On Thu, 11 May 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> Ok Kal - I seem to have (somewhere) miscommunicated to you ...
>
> 1. I have NO DESIRE to infringe on the D&D trademark.
I did not say you desired to infringe on the D&D trademark.
You obviously desire to use it with permission or else you
wouldn't be constantly asking. I said "Your OWN trademark
means one that doesn't infringe on someone elses."
> 2. I have NO DESIRE to gain any advantage over any other D20 product.
I said distinguish and differentiate. The word advantage does
not appear in any of my previous postings. That's your word.
> 3. I have NO DESIRE for any sort of FREE RIDE off of WotC trademark.
> 4. I have NO DESIRE to dilute D&D's trademark.
If that is your assessment then fine. You are more of an expert
on your desires than me. My interpretation of repeatedly
asking for use of a "D&D compatible" logo is a desire for
a free ride on a WotC trademark. My opinion is that opening
up "D&D compatible" as you request is diluting the trademark.
Furthermore, in a previously posting, you state the "open"
community would reject the WotC efforts unless they start
sharing their trademark:
>Unless you can honestly and openly answer the question "Why CAN'T I put
>'Designed to work with Dungeons and Dragons' on the box?" then I greatly
>fear that all you are going to get from the truly "open" community is your
>own phrase thrown back in your face...
As one member of the community, I think I should voice my objections.
> At this point (as I said before) I want one (and only one) thing. A
> definitive way to let my customers know which of the products I am selling
> will work with D&D, and which of them will not.
What exactly do you mean by "work with D&D"? Define the parameters
better than just what TSR has worked for years to associate with
their trademark. Then you can create your own trademark and have
differentiation. You can even form a community to help you. But
to keep asking someone else to do it or let you associate with
their trademark is absurd.
>>Exactly, but that one entity with the one agenda is WotC who is
>>making the big contribution. I think that is a pretty reasonable
>>trade off.
>
> Now Kal, as for that statement, I *really* cannot see why you can say that -
> particularly when WotC has stated numerous times that they expect their
> sales AND profitability will increase if they implement OGL and D20. Please
> *explain* for me - maybe I am slow. If they get MORE SALES, and MORE
> PROFIT, what they have sacrificed?
I do not see any problem with WotC getting more sales/profit and
them making a big contribution. Many people will benefit both
financially and intangibly. Do you really think that someone
has to sacrifice to make a contribution?
> You should be aware that IP *ONLY has dollar value* in terms of the revenue
> that can be generated from it. Any other use than selling it is simply
You should be aware not everyone subscribes to your definitions
and your belief that everything is a zero sum game. I fail to
decipher what you are trying to communicate here. Maybe because
I am just still trying to absorb that you have somehow convinced
yourself that WotC is NOT making a big contribution.
> marketing. Sheesh. This is like saying that McDonalds has made a big
> contribution because of all the money they give to TV stations to run their
> advertisements.
McDonalds HAS made a big contribution to the economy. Just because
they have a profit motive doesn't change the deed. The economic
multiplier effect of their spending provides a great benefit for
everyone participating in the economy.
--Kal
