Talk:Atari, Inc./Archives/2015

Bushnell and the Odyssey

Just wanted to chime in, Marty, that the new wording you added is fine. I am fully aware that Bushnell was at the trade show and certainly believe it highly probable that this is where his inspiration came from, but without a direct admission by him, we cannot say as conclusive fact that he did so. The settlement does not mean a thing in this regard unless it required an admission by Bushnell, because companies settle all the time even if they believe they are innocent when the cost to settle is much lower than the cost of litigation. I would need a quote from the transcript in question to know what Bushnell said and in which particular litigation he said it to decide the reliablity of those statements. I have not read Baer's book, but if he did not include an exact quote of Bushnell's testimony, then I would consider Mr. Baer to be biased on this particular issue. The new wording, however, states the facts and lets the reader draw his own conclusion, which is proper in this case. Indrian (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just reverted my wording back. I found an interview with Al Alcorn, the game's designer, where he says point blank it was copied from the Odyssey and compares it to the plot of the play/movie The Producers. Very specifically: "Have you seen the Youtube video that's out there of me and Ralph Baer playing the Magnavox Odyssey game prototype at the Game Developer's Conference last week? Take a look at it, it's really something – you'll see he has a prototype of the original Brown Box, and it's impossible to play. It was a dog of a game! And Nolan got the idea from that, but it's like the movie The Producers, because he figured we'd rip off the idea for a game, but so what? It's no good, we're not going to sell it, we'll throw it away, so what harm is there, right? So, it didn't work out that way… they sent us a letter."--Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Put the above up as you were changing the article back again. Not sure the Alcron interview quite covers it because this is not coming from Bushnell himself and I do not believe there is an account as to what Bushnell told Alcorn about the Odyssey as opposed to Alcorn just being aware of the basic facts today and drawing his own conclusion. A minor point to be sure, but with the whole BLP sensitivity to factual information, I think it is important that a claim of this sort of theft should be well documented. Could you provide the relevent text from Baer's book for discussion? Indrian (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig it up again. It was in later court testimony where he was called as a witness for other companies and asked to recount what he thought of the Odyssey, which is where the erroneous statements of it being analog came from. But if the actual creator of the game itself (Alcorn) is admitting where it came from, that's really a main reference in the matter and I would hardly considering that second hand hearsay. I'd propose an RFC at the video game project on this. I'll be out of town for the weekend though, starting tomorrow so please don't take my lack of response for the weekend as being disinterested in this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but the creator of the game was lied to at the moment he was assigned the game, so what Alcorn actually knew at the time is rather suspect. He knows about the Odyssey now, but that interview is not conclusive as to what he knew then or what Bushnell may have told him. If Bushnell told Alcorn he got the idea from the Odyssey, then that is heresay that would not hold up in court, but it may be good enough for this article. If Alcorn is drawing a conclusion based on what he knows now, then really, him being the creator of the game does not mean a whole lot. I think what is in Baer's book is most crucial. Note I am not objecting to the implication being in the article; I think Bushnell did steal the idea from Baer. My only beef is treating the implication as incontrovertible fact. Would you object to the neutral wording being put in place while we explore this further? It really does not change the meaning of the article, but it takes care of any BLP concerns real or imaginary. Indrian (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just added "According to Alcorn" before I saw your response. He was lied to about there being a contract, I don't see anything about him being lied to about the game itself or its origins. Likewise as employee number 3 (just behind Nolan and Ted) he was involved in the business matters of the company from then on as well. Its not a case of designer x in cubicle y at megacorp getting something down the chain. The three of them were the company at the time. And there was a reason they decided to not only license the technology but were forced to give first dibs on Atari created technology up through '76. Don't forget, tunes can also change from a party line because statutes, patents, and legal obligations can also run out, freeing people to talk openly about it. That's what I'm finding with people involved in the Atari/Amiga/Commodore issues, the earlier Warner/Atari buyout, and more that my partner and I are able to interview for the book or have already interviewed - including Al. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compromise. I don't see a need to bring this to another forum until we have the wording from Baer's book (or we are unable to locate it) so I would prefer to sit on this until you have time to look further in a few days. I realize this is a minor point in the grand scheme of life, and I probably would not care at all if not for the strict wikipedia policy on information about living persons. If you cannot dig up the Baer book, we can just take it ot the wikiproject talk page and get opinions. I hardly think this is an issue that requires edit warring or extended arbitration. Indrian (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can just leave it with the According to Al part if you want, I'm happy with that as well. Between his statement and the fact of the licensing and full arrangement, I think that's incriminating enough. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine. Like I said, my only concerns were for the BLP issues. I know the history here, including what you posted above, and agree with most of what you say on a personal level; I just wanted to make sure that adequate sourcing backed it up. Just curious since you have interviewed Alcorn; has he ever explicitly claimed to have known back in 1972 that Bushnell saw the tennis game? Your answer would not change my position on our resolution here; I just ask because I have read several interviews with him and have never seen one were he explicitly stated he was aware of it at that time as opposed to in hindsight when all the legal stuff started. Just curious. Indrian (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Raise and Fall of Atari

Alla Acorn says in an interview for Retro Gamer (issue 83, "In the chair with" section) that there are many untrue facts in "Raise and Fall of Atari" book. Scott Cohen never met them, just based on articles he had read.

So I'm going to change its reference

Except you also removed a paragraph that had nothing to do with Zap and that Allan has also stated. I put it back. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs was employee #40 at Apple, and apparently got Steve Wozniak to work as an outside consultant on his project (described in Job's biography). I'm not sure exactly where to fit that into the structure of the article, but it's an interesting part of their history. nerfer 70.90.148.233 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Atari Inc. sales

If someone want to include this graph in the article? The source for the data is here. -- NZeemin (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)