Hi >> >Lee should sue Tom for using his PI. The fact that Tom was not aware >> >that Lizard Snark already existed is no defence (Tom should have >> >checked first). If this came to court then Lee would have to prove >> >that he had created Lizard Snark and PI'ed it before Tom created >> did.
>> Your Nike example is a poor one; product identity is not a poor man's >> trademark. If Tom has no idea Lee's work exists, he is under no >> obligation to respect Lee's product identity because he is not >> deriving from Lee's work. PI is not trademark, correct. It is however very similar to it and hence it is best to base speculation of how a court would deal with PI on how courts deal with trademark every day. >> There is no "should have checked first" obligation where the OGL is >> concerned. If you are completely unaware of another publisher's open >> content and product identity, you couldn't be sued "for using their >> PI." I'm afraid you are very very wrong on that count!!! By using their PI you are by definition deriving from that work, wether you realised it or not. Without that there would be no protection of IP for anyone in this market. Companies need to know that if they create somthing they can protect it. PI allows them to do that and the argument of 'Oh I am really sorry but I was not aware of you product' does not wash! It certainly would not with any court. 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
