On 11 Aug 00, Kal scribbled a note about Re: [Open_Gaming] Compatible with:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Tim Dugger wrote:
>
> > How does it reduce costs?
>
> You have to go back quite a few messages. This is a reason
> to support the clause given by its proponents:
>
> ...the costs of court action are reduced due to the
> strengthening of the trademark holders position.
>
Yes, court action costs would be reduces, but only by the amount
saved by the lawyers having less work to do.... (which is a good
thing for a small company trying to protect its trademark....)
> The premiss given by proponents of the clause is that the new
> clause removes some hurdles to proving a trademark abuse case:
>
> ...The _only_ way it expands the possibility of suit is
> as a by-product of strengthening the trademark holders
> case by removing need to show dilution or tarnishment.
>
The clause, as I read it originally, does not remove this need. It
may make it easier to fulfill this requirement, but it cannot remove
it from the law. The clause cannot change current laws......
> Yes, but only after all the small companies have gone bankrupt
> paying legal fees to sue each other. The new clause provides
> extra ammunition in lawsuits. Before anyone advances a "legal
> deterrent" theory like nations with their nuclear weapons, I'll
> add that history indicates RPG companies are not shy about
> using any and all kinds of legal ammunition.
>
Yet, if a small company gained the approval to use the trademark,
as the clause says, then this would reduce the amount of lawsuits.
If permission is given in advance, it reduces the chances of the
trademark holder successfully bring suit at a later time......
At least in my opinion, that is.........
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
