Microsoft has signed a 10 year deal to bring Xbox games to Nintendo Systems...... *Update*.. Similar deal signed with GeForce now for PC games.

[jehurey 3,299]

Just now, Jerrys Hair Line said:

yes they literally can, because it’s licensed

No, Sony only licensed it...............for released on their own console.

 

Once again, lets look at the wiki page that show you publishers:

 

 

The game was then entered development for port-jobs..........which would've been paid for by OTHER non-Sony companies.

 

You see them listed right there.

 

THAT version of the game, THAT game's code, is now owned by those companies.

 

Those companies paid licensing fees for Nintendo and Microsoft to release an authorized game for those platforms.

 

Those companies paid for Nintendo and Microsoft QA certification

 

Those companies paid for physical copies being manufactured for Switch and Xbox versions.

 

None of that was Sony, because those versions are specifically under ownership of...........OTHER non-Sony companies.

 

We call them "publishers."

[jehurey 3,299]

2 minutes ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

 

 

that’s a different game within the exact same IP

This is also a different game

 

 

Its literally a different brand.............a separate copyright from this:

 

How is this so hard for you to understand.

 

Nintendo abandoned the copyright. They can't make another game called "Mike Tyson's Punch Out" without signing a new deal with Mike Tyson or his estate.

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

This is also a different game

 

 

Its literally a different brand.............a separate copyright from this:

 

How is this so hard for you to understand.

 

Nintendo abandoned the copyright. They can't make another game called "Mike Tyson's Punch Out" without signing a new deal with Mike Tyson or his estate.

No, it’s the exact same game with one reskin of a character.  Because they own the IP

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

23 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Mike Tyson can, and WOULD lay claim.....................to a copyright that has his own name.

 

How.............the.................fuck................did this dumbass not realize this, very, VERY simple concept.

I’m still laughing 

[jehurey 3,299]

Just now, Jerrys Hair Line said:

No, it’s the exact same game

No, it literally isn't

 

 

BOOOOOOOOMMM!!!

 

Found the renewed copyright:

 

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No, it literally isn't

 

 

BOOOOOOOOMMM!!!

 

Found the renewed copyright:

 

He’s referring the Wii game now, which is a completely different game 

 

holy shit, he’s trying to hard. And failing, every time. 
 

28 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Mike Tyson can, and WOULD lay claim.....................to a copyright that has his own name.

 

How.............the.................fuck................did this dumbass not realize this, very, VERY simple concept.

[jehurey 3,299]

5 minutes ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

No, it’s the exact same game with one reskin of a character.  Because they own the IP

No they don't

 

Please show me Nintendo selling any retail version of "Mike Tyson's" Punch-out after 1988.

 

Physical or Digital..........officially sold through a retailer, new.

 

I'll wait

5 minutes ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

I’m still

ducking?

 

Yes, we know you've run away, again.

 

After your bald head got slapped again for a second straight day.

 

LOL he tried to play the copyright listing game.................and lost.

 

He also said the one word that immediately tanked his argument.............."re"  "brand"

 

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No they don't

 

Please show me Nintendo selling any retail version of "Mike Tyson's" Punch-out after 1988.

 

Physical or Digital..........officially sold through a retailer, new.

 

I'll wait

ducking?

 

Yes, we know you've run away, again.

 

After your bald head got slapped again for a second straight day.

 

LOL he tried to play the copyright listing game.................and lost.

 

He also said the one word that immediately tanked his argument.............."re"  "brand"

 

Now he’s resorted to editing my posts and typing novels  god damn I buried him

[jehurey 3,299]

4 minutes ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

He’s referring the Wii game now

Nope................I already pointed it out, sweetie.

 

 

Look at that.

 

Why..............Mike Tyson's Punch Out came out in 1987.

 

Why did they make this ORIGINAL registration back in 1988?

 

Because they stopped selling Mike Tyson's Punch Out in 1988, and re-brand as a new name, called Punch-out after 1998

 

They renewed the copyright registration again in 1995.

 

SO................there should be a renewal date on MIKE TYSON'S PUNCH OUT...............right Bald Cucky Ducky?

Edited February 23, 2023 by jehurey

[jehurey 3,299]

1 minute ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

Now

Bald Cucky Ducky is crying.

 

Because he's run away from his own evidence, after I buried him with tons of evidence.

 

He's lost the MLB The Show argument.

 

He spent a whole 24 hours to think up of............................Mike Tyson's Punch Out

 

............and he lost that one even worse

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Nope................I already pointed it out, sweetie.

 

 

Look at that.

 

Why..............Mike Tyson's Punch Out came out in 1987.

 

Why did they make this ORIGINAL registration back in 1988?

 

Because they stopped selling Mike Tyson's Punch Out in 1988, and re-brand as a new name, called Punch-out after 1998

 

They renewed the copyright registration again in 1995.

 

SO................there should be a renewal date on MIKE TYSON'S PUNCH OUT...............right Bald Cucky Ducky?

And they had copy rights for them ALL

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

@Goukosan copyright SONY 

[jehurey 3,299]

1 minute ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

 

LOL he's run away from his argument from today.Bald Slapped, yet again

 

And that logo is the name of a DEVELOPER..............not a Publisher.

 

Oh my god, he's STILL LOSING new arguments he attempts.

Edited February 23, 2023 by jehurey

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

This was the easiest ownage in all of SW history 

 

God damn you guys are stupid

[jehurey 3,299]

Just now, Jerrys Hair Line said:

This was the easiest ownage in all of SW history 

 

God damn you guys are stupid

Bald Cucky Ducky is so angry right now.

 

I got him crying and trying to run away.

[Goukosan 2,283]

4 hours ago, Jerrys Hair Line said:

I’m still laughing at this.  these fools think Mike Tyson owns Punch Out too

 

No I don't think Mike Tyson owns punch out.. What kinda stupid shit is this? 

 

You're comparing Apple's to oranges. 

 

Mike Tyson is not an IP. 

 

Nintendo created a game and licensed Tyson's name. 

 

Mike Tyson didn't hire Nintendo to develop a boxing game using his IP. 

 

MLB is an IP, they own the IP.  They hired Sony to develop the game.  Sony also has a license to publish the PlayStation version. Different situations. 

 

You already lost the first argument when your dumbass thought Xbox games meant game pass and 3rd party games. 

 

You lost the second argument when your claimed Sony owned the MLB IP. 

 

Now you're trying to create a new dumb argument with a situation that's not the same with an incorrect comparison. 

 

Stop the desperation kid.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Goukosan

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

Just now, jehurey said:

Bald Cucky Ducky is so angry right now.

 

I got him crying and trying to run away.

You’re so embarrassing  have some respect for yourself and take the L like the bitch you are 

 

 

hurry, edit my post because you got owned

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

2 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

No I don't think Mike Tyson owns punch out.. What kinda stupid shit is this? 

 

You're comparing Apple's to oranges. 

 

Mike Tyson is not an IP. 

 

Nintendo created a game and licensed Tyson's name. 

 

Mike Tyson didn't hire Nintendo to develop a boxing game using his IP. 

 

MLB is an IP, they own the IP.  They hired Sony to develop the game.   Different situations. 

 

You already lost the first argument when your dumbass thought Xbox games meant game pass and 3rd party games. 

 

You lost the second argument when your claimed Sony owned the MLB IP. 

 

Now you're trying to create a new dumb argument with a situation that's not the same with an incorrect comparison. 

 

Stop the desperation kid.

Now you just owned Jerry  doing my work for me

 

 

too bad Sony owns the IP, you almost had a good post

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Jerrys Hair Line

[jehurey 3,299]

1 minute ago, Goukosan said:

 

No I don't think Mike Tyson owns punch out.. What kinda stupid shit is this? 

 

You're comparing Apple's to oranges. 

 

Mike Tyson is not an IP. 

 

Nintendo created a game and licensed Tyson's name. 

 

Mike Tyson didn't hire Nintendo to develop a boxing game using his IP. 

 

MLB is an IP, they own the IP.  They hired Sony to develop the game.   Different situations. 

 

You already lost the first argument when your dumbass thought Xbox games meant game pass and 3rd party games. 

 

You lost the second argument when your claimed Sony owned the MLB IP. 

 

Now you're trying to create a new dumb argument with a situation that's not the same with an incorrect comparison. 

 

Stop the desperation kid.

he already lost the mike tyson argument when he tried to shift it over to COPYRIGHT

 

that's ownership of a registered title.

 

this dumbass was trying to equate that to "OWNERSHIP of a retail product"

 

SO funny watching him attempt that..............and even then I told him that Mike Tyson would not let Nintendo CONTINUE using that title, because it requires that Nintendo have an active deal with Tyson.

 

Hence its an ABANDONED copyright.

 

He knows it, because he literally used the word "re-brand" which immediately sank his argument, right there.

[Tears of the Cows 1,233]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

he already lost the mike tyson argument when he tried to shift it over to COPYRIGHT

 

that's ownership of a registered title.

 

this dumbass was trying to equate that to "OWNERSHIP of a retail product"

 

SO funny watching him attempt that..............and even then I told him that Mike Tyson would not let Nintendo CONTINUE using that title, because it requires that Nintendo have an active deal with Tyson.

 

Hence its an ABANDONED copyright.

 

He knows it, because he literally used the word "re-brand" which immediately sank his argument, right there.

 

45 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Mike Tyson can, and WOULD lay claim.....................to a copyright that has his own name.

 

How.............the.................fuck................did this dumbass not realize this, very, VERY simple concept.