[Kal PROVIDED THE LINK TO Mayfair vs TSR, AND a good summary of the issues]:
>http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/About%20Gaming/Role-Playing%20Defense/Gaming%20Law/TSR%20v%20Mayfair
Thank you Kal.
I'll restate my point. There is no gray area here. The only purpose this
proposed clause (as discussed) serves is to restrict fair and open
competition as defined by the courts.
I'll make some more points (for discussions sake). You don't need OGL or
D20 to write and sell a module for D&D. You further don't need OGL and D20
to allow you to legally state on the cover of that module that it will work
with D&D. The reason you *DO* *WANT* both the OGL and the D20 is to provide
the so called "safe harbor" - to set up a situation where that 800 pound
gorilla is not going to have a motivation to sue you - rightly or wrongly.
But you have to balance your *personal* priorities (and those of your
company) against how much restriction you are willing to accept to moderate
that risk. (And I do mean moderate, not eliminate.)
Faust
>From: Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Damian Smart wrote:
>
> > But they DID sue. And that's the point. Even if it's pretty much
> > guaranteed you'll win, can the average garage game developer afford a
> > lawsuit at ALL?
>
>
>http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/About%20Gaming/Role-Playing%20Defense/Gaming%20Law/TSR%20v%20Mayfair
>
>It is a long complicated text and I don't pretend to really
>understand half of it. Here is what I got:
>
>Mayfair was using the AD & D trademark. TSR complained
>to Mayfair. They entered into an Agreement in 1984 that
>restricted some of Mayfair's usage. Still unhappy, TSR
>sued Mayfair in 1991.
>
>The main theme was TSR wanted Mayfair not to promote their
>Role Aids products as suitable for AD & D _and other fantasy
>role playing games_.
>
>The court's decision:
>
> > Moreover, this opinion has twice commented on the apparent
> >overreaching by TSR in one part of the Agreement: prohibiting
> >Mayfair's truthful advertising of the fact that Role Aids
> >products may be utilized by members of the consuming public in
> >conjunction with rival role-playing games as well as with AD & D.
> >That restraint inhibits not only Mayfair's market among consumers
> >who have purchased (or might intend to purchase) role-playing
> >games from TSR's competitors but (not incidentally) also tends to
> >lessen the demand for those competitive games among purchasers of
> >Mayfair's Role Aids products. And again those anti-competitive
> >measures appear to find no rational support in TSR's legitimate
> >goals for protecting the integrity of its own trademarks. [FN24]
>
>I also find it ironic to note that people who didn't enter
>into an agreement with TSR curtailing their usage of trademarks
>were not sued:
>
> >Wargames West's 1991 Spring catalog states that Role Aids
> >modules "can be used with any fantasy role-playing system,
> >especially TSR's Dungeons & Dragons and AD & D systems"
>
>If you are really worried about lawsuits, the new clause adds
>more claims for the plaintiff and more incentive to initiate
>legal action. Not less.
>
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
