[Mr. Dancey reported:] >The biggest change we're going to be making is adding a clause that >basically prohibits anyone who uses Open Game Content from using another >company's trademarks on that product without permission. Why do that? Perhaps some of the *only* damning criticisms of the OGL up to now is that it seeks to expand restrictions over and above those already inherent in current copyright and trademark law. Adding more restrictions seems to reinforce the naysayers' view that that is all WotC is trying to accomplish with this - create a *more restrictive* environment than the market already allows. There really is *no dilution* of a trademark if the author is making a comparison and specifically states that it is used without permission. Doesn't seem really in the spirit of an "open" system. Besides, if the "theory of network externalities" holds true, such use could only HELP a company if it happens. As a suggestion, why not write the clause to read ". . . in such a way that the use of the trademark might cause confusion to potential purchasers about the originator of the product." This would be much more in keeping with the letter (and spirit) of the trademark statutes. >This is another "carrot and stick" clause. I'm missing the carrot? >The idea behind this clause is >to stop someone from just putting "this product is compatible with the D20 >System. The D20 System is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast and is not >used with permission." on their Open Gaming products without conforming to >the D20 System license; or worse, using someone's game brand name (clearly >for me, the worst case would be to have someone use D&D). The legal issues >here are so murky that nobody wants to even render an opinion on how >effective a suit might be if one were brought to stop this kind of use. Gaming companies have failed on several occasions through legal means to stop just this kind of use (even though the use really had no impact on either their trademarks or sales). It *really seems* (from the outside) that another company is now trying to reengineer the market to make such a restriction possible. >Brian also would like to take a crack at cracking the nut of "game rules" >as >a definable intellectual property. He's going to try and draft some clear >language that will make it very easy to keep the game mechanics separate >from story-character IP, and get rid of some of the ambiguity in the >existing license. This is a *very* worthy objective. I heartily applaud - unless and until it starts to look like an initiative to add additional restrictions over and above the law. Just my paranoia speaking... Faust See the OGF FAQ at: http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------- For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
