3 ms·

That was a tactic Nintendo used with the gameboy. The courts eventually decided that the logo, when used as an access token like that, no longer qualified for

That was a tactic Nintendo used with the gameboy. The courts eventually decided that the logo, when used as an access token like that, no longer qualified for the creative component required for copyright protection.

anamexis 4y ago
Interesting, I was not aware of this. It appears this was the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
devwastaken 4y ago
That case was 1992, which today would not hold up due to the political shift of corporate power. Same as how in the 90's Microsoft couldn't monopolize with internet explorer, yet mobile devices are doing it every day in even worse fashion.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  yet mobile devices are doing it every day in even worse fashion. Which mobile browser has 90%+ market share ala "peak" Internet Explorer in 2004? I hate being limited to Safari on iOS, but iOS has < 30% market share worldwide. Additionally, browsers are (highly unfortunately IMO) less relevant than in ~2004 when IE had a stranglehold on things.
  - devwastaken 4y ago
    Worldwide isn't relevant to a U.S. monopoly, and wasn't relevant in the anti monopoly case against MS. Tech got big, made up a significant amount of GDP, and bought politicians. That is why the rules are no longer applied.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Strictly speaking, the logo bit wasn't about copyright, but trademark. Specifically there was certain territories that Japan had trademark treaties with, but not copyright treaties. Taiwan if I remember correctly. So you could legally make unlicensed copies of Super Mario Bros but they couldn't be called Super Mario Bros. This is why a lot of old bootleg games change the titlescreen to say, say, "7 GRAND DAD[0]" instead of "Super Mario Bros". This behavior actually seems to persist to the present day despite these copyright loopholes having long since been fixed. Of course there were companies that got around the logo check with custom hardware[1]. And Nintendo themselves got lazy and didn't check the whole logo on the Color. So it's possible to change the boot logo on basically every Game Boy. The court case you're thinking of has to do with SEGA's Trademark Security System (TMSS) for the Genesis. Sega v. Accolade to be specific. The broad strokes are similar, though - small bits of copying to sell an original unlicensed work are acceptable because console hardware is not copyrightable just because you worked on it real hard. [0] Fleenstones? Aaaaugh... [1] The Game Boy BIOS has a TOCTOU bug. AFAIK this is also how Argonaut Software managed to get an in with Nintendo to publish X in Japan.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Ah, a fellow Joel fan
fortran77 4y ago
But logos never get copyright protection. They get trademark protection. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-copyright https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-cop...

anamexis 4y ago

Interesting, I was not aware of this. It appears this was the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

devwastaken 4y ago

That case was 1992, which today would not hold up due to the political shift of corporate power. Same as how in the 90's Microsoft couldn't monopolize with internet explorer, yet mobile devices are doing it every day in even worse fashion.

JohnBooty 4y ago
yet mobile devices are doing it every day in even worse fashion. Which mobile browser has 90%+ market share ala "peak" Internet Explorer in 2004? I hate being limited to Safari on iOS, but iOS has < 30% market share worldwide. Additionally, browsers are (highly unfortunately IMO) less relevant than in ~2004 when IE had a stranglehold on things.
- devwastaken 4y ago
  Worldwide isn't relevant to a U.S. monopoly, and wasn't relevant in the anti monopoly case against MS. Tech got big, made up a significant amount of GDP, and bought politicians. That is why the rules are no longer applied.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Strictly speaking, the logo bit wasn't about copyright, but trademark. Specifically there was certain territories that Japan had trademark treaties with, but not copyright treaties. Taiwan if I remember correctly. So you could legally make unlicensed copies of Super Mario Bros but they couldn't be called Super Mario Bros. This is why a lot of old bootleg games change the titlescreen to say, say, "7 GRAND DAD[0]" instead of "Super Mario Bros". This behavior actually seems to persist to the present day despite these copyright loopholes having long since been fixed. Of course there were companies that got around the logo check with custom hardware[1]. And Nintendo themselves got lazy and didn't check the whole logo on the Color. So it's possible to change the boot logo on basically every Game Boy. The court case you're thinking of has to do with SEGA's Trademark Security System (TMSS) for the Genesis. Sega v. Accolade to be specific. The broad strokes are similar, though - small bits of copying to sell an original unlicensed work are acceptable because console hardware is not copyrightable just because you worked on it real hard. [0] Fleenstones? Aaaaugh... [1] The Game Boy BIOS has a TOCTOU bug. AFAIK this is also how Argonaut Software managed to get an in with Nintendo to publish X in Japan.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Ah, a fellow Joel fan

fortran77 4y ago

But logos never get copyright protection. They get trademark protection. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-copyright https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-cop...