From: Ryan S. Dancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Open_Gaming] My opinion on why "compatible with" is a "bad thing"
First, let me say thanks for taking the time to give us more details on what
your plans and hopes are.
> There has been a lot of discussion about the specific issue of whether or
> not a notice such as:
> "This product is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons(R)."
> Is a legal (and ethical) thing to put on the cover of a roleplaying game
> (with or without the "This trademark is not used with permission" clause.)
I noticed the word "cover" here, seems this is a key point for many people
> My argument is that by publishing a supplement or an adventure "Compatible
> with Dungeons & Dragons" or "Suitable for use with Dungeons & Dragons" or
> whatever the construction is, you are in fact selling something in the
same
> category as the trademark. You are selling a game product. If you were
> selling dice, or miniature figures, or playmats, or writing utensils, I
> would have to concede that there is little chance your use of the mark
with
> the proper disclaimers would confuse anyone.
Playing Devil's advocate here, again it reminds me of another way to get
around the intent of the license...not to promote the idea but to illustrate
that it's IMHO a case of a "locks only prevent honest people from breaking
in." Assumably I can put in a D20, a miniature, an adventure, and a pen and
call it a bundle, and list the dice as compatible with D&D in big bold
letters. (OK that's a little simplistic and arguable, but I think it
illustrates the principle.)
>
> But in the case of game products, I feel that the exact opposite is true.
I
> think there is a very reasonable chance that someone will buy a product
> carrying such a notice and believe that >we< stand behind it, either as a
> licensor, or in some form of review capacity. In other words, I think it
is
> reasonable that there will be consumers who will see such a product, buy
it
> under a mistaken idea of what it is, and be disappointed when it does not
> live up to their expectations, and will thus dilute the value of our
> trademark and create confusion in the minds of consumers.
I'm not sure such a sweeping clause is the only answer. How about
something simple like the disclaimer must be larger in typeset than the
trademark and placed immediately before or after the trademark,. Most
people are smart enough to realize "works with D&D, (NOT A D&D PRODUCT) "
means don't blame WOTC if this sucks. (I'd also like to believe that
people who play D&D modules are a bit more astute than the general public.)
It has the added effect that the same people that are relying on your brand
name as the sole value of the product won't want to
>...and if nobody is making any money with Open Games, then the
> concept will be nothing more than an intellectual curiosity and there will
> never be a market force pushing consumers to embrace the concept and
demand
> Open Games from other publishers. And if that market force does not
> develop, the entire experiment will be a failure in my eyes.
(again being the devil's advocate here) But if the consumer can see a game
that states it's compatibility (using a XYZ licensee instead of OGL) and not
see it on another's leaves them creating a stronger XYZ license base while
rewarding the dubious publisher with a sale. Basically, I'm not saying the
battle's wrong, but I question the battlefield.
> Putting it in the D20STL is useless - someone who wants to poach
> the trademark doesn't need the D20STL and won't use it anyway. Legal has
> not shown me a first draft yet of what they propose.
One could make an argument that the same is true of placing it in OGL, and
I'm sure it's one you all have spent time deciding. Putting it in the OGL
might be equally is useless - someone who wants to poach the trademark
doesn't need the OGL and won't use it anyway (emphasis on "might") Of
course this is OTC's call, ultimately its their proverbial can in the fire.
> I am going to LA
> tomorrow and happen to be flying with Brian Lewis;
Hey, what you doing for dinner? You have an open invitation-- both you and
Brian. ;)
Dan Carreker
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
