Thank you for your input. I am glad to have reasonable voices
in this discourse.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Corey Reid wrote:
> I take your point, Kal, that the clause does reduce the barrier to
> intervention by trademark holders. And you're correct in that it can make
> things more difficult for those hoping to make use of other's trademarks --
> but only in that they have to acquire permission from the trademark owner.
Someone else long ago pointed out that in effect you will never
get specific permission to use most trademarks, even in a casual
way which the current trademark laws allow.
A company may not even care if you use their trademarks in a
casual way but they will fear and loathe actively granting you
such permission. They will drag their feet and not respond,
give you an ambiguous answer, refer you to a policy statement
which doesn't answer your query or flat out tell you no.
They will not even say, "You have permission to casually use
our trademark as long as our people can review your work to
make sure our trademark is not cast in a negative light." That
would be too much trouble unless you are willing to pony up
some dollars to make it worth their while.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
