At 01:11 AM 7/2/2003 -0400, Rogers Cadenhead wrote:On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:54:42 -0400, Joe Mucchiello wrote:Second, PI is NOT NOT NOT Intellectual Property. It is a term in a contract.
In that contract, part of Product Identity's definition is that you must be "the owner of the Product Identity" in order to claim it. That brings the issue of copyrights and trademarks into the equation, because there's nothing in the OGL that establishes any way other than copyrights and trademarks to own something.
Gee, and I thought that PI simply belongs to its contributor unless otherwise noted. It really is (or should be) that simple.
For good or ill, IP is rarely that simple. Look at the The Wind Done Gone case. Microsoft claims it owns the Windows trademark, at least in the context of computer software, but there's currently a case pending that challenges that. In the realm of IP, it ain't definite 'til the courts say so. Anything can be *claimed* as PI--the question is the legitimacy of those claims.
Now, perhaps PI is not a form of IP. But then, on what grounds does the restriction from using it rest? If it's just a clause forbidding you to use "no-no" words, a la The Sigil's allegory, why the restriction that you have to own the PI to forbid its use? That ownership requirement is what makes me see it as a form of property, and since it's clearly not physical property, it must be IP. The question then becomes, is it an extension of existing forms of IP, or an attempt to create a whole new form?
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The Laws of Anime <http://www.abcb.com/laws/index.htm>: #21 Law of Tactical Unreliability Tactical geniuses aren't.... _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
