Hi >> publication dates. If someone listed "lizard snark" as PI in 2001 and >> someone else listed it as OGC in 2002, then I would say that the PI >> designation should stand, even if the latecomer did not intend any >> copyright >> infringement. However, if "lizard snark" was OGC'ed first, then the PI >> designation by a later book would be invalid, since it's already out as >> open >> content.>>
>> Why should one or the other be valid? This is not trademark law. PI'ing >> something isn't the same as declaring it as a trademark. >> If you and I live 10 thousand miles apart and neither of us meets or ever >> reads each other's works, then if we can prove that we created our own >> works independently, and they just happen to have some modicum of >> overlap, then neither one of us has infringed on the copyrights of the >> other. 10,000miles means nothing in the age of the internet. You could not claim to be so isolated from this market that you could not find out. In any case in trademark law this would be irelevant, all that is relevant is whether a consumer could be confused by the two uses and in a market this small I would guaratnee that a court would rule that there would be confusion. (again I am using trademakr law because it is the closest to PI and hence the best to base any inference on) >> << >> The same would go for combining names and statblocks. If a name was PI'ed >> first, then the copyright holder to that PI wins.>> >> So, what you are saying, is that if you PI the name "John Smith", and >> someone doesn't even Section 15 your product, you feel that you have a >> case in court to stop anyone else from using the character name "John >> Smith" in an OGL product. Am I understanding you correctly? If you read the clauses about PI then yes that is exactly what it is saying. Exactly how a court would interpret this I do not know (they might for example state that John Smith is so generic that you could not own it in the first place, hence if you cannot own it then you cannot PI it, so everyone is free to use it. >> << If it was OGC'ed first, >> then another publisher can declare PI until he or she is blue in the face, >> >> but the name is already public domain and can be put on a different OGC >> statblock or for anything else.>> >> If something is OGC'd it is not in the public domain. But I understand >> this point. But I can't see "first move advantage" being at all relevant >> if there is actually a strong reason to believe the two products were >> independently developed. I'm afraid 'first mover advantage' is everything, there is no such thing as 'independantly developed' (or that is irelevant) >> That stuff would only come into play if one had a reason to disbelieve >> that the two products were independently created. >> I have every reason to believe that if I pass out copies of a spell called >> "Shot in the Dark" that has the name PI'd that somebody else in the far >> corners of the world will eventually come up with another spell, >> independently created, also called "Shot in the Dark" that does something >> different. What we are talking about is protecting the name 'Shot in the Dark'. If you are not bothered about the above scenario then there is no point in you PIing 'Shot in the Dark'!!! That is the whole point of PI. It does nothing else. Lets replace 'Shot in the Dark' with 'Pologree's Shot in the Dark' and now the benefits of PI become clear. You do not want anyone else EVER using that name, so you PI it. Cheers Mike Dymond Managing Director Myriador Ltd. a: Flat 1 The Old School House, 25 River Street, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 5DH, UK m: 07900 042 293 t: 01672 564 254 f: 01672 564 254 - please phone first e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: www.myriador.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
