<<And as always seems to happen in these discussions, someone brings in concepts of IP protection that are completely different from PI protection (except for similarity of spelling).
>>
Don't look at me. I believe that either the license needs to be reformed to drop things that can't be trademarked or copyrighted from the PI list
OR
The list goes far beyond normal copyright and trademark protections and can extend to things which normally have no protection under copyright or trademark law, and you can stop someone from using things that you normally have no right to stop them from using
<<Within the license, concepts can be declared to be Product Identity
even if those same concepts would not be afforded copyright or
trademark protection outside of the license.
>>
OK, but if that's the case, then the PI declaration for a concept is null and void. Because if you can source the concept from outside the body of OGL work (which is trivial to do at the level of the concept), then PI would offer no protections for concepts in spite of claiming that they are protectable.
<<When Ryan used the term "source something from the public domain" above, he more accurately meant "source something either from the existing body of valid Open Game Content independent of the claimed PI, or from the body of material outside of the OGL framework that can be shown to have existed prior to the PI claim." A mouthful, which is probably why he shortened it to "from the public domain.">
>
The problem with this definition, is that if the PI can extend protections to otherwise unprotectable items it calls into question the entire interpretation of what you just wrote. Or it seems to.
If I can PI something that is normally afforded no protections, then I can stop you from using it in spite of the fact that outside the OGL I have no rights to stop you from using it.
If I can't stop you from sourcing stuff from the public domain, then effectively PI has no protections that aren't already granted under IP law, rendering it a whole lot of legal mumbo jumbo with no real force behind it. In that case it would have been much simpler to note that PI was trademarked or copyrighted materials specifically designated as PI. The definition does not contain such specific language.
Alternately, if concepts are protectable, then whether or not they exist outside of the OGL (and concepts will always exist outside of the OGL) will not matter.
Lee
