On Buying the Commodore Brand

Early Summer 2025

I usually don't comment on day-to-day developments in the retro computing sphere, but I think the latest hype warrants an exception. Recently, youtuber Perifractic (of the channel Retro Recipes) announced a plan to buy the Commodore brand - as in, buying the company that owns the various Commodore logotypes.

Plenty of retro enthusiasts seem to have reacted with a great deal of joy regarding this development. Personally, I don't see much reason for popping champagne bottles and lighting cigars, because such an ownership change wouldn't resolve any of the retrocomputing conflicts that really matter. And, more importantly: the amount of fun we have with our machines is completely independent of what's printed on a little label glued to their cases. It really is the inside that matters.

A Bit of Chaos Theory

Ever since the original Commodore went bankrupt in 1994, the brand and associated intellectual property have experienced a staggering amount of confusing splits and ownership changes. The brand itself has long since parted ways from the intellectual property, which means that whatever company owns the brand - present or future - will only ever have a say in what products may or may not use specific Commodore logos. Ownership and licensing rights pertaining to the intellectual property - such as AmigaOS Kickstart ROMs needed to run emulators - is, in turn, contested between (at least?) two different companies: Hyperion Entertainment and Cloanto. These are completely separate from Commodore Corporation BV, which currently owns the brand.

Without boring everyone with three decades of intellectual property mismanagement, the current situation means that when a company such as RetroGames wants to make a full-size emulation-based clone of the once popular Amiga 1200 computer, there's going to be a lot of jumping through legal hoops. As far as I know, RetroGames have no business dealings at all with Commodore Corporation BV, since they've simply decided not to put the Commodore logo on their products. The trouble is instead regarding software: According to RetroGames' own tweet on the matter, the conflict is mainly between Hyperion and Cloanto, presumably regarding who will get a slice of the licensing pie when it comes to the necessarily bundled AmigaOS.

An excerpt from RetroGames' comment on the current legal situation regarding their THE A1200 product. Conflicts like this have plagued the Amiga retro scene for ages.

What's in a Brand?

To be very clear: The above debacle, related to licensing of Amiga intellectual property, has nothing to do with the Commodore brand and, thus, will not be resolved no matter who owns the Commodore brand. The Commodore brand is just that: an empty visual marker, a collection of logotypes that can't legally be used without paying a royalty to whomever owns them. The logo might evoke strong positive connotations among the intended target audience, but that's about it: nobody else cares particularly much about it and it brings zero clout when it comes to the stuff that's strictly required to build complete, legal clones of old Commodore computers.

The lack of an affordably licensable Commodore brand has, luckily, had no effect on the availability of retro-related hardware. Various FPGA implementations of Commodore hardware have been around for 20-odd years, getting better all the time. The Minimig, MiSTeR, Ultimate 64 Elite, Turbo Chameleon, C-One and Mega 65 are all examples of this. Then there's various emulation platforms, such as THEC64 and A500 Mini (both from the previously mentioned RetroGames), and the ARMiga - and of course the UAE and VICE emulator software. There are also various motherboard replacement projects, which all require varying amounts of original components to work. This is only scratching the surface, and I'm sure I've forgotten plenty of projects and products worthy of mentioning. As for peripherals and replacement parts, there's so much to choose from that I'll just mention two of my own favourites: The 1541 Ultimate II, a cartridge and floppy emulator for the C64, and the D520, an Amiga RGB to HDMI display converter.

The one thing that unites all of the products mentioned above, is that not a single one of them carries a Commodore logo. The lack of such a logo has in no way impacted their functionality or their popularity. In fact, the biggest problem with many of these devices is that they seem to be out of stock all the time: evidently, consumers don't care about what's printed on the box as long as the product offers some concrete value. The only apparent difference I can surmise from adding a proper Commodore logo is the licensing fee - suggested by Perifractic as 6.4% of the retail price. This fee will no doubt be shifted onto the consumer: margins are typically very slim for most of these projects.

Pay to Play

This is where things start to feel a bit iffy. I don't know Perifractic, and I don't follow his Youtube channel very closely. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and I'm sure he's helped bring much needed attention to a variety of different retro projects. Alas, the business propostion behind the brand buyout seems a bit thin to me. Do consumers really care enough about an "official Commodore logo" to pay an extra premium? And what is, indeed, "official" about it apart from the actual logo itself?

Ignoring lofty ideas about Commodore-branded virtual reality hardware for schools, the video presents little more than a vague hope that already established, successful producers - some of them with brand recognition of their own - will swap the logo on their products and expect grumpy people like me to pay slightly more for the pleasure. Of course, nobody can be forced into using the logo - which makes forgoing it feel like a much more likely outcome, considering not just the associated price hike but also increased administration from dealing with yet another legal entity, however benevolent.

Brand Management

In order for a brand to actually mean something, it must be cared for. If it's going to start reflecting the mythical nostalgia associated with it among its true target audience, there needs to be a base level of trust and reliability established. Such an endeavour goes well beyond setting up a web shop for selling hardware designed and manufactured by a plethora of independent companies and persons. (Even this, I assume, is harder than it sounds.)

One pressing matter is that of brand enforcement. As I'm writing this, I'm drinking water from a Commodore-branded mug. I have no reason whatsoever to believe it's officially sanctioned and, to be frank, I don't care: it's just a gimmicky coffee cup. There are countless online shops - many, I'm sure, based in places with a very relaxed attitude towards intellectual property - where various apparel and trinkets carrying the Commodore logo can be bought.

Then there are companies like the Italian "Commodore Inc" (their website is at the domain commodore.inc, which I will not link to directly, because autoplaying videos) that seems to sell Commodore-branded laptops and, of course, clothing. Look at those Commodore-branded shirts on their Commodore-branded site!

An excerpt from what seems to be a trademark registration

The "Commodore Inc" website also features what looks like an official document from an Italian government agency, detailing how the associated company indeed has registered the Commodore logo as a trademark. My Italian is a bit rusty, but the document doesn't seem to reference Commodore Corporation BV at all. I have no reason to believe it's a fake, but even so, is it strictly speaking applicable with regards to international trademark agreements? I don't know, and the only way to find out for sure is to, as soon as possible after acquiring Commodore Corporation BV, take legal action.

Regrettably, legal action might also, eventually, be necessary against each and every enthusiast hardware engineer who, in any kind of marketing or branding, happens to step too close to the Commodore brand without paying for the proper license. What about CommodoreZ, for example? It's the "home of the Cactus homebrew computer": a passionate hobbyist initiative if I ever saw one, worthy of attention - and also, from a legal standpoint, a possible trademark infringement in the making.

These kinds of conflicts in small ponds of enthusiasts are rarely pretty and never fun - but if not enforcing ownership, the brand will end up meaning absolutely nothing. And what if some product is denied a license? Thus, if the Commodore brand becomes more active, and if more products license it, I have a feeling we'll start seeing even more petty in-group retro squabbles. And, of course, is 6.4% of a rather limited market enough to finance this governance - or is the inevitable course of action to branch out into other ventures, diluting the brand and possibly alienating the core fanbase?

Retro Vibes

I can't remember caring very much about the Commodore or Amiga brands when I was a kid, though I did (and do) care strongly about the Amiga as a platform. If there had been an Admiral Business Machines making an Amigo 500 that was fully compatible with Commodore's offering at a lower price point, it would have sold in droves, and I would probably have bought one.

Case in point: PC clones. In 1985, it might still have mattered somewhat if it said IBM on the box. Five years later, nobody cared one jot about that, as long as the box ran Wing Commander and/or Excel. I don't know a single person who bought official Commodore peripherals for their Amigas - they were too expensive. My external floppy drive that's served me for 33 years has no branding whatsoever. The memory expansion for my A500 was a cheap knock-off, looking as if someone with a half decent soldering iron had assembled it in their basement.

Today, it's still what the box does that's interesting, not what's embossed on its outside. Can it run Deluxe Paint and Silkworm? Nice, you've got my attention. It's called "Amoeba"? That's cute, I couldn't care less.

What Really Matters

I'm not sufficiently up to date regarding the previously mentioned conflict between Cloanto and Hyperion to even attempt picking sides. In fact, I don't think I want to: Both companies of course claim to care about the Amiga legacy, and everything they do is, naturally, out of an unending love for the platform and in service of its many die-hard fans. To me, it just seems as if both parties are fighting tooth and nail in order to make a buck by licensing and/or selling something that should have been placed in the public domain a long time ago, especially given how much they both claim to care about the Amiga fanbase. All it takes is for them to bury the hatchet, merge, and slap a BSD license on the Amiga IP. Which, of course, is never going to happen.

Knowing this, you might forgive me for sounding jaded: Sadly, I think the words in Perifractic's video ring hollow. Yes, we're tired of greed and cash grabs. Perhaps acquiring the Commodore brand is a misguided effort born out of frustration, a desperate act of trying to right something that's felt wrong for a long time. Alas, however sincere and heartfelt the intentions might truly be, it's very hard for me to shake the feeling that this is yet another attempt at squeezing a few bucks more out of a far too loyal fan base. Crowdfunding is referenced in the video: it would be ironic indeed for retro enthusiasts to first finance the brand purchase and then, through licensing fees, keep paying for it indefinitely.

Is it worth it? It's a logo. It's nothing, really. It's a specific word, in a specific font, in a specific shade of blue. It's surface, not soul. The soul is already there, and it's ours, because we're the ones creating it: in every line of code we write, in every pixel we place, in every tune we compose, in every blog post we author, in every highscore we achieve and in every piece of hardware we design. That's what matters. No logo or licensing fee is ever going to change that.

Disclaimer: I am in no way, shape or form affiliated with any of the brands, companies, legal entities, conflicts, products or persons mentioned in this text.