On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> Alec since you persist in attacking people as well as viewpoints rather than
> discussing the issue, I am no longer going to answer your posts. Feel free
> to flame me.
Please, I've attacked you no more than you've attacked me. I certainly
haven't done any flaming.
> [FAUST REPEATS]
> 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. Trademarks have in the past and will be
> in the future used as a competetive tool, both in an ethical fashion,
> and in a unethical and predatory manner. Almost *ANYTHING* can be
> claimed to be a trademark. I would (personally) prefer that the final
> definition of what constitutes trademark infringement in the case of
> the OGL be left up to the courts - rather than having *any use*
> defined as an infringement.
Again, you make the claim that people have leapt to the conclusion that
marketing is the only use for trademarks. Since I haven't said that, nor
have I seen anyone else say that. Honestly, without the clause, I really
see almost no point for the existence of the D20STL and it's associated
trademark. Anyone publishing under the OGL would be wise to use the D20
trademark as an advertising tool. Essentially nullifying the meaning of
D20STL since it really is no more than an agreement ensuring a certain
level of compatibility among products bearing it's trademark. Perhaps
you're opposed to the D20STL so this isn't a problem for you; I think for
many who wish to publish D20 products this should be.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
