Intellivision Adaptor For The Colecovision?

[else]

Settlements are almost always reached. A judge will actually encourage two parties to reach a settlement that is equitable to both parties so that he doesn't have to decide a much nastier resolution.

 

Take, for example, the case of USL vs. BSDI. USL sued BSDI for using copyrighted Unix source code. BSDI not only won the case, but also won a counter suit against USL for their use of BSD code. The final resolution was a settlement that gave BSDI perpetual rights to the Unix source code.

 

I already understand how the legal system works in this country, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

1. If you'd rather, I can stop citing references and fall back on the traditional "You're wrong luser! Make your time! HAHAHAHA!"  Why should you believe anything I say if I don't back it up?

 

How about opening your mind to the possibility that just because somebody wrote something down, that doesn't mean it's true. People are human and humans make mistakes. In this case, just because some FAQ says Coleco made an Intellivision adapter maybe, just maybe, it's not true.

 

2. You stated (and I quote) that "Coleco's Atari adapter was ruled illegal too." The fact that they settled has nothing to do the fact that the judge still found in Coleco's favor. Thus the case is still used today as precident, since it wasn't settled before the judge produced a ruling.

 

Okay, please explain further. You're saying Coleco settled and agreed to pay Atari royalties AFTER the judge had found them not guilty? Sounds goofy, but I'm all ears. Maybe I don't understand the legal system as well as I thought I did....

Edited December 15, 2005 by else

[jbanes]

I already understand how the legal system works in this country, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

Excellent. Then flow with me here.

 

How about opening your mind to the possibility that just because somebody wrote something down, that doesn't mean it's true.  People are human and humans make mistakes.  In this case, just because some FAQ says Coleco made and Intellivision adapter, maybe, just maybe it's not true.

 

I never said that people don't make mistakes. However, I'm using the best sources I have available at the moment. If you find them unsuitable, I can try finding better sources for you, or we can agree to disagree.

 

Let me ask you, is it your position that the judge did NOT find in favor of Coleco in the Atari vs. Coleco case? If so, please share the basis for this position with the rest of us.

 

2. You stated (and I quote) that "Coleco's Atari adapter was ruled illegal too." The fact that they settled has nothing to do the fact that the judge still found in Coleco's favor. Thus the case is still used today as precident, since it wasn't settled before the judge produced a ruling.

 

Okay, please explain further. Coleco settled and agreed to pay Atari royalties AFTER the judge had found them not guilty? Sounds goofy, but I'm all ears....

 

Yes. You said you understood how the legal system works in the country? Then you must know that companies as large as Atari and Coleco can always find more Intellectual Property to sue one another over. Technically, they don't even have to have a case to harrass one another. So it's usually in the best interest to get a contract stating that they won't sue each other as long as XYZ happens. If the settlement talks failed, then the judge would have had to resolve each and every complaint the two companies had filed against each other. Many of those complaints may be completely off topic, but the result would be that both companies would lose, and one or the other could continue to prosecute the other under different complaints.

 

As a result, a resolution that has Coleco paying a small fee to Atari in exchange for the full rights to make money off of Atari's hard work is a win for Coleco (they're still making money) and a less costly loss for Atari (they save face on one hand, and make a minor revenue from something they can't stop anyway on the other).

[else]

I never said that people don't make mistakes. However, I'm using the best sources I have available at the moment. If you find them unsuitable, I can try finding better sources for you, or we can agree to disagree.

 

Great, then lets get back on topic shall we? Show all of us a better source that says Coleco made Intellivision adapters (or even had ones on the drawing board). That is what the original question was asking for after all....

[jbanes]

I never said that people don't make mistakes. However, I'm using the best sources I have available at the moment. If you find them unsuitable, I can try finding better sources for you, or we can agree to disagree.

 

Great, then lets get back on topic shall we? Show all of us a better source that says Coleco made Intellivision adapters (or even had ones on the drawing board). That is what the original question was asking for after all....

983381[/snapback]

 

If you want it that way, fine.

 

/ME cracks knuckles.

 

In an interview with the founder of Intellivison Productions, Keith Robinson, the following conversation took place:

 

Kyle: In the early 80’s, Mattel released the “System Changer”, which is an adapter that plugs into the Intellivision II. It had the ability to play Atari 2600 cartridges, eliminating the need to purchase your rival’s machine. Isn’t that against copyright laws and/or patents?

 

Keith: The System Changer was essentially an Atari 2600 clone that fed off the power supply of the Intellivision II and used its RF converter. Mattel wasn't the first company to make an Atari 2600 clone. I forget the company that did it first, but there was a legal challenge from Atari. The ruling was, essentially, that if you can duplicate the function of an electronic circuit using existing off-the-shelf parts, you're free to do so. Now, the basic concept of video games was patented; Magnavox (which introduced the first home video game: Odyssey) owned the patent and, after court battles, Mattel and Atari wound up paying licensing fees. Also, software built into a video game system can be copyrighted. Although Coleco announced they were going to build an Intellivision module for the ColecoVision, they never could get around the copyrighted 4K operating system contained in ROM in each Intellivision console. But the Atari 2600 - which contained no software - was fair game.

 

Interestingly, Keith seems to believe the problem was replicating the Intellivision OS without getting into trouble. The lawsuit with Atari was probably costly for Coleco, and they may not have wanted to get into one with Intellivision. It's hard to say if he's right, since most of the lawsuits over DOS clones wouldn't come until later, but Tempest may find this info to be of interest.

 

And with that, Mr. Else, I place the burden of proof to the contrary fully on your plate.

[else]

I never said that people don't make mistakes. However, I'm using the best sources I have available at the moment. If you find them unsuitable, I can try finding better sources for you, or we can agree to disagree.

 

Great, then lets get back on topic shall we? Show all of us a better source that says Coleco made Intellivision adapters (or even had ones on the drawing board). That is what the original question was asking for after all....

983381[/snapback]

 

If you want it that way, fine.

 

/ME cracks knuckles.

 

In an interview with the founder of Intellivison Productions, Keith Robinson, the following conversation took place:

 

Kyle: In the early 80’s, Mattel released the “System Changer”, which is an adapter that plugs into the Intellivision II. It had the ability to play Atari 2600 cartridges, eliminating the need to purchase your rival’s machine. Isn’t that against copyright laws and/or patents?

 

Keith: The System Changer was essentially an Atari 2600 clone that fed off the power supply of the Intellivision II and used its RF converter. Mattel wasn't the first company to make an Atari 2600 clone. I forget the company that did it first, but there was a legal challenge from Atari. The ruling was, essentially, that if you can duplicate the function of an electronic circuit using existing off-the-shelf parts, you're free to do so. Now, the basic concept of video games was patented; Magnavox (which introduced the first home video game: Odyssey) owned the patent and, after court battles, Mattel and Atari wound up paying licensing fees. Also, software built into a video game system can be copyrighted. Although Coleco announced they were going to build an Intellivision module for the ColecoVision, they never could get around the copyrighted 4K operating system contained in ROM in each Intellivision console. But the Atari 2600 - which contained no software - was fair game.

 

Interestingly, Keith seems to believe the problem was replicating the Intellivision OS without getting into trouble. The lawsuit with Atari was probably costly for Coleco, and they may not have wanted to get into one with Intellivision. It's hard to say if he's right, since most of the lawsuits over DOS clones wouldn't come until later, but Tempest may find this info to be of interest.

 

And with that, Mr. Else, I place the burden of proof to the contrary fully on your plate.

983397[/snapback]

 

Hello???? I have been saying this very thing since the beginning -- that prototypes don't exist. You are the one who has been arguing they do. Please try to concentrate, okay?

[jsoper]

Hello????  I have been saying this very thing since the beginning -- that prototypes don't exist.  You are the one who has been arguing they do.  Please try to concentrate, okay?

983441[/snapback]

Umm, do you two need to get a room or something

 

I've studied both schematics in depth and it would actually be easier to make a CV add-on for the intv2, so Mattel would either win a cease and desist order OR be able to reciprocate with their own adapter. Each one would probably need it's own power supply though and would get into kludgy 32x type setups.

[JB]

What I wonder is if it was legal to reverse engineer the Intelli.  Since the EXEC rom was Mattel's property, how could Coleco replicate it?  The 2600 was mostly off the shelf components, it would be prefectly legal to reverse engineer it.

 

Tempest

982943[/snapback]

 

I think it would be easy to duplicate the EXEC routines without exactly copying them. However, how about the pre-defined graphic characters? Weren't they inside the EXEC ROM? How Coleco could legally copy them?

 

Eduardo

983131[/snapback]

Yah. That'd be the killer.

They could substitute their own similar images, but direct copies would be out automatically.

...

Haha, I can see it now...

"Expansion cart 4 for the ColecoVision! Play Intellivision games on your ColecoVision gmae console WITH ENHANCED GRAPHICS!"

[else]

Hello????  I have been saying this very thing since the beginning -- that prototypes don't exist.  You are the one who has been arguing they do.  Please try to concentrate, okay?

983441[/snapback]

Umm, do you two need to get a room or something

983463[/snapback]

 

My point is quite simple, really. Coleco was the KING of vaporware. Their marketing department announced tons of software and hardware that nobody over in engineering ever did a minute's worth of work on. Take a look at some of their brochures for the Colecovision and the Adam and see for yourself.

 

Just because marketing says something, that doesn't mean it ever made it to any engineering drawing board and it certainly doesn't mean a prototype was ever produced....

Edited December 16, 2005 by else

[Atariboy]

Where's your source that says there were no prototypes made?

 

I don't think anyone can really say except those that were directly involved with such a project.

[jsoper]

Where's your source that says there were no prototypes made?

 

I don't think anyone can really say except those that were directly involved with such a project.

983583[/snapback]

My favorite story was the intv2 style intellivoice that appeared in the Mattel catalog. It was never made, they simply carved and painted a block of wood and took a photo of it.

[MegaManFan]

What I wonder is if it was legal to reverse engineer the Intelli.  Since the EXEC rom was Mattel's property, how could Coleco replicate it?  The 2600 was mostly off the shelf components, it would be prefectly legal to reverse engineer it.

 

Tempest

982943[/snapback]

 

That's the problem in a nutshell. The reason Atari couldn't stop anybody from making games for the 2600 was because they lost the proprietary argument in court during their battles with Activision - basically there was no part of the VCS designed to make competitor's games NOT run if they were unlicensed. Every other console maker took the hint and that's where this whole lockout business started. Console to third party game makers - you're knocking at the door, but if we don't like you we're not letting you in - oh and you'd better be prepared to pay us off once you get inside.

[craigm71]

I was reading this old form and an idea came to me that while I believe that Coleco never made a prototype of the Intellivision module (nor schematics), I think it is possible. With that, do you think there is any legal backing anyone could do to stop from making one now in 2012?

[SlowCoder]

I was reading this old form and an idea came to me that while I believe that Coleco never made a prototype of the Intellivision module (nor schematics), I think it is possible. With that, do you think there is any legal backing anyone could do to stop from making one now in 2012?

 

Oh, I'm sure someone, somewhere has a patent that would cover it. But unless it sure to actually make them money, they probably won't jump on it.

[sega_SHARK]

I want one!