Retro SYM

[andysa]

[andysa]

I have used a variety of sources for the 6502, 6522 and 6532 USED in this project, as can be seen in the photo.
What is not immediately apparent though, is the 6522 for IC U25 at the top of the board, which is actually a WDC W65C22S6TPG-14.

6532's are indeed getting hard to souce. I relied on Ebay for mine. It appears to work ok, though I am a bit suspicious of the date code and whether this is a genuine Rockwell device.

So, my progress so far...

A SYM running Supermon 1.1, RAE and BASIC.
Address decoding using a 22V10 PLD.
USB interface based around a FTDI FT232BL
Minimalistic file system using a 4D Systems "uDRIVE" SD card module (the small red board mounted just below the DB15 connector)

In regards to making the PCB available, I dont know what the legalities would be in doing this.

[orgwood]

Great job! I'm interested in that SD interface for the AIM-65. Glad you got a 6532...did you get it from China? Also, legally IMHO, you designed this so you own it...if you're worried about an infringement suit. On the other hand, disclaim "for your own use only" but put a copyright symbol on it via screening or sticker or scratched on and you should be good to sell them with all your rights reserved. This is not something that is going to raise a big ruckus by any owner's of the SYM-1's rights unless they want to buy it from you and distribute it. The SuperMONITOR code is way past its copyright period IMHO. Good luck!

[BigDumbDinosaur]

andysa wrote:

I have used a variety of sources for the 6502, 6522 and 6532 USED in this project, as can be seen in the photo.
What is not immediately apparent though, is the 6522 for IC U25 at the top of the board, which is actually a WDC W65C22S6TPG-14.

If that 6522 really is a W65C22S you may have a not-too-obvious problem involving the device's totem-pole IRQ output—the NMOS 6522 had an open-drain IRQ output. You should be using the W65C22N for an exact replacement. Did you isolate the VIA's IRQ output via a Schottky diode?

Quote:

6532's are indeed getting hard to souce. I relied on Ebay for mine. It appears to work ok, though I am a bit suspicious of the date code and whether this is a genuine Rockwell device.

If my fading memory correctly serves me, the Rockwell 6532 was an exact clone of the MOS Technology part, as were RIOTs produced by other sources. So its pedigree is probably not important.

Quote:

In regards to making the PCB available, I dont know what the legalities would be in doing this.

As a co-holder of several U.S. patents and copyrights, I have some experience in this area. However, I'm not an attorney, so I'm not speaking from a position of authority.

Australia and the USA are signatories to the Berne Convention, which means Australia recognizes copyrights and patents granted in the USA as legally enforceable. Patent protection would no longer exist on that unit, as any such patents would have expired no more than 20 years after date of issue. Any patents that would have been applicable to the purchased parts used to build the unit would likewise have expired. However, intellectual property of any kind is covered by copyright laws, which has a significance in the realm of reproducing old computer hardware. At the very least, the original's PCB layout—intellectual property—would be protected by a copyright that will not expire until 95 years from the date the copyright came into being (apparently 1978). Therefore, selling an exact reproduction of the PCB would be considered copyright infringement.

Where it gets murky is in enforcement. Synertek no longer exists, so it is unlikely that anyone will suddenly appear and demand royalties because you cloned the design of a piece of computer hardware that was obsolete within a few years of being manufactured. I'm guessing that you probably won't run into any trouble if you decide to reproduce boards and assembled units (minus the Synertek graphics—reproducing them would be blatant infringement). However, only an attorney can ascertain that for you.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

orgwood wrote:

The SuperMONITOR code is way past its copyright period IMHO. Good luck!

Not so! The copyright period in the USA of a "work for hire," which is almost anything intellectual produced by a company and/or its employees, is 95 years from date of issue. Australia and the USA have mutual agreements on copyright, trademark and patent law. Therefore, the 95 year period would apply in this case.

[cjb]

Quote:

In regards to making the PCB available, I dont know what the legalities would be in doing this.

Ask Ray Holt directly?
If the board's copyright is actually not his, having his approval would also be a good 'artistic' obligation to seek, and would be assuring if the real copyright can't be resolved.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

cjb wrote:

Quote:

In regards to making the PCB available, I dont know what the legalities would be in doing this.

Ask Ray Holt directly?
If the board's copyright is actually not his, having his approval would also be a good 'artistic' obligation to seek, and would be assuring if the real copyright can't be resolved.

You must not have read the preceding posts.

Synertek Systems Corporation and its successors (primarily Honeywell) are the owners of any intellectual rights related to the SYM-1, as stated on the PCB's artwork. Ray Holt was an employee at Synertek when the SYM-1 was developed and would not have had any legal rights to the design.

In both Australia and the USA, a corporation (party limited) is a separate legal entity from any one individual. Back when I owned a steel fabricating shop, I was aware of this distinction, as the business was incorporated. Anything the business produced, patented, trademarked or copyrighted belonged to the business, not its owners. This arrangement is meant to protect future owners and officers of a business from nuisance legal actions by former owners and officers.

As near as anyone can determine, Synertek was acquired by Honeywell sometime in the latter 1980s and its assets were sold off. While it is highly doubtful that Honeywell is going to start infringement action over a piece of 25 year old computer hardware, lawyers can be an obtuse breed.

[cjb]

Quote:

You must not have read the preceding posts.

I can read Wikipedia articles too.
However, asking Holt may reveal circumstances that were unknown-- for example, the VIM/SYM designed may have been licenced to Synertek (not uncommon-- Woz attempted to licence the Apple1 to HP), and the clauses of the contract (if he can remember..) could be favorable.

Quote:

While it is highly doubtful that Honeywell is going to start infringement action over a piece of 25 year old computer hardware, lawyers can be an obtuse breed.

A wild suggestion-- acquiring the rights for the SYM-1 from Honeywell...
(or licensing...)

[BigDumbDinosaur]

cjb wrote:

Quote:

You must not have read the preceding posts.

I can read Wikipedia articles too.

What does Wikipedia have to do with anything? You thing I don't already know this stuff? If I don't know something, I find primary sources written by people who don't present opinions as facts. At one time, I was a prolific contributor to Wikipedia but discontinued being so due to the number of ignoramuses that convert useful information into a melange of opinions, lousy grammar, lousier spelling and all-around BS. See here for my last significant contribution—I rewrote almost the entire article to give it a more encyclopedic tone, added new sections (that one of the aforementioned ignoramuses tried to delete because he didn't think it was necessary) and added 65C816 information that, to my knowledge, hadn't been published elsewhere.

Quote:

However, asking Holt may reveal circumstances that were unknown-- for example, the VIM/SYM designed may have been licenced to Synertek (not uncommon-- Woz attempted to licence the Apple1 to HP), and the clauses of the contract (if he can remember..) could be favorable.

I was familiar with the SYM-1 hardware when it was released—I've been writing 6502 assembly language software almost since the MPU's inception. Everything I recall about it was that it was an in-house design. There was a legal squabble between MOS Technology and Synertek because the former thought the latter had copied the KIM-1 design. However, there was enough of a difference between the two to keep the dispute from enriching any lawyers.

The irony was that by the time Synertek released the SYM-1, that sort of hardware had started to fall out of favor with companies developing 6502-powered systems (my employer at the time was one of them). The most prolific producer of 6502-based hardware, Commodore, owned MOS Technology by then and didn't need the SYM-1 or anything like it. The PET was already in production and yours truly had already written a database engine for it (in assembly language—BASIC was far too slow for that sort of thing). Assembly wasn't a five second affair as it is on my UNIX cross-development system. Oh for the days of IEEE-488 disks, clunky keyboards and blurry little video displays. Wait! I've got a 24 inch monitor on my desk and it's still blurry.

Quote:

A wild suggestion-- acquiring the rights for the SYM-1 from Honeywell...(or licensing...)

A less wild suggestion: skip the cost and aggravation of trying to license the design. Instead, don't exactly duplicate the printed circuit board layout and DO NOT include any Synertek artwork. By law it becomes a derivative work if no Synertek artwork is present and if the PCB layout is different (move a chip here and there). As soon as anything directly traceable to Synertek gets into the picture the door is open to infringement action.

[GARTHWILSON]

Quote:

However, there was enough of a difference between the two to keep the dispute from enriching any lawyers.

I saw a bumper sticker once (actually, at an electronics swap meet) that said, "Strike a blow for justice. Punch an attorney!"

Q: Why are lawyers burried 20 feet down? A: Because deep down, they're really good. A lawyer told me that one. He also said, "Why do just 98% of the lawyers have to make all the other 2% look bad?"

However, if you don't have any assets to go after, they'll probably leave you alone. You're not worth their time. Still, I'd make the little changes.

[Tor]

The Altair kit is an almost exact reproduction of the original Altair, with MITS printed on the boards, and it even uses the original Optima enclosure. I don't know if Grant Stockly has obtained some kind of permission to use the design, he may have but I can't find it on the website. He's been making them since 2007 or so (there was a new batch just some months ago, although that's not mentioned on the site). http://altairkit.com/diffcompare.html
So (nearly) exact reproductions has been done before. There's also an Apple I replica out there somewhere too, and again I don't know the background - although in that latter case it's a fair guess that if Woz gave it thumbs up it would be OK. But IANAL.

-Tor

[rwiker]

There's also Mike Willegal's clone of the Apple II rev 0 http://willegal.net/appleii/appleii-first_page.htm... this is even closer to the original than this SYM clone is.

[BigEd]

Technically, a derived work will infringe copyright - practically, you care about whether anyone cares or what the consequence might be if someone does. Whatever you make, if it is a derived work then you can't effectively open source it, and others can't derive from it without making the same judgement of risk/benefit.
Cheers
Ed

[HouseHarris]

This is brilliant Andy, will this allow plugging in the NVram devices needed for my DOS to run? That should eliminate instabilities introduced with the wired memory expansions. I'm going to want one of these when they are ready to distribute.

[TMorita]

The SYM-1 itself is based on the KIM-1, and there was a lawsuit about it.
It was eventually dropped IIRC because it wasn't similar enough.

I concur with BDD - it's probably not a problem to produce it if you remove the Synertek-related markings on the PCB.

There's a micro-KIM that is based on the KIM-1, and afaik they haven't had any legal problems.

Basically it's only worth suing you if there's a lot of money involved, and it's not worth suing you unless you're making at least a few hundred thousand or maybe a few million per year with it.

Toshi