Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Atari Targets Retro Community With Cease & Desist

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the make-friends-influence-people dept.

The Courts 219

svenski writes "Atari User reports that Atari Inc. have begun to target the retro community and have now turned their attentions to atari2600.org, a website first registered in 2000, demanding the domain name be handed over."

cancel ×

219 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170794)

Why bother?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170864)

Because some quasi-develepor exec probably sold them on the idea that their decades-old intellectual property could become sellable again on the mobile/embedded platform market but first they need to kill off the community that formed around these games?

Re:Why? (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170990)

I play more 2600 than xbox. Pong is a great social game after the bar.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171372)

You know what's a better social game after the bar? Fucking the chick that I pulled that night.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171610)

You know what's even better? Playing Pong with then fucking that chick I pulled at the bar.

Then, if she likes zombie movies, some co-op L4D2.

You got limited vision, my man.

Re:Why? (1)

Dryanta (978861) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172030)

Why don't I have mod points when I see things that make me irlol like this? Slashdot, plz2give out moar mod points plz

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172040)

And apparently yours is blurry. That's a man, man.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171624)

The chick that grows out of your shoulder socket? The one with the five legs? Yeah, I know her too, but having her stroke your dick isn't "fucking".

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

randizzle3000 (1276900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171816)

Palmela Handerson is her name.

Re:Why? (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171894)

Mod this up. +5 Informative.

Re:Why? (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171708)

It might work better if you stuck to your own species.

Re:Why? (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171020)

Yes, I'd be willing to bet this is exactly what this is. Didn't you guys know? Everyone is playing 4 bit Pacman clones on their cell phones!! I tell you, I've really been wanting to get into that Atari 2600 emulation on cell phones scene, but the fact that there wasn't an official paid app really prevented me from doing so. Boy are we lucky you guys!!!

Re:Why? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171342)

Oh man GORF on the iphone? I'd pay $80.00 for that!

Re:Why? (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171082)

Because some quasi-develepor exec probably sold them on the idea that their decades-old intellectual property could become sellable again on the mobile/embedded platform market but first they need to kill off the community that formed around these games?

The chance that they could monetize this stuff is pretty much zero. Most 2600 games were bloody awful and people who have the need to play them for nostalgia can easily obtain roms and perfect emulators from numerous places already.

Re:Why? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171666)

can easily obtain roms and perfect emulators from numerous places already.

which is why they are (futily) attempting to those down.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171670)

That's the crazy thing. Infogrames took the Atari name, presumably to capitalize on people's good memories. Now they are attacking the very people trying the hardest to keep those memories alive. This makes no business sense whatsoever.

Re:Why? (2)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170992)

Why bother?

Looks like they are trying to resurrect the brand using flash and possibly other distribution channels.. See HERE [atari.com] for an example. When I tried to play Asteroids, it took me to my facebook page and asked for permission... I said no.

Trademark Dilution (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170816)

Eleven years of no enforcement means they effectively gave up all rights to the name. See you in court, Atari.

He's right. It's called "Estoppel" (3, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171224)

Trademarks are special in that you lose them if you don't enforce them. That's not the case with copyrights, patents or trade secrets. If you don't defend your trademark, then the law holds that your mark becomes part of the language, so that you don't own it anymore.

I learned of this when Saks 41st Avenue sent a C&D letter to a small clothing store called Sacks 41st Avenue in Capitola, California. It made the front page of the local paper. Saks' attorney told the reporter who asked about it that they had to defend their trademark or they would lose it.

The problem though is that whoever administers the domain name dispute resolution policy may not apply the trademark law. It is possible that Atari could take the domain because they registered their trademark before the website registered their domain. Because their trademark is no longer enforceable, they have no rights to the domain, but ICANN may not heed that fact and so force the register to hand the domain over to Atari.

Re:He's right. It's called "Estoppel" (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171360)

It is not a real website. I looked at it. It looks like something a domain name squatter would make. It is a 1 paragraph description followed by about 8 links to another domain. Nothing of value would be lost if this site goes away. No links would be broken. No content lost. This guy is just hoping for a buy out.

Re:He's right. It's called "Estoppel" (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171458)

I have been told that he removed a bunch a content after getting the C&D.

Re:He's right. It's called "Estoppel" (4, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171964)

Whole lotta content [archive.org] there....

Re:He's right. It's called "Estoppel" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171402)

You have to defend your trademark to keep it, but that doesn't mean the mere existence of infringement over any given period of time nullifies the trademark. And defending a trademark does not necessarily require sending a C&D to every person who ever makes any use of your trademark. For example, there is a site called segaoa.com (3 seconds on google). The existence of this site and the lack of a lawsuit by Sega does not mean that Sega no longer owns the trademark to their brand. You could find a similar example for any company in the world, as it is possible to legally use someone else's trademark for a fan site or other non commercial product. Where Atari would lose their trademark is if they knowingly allowed someone else to use it for commercial purposes, which clearly didn't happen here. So bottom line, trying to argue that Atari does not have a legitimate right to the trademark Atari is simply a non starter.

Now, tangential to full Trademark law, ICANN has provisions that allow trademark owners to claim ownership of domains that have their full trademark in the domain. As this is not a true legal proceeding but instead an ICANN provision (that you agree to when you register a domain name), estoppel wouldn't really be applicable, and the fact that Atari has let this guy have this site for 10 years doesn't really matter, they can claim it anyway (hell, they didn't even gain the legal right to claim it until much less than 10 years ago).

Re:He's right. It's called "Estoppel" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171428)

Holy shit, it's Crawford. Do you have wifi in the ward or did you use your Hitler mind control rays to convince them to let you out? Either way, it's great to have you back. How's rippit?

Re:Trademark Dilution (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171534)

Eleven years of no enforcement means they effectively gave up all rights to the name. See you in court, Atari.

We have more money and lawyers than you. If it goes to court we will bankrupt you even if you win. - Atari lawyer. (Probably not said directly, but implied.)

Shoot in the foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170818)

Shoot in the foot. What's the point?

Re:Shoot in the foot (3, Insightful)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170896)

Remove of the toe?

Re:Shoot in the foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171604)

Shoot on the other foot?

Bad trend. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170820)

First they start loading their games (like The Witcher) with DRM, and then they start suing fans for obsolete domain names? It's like the took a page out of Ubisoft/Activision's playbook.

Re:Bad trend. (2)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171060)

citation needed. I bought both witcher and witcher 2 off GoG with no DRM of any kind.

Re:Bad trend. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171086)

Really? I bought Witcher 2 and it required that you login/register via the launch client to prove you own the game.

This is what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170822)

when a new MBA arrives at a company.

Is this what it has come down to? (3, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170832)

There seems to be news like this in abundance. When corporate profits start to sag, or don't skyrocket the legal teams start looking for people to mess with to rack up billable hours. It's disgusting to say the least how willing these companies are to alienate fans in pursuit of profits.

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (4, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170908)

I'm not sure abusively litigious behavior is tied to failure. Apple, for example.

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170956)

I'm not sure abusively litigious behavior is tied to failure. Apple, for example.

Funny thing is, Apple is doing it wrong, literally. No patent troll sues to keep a product off the market - you have to wait until the product is wildly successful, perhaps close to the end of the patent term, THEN you sue for massive damages. Plus, Apple is filing everywhere but East Texas, sheesh. Everyone knows you use East Texas to make life easy.

Suing to keep a product off the market means you give up whatever profits you could've made had that product been successful.

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171008)

Patent trolls don't generally have a competing product. The amount of money that Apple stands to gain by having a competitor locked out of the market is likely to be a lot more than what they can reasonably collect if they win a later patent case.

But more importantly, it keeps competitors out of the minds of possible consumers.

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (4, Informative)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171124)

I guess it's fair to say there's more than one reason companies will abuse the legal system. Patent trolling is just one. Apple appears to be hyper-protective of their business at the expense of even their biggest fans. And as you pointed out, less interested in looking for compensatory damages to make up for any kind of lost revenue than just keeping everything secret and dissimilar from their own products.

I'd argue that trolling as a business model is nastier, in that it usually manifests as a fishing with dynamite approach. But I could certainly be wrong.

They're trying to keep devs of the Android platfor (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171346)

-m.

I've been working on an iOS app for a while. While Objective-C and Cocoa Touch are pretty nice to work with, I am sick to death of Apple's corporate control freak mentality. The fact that I cannot run code I wrote myself on an iOS device I bought with my own cash is, frankly, offensive.

Now I can pay $99 to be an iOS developer, which gives me a digital certificate that allows me to load my own binaries on my devices. I can also get certificates that allow for Ad Hoc distribution on other devices for beta testing. But both of these certificates have expiration dates. What that means is that I cannot give a binary directly to an end-user and have it continue working forever on their device. The only way to achieve that is for my users to get my app from Apple's App Store.

From now on, I'll develop for iOS if a client pays me to do it, but for all of my own titles, I'm going to focus on Android. Apple knows very well that so many of its developers are sick of being treated like this, and so like me are moving to Android. Rather than playing nicely with others by easing its restrictions on who can install what on iOS devices, or where end-users can obtain apps from, they are trying to prevent the loss of iOS developers by putting an end to Android entirely.

That's Just Wrong.

That's Just Right. (3, Insightful)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172006)

You're missing the point -- Apple wants to sell the thing that always works. Keeping things pinned down minimises crashes. Minimising crashes means higher user satisfaction, which builds the brand.

User freedom is also known as "enough rope to hang yourself".

Apple have been very clever and relied on the "appstore goldrush" to ensure that millions of different app developers can produce enough to satisfy the hundreds of significant use-cases of the phone. The ecosystem is saturated, so the loss of a few is no problem at all.

Re:They're trying to keep devs of the Android plat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37172036)

Not really Apple's fault that it takes you, what, 2 years+, to do what most people would do in a few weekends.

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171526)

Thats because you're holding it wrong.

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170944)

You still don't get it, do you? Atari will find them! That's what they do! It's all they do! You can't stop them! (Terminator paraphrase).

Re:Is this what it has come down to? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171034)

Now now...

You think the lawyers' private jets are going to pay for themselves?

Retroactive? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170844)

I guess companies can register a trademark, *then* go after persons that have used the name?

After all Atari didn't exist for a lot of years.

Isn't there some expiration of a trademark when it's not defended for some number (11, in this case) years?

Re:Retroactive? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172216)

After all Atari didn't exist for a lot of years. Isn't there some expiration of a trademark when it's not defended for some number (11, in this case) years?

Er, except that you're wrong. The "Atari" brand *has* been used almost continuously in one form or another.

There was the original Atari Inc., later bought by Warner.

In 1984 it was effectively split into Atari Games (arcade) and what became Jack Tramiel's Atari Corp. (home computers and consoles). Atari Corp. continued for over a decade using that name before it eventually fizzled out and merged with JTS (a third-rate hard drive manufacturer) in 1996.

When JTS/Atari Corp. went under in 1998, Hasbro's video game division bought the name and some rights, and released some nostalgia-exploiting games under the name. In 2001 or thereabouts, Infogrames bought Hasbro Interactive (including the Atari name) and have used it for the past decade.

At *most* there was a two year gap circa '96-'98 when Atari Corp. was effectively a dormant subsidiary of JTS, and I think Atari Games (the Midway-owned arcade division) was still using the name at that time, only ditching it to avoid name-related confusion when Hasbro acquired the home rights from Atari Corp. So, I don't know where you got "11 years" from.

Because... because... (2)

eagee (1308589) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170848)

Because they couldn't find a better way to look like assholes.

Re:Because... because... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171622)

And, because the best way to enhance brand value is to piss of the few people who might actually care about it. Are the actually teaching Stupid in business school these days?

Fight them. (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170876)

They can't steal atari2600.org just because they feel like it's theirs. Make them take it to arbitration [icann.org] , they have no case.

Exactly right.. (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171004)

They may be able to force domain owners to take down content that is in violation of trademarks/copyrights owned by Atari, but I'll be damned if they can take a domain name from its owner.

Re:Exactly right.. (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171400)

Money says they can do anything they want. Bullets say there's a limit to what they can do. But it's only bullets that can say that.

Re:Fight them. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171036)

Except that ICANN has to abide by rulings made by courts in the US. Atari has no obligation to take it to arbitration since there is no licensing deal that mandates arbitration.

Re:Fight them. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171792)

Unfortunately they can. Fighting Atari would require the hobbiest to show up in court halfway around the world. He can't do that, so Atari can do whatever they want.

Atari? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170884)

Do they still exist? I thought they went bust decades ago.

Re:Atari? (2)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170916)

They exist only as a software company now, producing games for other companies like Sega now does.

Re:Atari? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171040)

They exist only as a software company now, producing games for other companies like Sega now does.

Or rather someone (Infogrames) bought the rights to use the name. They had no ties to the original Atari.

Re:Atari? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171732)

Actually, they do have all of Atari, by way of JT Storage (who bought the hardware side of Atari) and Hasbro, who bought the software side, and then also the hardware side from JTS when they went bankrupt, then got bought by Infogrammes.

Probably no employees from the original left though.

Re:Atari? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172130)

Which, frankly, was completely backwards. They threw away a name with a reputation for some good, modern games (Alone in the Dark, Outcast, Unreal, Slave Zero, Expendable, Driver, Test Drive, Moto Racer, Demolition Racer)... and replaced it with the name of a long dead entity.

Re:Atari? (1)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171116)

Infogrames bought the name and rolled it out for the first time for the release of the Bioware developed Neverwinter Nights. Neverwinter Nights 2 was also published under the Atari brand along with some other titles over the years.

"Estoppel Defense" (5, Insightful)

lkcl (517947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37170974)

i've just written this to the blog-writer: Please use the "Estoppel" Legal Defense. There's no way that Atari have not known of the existence for 12 years of the atari2600.org domain name.

The "Estoppel" defense states that if you ignore something, it is tantamount to "acquiescence" - i.e. "silent consent".

thus it can be claimed that Atari has "Silently Consented" to the use of this domain name, by virtue of them not having done anything for well over a decade.

Re:"Estoppel Defense" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37172140)

I thought it takes more then silence to create estoppel. The silence has to actively enhance the perceived consent.

ie.
They didn't sue me for x years so that must mean it's ok. (No estoppel)
They said they would sue me if it wasn't ok and they haven't sued for x years so it must be ok. (estoppel)

If it wasn't for this provision all the patent trolls would be out of business. "You haven't enforced it so tough..."

But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37170976)

It's not even the same Atari, is it?

Re:But... (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171062)

I don't believe so, no. I'm pretty sure it's an AT&T deal. the original company fell on hard times, but still had a valuable name. they were bought out by another company that was doing well (in AT&T's case, it was ironically bought out by a baby bell that had been shed off of itself 15 or 20 years prior), and the purchasing company says "your name is more famous than ours. we're you now."

It's essentially killing the celebrity and wearing his skin as a coat, buffalo bill style.

Re:But... (3, Informative)

Asmor (775910) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171184)

It's a french company formerly known as Infogrames. They purchased Atari, sat on it for a while, realized "Nobody's ever heard of Infogrames," and changed their name.

That was, I believe, in the early 2000's. I worked for Atari briefly in 2003 and got the impression that the name change was fairly recent.

Re:But... (1)

Ashe Tyrael (697937) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171764)

To be fair, back in the day, Infogrames were a popular (in europe) software house who did some very good 8-bit games. I saw the takeover as more of a rebranding exercise than anything else.

Re:But... (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171884)

I think you meant Buffalo Bob. Buffalo Bill was a western show star and celebrity, Buffalo Bob was played by the guy that plays Captain Stottlemeyer on Monk, Ted Levine!

Idea! (1, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171002)

I'll start a company called "www." and then sue every website in the world which has my name in its entirety in its website address.

Profits!

Re:Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171096)

Someone already beat you to it. www.www.com

Re:Idea! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171350)

Someone already beat you to it. www.www.com

Sue them twice

Re:Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171600)

What about dotcom.com?

Re:Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171292)

Given my website does not have www in it's url, if I see your letter in the mail I will drag you over the legal coals!

fans who need them.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171006)

oh look we have fans, kill's, all

Assign Rights to Nolan Bushnell (2)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171026)

Sure... some MBA lawyer douchebag ressurects the name Atari to make money off the Atari fanboys, and then proceeds to shit all over the exact fanbase he hopes to profit from. I assume this guy used to work at Sony?

I say we go out and register ATARI*****.com (replace asteriks with whatever suits your fancy), and under contact info assign all rights to Nolan Bushnell.

Let's see how smart these douches are.

Re:Assign Rights to Nolan Bushnell (4, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171114)

Atarisucks.com is already taken :(

It redirects to their website.

Re:Assign Rights to Nolan Bushnell (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171258)

+1 Interesting!

Re:Assign Rights to Nolan Bushnell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171430)

LOL

Re:Assign Rights to Nolan Bushnell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171288)

Considering he probably had a hand in this I am sure he would figure it out. He is on their board of directors...

He is the king of the lockout. He locked out competitors for years by buying up huge swaths of parts that he never had any intention of using. Just so his competitors couldnt get the same parts. As he knew they needed those parts for them to make atari 2600 like systems. He even wrote it off as 'r&d'.

He is a shrewd ruthless businessman do NOT underestimate him.

Re:Assign Rights to Nolan Bushnell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171806)

I read about this recently, companies actively try to snag up a large number of websites potentially related to their product. www.product., www.productisbad., www.productsucks. and so on, but they either leave the sites blank or make reverse psychology sales sites.

according to a Cracked article: http://www.cracked.com/article_19367_6-companies-that-rigged-game-and-changed-world_p2.html, 2600 magazine noticed that Verizon registered www.verizon.com as well as www.verizonsucks.com, so they tried making their own site verizonreallysucks.com, and were immediately served a cease-and-desist motion. Bank of America reserved hundreds of URLs all of which were variants on sucks, blows, to try to smother backlash as Wikileaks was threatening to release documents about BoA's brass.

And then, if that doesn't work, they try to smother legitimate sites created to criticize something by seeding search engines.

I'm shocked and insulted (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171052)

There's no way i'm buying the nextgen Atari console now!

Re:I'm shocked and insulted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171638)

The bastards never saw it coming!
I'm gonna go with Sega now!

Doofuses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171108)

any one else sense a visit from anonymous?

.org (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171156)

This is clearly Atari's admission that they plan to become a nonprofit organisation, and qualify for the .org TLD.

The irony is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171158)

This isn't even really Atari - It is Infogrames wearing the skin of Atari's corpse!

Is this a real site? (4, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171210)

I navigated to atari2600.org It doesn't look like the author is really using the domain. It is nothing but a title and a few links to another domain www.taswegian.com No blog, no community, no content. Just let them have it.

Re:Is this a real site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171344)

He took it all offline after getting the C&D. Here's another person being harassed:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/186151-ive-got-email-from-atari-today/

Re:Is this a real site? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171580)

I'm assuming the stuff he removed infringed Atari copyrights. If that is all that is left then he should consider handing it over. If the stuff he removed doesn't infringe Atari copyrights he should put back up. A jury isn't going to care about his rights to a domain if he has no content.

Re:Is this a real site? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171856)

I'm assuming the stuff he removed infringed Atari copyrights.

That would be a bad assumption. The stuff he removed was just demos that run on Atari hardware. That doesn't infringe on any of Atari's rights any more than Firefox infringes on Microsoft's rights. Atari falsely claimed rights to his demos, and he took them down rather than fight a behemoth.

Re:Is this a real site? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37172178)

Actually, it hosts the DASM site:
http://atari2600.org/DASM [atari2600.org]

It's even worse than you think! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171242)

They're also sending letters to any hobbyist showing an Atari logo... even in a demo scene production.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/186151-ive-got-email-from-atari-today/

Obviously a sign they're bringing back the Jaguar (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171450)

Nintendo, Sony, MS--they've all had their heydeys. But the next generation will be ruled by the Atari Jaguar Series 2. They're going to launch with new versions of "Adventure" and "Combat" that will make everyone who even sees the trailers orgasm uncontrollably. You heard it here first.

And we will target their profits. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171590)

How about we boycott anything relevant to atari and its subsidiaries/parents ? i bet it would be quite an exciting experience for their stockholders.

corporations need to learn not to take consumers as herdable cattle.

Get the Angry Video Game Nerd involved. (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171626)

I am sure that Mr. Rolfe would love to articulate how bad many of the Atari videos games were(hello E.T.), and it will be entertaining to boot.

Hell, send the information to him and he can add some scathing lyrics, aimed at Atari, in his theme song.

Atari are you for real???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171690)

The cease and desist letter from the lawyer would have cost more than the sites worth!!
Leave the boys alone, as if they are gonna take revenue from you... dickheads

Make the site unwanted before handing it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171692)

Eh...if these companies are going to be like this, then the current owners should just turn the sites into something completly unrelated and undesirable to the company before they get them. For example...I would totally turn the site into a pron site of some kind before they could get their hands on it. Then see how hard they battle for it in court and see how much they want it after is been marred.

Stupid company (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171798)

Atari used to be a smart company in the past. They have now become much more stupid, a kid of "company Alzheimer's disease".
If Atari is pushing to collect contempt and scorn from it's users, they'll succeed.

Rewarding laziness (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37171966)

Such long copyrights and brand names being traded around is pure laziness. The people buying brands and capitalising on IP created nearly 30 years ago.

Personally I see that there's a case for having all patents, copyright and other IP die with the company when they go bust. It offers an incentive to be creative and not take massive risks.

Boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37171998)

I will not purchase any game published by Atari. I invite you to join me.

The actual company doesn't exist any more.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172082)

Unless the brand has changed hands again, it's just that, a brand name only, in the hands of a French [queue nationalist jokes] game publisher named Infogrames. The name "Atari" has been just as meaningless as "Memorex" for quite a long time.

.org TLD history? (2)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37172126)

Back when atari2600.org was registered, was the .org TLD only available to non-commercial entities? That would have precluded any action from Atari to take the domain then.

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37172168)

Can't have any fansites out there that could possibly leak our ancient content for free! Everyone must pay to download our new app featuring all our old games!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?