<< I can't remember if it was here or on OGF-D20-l, but i pointed out to just such a comment that it may not matter what WotC believes, if it is in conflict with the license. >>
It was one of these two lists. << Unlike the D20STL, they can't change it at a whim, so the actual written meaning matters, not just what WotC wishes it meant. I concur that that is apparently what WotC wishes PI to be. I suspect they haven't a legal leg to stand on (no--that's hyperbole; but i do think they're wrong, based on the opinions of those on this list with legal training, which, coupled with the general legal standard of interpreting a poorly-written contract against the authoring party, makes it pretty likely they'd lose should it come to court). >> What WotC wishes it to mean does matter as it could take years for a case to actually get to trial. I'm not sure what the legal system is like in the US, but here in Canada you can wait a long time before getting anywhere. Hey Clark, while I know you just do criminal cases, what would be a good estimate as to the length of time an average civil case would go from Start to finish. An example: You produce a product which used some of the terms declared as PI, and WotC takes offence to it. You were notified of a breach of the OGL and required to cure. You decide not to cure, because you feel WotC is incorrect. WotC decides to start proceedings and one of the first things they do is get an injunction preventing you from continuing to sell your product. During this period it could take a while for the case to get to a point where each side understands the issues, and the evidence. Your lawyer (assuming you hire one, unless you choose to represent yourself) will need to research the subject, and deal with the opposing party. Chances are this period may take a while, and WotC could simply withdraw their case, or leave it to rot, leaving you with a big lawyers bill, and not much for legal precendent. You could take it as a moral victory, but was it worth it. As an example, one case I heard about, a MVA that occured in '99, is only getting to the discovery stage in the litigation. Discovery is where you reveal the evidence of your case that you will be relying on, and the parties can decide whether they wish to continue or settle. Obviously, the Canadian legal system is designed to encourage the parties to settle, rather than having a judge make a decision. Even after you have had discovery, there is an opportunity for the parties to get together and speak with a judge (one which won't be the judge at the trial) to get his/her honest opinion. By this point, each side knows exactly what the other parties case is about, and have received an opinion from a judge as though the judge were to handle it at trial. It's like playing poker with your hand revealed. If either party is too stubborn to admit that they don't have a chance, and the case goes to trial, the stubborn party could very well end up paying the winning side's legal costs. << I can say with some confidence that not a single term in the PI declaratino attached to the revised D20SRD actually appears in the work. (i recently finished a PDF of it, and proofed it as i went, so i'm fairly certain i would've noticed any of those terms if they had been in there). >> So much for PI being the "white-out" method. Anyone have a 3rd suggestion (other than a forbidden terms list, but similar to the "white-out" method) what PI could be interpreted as? -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com Publisher of Wrestle, F100 and The Rya'mier Campaign Setting _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
