I'm
not so sure about that. PI includes the word "concepts" in rather vague
language. Further, I'm not confident that all previous issues of IP (Trademark
and Copyright) take precedence over the wording of the contract, which is
certainly more broad and powerful.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marc Tassin, Ilium Software
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Crucible of Freya Legal Text
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marc Tassin, Ilium Software
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Crucible of Freya Legal Text
There is a huge distinction between Copyright, Trademark and PI. A word is not PI. No one can lay claim to a word by itself. A word is not Copyright (this is excluding the actual graphic of a word created by an artist) material. A single word can't be except as mentioned. A word as related to a specific entity CAN be PI. A word as related to a specific entity or concept can be a Trademark.
EXAMPLE: Monolith
The word by itself could not be PI any more than "the" could be.
