-----Original Message-----
From: Faustus von Goethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I am confused then. If it is not a license, doesn't the fact that you
>(WotC) are allowing the use of your trademarks (not enforcing them) provide
>a precedent that cannot be legally revoked?
It's not a license and it's not allowing you to use their trademarks, except
for those netlogo images they provide. The policy states that if you give
proper credit for the trademarks that you are using, they won't sic their
lawyers on you. All they are providing is a written statement of the
company's policy toward handling instances of infringement on it right by
fans on the internet. They state a list of conditions under which they
don't feel the necessity to procecute said fans. The only way they feel a
fan should be able to get away with using their trademarks, is in text form
and then only if they acknowledge that they have no claim to the trademarks.
WotC can change company policy whenever they decide to. I don't think that
the fact that the policy is written down and available for viewing by the
public does not make it a legally binding document.
>I understood enforcement of Trademark controls was critical to the whole
>CONCEPT of trademarks?
That's how I understand it too but if you acknowledge that the trademark
belongs to someone else when you use it, how much of a challenge can you
make to the ownership of the trademark? Logic would say that you wouldn't
have a leg to stand on. I'm not sure what the law says on this but my guess
would be that it follows logic.
Chris
www.IDrankWhat.org
www.coincidental.net
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
