Wow, I didn't mean to start off such a discussion over the issue of Clark
(or I or anyone else) possessing a law degree with my comment to Doug
about the value of a lawyer's opinion. It was really just a thrown in
comment as part of my indicating that while not a practicing attorney (I'm
an academic, hopefully a year or so from complete a Ph.D.) I also have a
law degree.
I was really replying to the issue of whether the normal use of a word is
using a trademark. And based on Doug's comment that no one other than
Clark had identified themselves as a lawyer, I thought I should provide
the fact that I have a law degree (something I thought I had done early
anyway). Since I've mentioned the distinction between words as words and
words as trademarks a number of times, I thought providing more background
on myself might help end the near endless, and completely inaccurate,
concern over whether or not using a word that is someones trademark
constitutes using that trademark.
And I certainly didn't mean to imply by my comment that even lawyers can
be wrong that anyone should simply discount the fact that Clark, I or
anyone else (if there is anyone who would after this discussion) who
admits to having a law degree, as having no value. Whether or not a
person specializes in a particular area, a law degree does provide general
training in how to read and understand both statutory and case law that
often is not possessed even by people with knowledge of the particular
area that the law is dealing with. And I certain think it is perfectly
acceptable to take into account a persons training and education when
evaluating the statements they make. I was just trying to say that having
a law degree does mean I or Clark is incapable of being wrong on these
issues.
And since, as far as I can tell, Clark & I have basically been in
agreement with regard to the discussion of trademark law and issues of
when and why suit can be brought, I certainly wasn't attempting to cast
any doubt on what Clark has said.
My position has been, and still is, that the original proposal by Ryan
would limit the advertising use of trademark (a practice which _may_ be
permissible under current trademark law) and have very little impact
within the body of the publication (because current trademark law provides
lots of leeway for trademark holders to sue if they wish). Since the
first is, I believe, of greater importance, I've essentially stopped
discussing the second. But that was really only Brad & I discussing
whether or not the clause would provide anyone else the opportunity to sue
other than the trademark holder. Mostly I've been responding to the
mistaken concern that the language would prevent the use of words that
just happen to also be someones trademark and the claims that trademark
law provides protections for people wanting to use the trademarks of
others.
Hopefully Ryan message (which was much appreciated by me) has helped clear
up some of the issues that people are concerned about. And hopefully it
won't be too long before we have some official language that can be
discussed. No matter the final decision, I'm sure some people are going
to be unhappy. But that's normal.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
