On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:39:20 +0100, Mike Dymond wrote: >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.
Why do you believe that a court would treat the concept of "product identity," which is legally meaningless outside of the Open Game License, as a second form of trademark? Isn't it far more likely that they would expect people to use trademark law to protect their trademarks, and confine the term "product identity" to its use between parties who have entered into a contract with each other? >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. It isn't possible to derive something from a work with which you are completely unfamiliar, in either the practical or legal meaning of the word. -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/27/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
