Legal Status of Amiga Clones (past and present)

[orb85750]

I'm trying to get a handle on the legal status of Amiga clones.  If I understand correctly, the only legal hurdle is the Kickstart ROM, because the information on it is protected by copyright.  The Amiga custom chipset, as a physical device, is not protected by copyright and the patents (if they existed) have expired?  Hence, is one free to produce as many Agnus chips as he/she desires?  How about making (Motorola) 68000 chips if we should choose to do so?  No problem there?

What did past producers of Amiga clones (e.g. DraCo, etc.) do about the AmigaOS?  Did they all use the officially licensed OS?

Has anyone on this board burned their own Kickstart ROMS?  I suppose that would be illegal, just as software piracy is illegal?  And is there any way around this legal hurdle for Amiga clones today?

Thanks, -Dave

[orb85750]

I'm still confused about the legal status (but I'm not talking about the software contents on a ROM chip now).  Why is it illegal to copy a given (circuit on a) chip verbatim after the patent for that chip has expired?  During the patent period, it makes sense that one would have to produce a similarly operating chip by some other means (e.g. when AMD "copies" Intel), but does that hold even after the patent expires?  Copyrights on designs never protect you legally against someone else building and selling that product, correct?  That's why there are patents for processes and products.

And for clarity, look at the generic drug market as an example:  When the patent on Viagra ends, can't any generic drug company simply look directly at the molecular structure and copy it?  Or do they somehow have to reverse-engineer the drug without looking directly at the precise molecular structure?  That doesn't seem to make sense.  (Am I making sense?)

Thanks,
-Dave

Nostalgiac wrote:
>kickstart
yup - you're right

>The Amiga custom chipset,
well, you cannot "copy" the chips, but as far as I understand you are free to reverse engineer them. E.g. without "looking" you can design chips that do the exact same job with the exact same pin-layout.

>68000
nop, Motorola still owns that design (and frankly... rev.eng is simply not worth it here)

>burn KS roms
yes/no... as I see it: if you have an Amiga 3.1 rom chip legally aquired, then you are allowed to burn a copy (with extra stuff) as long as you ONLY use either the original rom OR the new one in ONE machine.

Just my £0.02
Tom UK

[orb85750]

Belial6 wrote:
Our best hope for getting around the Kickstart hurdle, which as far as I understand it is the only hurdle, is getting the 68k port of AROS back into development.  There is a bounty, and an individual has accepted the bounty, but we have heard nothing form him since he accepted it.  So, we have no idea whether it is almost complete, not even started, or somewhere in between.

Even if the initial releases are not very compatible with the A Inc kickstart, it would be really good for the MiniMig community if it could be shipped with the an OS so that it booted right out of the box.

Is the resulting product supposed to be an emulation of the Amiga ROM vs. a copy of the ROM?

[orb85750]

bloodline wrote:

orb85750 wrote:
I'm still confused about the legal status (but I'm not talking about the software contents on a ROM chip now).  Why is it illegal to copy a given (circuit on a) chip verbatim after the patent for that chip has expired?  During the patent period, it makes sense that one would have to produce a similarly operating chip by some other means (e.g. when AMD "copies" Intel), but does that hold even after the patent expires?  Copyrights on designs never protect you legally against someone else building and selling that product, correct?  That's why there are patents for processes and products.

And for clarity, look at the generic drug market as an example:  When the patent on Viagra ends, can't any generic drug company simply look directly at the molecular structure and copy it?  Or do they somehow have to reverse-engineer the drug without looking directly at the precise molecular structure?  That doesn't seem to make sense.  (Am I making sense?)

Thanks,
-Dave

A patent is for  a technology, an idea. But anything that is actually designed by someone is covered by copyright... this information is all available on the internet... Wikipedia for example.

The contents of the ROM chip is covered by the same copyright as the contents of a book, the storage medium is not important.

You missed my point.  I understand your last point, which is why I stated above that I was not referring to the contents of the ROM chip.  Yes, I know copyright protects it.  But nothing else is protected by the copyright, correct?   For example, the physical structure of a chip is not protected and so one can copy the physical structure exactly (once the patent expires)?  

[orb85750]

I just found this from lawmart.com:

"The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine."

Note the last part: So anyone could make the chip based on your design (if it's not patented) and sell the resulting product without owing you any royalty.  Your copyright protects you against someone else publishing your work, but not against someone producing the product you designed.  Only a patent protects you there.  (And the maximum patent lifetime is 20 years.)

[orb85750]

trekiej wrote:
Does anyone know who owns the copyright to the Amiga manuals?
If I were to make an Amiga 2000 from the schematics would that be wrong?
I do not know a whole lot about copyrights.

Any patents on the A2000 have expired, so you are free to build and sell one from scratch (but you can't call it the Amiga 2000, because that's a trademark infringement).  However, it is not going to be a useful machine without the kickstart rom.  Amiga Inc. owns the copyright on its contents.  The copyright on the Amiga manuals also prevents you from republishing their contents.  Who owns those copyrights at this point?  Don't know.  -Dave

[orb85750]

Haranguer wrote:
Persia, when did Amiga Inc declare bankruptcy?  I must have missed that ...

You do know, don't you, that in order to be declared insolvent, a company must go into receivership?

No.  Hyperion Entertainment do not have a claim to Amiga OS.  But with any luck, with they stupid legal battle, both Amiga Inc and Hyperion Entertainment will, indeed, go to the wall.  Then, Amiga OS will become public domain.

I've come to the conclusion that that is the only ray of hope for my favourite computer ...

As much as we all would love AmigaOS to become public domain, I don't see any possibility of it, even in principle.  If Amiga Inc. and Hyperion were both to go bankrupt, assets would be sold in the process, including all Amiga trademarks, copyrights, etc.   We would have yet another new "owner" of Amiga -- someone or some corporation with a couple million dollars, I suppose.

[orb85750]

And speaking of trademarks, is it legal to use the term 'amiga' without permission in a domain name that refers to the computer brand?  For example, amigastore.com, amigacomputers.com, amigakit.com!

[orb85750]

bloodline wrote:
Staf is right, tring to build the original chips from the original designs, using today's technology would be like trying to build a stage coach using only VolksWagen parts... And original Victorian plans!

So, you can't build a stagecoach from Volks parts?  What kind of hobbyist are you?

The copyright on a circuit design does not prevent others from legally building and selling a final product based on that design.  It merely prevents others from publishing your work.  

[orb85750]

Piru wrote:
@orb85750

I just found this from lawmart.com:

"The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine."

So anyone could make the chip based on your design (if it's not patented) and sell the resulting product without owing you any royalty. Your copyright protects you against someone else publishing your work, but not against someone producing the product you designed. Only a patent protects you there. (And the maximum patent lifetime is 20 years.)

You're confusing patents and copyright, and making incorrect conclusions.

If someone was to produce clones, they need to produce their replacement content. They cannot use the original content (or "form") in the chips.

Example: To produce kickstart replacement you are allowed to use the Autodocs and other documentation about the functionality as a base of your clone, even though the autodocs and documentation themselves are copyrighted (obviously you cannot use any of that copyrighted material directly, but the knowledge you gain from the docs is not copyrighted. This is what the original quote of "For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine." means).

You're allowed to reverse engineer the original binary and produce a code that does the same (the limitations on reverse engineering depend on local law, EU has less restrictions than USA for example).

Such reverse engineering was done while making MorphOS (and AROS).

Patents may prevent some things being cloned, however. For example MorphOS (and probably AROS, too) intuition didn't support toggling multiple menu items while the menu was open. This particular patent has expired now, and multiselection is possible in the latest MorphOS versions.

No, your statements have little to do with mine.  Read my statements more carefully.  I had already made clear previously that one could not make and sell a direct copy of the AmigaOS or any other content stored on some medium, such as a ROM, a book, CD, etc.  However, that does *not* address whether one may use a physical circuit design to produce a microchip based exactly on that design.  If the design is not or is no longer patented (and patents have a very finite lifetime), then a copyright will not legally prevent a chip manufacturer from using the design to make the chip.  Correct?

[orb85750]

bloodline wrote:
@orb85750

The chip manufacturer is subject to the design copyright. The Manufacturer needs the right to copy the design from the copyright holder... Piru has explained all this :-?


-Edit-
A patent could cover the method to make the chip... not the actual design...

As an example, you could patent the method to make a jumper, and copyright the design of the jumper... get it?

I still don't get it.  What you're saying is that since the Wheatstone Bridge (or some other circuit design) was published in a copyrighted work, nobody is allowed to build and sell it?  For how many years?  That does not appear to be the case, right?

[orb85750]

bloodline wrote:
@orb85750

The chip manufacturer is subject to the design copyright. The Manufacturer needs the right to copy the design from the copyright holder... Piru has explained all this :-?

No, anyone may manufacture the chip based on the design, unless it is patented.  A copyright does not protect against the implementation of the design.  Furthermore, copyrights do not protect physical devices.  Therefore, one may make an exact copy of an unpatented chip, for example, provided that it does not contain copyrighted "software" -- one cannot make an exact copy of a ROM containing OS3.1!

[orb85750]

Your analogies with artistic works are completely irrelevant.  I gave concrete examples, which you have not addressed.  Do you honestly believe what you are telling me at this point?  Is it illegal to build a Wheatstone Bridge circuit?


From Bitlaw.com:

DEVICES ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM COPYRIGHT PROTECTION:

" Ideas, procedures, principles, discoveries, and devices are all specifically excluded from copyright protection. As stated in the Copyright Act:

    In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

This specific exclusion helps maintain the distinction between copyright protection and patent law. Ideas and inventions are the subject matter for patents, while the expression of ideas is governed by copyright law. If copyright were extended to protect ideas, principles and devices, then it would be possible to circumvent the rigorous prerequisites of patent law and secure protection for an invention merely by describing the invention in a copyrightable work."

[orb85750]

This seems to be degenerating, as you become more and more cryptic.  I honestly have no idea what you mean or the question to which you refer.  Maybe this one --->  What is the answer to: whether it is legal to build a Wheatstone Bridge circuit?  If it is legal, explain why.  If not, explain why.  (If you are able.)  

[orb85750]

Piru wrote:
@orb85750

Define "chip design".

I think this is what is confusing everyone here. In my opinion that includes the content of the chip (the copyrighted material).

I think your definition is different?

Right, I think I stated previously (twice) that a copyright does protect any software stored on the chip -- of course.  However, nothing else about the chip can be protected by anything other than a patent, if one is granted.  (Circuits cannot be protected by copyright law, but the *publication* of the schematics can be protected.)