[game_preservation] Nolan Bushnell returns to Atari

[Martin Goldberg]

Well, it's a very convoluted history of brand and property ownership.
We've actually been working with Atari Interactive (the company where
the brand and properties actually exist) to try and nail down what
they do and do not own as well.

I wrote an article tracking the whole thing for gamesindustry.biz a
few years ago.  Summing it up and such, it's pretty much this:

In the late 90's Infogrames Entertainment SA (located in France) went
on a buying spree, buying up numerous companies. In the case of one,
GT Interactive, they simply bought a controlling interest.  They soon
had GT rename itself to Infogrames Inc. (sometimes also referred to as
Infogrames North America).  They proceeded to move a number of their
North American buyouts and studios under Infogrames Inc. - which they
still just had a 62% controlling interest in.

In 2001, they bought out Hasbro Interactive (including the studios),
and renamed it Infogrames Interactive Inc. instead of just bringing it
under GT/Infogrames Inc.  Reason being, is Hasbro had the Atari
Interactive subsidiary, the holding and publishing company of what was
left of the Atari Corporation properties transferred over.

In 2003 Infogrames Entertainment SA came up with the plan to use the
Atari properties and name to brand all it's subsidiaries an Atari
branded name.  They proceeded to rename Infogrames Interactive Inc. to
Atari Interactive Inc.  (thus it's not a literal carryover of Hasbro's
Atari Interactive or of Atari Corporations Atari Interactive PC
software division).  And they formed the Atari Group as an umbrella
for all the subsidiaries.  The UK subsidiary was Atari UK, Australia
became Atari Australia, etc.

They forced GT/Infogrames Inc. (still only majority owned) to then
change it's name over to Atari Inc. by licensing the name and any
properties from Atari Interactive Inc.  I.E. they were told they not
only have to change their name again, but they have to pay Infogrames
to do it.

Infogrames Entertainment SA (the actual company in France) was still
just Infogrames.

The press gets just as confused, and Infogrames' PR strategy didn't
help, and people were thinking a) Atari Inc. was the owner of the
Atari brand and properties, and the center of the Atari universe.  b)
Infogrames was now Atari.  Consequently, they just start referring to
everything as just "Atari".  c) Infogrames tried to create the
illusion that Atari Inc. was the same Atari Inc. from 1972, by playing
word games that was actually referring to the Atari brand being around
since 1972.  The general public, with no clue to any of the actual
happenings (many still thing Atari Corporation was the same as Atari
Inc. as well) just see a company now called Atari Inc. and think it's
the same.

Years of bad releases from with GT/Infogrames Inc./Atari Inc., spurred
by insane licensing and kickups up to Infogrames for anything Atari
related (they literally got major percentages of any earnings related
to the Atari IP) allowed Infogrames to buy more and more ownership.
That finally culminated in a complete buyout of the company.  What did
the press say?  Infogrames had bought "Atari", because of the
missconception.

Then you have Harrison and Gardner joining up.  The press mistakenly
reported it as them joining "Atari" and people thought they were going
to Atari Inc.  What they joined, was Infogrames Entertainment SA in
France, and the "Atari Brand", which they would of course now oversee.

This culminates to last year, when Infogrames Entertainment SA finally
decides to name itself an Atari name, Atari SA.  Further confusing
people by what is meant by the generic label "Atari".

So when Harrison Gardner left the board of "Atari", and Nolan joined,
more confusion ensues as to the board of what?  The company Atari Inc.
in New York, right?  No, Atari SA, in France.


Marty


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Armstrong <andrew at aarmstrong.org> wrote:

> Interesting mini-business-biography there, hehe.

>

> I had a look around for the whole newest organisation structure, and it's

> like something out of a Sci-fi novel, companies holding companies holding

> companies (some of it was more just history that they've consolidated but

> there is a lot of weirdness). It's more like umbrella tree then just an

> umbrella. Then again it is kind of the norm for the bigger companies.

>

> Andrew

>

> On 21/04/2010 20:41, Martin Goldberg wrote:

>>

>> And it's not Atari Inc. in New York, they don't have a board anymore.

>> He joined the board of Infogrames SA/Atari SA, i.e. the main company

>> of the umbrella.

>>

>> Marty

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>