On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Damian wrote: > From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > considered as identifying marks. Both Clark & I (two people with law > > degrees - he's a practicing attorney, I am not) have stated that the > > descriptive list is exhaustive (i.e. those are the only types of things > > that can be identifying marks) due to the closed nature of the language > > used. > > Also note that Ryan (and by extrapolation, we can assume the Wizards' legal > team) have said he believes it to be merely non-exclusive. Not that I have > any idea who's right.....just that the guys with the briefcases see it the > other way.
Whoops, I actually meant to include the statement that Ryan has once stated that he thought the list was non-exhaustive. Must have forgotten to finish up when I edited something earlier in the post. However, I would not extrapolate such an opinion to the lawyers at WotC as the language is pretty clear that the list is exhaustive. Legally if you want something to be non-exhaustive you need to include language to that affect. Plus the single time Ryan said anything could be PI, he was actually trying to make an entirely different point - as he pointed out after Clark & I explained the language issue. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
