>On 11 Aug 00, Faustus scribbled a note about Re: [Open_Gaming] Compatible
>with:
>
> > *ABUSE* is the wrong word. The real issue for us out here who are
>arguing
> > against the clause is that (under the statute) there are certain
> > situations where it is absolutely legal and appropriate to use another's
> > trademark - to prevent customer confusion and promote competition for
> > instance.
> >
>
>So, instead of fighting it, why not just request a change of wording
>to reflect that legal uses of a trademark are allowed, but to also
>include that permission must be gained from the holder of a
>trademark in order to prominently use that trademark (this meaning
>displaying the trademark in a manner that could concievably be
>considered advertising of the product.)
I have already posted such a request - just prior to Ryan's "What I Believe
..." e-mail. His response suggested (at least to me) that that wasn't the
focus of WotC's concerns.
Faust
See the OGF FAQ at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
