In a message dated 11/17/01 6:12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I want your educated opinion, is this a good thing (in legal and practical sense) for both third-party publishers and PI owner AEG? >> Whether or not it is a "good thing" is irrelevant. It is AEG's Product Identity to do with as it pleases. In this case it seems to benefit third party publishers with no real loss or drawback for AEG (they are licensing, not relinquishing, their PI). Further, an educated guess is still worthless in terms of IP law and publishing decisions, IMO. Not to sound snippy, but you did ask for opinions, so there's mine. ;) Btw, my guess (since we're tossing out guesses here) is that the term "goodies" is a placeholder term used in the preview but that AEG may replace it with another term in the final edition. While "goodies" is kewl and all, it is not defined in the text (at least not in the portion you posted) and may have arguable meaning in a legal sense. Any of our resident lawyer types want to chime in on this? Mark Arsenault President, Gold Rush Entertainment, Inc. | http://www.goldrushg.com Executive Director, The Game Publishers Assoc. | http://www.thegpa.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 20% off all design & publishing packages! http://www.goldenpillarpublishing.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
