Yes, Alec. Your opinion of some of the points I have made is something
we've all heard quite a lot of. In about half of those cases I felt your
criticisms were valid and helpful, and they contributed to my understanding
of several difficult concepts. Thank you.
Concerning the other half, particularly your inexperienced views on
trademark law and what a company was likely to get sued for, and
particularly what a market leading company would sue over, I found simply
wrong (and the person who answered some of my questions on this, who *IS* a
trademark expert, has agreed with me.)
Most important among these assertions (IMHO) was the assertion I made (that
many on the list AT THE TIME categorically disagreed with) that a market
leader was very unlikely to ever sue (much less prevail in court) against a
small company that used the label "Compatible with..[trademark]." this
assertion was ultimately verified by more than one source, including Mr.
Dancey when he said:
[DANCEY]"The case citations I have read, and my conversations
with our legal counsel lead me to believe that it would be a very
challenging case to pursue."
This is exactly what my legal associates have told me, and this is exactly
what my point (addressed in an admittedly roundabout fashion) has been in
this thread from the very beginning. If you don't think THAT is valuable to
people on the list, then that is a matter of YOUR opinion. Thank you for
your opinion.
My main point from the *very* beginning (back in March) was that the OGL
should work to evolve the same standards of the software industry - as Mr.
Dancey puts it:
"the kind of trademark usage that the software business has (where
in a small box somewhere on the product, without a logo
and without any obvious attempt to represent itself as a licensed
good, a product indicated that it was 'Dungeons & Dragons
Compatible')"
You either missed that as my point out of hand, or have not read closely
enough to catch it, or were so busy chewing me to pieces that you did not
care. For many folks whose personal opinion I am aware of on this board,
that is *all* they would ever want to do with WotC's trademark - a small box
to avoid customer confusion.
They (as I) would consider it a dis-service to their customers to try to use
the D&D trademark in such a way as to deceive, but they also have a very
real and very strong desire to avoid their customers being confused as to
whether their products *would* work with D&D.
But it is a critically important issue to most of them (and to me.)
Moreover, you persist in a very hostile tone (either through faulty memory
or a general dislike for me it seems) in doing exactly the same thing you
accuse me of - putting words in my mouth, and then arguing against those
words.
For example, I never suggested you could use Microsoft's logos with
impunity. (Although you have said I did repeatedly...) I simply said you
could put "works with..." on your box - and probably not get sued. This is
an indisputable statement. There are quite literally thousands of products
that do this. It was in a response to my post that some other poster
brought up the "logos" issue.
Whether the software industry and the gaming industry are alike is (again) a
matter of opinion.
For another example, I never intended to "put words in your mouth" as you
said. What I did intend to do was to answer one potential objection before
it could be raised. This is a very common discussion technique called a
"rhetorical argument" and I do not see why you had a problem with it, as you
agreed with my conclusion on that minor issue. You were free to raise other
discussion points.
Finally, you persist in repeating (over and over) that I:
"distorted [your] statements far beyond anything [you] have said
and then responded to that distortion."
Alec in the *very first* email response I made to you, I did not quite
understand your reasoning, so I restated it so that you could see what (I
thought) you meant, and then answered what (I thought) you meant. Since
then, *every*single*time* you have replied to one of my posts referred to
that one statement as some sort of unpardonable offense against your
dignity.
I am sorry if this upset you. All you needed to do was mention it once, and
everybody knows what you meant and what happened. You bring it up over and
over, and all it amounts to is a personal attack.
So please stop the battle. Please stop attacking me. If you have a comment
that adds or clarifies to whatever I have posted, I would love to hear it.
If you have anything that you want to say to me personally, please address
it off list.
I consider this list a learning experience, where people won't get dumped on
for being wrong. I would hope you would share that spirit.
Faust
See the OGF FAQ at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
>From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
>
> > Alec, please stop attacking me.
> >
> > While you might not agree with everything I say I have ONLY responded
> > to you negatively when you flamed or denigrated a viewpoint that was
> > either valid, expressed as an OPINION, or at least worthy of dicussion
> > or consideration.
>
>Faust, I have not attacked or flamed you. I have criticized both
>arguments you have made and the manner in which you have made them.
>Neither is an attack on you. If you intend to play devil's advocate, you
>must be willing to accept criticism of your arguments. This is especially
>true if you are going to engage in the practice of creating the
>counter-argument that you are claiming to be refuting rather than directly
>responding to arguements made by other people.
>
> > Alec let me explain something. Since I began posting to this group
> > early this year under the names "Faust the Cynic", "Faust the
> > Unbeliever", and (most often) "Faust the Devil's Advocate" I have made
> > it my business to intentionally take the devil's advocate position on
> > many of these issues. I am on several boards including two whose
> > memebers long since abandoned this list as too "pro WotC". I make the
> > effort to include their objections in our discussion - even some of
> > theirs that are "over the top - because whether they feel they belong
> > or NOT, they ARE interested parties for the OGL.
> >
> > I strongly feel that this has contributed positively to the discussion
> > - in many cases like it has in this discussion - by bringing those
> > into the discussion who have more knowledge, experience, and resources
> > to definitively answer some of those questions.
>
>You may feel that way, but since I find many of the points you have
>attempted to make to be completely lacking in any validity, especially
>when you have attempted to explain legal decisions and statutes, I
>disagree. Continuing to expound legal viewpoints which aren't supported
>by either statute or court decisions is not only NOT helpful to the
>discussion, it is harmful, in my opinion.
>
> > Alec, please stop attacking me. If you have nothing else to say, at
>least
> > take it off the list and contact me directly.
> >
> > If you are spoiling for a fight and want to feel important because you
>put
> > in two hours to compose an eloquent and stinging response to somebody's
> > offhand opinion, usenet is just a few clicks away. Go for it.
>
>Since I haven't attacked you, it is going to be difficult for me to stop.
>You on the other hand have distorted my statements far beyond anything I
>have said and then responded to that distortion as if it were my claim.
>In your last message that I responded to, you essentially attempted to
>claim that I, Clark or Sean (the only admitted holders of law degrees on
>this listserv) would make a certain argument - an argument that I would
>not have made. If you can't deal with being criticized for making
>arguments that lack support or have large logical holes in them, I really
>don't know what to say.
>
>Btw, I've never needed more the 5-10 minutes to respond to anything on
>this list, so I thank you for the praise of my writing abilities.
>
>later,
> alec
>
>
>-------------
>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
