On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:19:08 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >So, again, I think it is not relevant that a corporate employee
> >working under the auspices of the company did the release -- it
> >matters what official privileges an
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:19:08 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So, again, I think it is not relevant that a corporate employee
>working under the auspices of the company did the release -- it
>matters what official privileges and discretion he had.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but th
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:25:30AM -0400, Steven Conan Trustrum wrote:
>
> >Now, the way I look at it,
>
> The rest of the comments in this argument aside, I'd just point out that
> that how you, I, or anyone else looks at it is irrelevant. Get your
> contract/IP lawyer to see how the LAW looks
Now, the way I look at it,
The rest of the comments in this argument aside, I'd just point out that
that how you, I, or anyone else looks at it is irrelevant. Get your
contract/IP lawyer to see how the LAW looks at it, because all other
opinions are just speculative interpretation.
Steven "C
In a message dated 6/15/03 9:43:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
Just because it's on the company website -- that's meanin
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:30:42PM -0700, Lizard wrote:
> At 08:43 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
> >
> >As a non-lawyer, it's not entirely clear to me that the intent not to
> >make a mistake completely protects one if one does make a mistake. I
> >mean, maybe it does -- but I'd sort of like to see mor
On 15 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake
scenario:
> What matters is whether the person (or persons) making the release had
> the authority (if they so desired) to release "Dungeon Master" as OGC
> (while still maintaining its tradem
In a message dated 6/15/03 9:22:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hehe! They should have done this prior to getting into using the OGL
and OGC as part of their business model. If they haven't, then that
is their fault and potential problems.
I think, in part, people can pr
On 15 Jun 2003 DarkTouch scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario:
> In a community, if you're going to take a stance like this then what
> is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to hold
> Wizards to such strict standards then you bett
In a message dated 6/15/03 4:50:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then give them the time to do the cost analysis to see if the money they save in rpg development by using the OGL is worth the money they'll loose should they a peice of their IP accidentally slip into a sectio
In a message dated 6/15/03 2:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
This is not necessarily the case. If Joe Smith is the duly appointed
In a message dated 6/14/03 11:47:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
I agree. Past intent not to do something is only v
oney they'll loose should they a peice of their IP accidentally slip into a section of OGC.Tim Dugger wrote:
On 14 Jun 2003 Lizard scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario:
Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to
contribute", *and* include a pe
ice of their IP accidentally slip into a section of OGC.
Tim Dugger wrote:
On 14 Jun 2003 Lizard scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario:
Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to
contribute", *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it t
On 14 Jun 2003 Lizard scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario:
> Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to
> contribute", *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it takes
> quite a bit to claim something was added accidentally which c
At 08:43 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 07:40:54PM -0700, Lizard wrote:
>
> Well, let's see. Is there an extensive public record of Lime Samurai
> announcing their intent to make nearly all the content closed? Does this
> follow the pattern of their previous books? Have they spoke
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 07:40:54PM -0700, Lizard wrote:
>
> Well, let's see. Is there an extensive public record of Lime Samurai
> announcing their intent to make nearly all the content closed? Does this
> follow the pattern of their previous books? Have they spoken at length
> about how "It's
> If this went before a jury, it would be pretty open-and-shut.
In my experience, NOTHING is open-and-shut when it comes to a jury. All
depends on the jury selection.
Andrew McDougall
a.k.a. Tir Gwaith
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://
At 06:40 AM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario.
Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as
100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only
written documentation of this intent is the book itself.
One month late
> Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as
> 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only
> written documentation of this intent is the book itself.
I think they're probably unlikely to be able to make a compelling case
that the material was rele
The situation you describe is possible, although not very likely.
During the Discovery phase of the pre-trial preparations, Third Party
Games would request copies of all Lime-Green Ronin materials related to
the product. It's certainly possible that they wouldn't find any
`incriminating' evid
I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario.
Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as
100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only
written documentation of this intent is the book itself.
One month later, an animation company offers
22 matches
Mail list logo
