Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario

[chad Brown]

The situation you describe is possible, although not very likely.  
During the Discovery phase of the pre-trial preparations, Third Party 
Games would request copies of all Lime-Green Ronin materials related to 
the product.  It's certainly possible that they wouldn't find any 
`incriminating' evidence, and/or that LGR employees would perjure 
themselves, but this is the price that you pay for the benefit of the 
cure period.

`Normal' US Trademark and Copyright law provides for nothing like the 
cure period; in fact, it provides for retroactive damages and seizure 
of profits since the infringement (not just since the notification).

Yet another excellent reason to request permission from your OGL 
sources, I'd say...

chad
(Not a Lawyer)
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 09:40 US/Eastern, Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario.

Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as
100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only
written documentation of this intent is the book itself.
One month later, an animation company offers to option the characters
in the book for development as a TV series.
Lime-Green Ronin announces on its Web site that an employee
mistakenly put the "100 percent open text" declaration in Mercenaries
of Seaport. The company only intended to open Appendix III, paragraph
5 and the stat block and combat description of the spam golem.
How would third-party reusers be safe from this situation? It's not
like most companies are chatty enough to clarify their intent for any
of their work.
--
Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/14/2003
Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l