On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Kal Lin wrote:
> I do not read the proposed language as: protection for registered
> trademarks that are proven to be legal and not frivolous. I read
> the proposed language as protection for trademarks.
Kal, as long as you want to continue basing your whole argument on
completely false premises of law, this discussion is pointless. Your
reading of the proposal is simply not possible under the law. It really
is this simple. Asserting a trademark & having one are not the same
thing, and the proposed language provides nothing to someone who asserts a
trademark that they can't actually achieve a right to use. The only kind
of trademarks that actually exist are those that someone has a right to
use; once a court has determined the right to use doesn't exist, the
assertion of a trademark is no longer relevant. Therefore saying the
language protects trademarks is the same as saying the language protects
valid trademarks.
> Woah, you are totally ignoring my example. These people are
> creating campaign worlds under the OGL and wish to contribute
> some MORE. If they weren't participating in such a way, the
> new clause wouldn't be an issue.
>
> How does your merit of consideration rank the following:
> 1) people who contributed to the OGL and want to contribute more
> but are prevented because of the proliferation of trademarks in
> their favorite settings
> 2) people who used open content but didn't contribute anything new
> and want extra protection for a trademark
>
> The new clause serves 2) but does not serve 1). The new clause
> specifically prevents material from being contributed to open
> gaming. It may be for a good reason or it may be simply someone
> is brandishing a bogus trademark with the new clause. Which it
> is often depends on which side you ask.
This whole discussion really isn't about trademarks but appears to be
another attempt to raise your "force open" argument. Since I don't agree
with the whole premise of your claims about "openness", I also find your
arguments concerning trademarks closing Intellectual Property to be
specious. The OGL is not about letting people play in other people's
intellectual property at will and ad nauseum. The OGL recognizes the
desire (and I'd argue need) of people to be able to protect certain types
of IP under closed content while building upon other types of IP under
open content. The current clause provides no way of closing open content
through the use of trademarks. In fact, the people in your example #2
don't exist since you need some product that must be associated with your
trademark and someone not adding anything new has no closed content in
which to locate said trademark. The only possible trademark an individual
in #2 could have not in the open section of the OGL would be with regard
to their company and identifyingthat company as publisher of open
content. Since all their content is open, anyone is free to republish it
and I fail to see what anyone would need to use their trademark for in an
OGL product.
I also don't believe the people in #1 really exist either, since you seem
to be implying that the OGL will/should allow people to create products
for their favorite settings even if those settings are not open product.
Sorry, but that simply isn't what the OGL is doing, nor can it. Current
trademark law will prohibit you from designing an OGL product in the DC
comic universe for example - the new clause does nothing to change this.
The same holds true for the various WotC realms for Dungeons & Dragons
(Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Krynn, etc.) - you can't use them now and you
won't be able to use under the OGL with or without the proposed language.
Of course, the trademark protections in this area pale in comparison with
the copyright ones.
later,
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
