Jump to content
rllmuk

maryliddon

Supporters
  • Content Count

    2,118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Expanding my interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3,162 profile views
  1. Where does 'Legendary' land on the @SeanR scale of disdain?
  2. The (c) for the Psion is also on the title screen of the Psion 3. I -think- it's wrong I've talked to the guy behind Proteus a while back (he was co-author of Warhawk on the C64 years ago). Will try him again about Horace stuff
  3. Just to be clear even if Horace does turn in that database it only proves Andrews UK registered the mark not that he has any claim on Horace rights Beyond checking that the forms are correct filled in the IPO does not check or ask if you're able to register the mark. The application is published in the UK Trade Marks Journal and if no one objects the mark is granted. It's a lower level of 'proof' of ownership the mark's underlying IP than suspicious Wikipedia updates making the same claim.
  4. Yeah they have. I talked to the head of Piko on the Atari Age forum. He said they had helped Andrews UK in purchasing IP and, interestingly, emphasised it wasn't Piko's responsibility to validate any purchases they'd helped others to make
  5. Not at all. I think I said earlier that they’d likely sell the rights without any guarantee they own them. It’d be the buyers responsibility to do due diligence before issuing copyright strikes on YT streamers. One interpretation of the tweet below is that no due diligence was done beyond writing Atari a cheque.
  6. Well! I’m pretty sure I’ve never messaged or mentioned Paul Andrews on twitter but he blocked me today. He also posted this:
  7. There's nothing wrong in taking an interest in something and I do think it's rude to question someone's motives for doing so BLANK LOOK
  8. More basic question: Would you prefer that an old IP like Horace was free to use throughout the retro community or controlled by a company strongly policing that IP?
  9. Might as well use this as the dumping ground for my half arsed retro inspired Columboing. Sent this to Andres on the 23rd of October and got a read receipt. I'm trying to understand his claim to a number of trademarks. No answer as yet. There’s an acknowledgement that this brand is dertived from the Sinclair ZX-80 home computer but no description of what rights Subvert owns in relation to the brand. In comparison the Sam Coupe brand is very clear about the rights that Subvert owns There’s a similar vagueness with the Oric, ZX 80, ZX 81, Jet Set Willy, Manic Miner, and Ant Attack brands. Are these trademarks you have registered without a commercial agreement with the owners of the IP the trademark was inspired by? What rights do you own or control in regards to the following products: * The Sinclair ZX-80 home computer * The Sinclair ZX-81 home computer * The Oric series of home computers * The video game Jet Set Willy * The video game Manic Miner * The video game Ant Attack And specifically with the Sinclair related trademarks, how would you describe your relationship with Sinclair Research Ltd when you applied for these trademarks? Horace isn’t on the list of brands. Why not? Is that an accidental or intentional omission? What rights do you own or control for the series of Horace games? Who did you gain control of those rights from? Which, of your many, companies purchased / licenced the Horace rights? Which, of your many, companies currently own / control the Horace rights? You have said that the rights for Horace persisted from Melbourne House through to Infogrames / Atari and now you have them. When were the rights you hold bought from Inforgrames / Atari, by whom and what iteration of that company? (There’s been a few) Did you buy all of Beam / Melbourne House’s IP or just Horace? Phew! There’s a lot there. Feel free to answer what you feel comfortable with, ignore this message or ask me any questions you want to. Cheers Gaz
  10. I think that's self evident if you read the thread but my wider interest rights transference of old, possibly orphanned IP, was sparked by this incident. Question for you: do you think this is worth looking into if there's a chance these rights are being wrongly asserted?
  11. I've said I'll share whatever the outcome is, that'd only be fair, and have consistently said he may well own the rights. I'd be surprised if anyone Andrews UK really wants or needs an apology for a few posts on here though. You're entitled to your opinion mate. There's probably some of that going around but as I said my interest is outside of this specific incident. That said you could argue that if this hadn't been handled so ineptly the stink wouldn't be so bad
  12. Everyone needs a hobby. Come on, you could probably ask that question without accusing me of being in the pocket of BIG RETRO or the bitter loser in a fight for some four decade old pixels. FWIW I love the passion and enthusiasm of the retro community and hate seeing that pissed on by heavy handed assertion of commercial interests. When it's done by the undisputed rights owner there's nothing much to do but grin and bear it. I'm not sure that's the case here (though as I've said before it may well be) and I'd like to know. If it's not it'd be good to do something about it and also have a clear enough understanding of the process of claiming retro gaming IP to prevent it happening again. So it's about a general principle rather than Horace, Andrews UK or Octav1us in particular. That's sweet
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.