At 11:53 AM 3/15/02 -0700, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >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.
Right. I guess maybe my question comes down to a very silly one: where does the definition of "identifying mark" come from? I admit that it seems awfully common-sensical and worthless, but given the number of people that basically claim half the text of their product as PI, maybe not completely pointless. >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. I agree. It's unfortunate both because it creates a bad example for others to follow (and since most compliance efforts are simply follow-the-leader, that can be bad), and because it'll probably work. If someone declares something as PI that probably cannot be, would you even bother trying to work it out with them, or just rename it and get on with things (meaning that the bogus PI did foreclose on reuse, just as it was meant to)? Sixten _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
