On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> >From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> >
> > > [FAUST REPLIES] It is difficult to comprehend that in your morality it
> > > is perfectly OK for a large company to pursue a frivolous lawsuit with
> > > the intention of destroying a smaller company (an illegal but possible
> > > act), but it is a mortal sin for a smaller company to tell its
> > > customers that their product "works" within some other product's rules
> > > structure (a completely legal act).
> >
> >Since I never said any of this sort, please refrain from the hyperbole.
>
> [FAUST REPLIES] [sigh]Maybe you should look up the term hyperbole, AND
> listen to what you are saying...
Please lose the condescending attitude. Where have I used "extreme
exaggeration" in making any of my points? Your completely inaccurate
description of what I said actually goes beyond hyperbole as it is a
complete distortion.
> [Further ALEC (ever the wit) wisecracked]
> >And since you obviously don't want to engage in the discussion of the
> >topic, why do you keep replying to it?
>
> THIS is hyperbole. Keep to the facts Alec. If you want to moralize at
> least keep it consistent.
Actually, so far, I haven't really noticed any "engagement" on your part
in the discussion. You merely dismiss anything you disagree with and make
rather broad assertions (such as the claim that it was stated that
advertising wasn't legal under trademark law regardless of the new clause
in the OGL) and misrepresentations of what others, myself most noticeably,
have said. So I don't consider my statement hyperbole; you obviously do,
OK. However, that would be the first use of hyperbole on my part and it
doesn't even involve the issue being debated. You on the otherhand
completely distorted my statements beyond anything I said.
> BTW has anybody considered the fact that *EVERY* proper name and single word
> or phrase description (like "armor class", "Hit Points", and "vorpal") as
> well as public domain names that cannot be copyrighted (like "Orcus",
> "Tiamat", "Balor", "Dungeon", etc) - that even though these types of words
> cannot be copyrighted they can (and in several cases HAVE ALREADY been
> trademarked by WotC). Or do you think the word "Dungeon" is just the name
> of a magazine and not a trademark?
>
> So... I can't use the word "Dungeon" in OGL materiel? Looks like I won't
> be siging up for OGL...
Once again, someone who doesn't understand that words aren't trademarked
in and of themselves. Everyone seems to be missing the point that while
the new OGL clause would provide trademark holders greater ability to sue
someone for the use of their trademark, the language doesn't really change
the current situation with regard to the type of use of trademarks that is
being discussed. For the most part, normal use of trademarks in OGL
material isn't going to raise any problems even with the new language.
And the OGL also provides a much cleaner remedy for when someone wishes to
have their trademark removed than might occur without it, depending on how
quickly a trademark holder is apt to go to court.
> All I am saying is that ALL OF US should consider the long term
> ramifications of this clause from all aspects - rather than leaping in
> with expansive (and incorrect) statements that there is no use for
> trademarks besides marketing. Lets not kill this effort before it
> starts.
Certainly that isn't a statement that I made. Nor is it a statement that
I have seen anyone make. And I certainly don't see this clause coming
anywhere close to killing the OGL. Perhaps a few people will choose not
to participate, but since the clause really isn't likely to result in any
great changes in the use of trademarks, other than for advertising
purposes I don't think this number will be large.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
