On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Sixten Otto wrote: > Basically, I'm not sure how the definitions in the OGL lead to these > statements. I have a couple of theories about what the line of reasoning > is, but this is the first time I've encountered any conclusions like this. > (I suppose it would also be nice if Mr. Valterra could weigh in on whether > this is Mr. Dancey's opinion alone.) > > Is the thinking that things that aren't "enhancements of the prior art" > cannot be "identifying marks" (from the definition) because they aren't > particular to the product in which they appear? Perhaps that some of these > words are derivative of the SRD, and so must be OGC?
I think you've answered your own question. It's important to remember that only 3 types of things can be product identity: 1) product & product line names 2) logos & identifying marks 3) trademarks The long list of things in the middle of the PI definition is simply stating what types of material can be claimed as "identifying marks" - basically establishing the type of material that *might* be considered as an identifying mark. Which is far different from stating that those types of material *are* identifying marks. Unfortunately many seem to focus on the list of things that may qualify as an identifying mark when claiming PI rather than the three types of material that really are eligible to be claimed as PI. For example, names & descriptions of characters is one item listed among those that might be considered as an identifying mark. But for a name or character description to truly be an identifying mark, the name and/or description actually needs to be sufficiently unique that when readers hear/see the name/description they will associate it with your product(s). So a very common name, such as John, isn't something that can really be thought of as identifying any product, therefore even though 'names & descriptions of characters' is listed among what may possibly be claimed as an identifying mark (& therefore PI), the name John really cannot be claimed as PI. The description of the character named John might still be able to be claimed as an identifying mark, using the same analysis of whether or not that description is something the *identifies* the product. That's the really the logic to be used for all PI - is the thing to be claimed actually something that is sufficiently unique that it creates an association to the companies product(s). Not completely certain that's what Ryan is getting at with the 'advancement over prior art' language, but it's certainly in keeping with both the discussions concerning PI when introduced into the license as well as being a straightforward reading of the license itself. alec (the guy with a law degree who isn't an attorney) _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
