Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

In a message dated 2/1/2004 8:52:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If someone tried to get on your case, accusing you of breaching the compatability claims clause, you'd have to be able to prove incompatability in order for this argument to hold up. Says who?  Why would you

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, woodelf wrote: > If i put on my book "This game product is not > compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition." am i in the clear > with the "no trademarks for compatibility/co-adaptability" clause? > Assuming this is a true claim--i'm envisioning a game book that is > d

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

At 04:27 AM 2/1/2004 -0500, jdomsalla wrote: In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I intend to include a small section where I indicate incompatibility issues with other gaming products *will likely* occur. I wish to indicate the following... I think you are over

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

Actually, Woodelf, that would be me that posted that... Let me clarify what I was talking about there (as I tend to be brief on ENWorld when the subject isn't gaming itself)... In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I intend to include a small section where I ind

[Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

Snagged this from a discussion on EnWorld: Originally posted by Bendris Noulg at There's a false assumption in this statement, however. For instance, does M&M worry about being seen as compatible? No, of course not. If anyth