> I think that the analogy with Microsoft Windows is flawed.
> Most consumers
> never buy Windows and have no commercial relationship with
> the "Windows"
> trademark. Furthermore, I think it is reasonably understood
> by the market
> that most people who produce software that is "Windows
> compatible" aren't
> Microsoft, and Microsoft isn't standing behind those products
> in any way. I
> also think that Microsoft believes (rightfully so, in my opinion) that
> having the largest and most diverse collection of software
> available creates
> and protects Windows as a de facto standard, and isn't about
> to tackle the
> problem of asking all those vendors to get Microsoft's
> permission before
> using their mark to indicate compatibility.
Ryan - just an FYI - for the product to be able to use the Windows logo on
the box/packaging/whatever and say "Windows XX Compatible" it has to go
through a series of tests that have standards that Microsoft puts out. So,
in a way, MS IS behind it - at least for that program.
I could not legally go out and write the next "best" spreadsheet program,
put it in a box, slap on a "Windows xx Compatible" logo on it, and not have
MS sending me nasty legal letters - all because I haven't followed through
with proper procedure.
Just wanted to make the point of clarification - and I agree with you 100%
about brand equity across the board, and I also think that the d20 logo,
alone, will prove enough about what is and isn't compatible with D&D 3E.
Thanks,
Jason
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
