On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Alex Wulms wrote:
> It does not work like this. At least, not how I interprete it. I think
> the situation is as follows:
> 1) ESE *will* develop a V9938 or V9958 clone by reverse-engineering the
> current MSX VDP and ofcourse they make a few enhancements to make it a
> better VDP
In fact, ESE has plans to do this not just for the VDP, but for other MSX
hardware as well. For example: SCC.
> 2) ESE does not want to start talking with Yamaha. They think that Yamaha
> will explicitly deny them the permissions to clone the VDP or that Yamaha
> will ask a license fee for the VDP. Both are undesirable.
A license fee may be a problem for ESE, but why should it be a problem for
Frontline/ASCII?
> 3) ESE believes that if they clone the VDP and simply start producing it,
> that they might get sued by Yamaha. However, since Yamaha never denied
> explicitly to ESE to clone the VDP, ESE believes that they can win the
> case. They believe that they can win the case because a similar case was
> spanned by Sony against the creators of the playstation emulator, who
> reversed-engineered the playstation to build that emulator. Sony lost
> that case. So, if the judge is consistent, Yamaha will loose the case
> against ESE as well.
Using what country's law was the Sony vs PSX emulator lawsuit? Japanese or
American or ...? I don't know much about this, but it could make a
difference.
> 4) ESE believes also that if Yamaha would have explicitly denied the
> permission to clone the VDP (black and white, on paper, with a
> signature), that ESE would loose the case.
Maybe they think so, but is it true?
I don't think these two situations are essentially different:
1. ESE made a new VDP without consulting Yamaha.
2. ESE made a new VDP after Yamaha refused to give permission.
Either it's legal to make a clone using reverse engineering, or it's not.
If it's not legal, both case 1 and case 2 are illegal. If it is legal, case
1 is OK ofcourse. And case 2 is OK as well, since ESE never needed to ask
Yamaha in the first place and Yamaha had nothing to refuse.
Assume it's illegal. In case 2, ESE will have a hard time saying "we didn't
think Yamaha would object". That could influence a penalty against ESE, but
it doesn't influence whether it's legal or not. In case 1, ESE would still
have to stop the production of the new VDP if it turns out to be illegal.
There would only be a difference if Yamaha would give ESE non-public
documents about the V9958 during the negotiations. In that case, ESE would
no longer be reverse engineering.
Actually I don't think ESE should be negotiating with Yamaha about
permission to produce a clone, because they don't need it if they stick to
reverse engineering. ESE could negotiate about getting design documents
from Yamaha (making it easier to produce a clone). Or Frontline/ASCII could
negotiate about Yamaha resuming production of V9958. In both cases, if
Yamaha refuses, ESE could still legally make a clone using reverse
engineering.
Bye,
Maarten
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
the body (not the subject) of the message.
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
****
