racketboy.com

TSTR wrote:The more I look at the bulky CRT next to me and the stack of consoles beside it, the more this thing becomes appealing.

But it doesnt replace your disc systems.

Jmustang1968 wrote:

TSTR wrote:The more I look at the bulky CRT next to me and the stack of consoles beside it, the more this thing becomes appealing.

But it doesnt replace your disc systems.

Good point. eCookie for you!

prfsnl_gmr wrote:I don't do much IP work, but based on my limited understanding of the facts, I think that the software's original authors may be entitled to some sort of relief. That is, if Hyperkin violated their copyright, they could obtain an order preventing Hyperkin from selling any additional R5s. Likewise, they might be able to obtain some sort of damages based on the number of units sold, etc.

(They can probably forget claims based on a violation of the "license" agreement. In my experience, it is very difficult to enforce draconian software "license" agreements in a court of law. This is especially true where, as here, the software's authors gave the software away for free. "Copyleft" is also not a term recognized in the law.)

That said, it will be exceptionally difficult for the authors to prove money damages since they gave away the software for free. Likewise, determining whether Hyperkin violated the author's copyright in a court of law would likely be very, very expensive (i.e., $100,000.00+), and I doubt that the authors will be willing to spend the amounts necessary to obtain a court order prohibiting the sale of R5s. (This is especially true since the case is likely to be extremely complex, and Hyperkin can probably mount some sort of "fair use" defense even if the software's authors are able to prove that Hyperkin copied their code.) Finally, bringing a lawsuit related to the software would reveal a lot of facts about it; so, if the software's authors copied parts of it from another source (as some people have speculated), they could find themselves subject to litigation or without standing to enforce their alleged copyright.

Accordingly, I suspect that, while the software's authors can send "cease and desist" letters until they are blue in the face, they likely have a right with a remedy, and I very much doubt that they will bring a lawsuit.

This is the kind of thoughtful, well-written post that makes me glad to be a member of this forum. You, sir, are a credit to this community.

you could just say you love him but nooo

prfsnl_gmr THANKS! I don't have a pro legal background, just have dabbled in a few things related to video gaming law with emulation since all the original complaining of emulator authors being thieves and the bs 24 hours 'rom law' garbage along side in the 90s. I just couldn't so I didn't bother to articulate all that which you did so well. That entire block of text is why I've taken on any forum I've posted on the fact where the 'I do not care not my problem' attitude with it. The fact is copyleft is a bs faux word of no substance, copyrights are a nightmare to back in court, the fact all that stuff has always been free, and the original authors have gone off into the sunset makes it a virtual impossibility to stop the R5. Even if they did pop up, the best they could get is some relief (maybe that $20 pay boost will be a payment package to authors+lawyers?) Whatever the case is, the system isn't going to just vanish as the hurdles are too high including the cash wall to go after Hyperkin, to stop it.

samsonlonghair wrote:This is the kind of thoughtful, well-written post that makes me glad to be a member of this forum. You, sir, are a credit to this community.

TSTR wrote:you could just say you love him but nooo

Tanooki wrote:prfsnl_gmr THANKS!

Thanks! I am glad someone appreciates my ramblings.

The facts underlying the controversy are interesting, and I did enjoy analyzing them. I have only dabbled in IP litigation, however; so, I could be completely wrong.

So basically even if they do manage to somehow get hyperkin in court now might be the time to buy one if you've been thinking about it, I take it? Good thing I already got one then would've been nice if they'd gone about this the right way so maybe something like this didn't come up...

Did anybody really think Hyperkin was gonna code its own emulators from the ground up?

You might be wrong, but I doubt you're much off on it either. Back in the later half of the 1990s and even into the early 00s I had my hands in with various emulators and the authors due to a mix of luck and rep way back then. I helped test and/or dug up info for snes96 w/sound(then 9x), zsnes, vba, fwnes, and a few others. I was also an efnet op of #emu for awhile too so being at the time(much of it) in college getting a political science degree I did have to take a law course or two so I started looking into the emulation, the 24hour download myth, copyright/trademark ownership and GPL junk too. I'm nothing near an expert or even all that well versed currently, but my past experience from the period left me to think what you wrote, but I just couldn't put finger to keyboard on it.

I think the only parties involved who could seek damages at all on Hyperkin would be the absolute original creators of the various projects (snes9x, vba, fceu, etc) and yet even then it would be a hair dodgy. The thing is they'd have to prove conclusively the development they did originally was entirely their own work and that nothing they coded was influenced by any patented/copyrighted documentation because that would amount to theft. It could also be argued all these source forks based upon those originals still use much the same code, and could also be argued even if the original was pure someone since could have used stolen documentation too. The burden of proof isn't on Hyperkin but on the developers (original, or those since if they're cleared by the originals to even pursue damages) they were in fact ripped off. As you noted it's worse by the fact they're not rich and lawyering up isn't cheap, and existing cases also show that given their works were free from the get go that could be a hurdle as well. I'd think ideally the best one could pull, if the original authors tried, would be to get some out of court settlement where the system is still sold, and they get a cut for their work on each unit sold or a bulk payoff.



TSTR -- Nah, you'd have to be a fool to think so being as small as they are and how relatively even with delay quick it came out. I knew very early on they used public sources, I was told as much, but that they were open for use which perhaps wasn't exactly such a black and white answer after all, but I guess corporate can be blame for that one.

I think the point of raising a stink about the code theft isn't ultimately to sue Hyperkin but to raise awareness of (yet another example of?) Hyperkin's mismanagement of the Retron line. Knowledge of a company's ethics can influence future purchase decisions, and the "hurt" to Hyperkin is largely one of harm to their public image. In other words, if potential consumers strongly support the basic requirement of giving credit where credit is due for the use of open source code, they might not wish to support Hyperkin any longer.