS, yes, you can make an MSX-compatible machine.

The question was about emulation, and emulation has not been deemed legal nor illegal by any court. It's a GRAY AREA.
It's that simple!

Quote:

Maybe that's why I'm typing this on a PC that doesn't have the letters IBM on the case. While you were busy laughing your head off other people might have realised that they have a PC clone at home...

Again, apples and oranges. Go back to the playground and build a sand-castle please.

Quote:

Quote: As for questions about general patentability of things or concepts, consult a patent lawyer. Don't you mean copyright Guyver?

Quit putting words in my mouth!!!

Flyguille asked "can be patented the way to connect a general purpose chip like the PPI ?" and I replied "As for questions about general patentability of things or concepts, consult a patent lawyer.".
How could I POSSIBLY mean 'copyright'?! Flyguille, in his original message also, asked only about patents.

READ AND UNDERSTAND, and don't be a smartass.

The fact is, YOU DON'T KNOW what patents ASCII Corp. had, YOU DON'T KNOW what patents Yamaha has, or Toshiba, or any of the other MSX hardware designers.
So until you studied patent law, and researched which of their patents relate to MSX, THEN you can make a claim about it. And not a minute sooner.

That said, MSX Association makes no problem of emulators (but they can't use the MSX logo). Neither does MSX Association say you can't build MSX compatible devices or complete MSX systems, nor does it say you can't reverse engineer MSX chips (for FPGA or emulation).

So to answer your original question, flyguille. What patents MSX Assoc. has is unknown, but also irrelevant. (Except for the system ROMs, because they're -at least partially- copyrighted by Microsoft)

Afterall, MSX Assoc. is not an evil empire, it wants the same things we want: more MSX around the world!

Quote:

Again, you are wrong. This is only how it works in HOLLAND. In countries like the USA, you are REQUIRED to state the copyright owner AND date, otherwise your work is automatically public domain.

This was true once, but nowadays copyright is automatically awarded, also in the USA.
(more info)

Ah, interesting!
It seems a lot of ppl on the internet are not aware of this change, as I've read numerous times the copyright notice is required.

Still, the argument pertaining to copyrights on chips made by Sonic_aka_T is still besides the point, as the copyright notice clearly shows the MSX(2 and up) technology was co-authored by ASCII corp, and not consisting purely of existing technologies.

{moderated by Bart}

Ro, please use the "moderator alert" button next time.

please guys, this forum topic is for discussion about copyrights/patents of MSX. Overall what work can be done full-legally.

I'm wondered of what exactly patents got ASCII about MSX, if a FPGA MSX can be done legally (without the ROMS ofcourse).

Or how we can to know what kind of pattents got ASCII.

{moderated by Bart}

Guyver, The "moderator alert" was enough.

Thanks for all the moderator alerts, guys!

Please keep this discussion on topic from now on. Thanks!!!

Quote:

please guys, this forum topic is for discussion about copyrights/patents of MSX. Overall what work can be done full-legally. I'm wondered of what exactly patents got ASCII about MSX, if a FPGA MSX can be done legally (without the ROMS ofcourse).

Well.. MSX Association got all MSX rights previously belonging to ASCII, so I suppose that includes their patents (if any).

As said, MSX Association does not make a problem of MSX compatible device or MSX hardware implementations.

As you should know, ESE Artists Factory is working on a FPGA implementation of MSX, which Sunrise has demonstrated on MSX fairs throughtout europe.

Futhermore, both in Spain (Leonardo Padial) and Brazil (Ademir Carchano) there are projects undergoing that aim to develop new MSX compatible hardware.

MSX Association has not protested against those projects, so you can be reasonably sure they will not protest about another project you might want to start.

And ofcourse, permission is the best legal defense, I'd say

Quote:

Or how we can to know what kind of pattents got ASCII.

Consulting the (japanese) patent office would be a good starting point.

nobody of the MSX asociation post or visit on MRC?

and can write some sentences here about the topic? like "what is the MSX asociation policies about the topic?

Sonic_aka_T wrote:

Quote:

Don't you mean copyright Guyver?

and a little earlier:

Quote:

Actually, that's covered by patent law entirely.

As far as I understand in the previous post you were talking about patents. Guyver responded on that mentioning the (c) ASCII etc. Those are of course two different things, copyrights are everywhere, patents however are not and software is (as of yet, in the EU - or the Netherlands at least) not even patentable. So the response doesn't seem to cover the actual original message.

However, Sonic, I don't see you mentioning 'patent' anywhere in the later post either. So I'm not entirely sure if you made this distinction yourself as well. In other words, to me it seems that both of you are confusing things.

Fortunately, MTH puts it all in perspective . I basically agree with his conclusion, although I have to say that the legality is based on the current common assumptions. It is however indeed still a fairly grey area with no law (well, ok, DMCA a bit, but I don't live in the US) and little jurisprudence for it.


~Grauw

Quote:

ASCII registered the MSX trademark in the early 80's. MSX Association reportedly had the registration moved to their name, although the last time I checked the online trademark database it was still registered to ASCII (maybe slow bureaucracy?).

mth, could you drop us a link to that online trademark database? At least I am interested in these matters

I just found this one one the net: http://www.uspto.gov/

Quote:

Sonic_aka_T wrote: 'Don't you mean copyright Guyver?' and a little earlier: 'Actually, that's covered by patent law entirely.'

The first was attempted sarcasm concerning Guyver's earlier copyright remark. Like you noticed, I had already indicated that these issues are covered by patent, and not copyright.

Quote:

As far as I understand in the previous post you were talking about patents. Guyver responded on that mentioning the (c) ASCII etc. Those are of course two different things, copyrights are everywhere, patents however are not and software is (as of yet, in the EU - or the Netherlands at least) not even patentable. So the response doesn't seem to cover the actual original message.

Well, I think fly was originally talking about hardware, not software. Hardware can ofcourse be patented (well, not the hardware itself but the unique techniques or methods it employs). I don't think there's too much patented technology in our MSX computer though since I've never seen a patent number on anything. That would pretty much indicate that the technology is up for grabs. What adds to this is that most patents only last from 14 to 17 years which means for MSX that a lot of patents, if they even existed, are due to expire. This extends a little if the patent holder had the common sense to keep their patents pending for as long a possible, but I doubt there's much patented technology in an MSX to begin with.

Quote:

However, Sonic, I don't see you mentioning 'patent' anywhere in the later post either. So I'm not entirely sure if you made this distinction yourself as well. In other words, to me it seems that both of you are confusing things.

I'm not that confused. My first post pretty much explains it all. The second one was just a little wink to Guyver.

Quote:

Fortunately, MTH puts it all in perspective . I basically agree with his conclusion, although I have to say that the legality is based on the current common assumptions. It is however indeed still a fairly grey area with no law (well, ok, DMCA a bit, but I don't live in the US) and little jurisprudence for it.

Patent law is actually pretty clear. The only grey area is when something is indeed a patent violation or not. In practice this means that if the patent-owner is a US company it is a violation and if the patent-infringer is a US company it was not a violation.

If I read yer post correctly Sonic_aka_T then you'r quite confused if MSX is patented. And if that's the case: why respond directly with a 'nope' (read the 3rd post in this thread) while you are not 'really' certain.

If I might add, and this is a general tip: when a certain company/ foundation would really make a point of stand (standpunt) then come up with arguments backing it up. I'v seen a complete thread with notihin' but doubts