In a message dated 7/31/00 9:05:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I'm personally (and I am not alone it appears) going to have philosophical
>concerns with *any* provision in the OGL that seeks to extend restictions
>into areas of the law where restrictions currently do not exist -
>particularly when that restriction seems to benefit one player in the market
>almost exclusively.
Just as an addendum...in Writer's Digest on a monthly basis, at least 10
major companies will have ads in there reminding authors which words are
*trademarks* and shouldn't be used as a generic...like Kleenex� and
Coca-Cola� and Xerox�, etc, etc... why do they do this? Because its illegal?
No. Because they don't want their trademark to turn into common usage.
If it was illegal they would state that in the ads...its not, so they can't.
Protection of D&D is fine and reasonable considering where it is coming from.
But realize this other little fact -- if knock-off adventures were such a
threat to the existence of the D&D mark and its financial well-being, then
Mayfair and Judges Guild would still be around selling their lines...instead
of both being basically bankrupt...(the current Mayfair is a different
company using the trademarks).
-Paul @ CFE/NSG
www.teamfrog.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
