Interesting legality issue: console vs emulator

[Jim Buck]

(And speaking of owning game boards, I have a few to sell of some classics if anyone is interested. )

[GBGames]

Originally Posted by EpicBoy

I guess I need clarification. Are they entering into a legal document with these people as a "license" to use the IP, or are Activision just saying, "Yeah, go ahead". Because if it's the second, they're screwed - they've set a precedent that will sink them in court should they try to say "no" in the future.

"Yeah, go ahead" is a license, is it not?

They are granting permission to use their IP. Regardless if it is in a paper contract or not, it should be legally binding. To use their IP, they require you to let them know beforehand. If they didn't do even that and people were able to make games with their IP without any kind of response from them, then you can say that they aren't protecting their IP.

The only precedent that is being set is that they will make agreements orally. Nothing prevents them from subsequently deciding to stop granting such "Yeah go ahead" permission to use their IP.

Correct me if I am wrong. IANAL, but that's my interpretation of the legality there.

[Bluecat]

Unfortunately, with oral agreements, there is nothing to stop them saying that they have no recollection of giving permission to use their IP. It's compounded even more if the person spoken to leaves, dies, or goes senile. Frankly, anyone using someone elses IP on a spoken agreement alone needs to spend some serious time with a mental health professional.

[EpicBoy]

Oral agreements are only worth the paper they're printed on. And yeah, email is the same as oral ... forging an email is so incredibly easy they don't count as much more than oral.

[GBGames]

But they are legally binding. How easy they are to enforce doesn't change the fact that they are contracts.

[EpicBoy]

"Legally binding" and "will hold up in court" are two very different concepts.