Spectrum Computing

Those trademarks are useless. You'd have to be an idiot to actually use those as they appear as they're a complete mess, and using something that looks like a fragment of a trademark isn't a violation.

OK, let's take that document though, and since it refers to two separate IPs, examine them separately:

In relation to JSW, Mr Smith’s assertion of joint proprietorship with Mr Barton makes little
sense at all in that he created JSW whilst with Software Projects Ltd, and in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary it is clear by implication that JSW was the sole property of the
company, purchased by Mr Barton alone.

In fairness, I get that. Matthew Smith wrote Jet Set Willy while a paid employee of Software Projects Ltd. and therefore the company owned the IP. Just like Ocean owned the IP of all the games written by their in-house (well, in-basement!) teams.

But then there's this, about Manic Miner:

In the case of MM, it is clear and widely acknowledged that Matthew Smith created the game
and that as such he should have been first proprietor of the intellectual property. It is also
clear that MM was first marketed by Bug Byte Ltd (dissolved), and that this was under a
licence from Mr Smith in that he later took MM with him to Software Projects Ltd.
There is absolutely nothing in writing that has so far been identified to indicate that Mr Smith
licensed MM to Software Projects Ltd.

That's clear admission they have nothing to go on. And in case the meaning of 'licensed' is ambiguous, they also do not claim to have any evidence whatsoever of transfer of ownership of the IP of Manic Miner to Software Projects Ltd. Elite's only witness was dead before they got to him, and there is witness statement to the contrary from Matthew Smith himself.

Mr Smith says that he at no point assigned the intellectual property in MM to Software
Projects Ltd, so that it remains his property. It is not disputed by Elite that there was no
assignment

Again, this is the paralegal saying, 'Sorry, I've got nothing'.

however an assignment is not the sole means by which transfer can be effected
under section 90(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but one of three
mechanisms including testamentary disposition.

And this is pure speculation. It's a statement of fact, stating what the law is, but one which has no bearing on the matter without evidence.

The third such mechanism is operation of law, under which the paperwork of Software
Projects Ltd indicates that MM passed to the company either as payment in kind for the
shares issued to Mr Smith or by way of his compliance with his duties as a director of the
company, or perhaps both.

How does paperwork 'indicate' anything in such an ambiguous way that you have to cover yourself with words like 'either', 'or' and 'perhaps'? A definite case of 'Show your working' here. This is weaseling around having absolutely nothing to go on.

Again, there may be a case for Jet Set Willy here. But the case for ownership of Manic Miner laying anywhere but with Matthew Smith is a cloud of fart vapour and whoever wrote this knows it. Lumping the two together in the same statement is just another part of the distraction game being played here. Whether Will-cocks himself knows it, or is genuinely deluded enough to believe he has here the software equivalent of the Magna Carta in his pocket, is perhaps another matter.

But if I were Matthew Smith, I wouldn't even engage with any of this. With bogus claims like this you send them one letter of rejection, and in it state you reserve your rights to charge a fee for all further research and correspondence you need to undertake in any further replies (regardless of whether you hire your own legal advice), and how you fully intend to recover your costs through the courts if the other party insists on pressing you further. That way, you start running up a perfectly legal bill against them while they're still having to pay out of their own pocket for another party to advise them.

Joefish wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 10:47 am But then there's this, about Manic Miner:

<snip!>

I read that a few times, trying to understand why the author wasn't just dismissing their own argument. I was rather baffled by it, but I think I eventually understood the point being made.

The ultimate point being made is that Software Projects owned the game. It is implied that there is a scurrilous suggestion, somewhere, by someone, that the game was in fact merely licenced to Software Projects. They contest the idea of mere licensing, hence the statement "There is absolutely nothing in writing that has so far been identified to indicate that Mr Smith licensed MM to Software Projects Ltd."

The author is claiming that Matthew Smith transferred proprietorship (i.e. ownership) of the game to Software Projects, and that there is no evidence to say that that claim is not true. Hence, with the use of a double negative to pretend to make a positive point: "...there is absolutely nothing in the documents of Software Projects Ltd that have been recovered from Companies House archive, that indicates anything other than that Mr Smith, whether as a director or shareholder, transferred proprietorship in MM to Software Projects Ltd."

So the author is claiming that "we couldn't find anything that said Matthew Smith didn't transfer the ownership of the game to Software Projects, so therefore we conclude he did, and hence Software Projects was the legal owner of the game when Barton picked up all Software Project's assets." Which is obviously b*ll*cks. If you're going to claim ownership of something you need to be able to demonstrate it's yours, not that you can't find anything that says it isn't.

At least I think that's the argument being made. Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm not saying I agree with any of it.

Joefish wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 10:47 am ...state you reserve your rights to charge a fee for all further research and correspondence you need to undertake in any further replies... That way, you start running up a perfectly legal bill against them...

That's a myth and isn't true. Contract law requires an intention to create a legal relationship by both parties, and if one party knows the other party doesn't have such an intention then there is no contract. Otherwise I could say I'll charge you £100 if you reply to this post. Not that it hurts to tell someone you're noting the value of your time that they're wasting.

You're right, you can't just say someone owes you a fee. But you're example isn't quite the same thing. If it were the case that you demand I answer your post, then I'm quite at liberty to say "I'll only answer that for 47p and a packet of Rolos. If you ask again I shall assume you agree to these terms".
We're not really expecting to get paid, but if the other party is belligerent enough to take you to court, then you have a good record of the costs you should counter-claim if they lose.

dfzx wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 1:15 pm I read that a few times, trying to understand why the author wasn't just dismissing their own argument. I was rather baffled by it, but I think I eventually understood the point being made.

I think the point being made is that the author has nothing and knows it, but would still like to collect the fee thank you very much.

Given Manic Miner's copyright is disputable (if I'm reading joefish's comment correctly) I humbly suggest MM should be made available again. If they (SP) truly care about it they will need to submit a takedown request with legal proof etc.

arjun wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 12:27 pm Given Manic Miner's copyright is disputable (if I'm reading joefish's comment correctly) I humbly suggest MM should be made available again. If they (SP) truly care about it they will need to submit a takedown request with legal proof etc.

A takedown request is one option they might pursue. Another option they might opt for is simply to make a court claim for, say, £1.500, from Spectrum Computing for perceived damages from infringement of their copyright. It costs all of £80 to do so, and they already have the letter Joefish posted as evidence of their ownership. At which point the onus falls on SC to attend the hearing, defend their position and present counter evidence showing why the content of the letter is rubbish.

As I said before, it's the threat of leading someone down this path which is the problem. Which side is likely to prevail should it come to a judgement isn't really the point at the outset.

dfzx wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 6:27 pm and they already have the letter Joefish posted as evidence of their ownership. At which point the onus falls on SC to attend the hearing, defend their position and present counter evidence showing why the content of the letter is rubbish.

As I said before, it's the threat of leading someone down this path which is the problem. Which side is likely to prevail should it come to a judgement isn't really the point at the outset.

I hadn't read the document joefish posted before, but having read it now, it does appear that you're right. The onus will fall on SC to prove the document contents wrong and that's quite a hassle! sadly.

Have to stress this, that is NOT EVIDENCE. It's a statement of an opinion; a statement of one person's side of an argument, and one that can not even remotely be considered a 'legal' opinion.

Joefish wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 12:43 pm Those trademarks are useless. You'd have to be an idiot to actually use those as they appear as they're a complete mess, and using something that looks like a fragment of a trademark isn't a violation.

Deliberately so. Those are not the real sprites and it's not enforceable.

I was in this situation over a decade ago, some idiot trying to act tough with his trademark registration for a very very common design (the RGB light spot) which has been around for so long and isn't suitable for trademark rights due to so much prior art. Their act was to slightly widen the design (a bit like when someone watches 4:3 content stretched on a 16:9 TV, although not quite that severe). We were using the design as part of an animation in some opening titles, this nasty little troll gets wind, boasts about spending a four figure some getting it trademarked and we tore it apart, just as you are doing here, @Joefish. They backed off when they read our response.

I don't like Paul Andrews. Ahem.

Is this about IP?

I remember there was a big hoo-ha over some Youtuber using Horace without 'permission' who had to delete all their videos because of it.

And it wasnt even William Tang kicking up the stink just someone who'd acquired the IP.

PeteProdge wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 3:34 pm I don't like Paul Andrews. Ahem.

Elite (Steve Wilcox) is the reason these files are no longer available.

Let's be fair. AFAIK Paul Andrews never prevented free distribution of anything.

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 4:01 pmLet's be fair. AFAIK Paul Andrews never prevented free distribution of anything.

True. Many of us had actually paid a hundred odd quid for the stuff he prevented distribution of.

Joefish wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 4:47 pm True. Many of us had actually paid a hundred odd quid for the stuff he prevented distribution of.

That's not my understanding of what happened. However I would rather avoid this discussion since none of us have all the facts...

I hope someday an investigative reporter (Stu?) will dive in-depth into this case to sort it out!

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:48 pm That's not my understanding of what happened. However I would rather avoid this discussion since none of us have all the facts...

Well I can present the bank statement from when and whence my money departed, if that would help anyone understand (or investigate) my position!
But this is a distraction from the wannabe Apprentice reject in question and will only get the thread locked.

Joefish wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 10:06 am Well I can present the bank statement from whence my money departed

I'm not denying that it happened. I just have a different understanding about how it happened and who's responsible.

Joefish wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 10:06 am Well I can present the bank statement from whence my money departed, if that would help anyone understand (or investigate) my position!
But this is a distraction from the wannabe Apprentice reject in question and will only get the thread locked.

Whence == "From where" so you don't need that "from" leading to it Not that I'm dsitracting from the question :p

ZXDunny wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 10:34 am Whence == "From where" so you don't need that "from" leading to it Not that I'm dsitracting from the question :p

Edited to '...from when and whence...' then. Better?
Although I hope no-one's further distracted by your spelling of 'distracting'...

Muphry's Law in effect!

Joefish wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 10:39 am Edited to '...from when and whence...' then. Better?
Although I hope no-one's further distracted by your spelling of 'distracting'...

I am not fixing that, I stand by it. If we all do it for a few decades we can get it into the dictionary

There's a bit of history about all of this, although it's a bit fuzzy so it might not be 100%.

Matthew Smith joined up with Elite to relaunch Jet Set Willy on iOS back in 2011, there was some agreement between Mathew Smith and Elite in selling the games. However, in 2019 Elite claimed they owned the Manic Miner game as part of a dispute with someone selling Manic Miner themed products. But Matthew Smith at the time confirmed that he still owned the rights to the Jet Set Willy and Manic Miner games, not Elite. Chinnyvision, Larry Bundy and a few other retro YouTubers were in touch with him about it.

I'm sure you can find the original tweets.

toot_toot wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 9:09 pm There's a bit of history about all of this, although it's a bit fuzzy so it might not be 100%.

Matthew Smith joined up with Elite to relaunch Jet Set Willy on iOS back in 2011, there was some agreement between Mathew Smith and Elite in selling the games. However, in 2019 Elite claimed they owned the Manic Miner game as part of a dispute with someone selling Manic Miner themed products. But Matthew Smith at the time confirmed that he still owned the rights to the Jet Set Willy and Manic Miner games, not Elite. Chinnyvision, Larry Bundy and a few other retro YouTubers were in touch with him about it.

I'm sure you can find the original tweets.

Oh good old Elite...

"Trade in illegal goods (Slaves, Narcotics and Firearms) is the most profitable, but may harm your Legal Status."

Elite game (Braben and Bell, Cambridge students I think - maybe Oxford, probs Cambs though) is in no way connected to Elite (company based above a shop in Walsall originally I think?).

First job I had was at a company that was formed by former Elite (Walsall) employees. Some were good (at their job), some were bad. Let's just say they were not Braben and Bell types

ParadigmShifter wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 5:08 am Elite game (Braben and Bell, Cambridge students I think - maybe Oxford, probs Cambs though) is in no way connected to Elite (company based above a shop in Walsall originally I think?).

Yes it was a quip, a jape, a jest you might say

JAPER is valid in Scrabble of course (one who japes), I didn't play it last game although I could have. QUIP and JEST also high scoring of course (I'd probably want to save the S if I could instead of playing JEST though)