Bona fides: Commodore 128DCR on my desk with a second 1571, Ultimate II+-L and a ZoomFloppy, three SX-64s I use for various projects, heaps of spare 128DCRs, breadbox 64s, 16s, Plus/4s and VIC-20s on standby, multiple Commodore collectables (blue-label PET 2001, C64GS, 116, TV Games, 1551, 1570), a couple A500s, an A3000 and a AmigaOS 3.9 QuikPak A4000T with '060 CPU, Picasso IV RTG card and Ethernet. I wrote for
COMPUTE!'s Gazette (during the General Media years) and
Loadstar. Here's me with Jack Tramiel and his son Leonard from a Computer History Museum event in 2007. It's on my wall.
So with all that said, and from someone who loves, uses and works with Commodore computers to this day: there's not much point in buying Commodore.
The reason this came up is a Retro Recipes video (not affiliated) stating that, in answer to a request for a very broad license to distribute under the Commodore name, Commodore Corporation BV instead simply proposed he buy them out, which would obviously transfer the trademark to him outright. Amiga News has a very nice summary.
There was a time when Commodore intellectual property and the Commodore brand had substantial value, and that time probably ended around the mid-2000s. Prior to that point after Commodore went bankrupt in 1994, a lot of residual affection for the Amiga and the 64/128 still circulated, the AmigaOS still had viability for some applications and there might have been something to learn from the hardware, particularly the odder corners like the PA-RISC Hombre. That's why there was so much turmoil over the corpse, from Escom's abortive buyout to the split of the assets. Today the Commodore name (after many shifts and purchases and reorgs) is presently held by Commodore Corporation BV, a Netherlands company, who licenses it out. Pretty much the rest of it is split into the hardware patents (now with Acer after their buyout of Gateway 2000) and the remaining IP (Amiga Corporation, effectively Cloanto).
The Commodore brand after the company's demise has had an exceptionally poor track record in the market. Many of us remember the 1999 Commodore 64 Web.it, licensed by Escom, which was a disastrously bad set-top 486 PC sold as an "Internet computer" whose only link to CBM was the Commodore name and a built-in 64 emulator. Reviewers savaged it and they've become collectors' items purely for the lulz. In 2007, Tulip licensee Commodore Gaming tried again with PC gaming rigs sold as the Commodore XX, GS, GX and G (are these computers or MPAA ratings?) and special wraps called C=kins (say it "skins"). I went to the launch party in L.A. — 8-Bit Weapon was there, hi Seth and Michelle! — and I even have one of their T-shirts around someplace. The company subsequently ran out of money and their most consequential legacy was the huge and heavily branded case. More recently, in 2010, another American company called itself Commodore USA LLC and tried developing new keyboard computers, most notably the (first) Commodore 64x. These were otherwise underpowered PCs using mini-ATX motherboards in breadboard-like cases where cooling was an obvious issue. They also tried selling "VICs" (which didn't look like VIC-20s) and "Amigas" (which were Intel i7 systems), and introduced their own Linux-based Commodore OS. Opinions were harsh and the company went under after its CEO died in 2012. Dishonourable mentions include Tulip-Yeahronimo's 2004 MP3 player line, sold as the (inexplicably) e-VIC, m-PET and f-PET, and the PET smartphone, a 2015 otherwise unremarkable Android device with its own collection of on-board emulators. No points for guessing how much of an impact those made. And none of this is really specific to Commodore, either: look at the shambling corpse of Atari SA, made to dance on decaying strings by the former Infogrames' principals. I mean, cryptocurrency and hotels straight out of Blade Runner — really?
The exception to the rule was the 2004 C64DTV, a Tulip-licensed all-in-one direct-to-TV console containing a miniaturized and enhanced Commodore 64 designed by Jeri Ellsworth in a Competition Pro-style joystick. It played many built-in games from flash storage but more importantly could be easily modded into a distinct Commodore computer of its own, complete with keyboard and IEC serial ports, and VICE even emulates it. It sold well enough to go through two additional hardware revisions and the system turned up in other contemporary DTVs (like the DTV3 in the Hummer DTV game). There are also the 2019 "TheC64" machines, in both mini and full-size varieties (not affiliated), which are pretty much modern direct-to-TV systems in breadbin cases that run built-in games under emulation. The inclusion of USB "Comp Pro" styled joysticks is an obvious secondary homage to the C64DTV. Notably, Retro Games Ltd licensed the Commodore 64 ROMs from Cloanto but didn't license the Commodore trademark, so the name Commodore never appears anywhere on the box or the machine (though you decide if the trade dress is infringing).
The remnant of the 64x was its case moulds, which were bought by My Retro Computer Ltd in the UK after Commodore USA LLC went under and that's where this story picks up, selling an officially licened new version of the 64x (also not affiliated) after Commodore Corporation BV granted permission in 2022. This new 64x comes in three pre-built configurations or as a bare case. By buying out the Commodore name they would get to sell these without the (frankly exorbitant) fees CC BV was charging and extend the brand to other existing Commodore re-creations like the Mega 65, but the video also has more nebulous aims, such as other retro Commodore products (Jeri Ellsworth herself appears in this video) or something I didn't quite follow about a Commodore charity arcade for children's hospitals, or other very enthusiastically expressed yet moderately unclear goals.
I've been careful not to say there's no point in buying the Commodore trademark — I said there's not much. There is clearly a market for reimplementing classic Commodore hardware; Ellsworth herself proved it with the C64DTV, and current devices like the (also not affiliated with any) Mega 65, Ultimate64 and Kawari VIC-II still sell. But outside of the retro niche, Commodore as a brand name is pretty damn dead. Retro items sell only small numbers in boutique markets. Commodore PCs and Commodore smartphones don't sell because the Commodore name adds nothing now to a PC or handset, and the way we work with modern machines — for better or worse — is worlds different than how we worked with a 1982 home computer. No one expects to interact with, say, a Web page or a smartphone app in the same way we used a BASIC program or a 5.25" floppy. Maybe we should, but we don't.
Furthermore, there's also the very pertinent question of how to steward such a community resource. The effort is clearly earnest, genuine and heartfelt, but that's not enough without governance. Letting these obviously hobbyist projects become full-fledged members of the extended Commodore family seems reasonable and even appropriate, but then there's the issue of preventing the Shenzhen back alley cloners from ripping them (and you) off. Plus, even these small products do make some money. What's FRAND in a situation like this? How would you enforce it? Should you enforce it? Does everyone who chips in get some fraction of a vote or some piece of the action? If the idea is only to allow the Commodore name to be applied to projects of sufficient quality and/or community benefit, who decides?
Better to let it rest in peace and stop encouraging these bloodsuckers to drain what life and goodwill remain in the Commodore name. The crap products that came before only benefited the licensor and just make the brand more tawdry. CC BV only gets to do what it does because it's allowed to. TheC64 systems sold without the Commodore trademark because it was obvious what they were and what they do; Mega 65s and Ultimate64s are in the same boat. Commodore enthusiasts like me know what these systems are. We'll buy them on their merits, or not, whether the Commodore name is on the label, or not (and they will likely be cheaper if they don't). CC BV reportedly has been trying to sell off the trademark for awhile, which seems to hint that they too recognize the futility. Don't fall into their trap.
