I watched the video and support the effort. They seemed earnest and genuine in their desire to do right by the brand's legacy. However, I can't help but feel that releasing this information before the deal is in place is doing themselves a disservice. I can understand their excitement, but this could harm or derail any negotiation efforts. Business 101: don't count your chickens before they hatch.
sverhagen · 2h ago
In this case not chickens, but chickenheads.
dedicate · 3h ago
I feel like the real story isn't 'Can We Save Commodore?' but 'What IS Commodore anymore?'. If it's just a trademark disconnected from its original tech, you're not reviving a legend, you're just starting a new company with a famous name.
There are people now that know what a Commodire 64 is but have never heard of an Amiga. The C64 made a cultural impression that lasts today. I'm not sure why but anongst those born after both machines had had their day, quite a few have an idea what the C64 was.
Talking to the younger generation about the 8 bit era is wild. I mentioned that my first system (TRS-80) had 4k to someone and they expressed surprise at that you could get a monitor that good back then.
aleph_minus_one · 41m ago
> There are people now that know what a Commodire 64 is but have never heard of an Amiga. The C64 made a cultural impression that lasts today.
I would claim that in my generation (people born after Commodore's heyday), those who are interested in retrocomputing topics (a minority) are similar aware of the C64 and the Amiga and their cultural relevances.
Nasrudith · 1h ago
The only 'real' claim I could see to saving Commodore would be something adding backwards compatability this late in the game. It would be of dubious utility, but it would give a claim to legitimacy. Otherwise you might as well let it stay dead because there isn't anything to be gained from using it.
ekianjo · 1h ago
Kind of the same situation with Atari
arexxbifs · 1h ago
IMHO, what would give real value to retro enthusiasts is BSD licensing all the Commodore (and Amiga) IP, rather than these constant efforts to slap the chicken lips logo onto some random hardware in the hope of charging premium for an "official" product.
Would any of the many replacement/emulation/FPGA efforts that already exist be better with a specific logo? More convenient? Cheaper? More successful? I have serious doubts.
This feels, as the saying goes, like a big fat nothingburger.
Well I couldn't think of a better steward for the brand than Perifractic
rcarmo · 2h ago
Yep. I don't watch his content very often, but I've done so throughout the years and can't really think of anyone else who could do it "right"
rwmj · 3h ago
Maybe, but better if the trademarks were released to the public domain (however that could be achieved).
latexr · 2h ago
I don’t think you can have a public domain trademark; that doesn’t make sense with the concept. A trademark is specifically to identify the source of a product or service; if it were public domain and anyone could use it, its purpose would’ve been defeated.
rwmj · 1h ago
Trademarks can become genericized, which is a bit like them falling into the public domain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark) However I don't know if the owner of a trademark can legally make it generic.
latexr · 49m ago
> Trademarks can become genericized
That’s not the same thing. Trademarks become generalised terms in the public’s mind, not legally. Two people in conversation might refer to a non-Xerox photocopier as a Xerox, but a non-Xerox photocopier company can’t just advertise their products as being Xerox.
Additionally, from the wikipedia page you linked (emphasis mine):
> A trademark thus popularized is at risk of being challenged or revoked, unless the trademark owner works sufficiently to correct and prevent such broad use.
Which, again, goes directly counter to the idea of a public domain trademark.
rwmj · 26m ago
It becomes legal if the trademark owner can no longer defend the trademark. The difference is that here the trademark owner would somehow have to guarantee they would no longer defend the trademark. We're not worried about perifractic, but what about if he dies and someone more litigious inherits the mark? The issue if how to legally say "I will no longer defend this mark, and this will be forever."
aeonik · 1h ago
I think it's a clever idea, an "open trademark".
Independent certification that something fits a brand but anyone is allowed to use the brand if they pass certification.
It would need a non-profit or government support though.
Things like "Organic" already do that a bit, but it doesn't work too well over there.
latexr · 45m ago
> Independent certification that something fits a brand but anyone is allowed to use the brand if they pass certification.
But then it’s not public domain (which was the argument I was replying to). Public domain means everyone can do it without permission, while applying for a certification still requires a governing body which has the ultimate power.
> Things like "Organic" already do that a bit
That’s a classification, not a trademark.
neuroelectron · 3h ago
It would be interesting if they pivoted to a modern OS stack. lowRISC cpu and so on, everything known and documented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8r4LRcOXc
The new generation has no idea
Talking to the younger generation about the 8 bit era is wild. I mentioned that my first system (TRS-80) had 4k to someone and they expressed surprise at that you could get a monitor that good back then.
I would claim that in my generation (people born after Commodore's heyday), those who are interested in retrocomputing topics (a minority) are similar aware of the C64 and the Amiga and their cultural relevances.
Would any of the many replacement/emulation/FPGA efforts that already exist be better with a specific logo? More convenient? Cheaper? More successful? I have serious doubts.
This feels, as the saying goes, like a big fat nothingburger.
That’s not the same thing. Trademarks become generalised terms in the public’s mind, not legally. Two people in conversation might refer to a non-Xerox photocopier as a Xerox, but a non-Xerox photocopier company can’t just advertise their products as being Xerox.
Additionally, from the wikipedia page you linked (emphasis mine):
> A trademark thus popularized is at risk of being challenged or revoked, unless the trademark owner works sufficiently to correct and prevent such broad use.
Which, again, goes directly counter to the idea of a public domain trademark.
Independent certification that something fits a brand but anyone is allowed to use the brand if they pass certification.
It would need a non-profit or government support though.
Things like "Organic" already do that a bit, but it doesn't work too well over there.
But then it’s not public domain (which was the argument I was replying to). Public domain means everyone can do it without permission, while applying for a certification still requires a governing body which has the ultimate power.
> Things like "Organic" already do that a bit
That’s a classification, not a trademark.