Our hobby in The New York Times -- sort of

The intellectual property issues would be key for me, too and could have been dealt with in a few sentences. As far as the crappy-versus-good title licenses, I would offer up that the final choice of games comes down to (1) which IP owner you could locate and (2) successfully negotiate with. There's the firm...Tulip I think...that from what I've read seems to be ready to come down hard on anyone using abandoned Commodore properties for commercial gain. It's been a long road of failed owners, but I believe Tulip owns the Commodore trademarks and IP. I can't say for sure if they own the designs for the 6510 but I would assume that they bought a "package" of IP from Gateway, who bought it from Ascom AG, who bought it from the Commodore bankruptcy estate for $5mm (IIRC). There might be another name in there after Ascom, but I can't be sure. I think that Tulip uses the Commodore name for things other than computers but owns all of the goodies that's of particular interest to this group. Rich -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of John Foust Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:46 PM To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Our hobby in The New York Times -- sort of At 02:41 PM 12/20/2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: Judging by Slashdot's coverage of Ellsworth and the geek response, at least 90% of this mailing list's bandwidth needs to be consumed debating her "hotness." Sated geek that I am, I'd love to read an in-depth article on the intellection property issues: Did they get permission from the CBM's heirs? Who got the 6510's IP rights? What about the software, was that easy to license? Why do so many of these cheap emulators license lousy titles, as opposed to the extinct top-sellers? - John