On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
> Other examples (such as Kal's Drow) have really been about copyrights and
> the proposal is irrelevant in such cases. And to answer Kal's earlier
> question:
>
> "Do you really believe that TSR deserves to win such a case
> if Drow is really a public domain entity that the OGL author
> could not locate solid evidence to support? Even if the
> evidence comes out a year later?"
>
> Anyone who believes in the rule of law in even the smallest degree must
> believe that TSR deserves to win the case you presented. Without being
> able to show that Drow is really a public domain entity, you are forced to
> concede that Drow was created by TSR. If this was not the way law
I would be satisfied with having to do that, IF there was no new
clause to expedite these kinds of disputes. My argument is the
new clause makes it more likely for a company to get away with
trademarking an obscure public domain entity and quickly squash
anyone who might challenge it.
People wrote free modules about Drow before TSR asserted their
trademark on Drow. Unless you can find solid evidence of Drow
before TSR's claim of having created it then you are out of luck.
Okay fine. But let's give these OGL authors the process trademark
laws afford them to challenge the trademark, instead of an
expedited reduced cost legal proceeding under the new clause.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
