patents? licensing? ask where/whom? (mos6510 ,vicII,sid6581)

e2020 · Post by **e2020** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:54 am

hello

,

I am interested in rebuilding & using the original hardware of the
commodore c64 - (mos 6510, vic-II, sid 6581 etc) so my question is:
where/whom can I ask about (existing) patents/licensing?

thanks in advance!

ChuckT · Post by **ChuckT** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:38 pm

They were owned by Tulip and Tulip went bankrupt so I forget who bought them.

I think most or all of the patents are expired but Microsoft owns Basic and I don't know if they would give you a license. It is copywrited.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/111556/c ... eback.html

I would be interested in hearing about what you make.

ChuckT · Post by **ChuckT** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:51 pm

It gets more complicated because Commodore USA is allegedly renting the rights to use the name "Commodore" even though they don't own it. I'm sure a lawyer could figure it out.

BigDumbDinosaur · Post by **BigDumbDinosaur** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:52 am

ChuckT wrote:

...Microsoft owns Basic and I don't know if they would give you a license. It is copywrited.

BASIC is "owned" by Dartmouth College, which is where it was invented. Microsoft's copyrights cover their implementation of the language, not the language itself.

ChuckT · Post by **ChuckT** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:22 am

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

ChuckT wrote:

...Microsoft owns Basic and I don't know if they would give you a license. It is copywrited.

BASIC is "owned" by Dartmouth College, which is where it was invented. Microsoft's copyrights cover their implementation of the language, not the language itself.

You are right and I wasn't thinking about Dartmouth. Microsoft could still prove it is their Basic because of the easter eggs in it and the rest is history. Commodore had an agreement to use Microsoft's basic but I don't know if the agreement precluded what would happen to it upon sale of the company. Commodore did pay for it so they have some rights so I wouldn't be able to tell beyond that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

Quote:

The Open Letter to Hobbyists was an open letter written by Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, to early personal computer hobbyists, in which Gates expresses dismay at the rampant copyright infringement taking place in the hobbyist community, particularly with regard to his company's software.

In the letter, Gates expressed frustration with most computer hobbyists who were using his company's Altair BASIC software without having paid for it. He asserted that such widespread unauthorized copying in effect discourages developers from investing time and money in creating high-quality software. He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

BigDumbDinosaur · Post by **BigDumbDinosaur** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:23 pm

ChuckT wrote:

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

BASIC is "owned" by Dartmouth College, which is where it was invented. Microsoft's copyrights cover their implementation of the language, not the language itself.

You are right and I wasn't thinking about Dartmouth. Microsoft could still prove it is their Basic because of the easter eggs in it and the rest is history. Commodore had an agreement to use Microsoft's basic but I don't know if the agreement precluded what would happen to it upon sale of the company. Commodore did pay for it so they have some rights so I wouldn't be able to tell beyond that.

If you notice, starting with the C-128, Commodore included a Microsoft copyright notice (1977) to acknowledge the source of the interpreter. BASIC 7.0 in the C-128 had a lot of Commodore-specific features, and that had a bearing on Microsoft demanding that Commodore put the copyright notice in the power-on banner.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

The Open Letter to Hobbyists was an open letter written by Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, to early personal computer hobbyists, in which Gates expresses dismay at the rampant copyright infringement taking place in the hobbyist community, particularly with regard to his company's software.

In the letter, Gates expressed frustration with most computer hobbyists who were using his company's Altair BASIC software without having paid for it. He asserted that such widespread unauthorized copying in effect discourages developers from investing time and money in creating high-quality software. He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

Gates, at the time, all but said that he "owned" BASIC. As I said, he only had a copyright on his implementation. The Dartmouth trustees set him straight on the matter.

I still have to laugh over that letter, as Gates is on a par with the 19th century robber barons who stole much of what made their fortune. There is very little of anything original that came out of Redmond, excepting maybe that annoying paperclip in older versions of MS Office.

BigEd · Post by **BigEd** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:08 pm

There's a fascinating reconstruction here of the family tree of various Microsoft-derived BASICs, with a quick mention also of the unrelated Integer BASIC by Steve Wozniak.

The article also has something to say about the Commodore licensing deal and the reason for the easter egg.

At least Acorn and Sinclair in the UK wrote independent BASICs, and Richard T Russell wrote several more and still maintains and owns the current revision of BBC BASIC. He also has a history of BBC BASIC.

I'm not sure in what sense Dartmouth owns BASIC, although they did invent it. Gates referring to Microsoft's Altair BASIC leaves it ambiguous as to whether he's claiming ownership over all BASIC (and this happens to be an Altair port) or ownership over this port (and over other ports they might do) - the kind of ambiguity which might give an advantage.

Cheers
Ed

e2020 · Post by **e2020** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:21 pm

hello all

thanks for your answers !

okay, so i'll just ask microsoft about the commodore basic ...
what about the (owner of the) kernal?

BigDumbDinosaur · Post by **BigDumbDinosaur** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:02 pm

BigEd wrote:

I'm not sure in what sense Dartmouth owns BASIC, although they did invent it. Gates referring to Microsoft's Altair BASIC leaves it ambiguous as to whether he's claiming ownership over all BASIC (and this happens to be an Altair port) or ownership over this port (and over other ports they might do) - the kind of ambiguity which might give an advantage.

Cheers
Ed

One cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of the idea. For example, AT&T could not copyright the C programming language itself (idea), as it contained prior art, as well as public domain elements. They could, however copyright a C compiler (expression). If I write a C compiler for the 65C816 I can copyright it as well, but also can't claim a right to the language.

BigDumbDinosaur · Post by **BigDumbDinosaur** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:10 pm

e2020 wrote:

hello all

thanks for your answers !

okay, so i'll just ask microsoft about the commodore basic ...
what about the (owner of the) kernal?

Whomever owns the remains of Commodore holds the kernel copyright.

ChuckT · Post by **ChuckT** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:02 pm

I remember now who owns Commodore. They are the maker of the Commodore iPhone app.

This is the current owner:

http://www.manomio.com/

e2020 · Post by **e2020** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:23 am

my email to them bounced back ...