Tim-
Bingo.
The clause does not "strengthen copyright law." All it would do is add a breach of
contract cause of action. It does not change the standard of proof for
trademark/copyright. It would allow breach of contract damages (which, I venture to
say, would be slight at best).
Rarely would a party decided to sue or not sue soleley on the basis of a second cause
of action. If they want to sue they will sue.
True, the contractual clause may be more strict than trademark law in that you may be
able to say "compatible with" absent the license provision. But there is a benefit to
clarity.
Kal sees no benefit. I, on the other hand say: "make a product and you will see the
benefit." It is easy to gripe about the rule when you arent making anything. Because
WotC isnt the only one here with a trademark. Maybe they just happen to have the one
he wants to infringe upon but that isnt the issue. Necromancer Games, Altas Games,
Mystical Alchemy Gameworks, Green Ronin, etc all have products released RIGHT NOW (or
soon) under the OGL/d20 license. Those trademarks are protected too. Not just WotC's.
What the clause does is tell small businesses who want to enter the market that "if we
all play nice under this more restrictive contractual term then you all should be able
to make products and avoid lawsuits." This is the "Safe Harbor" concept.
That, to a publisher, is a benefit. So please stop construing the term as only
benefiting WotC because that is simply not correct.
And hey, if you dont like the OGL dont use it. I personally think it is great. I love
the proposed term because it makes it clear that people cant use my trademark without
permission.
Clark
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10 6:47 PM >>>
On 11 Aug 00, Kal scribbled a note about Re: [Open_Gaming] Compatible with:
>
> The new clause reduces the cost and proof of burden for
> trademark holders. Trademark holders can act more swiftly
> to file a lawsuit after these official notices. Without
How does it reduce costs?
> the new clause, they would have to take into consideration
> increased cost/length of the litigation and prepare for a
> much more involved trial before actually filing a suit.
> Without the new clause, people would have more time to
> investigate the trademark after these official notices.
This I have trouble grasping. If somebody uses another's trademark
illegally (clause or no), the offended company must still go through
the exact same process (proving the violation), and the defendant
must also go through the same routine as well (proving that he has
not abused it).
As far as I see it, the clause just makes it more difficult for an
author to illegally use another person's trademark in the first
place..... (hence, less lawsuits in the long run....)
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
