Nolan Bushnell Appointed to Atari Board

[DracIsBack]

Don't fall for it. It's all part of the Illuminati plan to wreck your childhood memories. Keep the faith! Don't stop believin'!

 

 

 

If we were to use this analogy, I hope that Atari ends up with the video that you showed instead of this:

 

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> Edited April 21, 2010 by DracIsBack

[Run PC]

I am hopeful that Nolan can help Atari. The timing may be perfect with the Atari/Bushnell Movie around the corner. Even if he becomes nothing more than a mascot or a PR puppet, I don’t see any downside to his new relationship with Atari. Americans love a comeback story, and the Atari/Bushnell relationship, along with the publicity it can draw, can’t hurt the future of Atari.

 

The simple truth is without Nolan there would have never been an Atari, without Warner Brothers Atari may have never been the dominant force it became; without Jack Trammel Atari may not have risen form the ashes to become a fortune 500 company once again; and without Infogrames Atari would most likely now be a footnote in history. Each has played a role in the company that I have a strange affection for, and there are still possibilities!

[Retro Rogue]

Question is...Since Baer sued Nolan over Pong, did Nolan sue Baer (and Mattel) over Simon (since it was copied from Touch Me)

 

Baer never sued Nolan over Pong, that's a popular misconception. It was Magnavox that sued everyone, with Ralph having to come as a witness for the prosecution to defend his patents - which the licenses were based on in the first place. Likewise it was never over "PONG" specifically, it was regarding multiple patents covering the technology of interfacing with a video signal, generating symbols via a video signal, and having the user directly interact with said video generated symbols for a game. Much of the symbol manipulation had to do with bat and ball games, and of course all the early television based coin-ops were bat and ball games, hence the crossover. I.E.it just happened to be the trackable specific instance of the technology that. I.E. if he would have released an arcade version of any of the other games he saw at the Magnanvox Caravan running on the Odyssey, that would have been just as easily used instead.

 

As Curt mentioned, we took possession of a cache of boxes from Ralph all related to these and other patent defenses and cases. Full court testimonies, listings of licensees, filings, motions, etc. - even direct research done by Ralph and Sanders for the original filings of the patents (since genuine patent filings at the time always included serious research on previous patents and consultation with patent specialist lawyers).

 

Regarding Touch Me, that was Bristow's not Nolan's. And yes, AFAIK that was purely done as a gotcha back.

 

There again, both Baer's and Nolan's first products (games) were essentially copies of someone else's games anyway (computer space=spacewar and Video tennis/tele tennis=tennis for two, the one that higginbotham demo'ed at Brookhaven)

 

Completely incorrect. Baer's was not a copy of Tennis for Two, and it was actually Bill who did the tennis game on the Odyssey. Tennis for Two was a little seen demo at lab day that has no direct correlation or influence to any other known game. It reached the public when Activision or Nintendo's lawyers (during a later set of suits by Magnavox) tried to bring it out as previous evidence of video game technology to try and invalidate Bear's (et. al.) patents. It didn't work. a) There was no video signal, hence you couldn't use it to invalidate the video display technology patents. b) There was nothing directly controlled by the player on the screen, hence no symbolic interactive to try and invalidate those patents either, let alone symbolic interaction through a video (television) signal.

Edited April 21, 2010 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

without Jack Trammel Atari may not have risen form the ashes to become a fortune 500 company once again

 

 

It didn't. Atari Inc, collapsed and it' properties were split. Jack's company, Atari Corporation, was a different Atari. If you meant "Atari" as in the "Atari Brand", I can certainly agree. But Atari as in Atari Inc. rising did not occur.

[cimerians]

 

It reached the public when Activision or Nintendo's lawyers (during a later set of suits by Magnavox) tried to bring it out as previous evidence of video game technology to try and invalidate Bear's (et. al.) patents. It didn't work. a) There was no video signal, hence you couldn't use it to invalidate the video display technology patents. b) There was nothing directly controlled by the player on the screen, hence no symbolic interactive to try and invalidate those patents either, let alone symbolic interaction through a video (television) signal.

 

 

I found this on wiki:

"In 1985, Nintendo sued Magnavox and tried to invalidate Baer's patents by saying that the first video game was William Higinbotham's Tennis For Two game built in 1958. The court ruled that this game did not use video signals and could not qualify as a video game. As a result, Nintendo lost the suit and continued paying royalties to Sanders Associates."

 

 

"Video"game is a little bit of a generic term IMO. Since any kind of interactive game on any kind of electronic display to me is a video game (or at least is played or watched for entertainment). I consider tabletops video games and even the old Mattel Baseball handhelds videogames. I kind of have to agree with Nintendo on this but the old Tennis game had no user input so what of it? Is it really a videogame?

 

Of course in the courts it all makes logical or legal sense but again you can't deny what they did in the 40's and 50's. They were onto something, they just didn't know and neither did Magnovox.

[Run PC]

without Jack Trammel Atari may not have risen form the ashes to become a fortune 500 company once again

 

 

It didn't. Atari Inc, collapsed and it' properties were split. Jack's company, Atari Corporation, was a different Atari. If you meant "Atari" as in the "Atari Brand", I can certainly agree. But Atari as in Atari Inc. rising did not occur.

[Run PC]

Yes, as a stock holder of each incarnation and an Atari Dealer, I am very familiar with "Atari's" history. That is why I did not use "Atari Inc." in my post. If you want to split hairs Atari Inc. did not collapse. There were no bankruptcy proceedings. The majority of it was sold to Tramel Technology Ltd., which then renamed itself to Atari Corporation. Warner held the Atari Arcade division for some time before being sold off. In any case I did not mean to imply that "Atari" has been a single corporate entity throughout history.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Run PC

[Retro Rogue]

I found this on wiki:

"In 1985, Nintendo sued Magnavox and tried to invalidate Baer's patents by saying that the first video game was William Higinbotham's Tennis For Two game built in 1958. The court ruled that this game did not use video signals and could not qualify as a video game. As a result, Nintendo lost the suit and continued paying royalties to Sanders Associates."

 

Thanks, knew it was one of the two and didn't have the material in front of me.

 

 

"Video"game is a little bit of a generic term IMO. Since any kind of interactive game on any kind of electronic display to me is a video game (or at least is played or watched for entertainment).

 

That's the problem though, you're taking the modern pop culture definition (which evolved from the original term during the 80's onwards) and applying it in hind site. The modern later evolved version of the term is generic. The actual term is not. The "video" in "video game" is there for a reason, and why these games were referred to interchangeably as Video Games and TV Games. If it had simply been "CRT Game" I could see the point, as Tennis for Two and Spacewar both use CRT displays.

 

Taking the modern pop-culture evolved definition it in hindsite has the problem that it ignores actual history, or in some cases attempts to rewrite it. It's no different than "kleenex" being used to describe any sort of tissue or related item now vs the actual original item called Kleenex. I can go back under the current generic usage and find previous existences of items that have generic parts of the generic reference of Kleenex as well and also call those "kleenex". But that would be rewriting history and why we're calling it all "kleenex" instead of something else in the first place.

 

 

I consider tabletops video games and even the old Mattel Baseball handhelds videogames.

 

I'm sorry, but LED/VFD handheld and tabletop games have never been defined or considered as "video games" even by the people that designed them. They've always been classified as simply handheld electronic games, because of their origins from the early 70's calculator industry. Even industry magazines like Popular Electronics referred to them as "nonvideo electronic games" to differentiate them when they arose in the mid 70's.

 

 

but the old Tennis game had no user input so what of it? Is it really a videogame?

 

It's an electronic game with a display, I wouldn't go anything beyond that. And most institutions, archives, etc. usually don't. They choose to circumvent the precision issue by just referring to it all as "Electronic Games" or "Computer games" (the IGDA Preservation group does this for instance), but you can run in to issues with the latter one as well.

 

 

They were onto something, they just didn't know and neither did Magnovox.

 

Actually, yes they did with the exception of the analog tennis demo. There were full patent researches and previous technology searches done during the late 60's before the patents were filed. I have some of those exploratory communications and suggestions here in the documents for instance. Any serious patentable technology that would have caused an invalidation of the video technology they were seeking to patent was considered. Vector CRT technology was simply not seen to be directly related to these patents - and as it turns out by the 30 years worth of failed attempts to invalidate the patents by others, they were correct.

[Animan]

I wonder what this means for the Nolan Bushnell autograph on my 2600...

[Retro Rogue]

If you want to split hairs Atari Inc. did not collapse. There were no bankruptcy proceedings.

 

Since when do you have to file bankruptcy for a corporate entity to collapse? Bankruptcy is what you do to try and settle things after the collapse. Either to stave off creditors to make arrangements for liquidation, or to reorganize. In this case, Warner decided it was just better to liquidate parts of it and then close it all together.

 

Warner held the Atari Arcade division for some time before being sold off.

 

Atari Coin, which was incorporated under a different name for a short time before being formally named Atari Games. Then controlling interest was sold to Namco in '85. Warner still maintained part ownership, just as they did with Atari Corporation though Jack's stock offerings.

 

 

In any case I did not mean to imply that "Atari" has been a single corporate entity throughout history.

 

 

Understood. A lot of people do imply that though, which is why I felt it important to clarify.

Edited April 21, 2010 by wgungfu

[Herbarius]

but the old Tennis game had no user input so what of it? Is it really a videogame?

It had user input. I don't recall really how the input actually worked, I guess it was some kind of dials. However, after a while someone even built a dedicated controller for it. At least that's what I've seen in a documentary. The documentary was in German, but I believe it was translated from an English language one, so it's propably known to people around here.

 

The same documentary also told the story of (Atari) Pong, and then elaborated into Ralph Baers Brown Box; they also had a bit about CodeMasters in there.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Herbarius

[Retro Rogue]

but the old Tennis game had no user input so what of it? Is it really a videogame?

It had user input. I don't recall really how the input actually worked

 

I think what he meant, and certainly what I meant, was it had no directly user controlled (i.e. interactive) symbols on the screen. The controls of the game itself simply set up analog settings used in calculating the return path of the beam (the ball) on the screen. (No different than how an analog tuning dial on an old TV or radio may be used to effect the analog tuning mechanism and fine tune the station, but has little else to do with any sort of interaction with the broadcast). The user had no direct control over the ball, nor was there any representation of the player or what they were "hitting" the ball with on the screen. I.E. there was nothing directly user controlled on the screen. Contrast that to even Spacewar!, where you have the player represented on the screen (a ship) and they're directly controlling and interacting with said symbol.

Edited April 21, 2010 by wgungfu

[Run PC]

I wonder what this means for the Nolan Bushnell autograph on my 2600...

 

I don't know, but we may see lots of new Atari branded products sporting a "imprinted" Nolan Bushnell "autograph".

[Curt Vendel]

Atari was far better managed internally under the Tramiels then under Warner (Bushnell only managed from 1972-1976, 1976-1984 was Warner)

 

Tramiel got products out the door in record time. Atari floundered for nearly 2 years with the XL series - I have memo's where they were squibble over a screw type for weeks alone. Tramiel walked in and did a major redesign of the XL into the XE series and at the same time was able to have working wirewraps of the ST computer in just 6 months, production samples in 6 more months shipped to developers and user groups. New printers, disk drives, monitors. Very impressive feat.

 

Of course it was not without certain drawbacks - working for Tramiel was done under tough and laborious work weeks, very long hours and no guarantee of one's job. Though that was similar to the environment that the Macintosh was developed under as well.

 

 

Curt

 

So Marty - was Atari better off under the Tramiel family than Bushnell?

[Run PC]

If you want to split hairs Atari Inc. did not collapse. There were no bankruptcy proceedings.

 

Since when do you have to file bankruptcy for a corporate entity to collapse? Bankruptcy is what you do to try and settle things after the collapse. Either to stave off creditors to make arrangements for liquidation, or to reorganize. In this case, Warner decided it was just better to liquidate parts of it and then close it all together.

 

Warner held the Atari Arcade division for some time before being sold off.

 

Atari Coin, which was incorporated under a different name for a short time before being formally named Atari Games. Then controlling interest was sold to Namco in '85. Warner still maintained part ownership, just as they did with Atari Corporation though Jack's stock offerings.

 

 

In any case I did not mean to imply that "Atari" has been a single corporate entity throughout history.

 

 

Understood. A lot of people do imply that though, which is why I felt it important to clarify.

 

Yes, collapse is a pretty generic term, and I too felt it important to clarify. Warner could have held Atari, if it had the for-site.

[Retro Rogue]

Yes, collapse is a pretty generic term, and I too felt it important to clarify.

 

Actually, no - a financial collapse and what constitutes it is a pretty well defined business concept. Was happening long before Atari.

 

Warner could have held Atari, if it had the for-site.

 

Certainly agree. Morgan should have been allowed to follow his Natco plan. Which oddly enough also entailed splitting it in to two separate companies, wiping off Atari Inc. as well.

[accousticguitar]

 

Edit: one more thing. Warner did a great job of making the work environment so bad that their best programmers make another company. So good job losing your best programmers.

 

Nope. It was simply some of their 2600 programmers that left. And while they were the most experienced on the 2600, stating they were Atari's best programmers (as if they only had this one lot of people for the whole company) is completely off. They still had great (if not better) programmers in coin (where the 2600 programmers originally came from), the rest of consumer, and a company full of engineers and programmers that continued to build up.

Actually, money was the issue here. Four programmers found out that their games had grossed $60 million in one year while they were getting paid $30,000 per year. They asked for royalties on their games but Kassar refused and they left shortly thereafter to start Activision. Later on, a bunch more left and founded Imagic. Finally, when a third group of programmers was thinking about leaving they started paying royalties. Old Kassar was a slow learner.

[moycon]

If this thread is any indication, then Atari did right by hiring Nolan if even for PR.

His name certainly gets people talking. Shame so much of it has to be in a negative tone these days.

[Atari2600Lives]

The title of the thread shows an incredible bias against Nolan

 

I'll look forward to Nolan's repsonses on all the new allegations (one by one) when the books come out.

[Dan Iacovelli]

somebody should tell some the trade shows that atari inc is no more.

because as I mentioned before: I keep getting mail for Gary Tramiel Marketing for Atari inc but at my home address for trade shows.

I am not kidding: the latest one I got was Gartner Customer 360 Summit thats being held LA 6/28-30th.

[WatchVenusSpa]

Will Nolan be able to have a comeback with Atari? Time will tell I guess. I'm just going to sit back and watch.

[dwh]

After reading this forum topic, I should be scrambling to sell my Infogrames/Atari,Inc stocks ASAP, right?

 

Who knows, good luck to Nolan and the rebranded Atari,Inc...

[Run PC]

Yes, collapse is a pretty generic term, and I too felt it important to clarify.

 

Actually, no - a financial collapse and what constitutes it is a pretty well defined business concept. Was happening long before Atari.

 

Warner could have held Atari, if it had the for-site.

 

Certainly agree. Morgan should have been allowed to follow his Natco plan. Which oddly enough also entailed splitting it in to two separate companies, wiping off Atari Inc. as well.

 

 

Wow, you are even more anal than I , but this is fun, and I enjoy your work on Atari's history. SO, actually you did not use the term financial collapse, just collapse. And Atari did not collapse. However, if you are saying that Atari Inc. was near financial collapse I would agree. However, Warner & Atari Inc. still had more assets than debt when Warner sold Atari off, which is why Atari did not file for bankruptcy. (I am now plugging my ears and repeating la la la la la )

 

What was the Natco plan? Can you point me somewhere that I can read about that?

Edited April 22, 2010 by Run PC

[Run PC]

If this thread is any indication, then Atari did right by hiring Nolan if even for PR.

His name certainly gets people talking. Shame so much of it has to be in a negative tone these days.

 

I agree!

[moycon]

Wow, you are even more anal than I

 

You mean the quoting and directly commenting on every single sentence of a persons post didn't tip you off before just now?

(Just messing with you wgungfu you're not anal...just real...real thorough )

 

This thread has certainly made me, and I'm guessing others think differently about a lot of things. Sometimes people tend to look back at things and maybe view them through rose colored glasses. Probably because those were days when all of us were young, happy and carefree and now we're all old, bitter and anal and just want to hold on to our pleasant thoughts in regards to the "good ol days"