> One of the major problems with determining who is a monopolist under
antitrust
> laws is defining the relevant market. Both sides of an antitrust argument
will
> usually be arguing that the market for the products in question should be
> decided differently. IMHO, it is unlikely that a judge would find that
TSR
> constituted a monopoly, under traditional antitrust interpretations, in
any
> relevant market (whether RPGs or games in general - the market in one's
own
> product alone [D&D] clearly would not be a relevant market for the
determination
> of monopolist status as copyright law permissibly grants a monopoly in
that
> product).
Agreed, and besides, WotC is nowhere near having a monopoly. The best market
data I've been able to dredge up shows them to have about a 40% chunk of the
RPG market. It's better than the closest competitor (White Wolf, with about
25%, followed by Palladium of all things, with around 15%) but a long way
from a monopoly. The market structure is actually pretty much the norm for a
mature market.
To build a good anti-trust case, (IMHO) you'd have to show that WotC was
able to shut competing products out of the market, perhaps by being in a
position to strong-arm distributors into not carrying other products. I
doubt that the OGL/D20 licenses qualify.
That said, I question whether many people will choose to make use of the OGL
in practice. The D20 license makes more sense if you're looking to tap into
the larger D&D/etc. market.
_____________________________________________________
Kevin J. Brennan, Fourth Millennium Line Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.fourth-millennium.com/
"I hate all boets and bainters."
--Only recorded English-language statement of King George I
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
