Tapware rejects sign Firestorm 1.3.2 for his handhelds

[knank]

As said in the forums on Crimsonfire.com by Phillip Burcham Tapware has rejected the sign of the new version of Firestorm, as they said, it's the first time that tapware rejects the sign of a software (correct it if it's wrong), and according to Joyce Morrell, "Tapwave will not be able to sign any GB, GB Color or GBA Emulators for Zodiac." (what about LJZ ????).

Hope they will rectify with this decission.

[archangel]

Very smart move by Tapwave. Its one thing to have emulators for dead systems like the NES, Genesis etc. That kind of emulation is more about nostalgia than anything else. However, an emulator for a current active system like the GBA is something else entirely. That is mostly about piracy and if I was Tapwave I would want no part of it.

Nintendo has already tried to block Firestorm and will probably continue legal action. Tapwave is better off staying out of it.

If you want to play GBA games go buy one. Save the emulation for the dead systems.

[wshwe]

Tapwave is being smart. One lawsuit could sink the whole company. These emulators are almost exclusively used with pirated games. Owning the game on the original platform doesn't make it legal either.

[Tam Hanna]

Well, but if I were Tapwave, I would release a press release saying just that!
I bet that most users would understand that....

[CliePet]

FWIW/BTW: Longer discussion here:
http://www.emuboards.com/invision/index.php?showtopic=19834

----
Commentary:

> ...Tapwave is better off staying out of it.
They aren't staying out of it.
Staying out of it would be signing it like any other program, and let the companies *directly involved* fight it out in the courts

They (Tapwave) are siding with Nintendo, or anyone who raises legal uncertainty (AFAIK there is litigation pending/threatened, courts should decide this not the hardware maker!)
----
Additional points: they have signed earlier versions, and other emulators

This is a change in policy (they said they would sign anything).

The current version of LJZ was signed. Don't expect an upgraded version.

A game is getting too popular, and competes with a game sold at Tapwave.com -- hmm, don't let that game be signed anymore. That game promotes a political party the owners of Tapwave doesn't like, don't sign that game...

Slippery slope, subjective censorship is bad.

(nail in coffin)
Tapwave is now censoring otherwise legal games. What more do you need to say ?

[ballistic]

A game is getting too popular, and competes with a game sold at Tapwave.com -- hmm, don't let that game be signed anymore. That game promotes a political party the owners of Tapwave doesn't like, don't sign that game...

Slippery slope, subjective censorship is bad.

(nail in coffin)
Tapwave is now censoring otherwise legal games. What more do you need to say ?

Censorship? Really? A GBA emulator (and a commercial one at that, LJZ is non-commercial and released under the GPL) isn't a legal gray area? Nintendo has had their sights on Crimson Fire for a while now.

I don't blame Tapwave one bit. They have to protect themselves from a legal quagmire that would likely arise from officially allowing such a commercial GBA emulator on their platform.

If they have decided to change their official position on signing applications that could expose them to legal problems, that's their right and a sound business practice.

They can sign or refuse to sign any developer they want AFAIK; It's their platform (for Tapwave Certified applications) and that is NOT censorship.

Brian

[CliePet]

> They can sign or refuse to sign any developer they want AFAIK; It's their platform (for Tapwave Certified applications) and that is NOT censorship.

A censor - "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable"

I don't want to debate the meaning of the word 'censor'. I think it applies exactly. (nothing to do with first amendment rights)

They do have a legal right to censor anything they want for their platform specifics. As I mention as an intentionally silly example, they can censor political speech if they wanted to. They can change the rules at the drop of-a-hat, since they are the ones in control.

They can decide to stop signing applications altogether.

If you purchased a Tapwave device with the old rules, they have gone back on their word. Morally wrong IMHO and erodes the trust that they need in their customers when trying to push a new game paradigm.

It is exactly this kind of uncertainty that you don't need.

Tapwave is now censoring otherwise legal games. Could you be next ?

-----
Tapwave 2004-2004 RIP

[ballistic]

If you purchased a Tapwave device with the old rules, they have gone back on their word. Morally wrong IMHO and erodes the trust that they need in their customers when trying to push a new game paradigm.


Show me the quote where Tapwave said they'd "sign anything".

Even if they did (which I haven't seen anyone else that claims they said that back it up either), like I said, they can reconsider their position due to possible liability or to avoid litigation, and it makes good business sense. I'd rather have them do that then be sued and potentially spend the $$ to defend themselves, taking money away from moving the platform forward or even force them out of business. They answer to their venture capital investors first and foremost, they're a privately funded startup.

If they are alienating a few chest-thumping users who were never promised the ability to have GBA emulation, or a developer that is in a legal battle with the likes of Nintendo over a legal gray area, I'm sure they have decided that their decision not to sign Firestorm outweighs any possible benefits.

Brian

[CliePet]

[to repeat -- I'm not saying they can't change their position. I'm just pointing out that they did, and IMHO is the kind of FUD the platform doesn't need]

> Show me the quote where Tapwave said they'd "sign anything".

The exact quote is "Tapwave will sign applications that use our proprietary APIs"

http://forums.tapwavedeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=290

Read the first two posts (March of last year), the rest gets into GPL issues (which is a different mess).

[ballistic]

OK, but is that a non-public, developer-only discussion forum, or is the old developer zone a forum open to the public? Is it a glitch in their BBS software due to the migration to the new developers discussion forums?

I agree to a certain extent there is FUD being spread and they need to clarify their official position.

I don't see the word "all" in that statement, and I certainly don't see "we'll sign anything" as people have been representing.

Brian

[Tam Hanna]

As I said before, tapwave simply cannot fight Nintendo. Even if they would win in the end, their cash would run out before winning! Nintendo will just prolong the lawsuit until the company runs out of $$$.
In additon, firestorm is not all that stable and users except Tapwave certified products to work flawlessly and fast. However, Firestorm does definitely not do Number 2. This would also put blame on the Tapwave name!
Find out more about this at:
http://tamspalm.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-firestorm-didnt-get-certified.html

[ucfgrad93]

I think Tapwave is being very wise to stay out of an area that could potentially lead to very expensive lawsuits.

[ballistic]

It isn't clear what Joyce meant to say in that post, and interpreting "we will unconditionally sign all apps using our proprietary APIs". or "we'll sign anything" is a stretch.

Unless Tapwave signed a contract or entered into an agreement with Crimson Fire promising to sign the app, I don't see how deciding not to sign Firestorm could be construed as going back on their word or breaking any promise.

Brian

[CliePet]

I throw my hands in the air....

> Read the first two posts

The questions was specific for this very scenario. I don't see how it could be any more specific
The open-ended answer led *me* to believe that it wasn't an issue in March of last year. Sure it wasn't a legally binding contract from now till the end of time, but come on...

Too much rationalization and apologies for Tapwave's behavior here if you ask me. If the app being censored were your own (that you were currently legally selling on other Palm platforms) then who knows...

---
> Tapwave certified products to work flawlessly and fast ???
BTW: there are several levels of testing. That's another issue
[AFAIK from what I read it isn't a quality issue, it is what the app does]

[ballistic]

I throw my hands in the air....

> Read the first two posts

The questions was specific for this very scenario. I don't see how it could be any more specific
The open-ended answer led *me* to believe that it wasn't an issue in March of last year. Sure it wasn't a legally binding contract from now till the end of time, but come on...

Too much rationalization and apologies for Tapwave's behavior here if you ask me. If the app being censored were your own (that you were currently legally selling on other Palm platforms) then who knows...


And the first post mentions the Crimson Fire "GBA emulator" being released under the GPL. Is the commericial release of Firestorm GPL'd (and how would that be possible?), because if it is, there's no GPL notice in the free demo I just downloaded.

So you'd definitely have to put Joyce's post into proper context, even without reading "all" or "anything" into it.

I'm not rationalizing or apologizing for Tapwave, but it appears that there is some FUD being spread around that's based on what I believe are loose interpretations (and not in proper context) of ten words that were made in a developer discussion forum.

Brian

[jjesusfreak01]

You know, Nintendo just recieved the patent, but it was filed in Nov, 2000. The truth is, GambitStudios was selling their Liberty emulator before "The Big N" file their patent application. This means that Nintendo does not have a right to this patent, right?

[Tam Hanna]

You know, Nintendo just recieved the patent, but it was filed in Nov, 2000. The truth is, GambitStudios was selling their Liberty emulator before "The Big N" file their patent application. This means that Nintendo does not have a right to this patent, right?

I think that the main problem is something entirely different!
Even if the Patent isn't justified, Nintendo is a huge Juggernaut with Millions of $$ up its back. Tapwave is small and cannot afford a long legal battle, as they would run out of cash...

[madmaxmedia]

I throw my hands in the air....

> Read the first two posts

The questions was specific for this very scenario. I don't see how it could be any more specific
The open-ended answer led *me* to believe that it wasn't an issue in March of last year. Sure it wasn't a legally binding contract from now till the end of time, but come on...

I don't think anybody actually understands what CliePet is saying. He's just saying that Tapwave has changed their policy. It's their perogative to change it, but they still changed it. Let's say you were started development on a different emulator, based on Tapwave's original policy. You actually started a company and are spending money to do this. Now everything changes. You could be screwed- maybe your investors get nervous and stop funding you, or you simply don't know whether you have a commercial product anymore. Either way there's an impact.

On a much smaller scale, the information in the developer forums is not under NDA or anything like that, and is basically in the public domain. Maybe my decision to buy a Tapwave is ever-so-slightly influenced by Tapwaves open policy of signing games (there are good and bad points to such a policy, either way that's what was in effect.) Now things change, and maybe I wish I hadn't bought my Tapwave. No big deal, but there is an impact.

It's not about whether Tapwave has the 'right', CliePet is just commenting on how a change in company policy like this can have negative ramifications for others.

He's just trying to present a reasonably balanced assessment of this issue.

[jjesusfreak01]

Would CF have the right to legal recourse against Tapwave if they had put alot of money into a completely Zodiac only program, and were refused signing, even if they had been assured that it would be done beforehand. This is hypothetical, but it is what is happening to a lesser degree.

[CliePet]

less "reasonably balanced assessment" ;->

> Would CF have the right to legal recourse against Tapwave...
Depends on the details of the case, most of which (intentionally and rightfully) is being kept from the public.

Is Nintendo is paying them off? or threatening them behind the scenes? or did they come to the conclusion that GBA emulators are taboo on their own ?
[insert your favorite conspiracy theory here]

---
Think about it this way.

Apple decides to distribute iTunes audio in WMA format, so they ask Microsoft for a key to license/key their songs for DRM publication.
Microsoft refuses to give them one because Apple Computer is currently in litigation with Apple Music

Litigation abounds...
(NOTE: in reality WMA keys are available to anyone)

[ballistic]

I don't think anybody actually understands what CliePet is saying. He's just saying that Tapwave has changed their policy. It's their perogative to change it, but they still changed it. Let's say you were started development on a different emulator, based on Tapwave's original policy. You actually started a company and are spending money to do this. Now everything changes. You could be screwed- maybe your investors get nervous and stop funding you, or you simply don't know whether you have a commercial product anymore. Either way there's an impact.


People keep saying Tapwave changed their policy, but based on what? Were those comments in a developer forums in response to a question Tapwave's official policy, and can a statement by Joyce be construed as Tapwave's Official Policy? Would it be prudent to base a decision to develop a game merely on those comments without getting furthur assurances, a clarification, a contract, or copy of Tapwave's Terms and Conditions for signing applications, if one exists?

CliePet, IMHO your analogies and hypotheticals don't apply.

[jjesusfreak01]

CliePet, IMHO your analogies and hypotheticals don't apply.
Hey, one of those hypotheticals was mine.

Is Nintendo is paying them off? or threatening them behind the scenes? or did they come to the conclusion that GBA emulators are taboo on their own ?
[insert your favorite conspiracy theory here]Good one CliePet!!

[Tam Hanna]

Nope, cliePet see it like this:
Even if the Patent isn't justified, Nintendo is a huge Juggernaut with Millions of $$ up its back. Tapwave is small and cannot afford a long legal battle, as they would run out of cash...