nesdev.org

If N couldn't stop Codemasters and AVE and Wisdom Tree back when the NES was still patented, it'll be even harder to stop them in 2015.

Wasn't Nightmare Busters licensed back in the day? Nintendo refused to allow the use of their trademarks when it was finally released.

What?

I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, and the end result speaks for itself...

I just honestly have no clue as to what you're trying to say. If the game had already been licensed, how is it that "Nintendo refused to allow the use of their trademarks"? From what I've seen, it's a game made in 1995, but was never actually ever released, kind of like Star Fox 2 or something. And from what I just saw, somebody dumped the rom onto that odd looking cartridge, just like how Star Fox 2 has been dumped onto cartridges and been sold at astronomical prices for whatever reason. Are you trying to say that this reproduction cartridge wasn't licensed by Nintendo, because I would have thought that would have been obvious, although it is strange that you'd have a game licensed and never have it released.

It's not a repro. Those carts are manufactured and sold by (or "in partnership with") the IP holders. It's real.

And what I'm saying is that I was under the impression that it was licensed for release back in the day, but obviously it was never actually released, and now Nintendo's being stingy about it. I can't confirm that without more research; I was hoping someone here would know.

You mean to say the company that was going to release the game in 1995 decided to take a 10+ year break before actually releasing it, except this time, they couldn't get Nintendo to license it? I wouldn't think you'd need to have Nintendo license the same game twice.

Perhaps the license is only valid for a specific amount of time. We don't know because the only people who do know would get fired for saying.

But since it was never released back in the day, they probably never had a license. The game could have been cancelled for many reasons.

I believe all patents for NES and SNES are no longer in effect though, so there's nothing that stops anyone from releasing new games anymore is there?

It was for a short time believed that CIC clones might be considered a "circumvention device" since the DMCA was enacted in 1998, but the US Supreme Court largely ruled against this line of reasoning in Lexmark v. Static Control Components.

"But there ought to be some intellectual property right Nintendo can use!" This line of thinking illustrates a problem I have with the term "intellectual property": it doesn't specify which exclusive right is under discussion.

Did you go to law school tepples?

I'm guessing if tepples is like some of us who have been around the homebrew, emulation, or console-fan community for a while, you tend to pick up on a lot of the legal issues around it. Although, given the percentage of lawyers-to-people in the U.S., it wouldn't surprise me if tepples is or had been a lawyer

I'm no lawyer, but I've read up on things after receiving a couple notices of claimed infringement. I've already had to bow out of a few fandoms because I discovered legal environments that were toxic to fans.

Anyway, the EmuFAQ agrees with my reasoning under U.S. law. Unlicensed games are legal per Sega v. Accolade, emulation is legal per Sony v. Connectix, and there's an explicit carve-out for dumping your own carts in 17 USC 117(a). This leaves ROM trading as the clearest grounds for a lawsuit.

And here's an example of why I focus on staying (publicly) legal to an extent that some consider excessive:

Two Arrests In Denmark For Spreading Information About Popcorn Time, via Slashdot

Espozo wrote:Did you go to law school tepples?

I've legitimately been wanting to ask this for so long now...