Post by: WindyMan on April 29, 2004, 10:24:20 AM
Nintendo has recently been awarded a patent for "a software emulator...emulating a handheld video game platform," or in English, any and all Game Boy emulators. Those listed in the patent give the examples of cell phones, PDAs and the video screens found in airplane seats, but in effect, the patent refers to just about anything that duplicates or enhances the Game Boy line's hardware via emulation.
Now that Nintendo is the sole, legal owner of GBA emulation, any and all emulators are now just as illegal as the ROMs (though some people will argue otherwise). Companies such as Crimson Fire, which released a GBA emulator for the Tapwave Zodiac PDA last month, have recieved a cease and desist order from Nintendo, citing their patent as grounds for the suit.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 29, 2004, 10:55:59 AM
This is bullsh!t. I don't have a problem with fighting piracy but this is going a little too far. First of all it doesn't make any f*cking sense to be able to just hold a patent on all programs that do a certain thing. I can't hold a patent on word processor programs and technically a Gameboy emulator is no different. Plus there is a perfectly morally acceptable use of emulation that doesn't hurt Nintendo at all (though I don't know if it's in use). If someone made a device that allowed you to play physical GBA carts on your cell phone it would not affect Nintendo's profits because if it played real GBA carts the games sales wouldn't be affected and that's where the money is.
Hell why doesn't Nintendo just patent the whole f*cking concept of portable game systems? Right there they could completely eliminate the competition.
Post by: vudu on April 29, 2004, 11:18:17 AM
it's using datel's own hardware to play nintendo's games. if this is legal, what's stopping a company from creating a stand-alone portable video game system that can play gba games and selling it as a cheaper alternative to the gameboy advance or gameboy advance sp? or even a home console that could play one of (or all of) nintendo's/sony's/microsoft's systems?
Post by: Pale on April 29, 2004, 11:19:19 AM
If it is just for Gameboy hardware, there is nothing wrong with this. They created and designed a piece of hardware. Emulators are basically ultra cheap copies of nintendos hardware. If someone came out with a piece of hardware that played gameboy games and sold it, of course that would be illegal. Why shoudl someone be allowed to create and market an emulator of something Nintendo owns? They should be illegal. It should fall under normal copyright laws in my opinion. The patent shouldn't be needed.
Post by: Pale on April 29, 2004, 11:20:25 AM
Post by: GaimeGuy on April 29, 2004, 11:27:05 AM
Bullshit. While those ARE practical uses for emulators, the reality is, those home-coders make up about as much of the emulator users as people who use linux on their home consoles, perhaps less. In other words, the excuse for making your own GBA software is nothing more than an excuse. And if you really want to develop for the GBA, then buy a damn development kit from Nintendo.
And if you want to check a game out, rent it from one of those online dealers which let you rent games, or buy the game, try it out, and return it if you don't like it. I know, a lot of people do this legitimately, but a lot of other people say something along the lines of "After trying the game, I feel it isn't good enough for me to buy," but they go and keep the ROM.
And Ian, developing a device to play GBA carts on, say, a cell phone, would be illegal. It would be like making a device that allowed you to play G.O.D.s on your X-box: Do you honestly think that could be considered legal?
Post by: GaimeGuy on April 29, 2004, 11:29:18 AM
Post by: Fammy2000 on April 29, 2004, 11:42:31 AM
And on a side note, the Zodiac is pretty nifty if your into PDA's. Its the best of the Game Boy and PDA world put together.
Post by: Coarse_Limely on April 29, 2004, 11:43:32 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 29, 2004, 11:50:51 AM
Of course it would be illegal. That's what the patent states.
Seriously though I agree with you to a point and I don't think I made myself perfectly clear with my post. If they're selling it and thus making a profit off of it then I can see why Nintendo should care. However if some guy made a GBA emulator that played real carts and just shared the knowledge with other people and it wasn't sold anywhere to me that should acceptable. It would be like moding your Cube to play Japanese games. If someone designed a mod to let the Xbox play Cube games I wouldn't really have a problem with that either. The games still have to be bought so the company is still getting their money and no piracy is taking place. Perhaps the GBA is a bad example because it uses it's own custom cartridge design that would require extra hardware to emulate. The Cube would be a better example because it's discs fit in all disc based drives.I remember my cousin had a Playstation emulator on his PC that let him play PSX games with his CD-ROM drive. He bought all of the games he had so there was no piracy. To me that seemed acceptable.
Plus one issue that bothers me is that this patent could last longer than the Gameboy itself. Let's say in ten years the current GBA/GBC/GB format is no longer supported by Nintendo. They reached a stage where they switched to a new medium that didn't allow for backwards compatibility. So now there are no devices in stores that let you play GBA games and no GBA games are sold. At this point Nintendo could still crack down on someone making an emulator to allow people to play these old games that are hard to find. That doesn't seem right to me and I've never had a problem with downloading ROMs for abandoned games and consoles. If Nintendo is going to freak out over NES emulation that's fine if they make the NES available in stores again and make it so I can buy those old games brand new. Outright preventing me from accessing these games is just BS. If you don't want me emulating Super Metroid maybe you should make it available to buy again.
Post by: Zero on April 29, 2004, 11:51:22 AM
also, this could possibly mean that Nintendo is thinking of incorporating their own GB emulators into future systems, just a thought
Post by: Deguello on April 29, 2004, 11:53:49 AM
You're right Ian. It's just too bad most (read: VAST MAJORITY) people just want to use emulators to play GBA games like Zero Mission and Mario and Luigi before legitimate copies even exist. I mean that is just out of control. And the fact that you are unsure this method of emulation is still being used adds more fuel to the fire. For every 2 or 3 guys that MIGHT make an egg timer out of a GBA or learn how to overclock it or whatever, you got hundreds of people who DEFINITELY use GBA emulation to freeload brand new GBA games, sometimes before they are even released.
"I can't hold a patent on word processor programs and technically a Gameboy emulator is no different."
Different beasts. A patent on Word Processors wouldn't fly because it's too broad a concept. Now I think you can patent "Ian Sane's Word Processor," because that specifies things a bit. However, Nintendo's GameBoy stuff is already specific and mostly proprietary in nature.
Post by: Kairon on April 29, 2004, 12:04:09 PM
If something isn't done about emulating GBA hardware now, we may soon see the PSP emulating GBA and DS games.
And with that firmly at stake, I can't help but completely support Nintendo in this action.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: vudu on April 29, 2004, 12:05:56 PM
Quotenintendo hates when people do that. so does sony and microsoft. it throws off sales figures big time.
It would be like moding your Cube to play Japanese games.
Quotei think nintendo might have a problem with that. let's pretend a million modded their xboxes so they could play gamecube games. suddenly it looks like nintendo has a million less people in its user base, which makes them look bad in the eyes of potential developers. plus, i'm sure microsoft wouldn't be so happy if it sold systems at a loss, only have to have consumers use it to play competitor's games.
If someone designed a mod to let the Xbox play Cube games I wouldn't really have a problem with that either.
Quotewhat about the millions of people who did that exact same thing, only instead of buying games they downloaded them on irc?
I remember my cousin had a Playstation emulator on his PC that let him play PSX games with his CD-ROM drive. He bought all of the games he had so there was no piracy. To me that seemed acceptable.
Quotewhat do you call the nes games in animal crossing? or unlockable metroid in metroid prime/zero mission? or the 100 or so nes/snes games that have been re-released on the gba? nintendo (and other companies) still owns the rights to these games, and if they want to reserve the games for potential re-release in the future, it's their decision. and while certain games might not be available in any other form right now, you downloading bionic commando today might stop you from buying it if it's re-released in the future.
That doesn't seem right to me and I've never had a problem with downloading ROMs for abandoned games and consoles. If Nintendo is going to freak out over NES emulation that's fine if they make the NES available in stores again and make it so I can buy those old games brand new.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 29, 2004, 12:19:42 PM
I thought someone would bring that up and, at least in regards to Nintendo, it's not the same thing. Nintendo has foolishly CHANGED all of their SNES->GBA ports. They make tweaks to make them easier and add REALLY irritating voices. Thus to a purist the GBA version of A Link to the Past is not the same as the original SNES version. The only way to play the "real" game is to own a SNES and get an original copy (which would be used and thus also doesn't make Nintendo any money) or play the ROM. Nintendo could have given us the original version but they didn't and thus the original is still not in stores. The "proper" way to re-release a game is using emulation like Sega did with Sonic Mega Collection. However even with that method a lot of ports are poorly emulated and thus aren't up to par with the original. Again in that situation the ROM may be the only way to go. If games transfered to new formats as seamlessly as movies went from VHS to DVD then it's a valid case but there's so many crappy ports out there that it ruins the arguement.
Post by: ssj4_android on April 29, 2004, 12:25:04 PM
Post by: czrdup on April 29, 2004, 12:27:42 PM
What this patent is for is an enhancement of emulators that allows systems that don't have sufficent hardware to emulate a handheld system. So the reason that it talks about cell phones, pdas and video screens are these are examples of systems that need this specific innovation.
If you had bothered to read the patent (and I don't recommend it, it really will warp your mind) they reference the fact that there are emulators for gameboys already. If they were trying to patent that idea, that admission would not allow the patent to be granted.
Blah... argue all you want. The fact of the matter is it isn't even clear whether it will apply to the crimson fire emulator. All you have to do is create an emulator that doesn't use the specific thing in the patent. That doesn't mean that dear ol' nintendo won't try to beat them with it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 29, 2004, 12:30:02 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 29, 2004, 12:34:42 PM
Quote
This is bullsh!t. I don't have a problem with fighting piracy but this is going a little too far. First of all it doesn't make any f*cking sense to be able to just hold a patent on all programs that do a certain thing.
Keep in mind that "certain thing" is Nintendo's OWN cartridge format games. This is no different than patenting a console, since emulators emulate that very thing- in essence this is just an extension of the patent Nintendo already has on the GBA. Nintendo, and Sony and MS for that matter, have every right in the world to place a patent on the machine they designed and plays their games. Emulators in of themselves are a form of piracy. I can't possibly see how Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Post by: vudu on April 29, 2004, 12:41:32 PM
Quotethis is a stretch, but please bare with me.
The only way to play the "real" game is to own a SNES and get an original copy (which would be used and thus also doesn't make Nintendo any money) or play the ROM.
i remembered reading this article: GameSpy: A Conversation with CESA: The Voice Of Gaming In Japan
Quotesorry for the long quote, but i wanted to put the important part in here for those who can't be bothered to read the four page article. point being, if the laws in japan change, nintendo will be able to earn money from the sales of used games. if this is the case, nes/snes/gameboy/n64 emulators will hurt nintendo's bottom line.
In 1997, more focus was spent on the influence of used game sales as opposed to new game sales. The distribution and sales were gradually increasing, and the game distributors felt this was not a good trend as used sales were eating into their business. They wanted some portion of the proceedings from the sales of used games. We have copyright laws in Japan. However, within those copyright laws, movies were treated separately from other copyrighted materials. With movie companies, the laws were such that after they sold their media, their movies, the movie companies were still able to garnish part of the second- and third-hand sales. The reason for that law was that 50 years ago, in the days after World War II, when the movie industry was still building itself up, films were sold from theater to theater and on down the line. That was the reason why the exception was created for movies. As you are well aware, today's games have a lot of cinematic scenes. The game manufacturers are trying to get the games recognized the same as movies, so that even after they are sold they will still have the right to receive part of the proceeds when games are sold second hand. The distributors and retailers are saying, "This is not the case. Games should not be treated like movies."
Post by: Ian Sane on April 29, 2004, 12:58:57 PM
Well this isn't Japan and the games I use emulation for are 99% of the time the American versions which Nintendo does NOT make money off of used sales from. Plus in my opinion getting a cut from used sales is total bullsh!t anyway.
Post by: Kairon on April 29, 2004, 01:29:18 PM
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ThePerm on April 29, 2004, 02:08:37 PM
Post by: GaimeGuy on April 29, 2004, 02:14:20 PM
Post by: nickmitch on April 29, 2004, 02:27:35 PM
To copy hardware to used the accual cartriges isn't as bad.
Copying free soft ware on to real hard ware is bad.
That's the way that I see it.
Post by: vudu on April 29, 2004, 03:16:19 PM
Quotemaybe so, but what about japanese kids? do you think they download the american versions or japanese versions? just because nintendo can't make any money off of used games you might buy, doesn't mean they can't make any money off of used games japanese kids buy.
Well this isn't Japan and the games I use emulation for are 99% of the time the American versions which Nintendo does NOT make money off of used sales from.
Quoteif you read the article you'd know that used sales are killing profits for lots of japanese companies.
Plus in my opinion getting a cut from used sales is total bullsh!t anyway.
Quote
It is difficult to analyze precisely what percentage of the overall market is taken up by used sales. One study said that it was 20 percent. Another actually had used sales at about 30 percent of all game sales.
Post by: JonLeung on April 29, 2004, 03:34:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If someone made a device that allowed you to play physical GBA carts on your cell phone it would not affect Nintendo's profits because if it played real GBA carts the games sales wouldn't be affected and that's where the money is.
I was actually thinking about this earlier today...emulators of console systems (that use some kind of disc) on the PC you'd think would be encouraged by hardware makers. They wouldn't lose the money that they apparently lose on every console produced if people didn't have to buy them (assuming that they forsee this lack of demand and don't make more than necessary, of course), and if the people using the emulators are buying the actual game discs then they're making money without that initial "loss". Plus, with encouragement to emulate, they'd be tapping into the PC gamer market, for those people that see it as apparently a distinct market (I don't, myself, at least not totally distinct, but that's just my opinion). It might lead to the point where hardware makers might just give up and go for the PC (since everyone has one) and release proprietary emulators to read their proprietary game discs. (Hope I'm spelling and using the word "proprietary" correctly...)
But for the GBA, which uses cartridges, emulation requiring a "dump" of the game ROM...yeah, I can see why that's illegal. But I also see that strange point...would any device that lets you play GBA games on something other than a GBA/GBA SP/GBP become absolutely illegal? I can understand the possibility of authorities busting down doors of mega-pirates, but who's really going to care if you had some third-party GBA game player?
Basically, what I'm saying is, you can make laws, but who's going to enforce them?
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on April 29, 2004, 03:49:04 PM
2) There are plenty of examples of prier art. You can't patent something that's already been invented. You also can't patent things which are obvious. This patent would be overturned if brought to court. That is if someone has the money to go up against Nintendo in court.
3) Reverse engineering is legal. The courts have also upheld many times in the past that hardware emulation is legal. (Bleem as a recent example. http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/04/12/bleem_beats_sony/)
This will be overturned if it's ever brought to trial.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 29, 2004, 09:06:55 PM
2. Modding is illegal on the reason that it circumvents a copy protection mechanism and thus violates the DMCA. Cube region mods are exempted because the region code isn't a copy protection scheme.
3. This patent specifically covers emulating on handhelds (low capacity machines). PCs or consoles running them aren't affected.
4. There's no real reason to develop for the GBA. You have a PC you can code for, if you want it portable use a GP32, PDA or cell phone, all of which have openly available SDKs (and much more power).
5. You could patent a word processor. If the first word processor wasn't made before software patents were legal it would have been patented. Hell, if you can patent using cookies to store a customer's login information (non-obvious? new? Hello???), you can patent word processing. Such a patent wouldn't be valid outside the US, of course, since no other legislation (except maybe Japan) is as stupid as to accept patents that violate all three basic rules of patenting.
6. Therefore, that emulator could still be sold in Europe.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on April 30, 2004, 02:48:43 AM
Quote
PCs or consoles running them aren't affected.
Images included with the patent include a picture of someone playing a game on the PC with a gamepad.
Click on the drawings section, then skip to the third picture (Image 1C). So, this patent is intended to cover PC emulation as well. Of which there is plenty of prier art.
Post by: jasongst on April 30, 2004, 06:12:28 AM
You'll notice it's referring to emulating ANY handheld game (this actually extends BEYOND Gameboy and into the realm of NGPC, Game Gear, etc.), but only on a "low-capability target platform (e.g., a seat-back display for airline or train use, a personal digital assistant, a cell phone)." So emulating handheld games on a "high-capability" platform (Gamecube, PC, etc.) would still be legal, although the "low-capability" definition is FAR too subjective and should never have been allowed through the patent process.
You'll also notice this patent was filed back in 2000, so while it conveniently applies to emulators on the Zodiac, it was good foresight on Nintendo's part, not hindsight, that allowed that to happen.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 30, 2004, 07:05:11 AM
Quote
Personal computers have also proliferated throughout the world and are now available at relatively low cost. A trend has shifted some entertainment from the home television set to the home personal computer, where children and adults can view interesting web pages and play downloaded video games and other applications. In some circumstances, it may be desirable to allow users to play GAME BOY.RTM. video games on their home personal computers (see FIG. 1C).
Post by: KDR_11k on April 30, 2004, 07:26:44 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on April 30, 2004, 07:41:42 AM
Quote
Emulator 100 is designed to operate on a target platform of the type shown in FIG. 1B above, but could run on any desired platform including, for example, the target platforms shown in FIGS. 1C and 1D.
1B is the seatback airline display. 1C is a personal computer, and 1D is the cell phone/PDA. From this quote, I think it's clear that PCs are included.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 30, 2004, 07:48:45 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 30, 2004, 08:18:36 AM
Post by: vudu on April 30, 2004, 09:30:24 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 30, 2004, 09:40:24 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 30, 2004, 09:51:54 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on April 30, 2004, 09:03:46 PM
Post by: Nephilim on September 23, 2006, 04:44:10 AM
kinda stange both nintendo and microsoft allow a "skin", to be released which is really only used for snes, nes, n64, gba, xbox and genesis roms
Post by: KDR_11k on September 23, 2006, 05:07:44 AM
