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.
> > the new clause, they would have to take into consideration
> > increased cost/length of the litigation and prepare for a
> > much more involved trial before actually filing a suit.
> > Without the new clause, people would have more time to
> > investigate the trademark after these official notices.
>
> This I have trouble grasping. If somebody uses another's trademark
> illegally (clause or no), the offended company must still go through
> the exact same process (proving the violation), and the defendant
> must also go through the same routine as well (proving that he has
> not abused it).
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.
> As far as I see it, the clause just makes it more difficult for an
> author to illegally use another person's trademark in the first
> place..... (hence, less lawsuits in the long run....)
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.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
