#29732 - doudou - Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:04 pm
Is it possible (legal) to have a game published for the GBA without having the Nintendo official developper license (+ SDK) ?
#29747 - Abscissa - Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:37 pm
Everything I know about this is just from what I've heared in other posts, so don't neccesarily take my word alone for it. That said, here's how I uderstand it:
As far as the official SDK, yes, you can legally get published without that. That's not strictly needed.
As far as not being a liscenced developer:
Technically, you need to be liscenced in order to release a game commercially (I think the current dev content gets around that by not strictly being commercial, ie no real profits). But, if you have a very good complete or near-complete game, you can get a publisher without being a liscenced developer and then get liscensed through them.
#29765 - blinky465 - Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:03 pm
| Abscissa wrote: |
| Technically, you need to be liscenced in order to release a game commercially |
Is this the case legally, if you're using compatible hardware (eg cartridge manufactured in China, not Nintendo approved), your own artwork and compiled source code (c, asm) . Provided you pay the taxman on your profit, what is the legal requirement to be licenced?
Your cart may not carry the Nintendo seal of approval, but anyone can legally write code for the ARM processor and copy it onto any hardware/medium they like, surely?
#29766 - tepples - Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:33 pm
| blinky465 wrote: |
| but anyone can legally write code for the ARM processor and copy it onto any hardware/medium they like, surely? |
Unless making the blank medium infringes a patent.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#29770 - blinky465 - Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:44 pm
[quote="tepples]Unless making the blank medium infringes a patent.[/quote]
Quite true. So if the carts produced in China are Nintendo carts, re-engineered using Nintendo protected patented technology, there's a problem.
However, if the carts are developed using compatible technology, there's not much that the big N can do (no matter how much they dislike it).
Given that Nintendo have recognised the problem of piracy of games, and that Flash carts and similar devices are still freely available despite Nintendo doing all they can to discourage it, it would *appear* that there's no legal grounds for outlawing these 'clone' carts (otherwise, you'd have expected Nintendos lawyers to have a field day with the Flash cart producers and reduced them to dust!)
I will try to find out from the suppliers if their carts infringe any patents, or whether they are using legally acceptable compatible technologies, and post results here.
I have quite an interest in this, as I am serious about home publishing and am about to sink a substantial amount of money (for me, as it'll be about ?2k of my own cash) into making this available to other home-developers. Obviously, I need to be sure of the legal situation before handing over my hard earned!!
Obviously,
#29771 - tepples - Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:55 pm
| blinky465 wrote: |
So if the carts produced in China are Nintendo carts, re-engineered using Nintendo protected patented technology, there's a problem.
However, if the carts are developed using compatible technology, there's not much that the big N can do (no matter how much they dislike it). |
Unlike copyrights, patents apply whether or not the alleged infringer has seen the original work. Patents can also cover every useful way to make a GBA compatible cart, just as the Unisys LZW patent covered every useful way of making a GIF image.
| Quote: |
| Given that Nintendo have recognised the problem of piracy of games, and that Flash carts and similar devices are still freely available despite Nintendo doing all they can to discourage it, it would *appear* that there's no legal grounds for outlawing these 'clone' carts (otherwise, you'd have expected Nintendos lawyers to have a field day with the Flash cart producers and reduced them to dust!) |
That's because Nintendo doesn't hold GBA patents in those countries. Instead, Nintendo attacked the importers.
Still, I don't think there's a patent problem here, as the primary distinguishing aspects of the GBA cart bus are the interleaved address/data bus and the seek/read architecture, and that concept would probably have been obvious since the invention of Intellivision and ATA buses.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#30771 - nl - Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:17 pm
there are a couple of inofficial, non-licensed niche products for GBA which nintendo seems to tolerate. it looks like they are just after flash carts and copyright/trademark issues, for example they forced lik sang to stop all flash products. they also forced song pro (mp3-player for GBA) to call their product "song pro" rather than "song boy", but they still tolerate the product itself allthough it is "not designed, sponsored, endorsed or manufactured by Nintendo of America, Inc".
#30787 - MumblyJoe - Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:04 pm
Just out of interest, nobody I have ever heard of has ever been in legal trouble for either of the following:
Homebrew development for the GBA.
Owning a flashcard for the GBA.
So perhaps if you really wanted to test the waters you could sell your rom online for download? I see no legal issues immediately, I'm sure nintendo could come up with a handful of reasons to sue you, but considering that unless your game is astounding they wouldn't lose any money from it I think that you would get away with it.
_________________
www.hungrydeveloper.com
Version 2.0 now up - guaranteed at least 100% more pleasing!
#30961 - raldridg - Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:53 pm
Yeah, well...one of the official requirements of a GBA cart working is that the header include Nintendo's official logo. It's sort of like an error checking mechanism. The hardware checks the header of the cart for the logo, and only runs the code on the cart if it is correct.
Of course [also], since the logo is registered by Nintendo, that also means that you are violating their trademark [and such] by including their logo on your cart. I would guess that their requirement for using their trademark legally is that the cart be officially licensed by them, and that you pay appropriate fees/royalties and such as per the license agreement. There is no way around this. They kill two birds with one stone.
This is just one of the tricks Nintendo uses, I am sure there are plenty others, that is just what was at the tip of my tongue.
But it is true, Nintendo is not as encouraged to go after anyone distributing their homebrewn roms, or selling carts in such a manner as to be non-profit (although the latter still encourages the use of flash carts, if that is the medium of distribution). Nintendo's main concern is the discouragement of piracy, or whatever will result in the loss of sales/market share. 2nd is when someone else profits off of their idea(s), and they don't see a piece of the action (such as commerical unlicensed game publication).
#30987 - tepples - Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:10 pm
| raldridg wrote: |
| Of course [also], since the logo is registered by Nintendo, that also means that you are violating their trademark [and such] by including their logo on your cart. |
Violating, or using fairly? Sega v. Accolade.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#30995 - Lupin - Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:45 pm
if someone owns the right on Bulbs and you want to produce and sell Bulbs on your own, just name it Pulps and don't tell anyone that you can use it to illuminate your room, most people will find it out themself anyways.
I think the same goes for GBA, just produce the ROM, don't put the official nintendo logos on it (maybe it is legal if you also print a disclaimer onto the ROM) and just publish it... just my guess =)
_________________
Team Pokeme
My blog and PM ASM tutorials
#30997 - raldridg - Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:16 pm
No, you don't understand...a rom won't run on a GBA without the Nintendo logo, it's part of the header of the rom...it's been that way ever since the first GameBoy way back in the day. When the GBA boots, it checks a specific chunk of memory on your rom, this chunk is where the Nintendo logo is located. You can think of it as just a bunch of bytes of data that verifies the integrity of the rom, but to Nintendo it's their trademark logo that is used as a means to say unlicensed games are illegal, whether they are just roms online or on cartridges, it doesn't matter. The game will not run without the logo on the cart (this may not apply to games directly loaded into the memory using multiboot mode, I'm still a newbie GBA developer).
But the moderator in a post above has pointed out that a lawsuit regarding this subject has won before in favor of the unlicensed game maker, so that's good. I'm not saying I agree with Nintendo, and I guess according to the law use of their trademark in an unlicensed rom is not concretely against the law. I'm just saying this is what Nintendo planned and did/does intentionally, and they still stand behind it, even if it hasn't won in court every time (forgive me, I haven't looked at the case yet, I will in the next couple of days, if this matter has permanently been dismissed as legal than please tell me and I will stop my rants and raves).
I love information, and I just want you devs to know all about Nintendo's attempts to stop piracy and unlicensed development. It's more of a trivia thing then something to worry about. Don't take my words too seriously, other than that to the best of my knowledge they are true.
#30998 - sgeos - Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:20 pm
Was not there some sort of GBA MP3 player or some such? Did it contain a valid Nintendo header?
-Brendan
#31002 - Lupin - Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:59 pm
if a company has a white dot left to a black dot as company logo and my program contains a "0" and a "1" that could represent the company logo in binary - is it illegal?
_________________
Team Pokeme
My blog and PM ASM tutorials
#31003 - blinky465 - Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:59 pm
I don't know about international law, but in the UK it is impossible to patent software/code, as it falls under the category of 'intellectual property' (which is and can only be protected by copyright- it is not a tangible "thing" that can have it's design patented.)
I few years ago, I consulted a solicitor regarding patenting a delivery mechanism for encrypted files (for local health authority). I tried every which way I could, but after much research and correspondence with UK patenting office, had to admit defeat. Software is intellectual property and cannot be submitted in a patent application.
I *suspect* that the header code in the cartridge would be subject to similar legal entanglements - if the code is used as a checksum, and does not necessarily display a registered trademark (or your game does not use the header to display someone elses registered trademark anywhere), it is just a bunch of code - protected in the UK by copyright, not patent.
However, copyright laws protect work from blatent plagerism (please correct my spelling!) but any work can duplicated from scratch, and anyone filing against you for breach of copyright must prove that you are using their intellectual property and not your own work.
So if your homebrew ROM had some flashable memory, containing the header code, it could be argued that you had somehow (by trial and error if reverse-engineering is in breach of copyright- I don't know) discovered the correct series of bytes needed to make the cart work.
I don't know if this takes the arguement any further, but having tried to protect my own software development in the past, I just know that it is very difficult to do, here in the UK! (protecting hardware from duplication is relatively easy)
#32132 - brian - Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:57 am
I havent read the whole thread but remember Nintendo took codemasters to court for releasing micro machines with out a license (i think), Nintendo lost, this also happened with the Game Genie that was made by code masters.
#32145 - Quirky - Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:36 pm
| brian wrote: |
| I havent read the whole thread but remember Nintendo took codemasters to court for releasing micro machines with out a license (i think), Nintendo lost, this also happened with the Game Genie that was made by code masters. |
Didn't CM use a piggy back system? So their games didn't include the equivalent of the magic cookie/header, putting them on an even firmer legal footing.
If you were offering a homebrew ROM for download for cash, then not including the header would be the equivalent. Most flashing software include it anyway, invisibly to the user.
#32169 - tepples - Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:39 pm
Codemasters initially used a piggyback system in Europe, where games were stored on a Game Genie device with a passthrough for the CIC chip, but eventually Codemasters' publishers shifted to a Macronix lockout defeat system that pulsed -5 volts on various pins of the CIC chip. You see, the NES had three reasonably-independent buses on the 72-pin cart edge: the CPU bus, the PPU bus, and the security bus. The GBA, on the other hand, has only one bus.
I don't know about the UK, but in the USA we have Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control Components, both of which held in favor of unlicensed publisher.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.