For all those listening in and wonder why any of this has to be explained and why it is so fiddly. The situation is similar to the initiative rules for AD&D. Until ADDICT came 20 year later nobody really knew what hell Gygax was talking about and just did their own thing (ironically including Gygax himself). Thanks to ADDICT we have a better idea of what Gygax was trying to do and can make a more informed decision about how to run initiative in AD&D.

So I hope because of my posts that you are more informed about your choices in publishing for older editions whether you decide to use the OGL or not.

Rob Conley

P.S. If you going to debate AD&D's initiative rules and ADDICT for the love of god make a separate thread. Otherwise we will have to make SAN rolls. %)

Quote from: shooting_dice;327321No, it's because nobody wants to bet their fucking house on the law not only working properly, but working so well that you get your money back after a lawsuit from a company with more money to throw at it than you.

I suspect that "Wizards will sue you regardless of the merits of the case, and you'll go broke defending it" is one of those things that "everyone knows."

I think it has more to do with the fact that many Game Designers aren't lawyers and don't have the money to have a full-time legal staff to consult with.

K&Co is different in that regard...

Quote from: Age of Fable;327514I suspect that "Wizards will sue you regardless of the merits of the case, and you'll go broke defending it" is one of those things that "everyone knows."

It's more that there's a chance that Hasbro, which has a history of this kind of litigation, might do so. Even a minuscule chance of being taken to the cleaners win or lose, is enough, and there have been previous actions that have ended on just that basis (White Wolf vs. Camarilla, which was won with a change of vanue that made it impossible for the Camarilla NPO to afford to show up in a Georgia court room - the fact that the NPO was kin of full of shit, while true, ended up not being taken to court at all).

Hasbro is known for making very broad claims of infringement. For instance, they claimed that Lexulous/Scrabulous was a copyright violation as well as a trademark violation even though the former was probably a nonsense argument (name, trade dress and confusion issues re: trademark are a bit less clear).

This set a very destructive informal precedent because Lexulous changed core game values, possibly as the result of a confidential settlement. Despite US copyright laws specifically not applying to game rules, Hasbro may bullied the company into changing them anyway, which is consistent with an evolving position on the part of these companies that rules "values" are akin to programming code and merit protection. Ryan Dancey has alluded to this position in commentary about OSRIC (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/201334-ryan-dancey-answers-open-gaming-license-questions.html).

Now companies *have* occasionally declared compatibility or avoided an open licensing scheme. They've generally has legal expertise and/or obscurity on their side (see Technomancer Press, which produced 3e compatible material without using a license). But most small press companies don't want the risk, especially since explicitly declaring compatibility won't get them much more business anyway -- they know their target audience knows what they mean anyway.

In short, there's more to it that "HUR COMPANIEZ KNO LESS THAN MI." Of course, if you'd like to offer to pay a reasonably successful company's legal fees in exchange for them busting out with nominative use, go for it. You're willing to put your money where your mouth is, aren't you?

Quote from: greylond;327518I think it has more to do with the fact that many Game Designers aren't lawyers and don't have the money to have a full-time legal staff to consult with.

K&Co is different in that regard...

Ding! Ding!  That's the winner.  Instead they consult the Internet, never a good way to get reliable legal advice.

You don't need a fulltime lawyer to get this question answered, but it will likely cost you $20K to get a good legal analysis from a top tier firm.  I'm not talking local attorney here but places like, Wilmer, McCarter, Morgan Lewis, Jones Day, Finnegan, Gowlings, Latham....firms of that caliber.

Or if you just happen to know a Harvard Law Graduate who just happens to have Real World IP&Contract Law Experience(case history study and work experience) AND knows what Big Corporate Firms really are or aren't capable of...


Case in point, Dave Kenzer. When he says what the working Definition of "Nominative Use" is and what can and can't be done with it, I tend to listen to him over anyone else in the Gaming Industry, not just because of his degree or his research but because he's worked that side of the law for many years now. Kinda how like I'm going to listen to my Dad's oncologist about Lung Cancer...

Anyone and everyone else around gaming sites that offer an opinion, not so much...

Simplest answer to the OP?


Because they can sell more game books that way.

I should know - that little phrase has helped me sell plenty of non-Wotc D&D compatible books over the past 6 years.

If a publisher wants to avoid legal sillieness they just "World's Most popular Game system" or "World's Most popular Rome Playing Game" on there - and it well sell.

Especially those map sheet and map tile products that PAIZO makes. Those do pretty good.

- Ed C.

Quote from: shooting_dice;327565In short, there's more to it that "HUR COMPANIEZ KNO LESS THAN MI." Of course, if you'd like to offer to pay a reasonably successful company's legal fees in exchange for them busting out with nominative use, go for it. You're willing to put your money where your mouth is, aren't you?

Kenzer & Co - in exchange for 20% of the profits from Kingdoms of Kalamar and products with a similar statement of compatability, I offer to pay all your legal fees relating to Wizards of the Coast suing you on the grounds that that statement of compatability is copyright infringement.

I can pay in American dollars, Confederate dollars, Galactic Federation credits, or free legal consultations with the role-playing forum of your choice.

Quote from: Age of Fable;328037Kenzer & Co - in exchange for 20% of the profits from Kingdoms of Kalamar and products with a similar statement of compatability, I offer to pay all your legal fees relating to Wizards of the Coast suing you on the grounds that that statement of compatability is copyright infringement.

LMAO! That's really funny! Something tells me that they have more than enough legal expertise in house...

Legally, (if not using the OGL etc) you definitely can say "Compatible with D&D" under trade mark law.  This is nominative/descriptive use of the mark, and permissable.  You are best advised to also put "D&D is a mark owned by WoTC, used without permission", just in case anyone thinks "compatible with D&D" means "official/licensed product".

The purpose of a TM is to designate the origin of goods.  It doesn't grant a monopoly on all uses of the mark.

Edit:  I teach IP law in the UK to British and foreign future & current lawyers.

Edit2:  It's not legally controversial that when selling Product A that's intended to be compatible with Product B, you are allowed to indicate compatibility.  This applies to eg car spare parts, and also to computer software - you can put "For Windows Vista" or "For Mac" etc on the box.
If you want to prevent people selling compatible products, you need to use other rights, especially copyright.  In the UK (dunno about US), printer manufacturers monopolise the sale of ink cartridges through copyright protection on the software in the cartridge.   Games console manufacturers do something similar with game cartridges.

The equivalent with D&D would be reproduction of c-protectable elements, which include lengthy stat blocks, 'fluff text', and (in the US) derivative works.  Eg an adventure set on Athas might infringe WoTC copyright in their Dark Sun works, just like a story set in George Lucas' Star Wars universe might do so.  But this is a copyright issue, not TM.  And even here it's not as clear cut as you might think.

Quote from: S'mon;328208The equivalent with D&D would be reproduction of c-protectable elements, which include lengthy stat blocks, 'fluff text', and (in the US) derivative works.  

Whenever Ryan Dancey commented, this was the issue that he brought up. Releasing the D20 SRD under the OGL was designed to create a safe harbor for publishers in using protected elements.

But if you product doesn't have any stats or rules. Then the risk is probably near zero if you claim compatibility.