On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Kal Lin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
>
> > And no one has said it is. It's a clause that goes beyond the current
> > trademark law and is a relatively minor concession for someone to make in
> > order obtain the use of copyrighted material that would otherwise be
> > illegal for someone to use.
>
> I would agree with this sentiment if the clause was going in
> the D20STL, an agreement meant to be solely used between WotC
> and D20 logo users. But the clause is going in the OGL which
> is meant to be a contract used by everyone to release open
> content. I suspect most other people would find it a burden
> rather than a benefit. Even if someone creates a new levelless,
> non-d20 game mechanic, they would be burdened with this clause
> if they want to participate in open gaming.
How? I still have not seen a single example of how the proposed clause is
going to burden anyone (except for limiting tag-along advertising) beyond
what current trademark law allows. In fact the clause would have almost
no meaning if added to the D20STL, whereas with the OGL the clause
provides trademark protection to EVERYONE who publishes OGL material.
And why would a non-d20 game mechanic (levelless or otherwise) be burdened
where a d20 mechanic wouldn't be? The only instance I see is somebody
claiming there new non-d20 product is "D20 compatible" even tho it isn't a
D20 product. In fact this would be challengeable under the current
trademark laws, all the language does is provide strength to those who
wish to prevent the use of their trademarks.
Adding the clause to the OGL does not prevent people from using trademarks
without permission anymore than the current trademark law does. Why?
Because even under the OGL, the only one able to bring suit for trademark
infringement would be the trademark holder. They could do this with or
without the proposed clause. The clause simply gives them a stronger case
when they get to court. This is likely more important for the smaller
publishers on this list than it is for the large companies everyone seems
concerned about. The large companies never expect to end up in court -
they'll bury the small companies with legal work until the cost of
defending the suit either forces a settlement or destroys the little guy.
In my opinion many people are over-reacting to a clause which does very
little to change the current legal situation with regard to trademarks.
The clause provides trademark holders with a stronger case to prevent the
unlicensed use of their trademarks, but that's about it. But if a company
does not want you using their trademarks the infringement and dilution
sections of trademark law are broad enough to essentially permit any
company to at least mount a legal case against anyone using their
trademarks.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
