Doing the GSL. Who?

Scribble · Jul 14, 2008

Wulf Ratbane said:
I still maintain that the GSL was designed to be rejected. It's a sop.

I wouldn't go that far with it. I'd say it's more along the lines of WoTC not caring if you go for it or not.

I think it's designed along the lines of, "If you want to design for D&D, and make money off of our stuff, awesome, here are the rules... If it's too much, and you don't want to play... no skin off our backs."

I think the stuff with OGL is more about keeping 4e out of the OGL, and preventing their game from being used to build a compnay, who then intends to bounce off and start competing with them. If you want to design for D&D cool... But if you do, you should intend to keep doing so. (At least as far as the products you make for D&D are concerned.)

I also, however, don't think they're going to go all draconian on people, provided those people are supporting D&D. Like Kenzer: The product is going Copyright, but is designed to support D&D, so- awesome, win win.

Of course, I'm just a guy on a message board... so they're just my thoughts, take them as you will!

Desdichado · Jul 14, 2008

Brown Jenkin said:
WotC can complain all they want about other companies producing compatible game materials but unless trademark or copyrights are actually violated they have no legal recourse. Sure they can sue, but Hasbro's lawyers have already tried that in the Monopoly case and failed. Tarnishing a brand reputation is not a valid trademark violation. Trademarks are to prevent consumer confusion and producing bad compatible products doesn't cause legally actionable brand confusion if the compatible material is properly labeled.

The thing that would make me really nervous if I were a publisher thinking of going that route is this: David Kenzer is an attorney specializing in IP law who presumably would do work for Kenzerco pro bono rather than bill them outrageous rates. Who else has that advantage?

There seems to me like there could be an awful lot of pitfalls in attempting to navigate the "we're not using a license, but we don't want to step on any copyright or trademark law here" and if I don't know what they are, I could potentially open myself up to a catastrophic lawsuit.

Why take the risk? Granted, I'm a bit risk averse, but this seems like it would give just about anyone a moment to pause and think about what you're really doing here.

Brown Jenkin · Jul 14, 2008

Hobo said:
The thing that would make me really nervous if I were a publisher thinking of going that route is this: David Kenzer is an attorney specializing in IP law who presumably would do work for Kenzerco pro bono rather than bill them outrageous rates. Who else has that advantage?

There seems to me like there could be an awful lot of pitfalls in attempting to navigate the "we're not using a license, but we don't want to step on any copyright or trademark law here" and if I don't know what they are, I could potentially open myself up to a catastrophic lawsuit.

Why take the risk? Granted, I'm a bit risk averse, but this seems like it would give just about anyone a moment to pause and think about what you're really doing here.

The trick is to find a lawyer who is willing to work for payment based on the counter suit against Wizards for the legal fees if they lose. Before Wizards actually sues instead of just trying C&D letters they need to make sure they have a reasonable claim because otherwise they are in legal jeopardy themselves for damages. After the Monopoly suit, if I were a Hasbro lawyer I would make sure I had a winning case before trying something again and costing the company large amount of legal costs.

Something else to keep an eye on is another Hasbro claim of infringement against Scrabulous that they aren't really going after. This is probably the closest we will see to a suit about game mechanics not being copyrightable if they actually go through with it. So far all they have done is send Cease and Desist letters which have been ignored. Despite all claims of infringement however they have not actually filed suit. Given the Monopoly loss I think they are afraid of possibly losing and setting a precedent for people to make similar games to everything else they own.

Glyfair · Jul 15, 2008

Brown Jenkin said:
Sure they can sue, but Hasbro's lawyers have already tried that in the Monopoly case and failed.

As I recall Hasbro got a partial victory there. However, the details of that case aren't directly on point with an RPG and certainly there are possible legal gray areas when the basic points are argued and compared.

Brown Jenkin · Jul 15, 2008

Glyfair said:
As I recall Hasbro got a partial victory there. However, the details of that case aren't directly on point with an RPG and certainly there are possible legal gray areas when the basic points are argued and compared.

I don't see any partial victory. The court at first granted a TRO but when it came to the preliminary injunction the court ruled that the case was without merit and Hasbro could not win at trial then lifted the TRO. The Monopoly Add-on then went to market as it was.

As for the RPG market there are definitely viable comparisons. RADGames used parts of the Monopoly Trade Dress, used the name Monopoly as part of its name and created a product that was definitely supposed to be used in conjunction with the base game. Sure there could be distinctions based on individual facts but overall it seems very relevant.

Fifth Element · Jul 15, 2008

Brown Jenkin said:
As for the RPG market there are definitely viable comparisons. RADGames used parts of the Monopoly Trade Dress, used the name Monopoly as part of its name and created a product that was definitely supposed to be used in conjunction with the base game. Sure there could be distinctions based on individual facts but overall it seems very relevant.

Does it have anything to do with Monopoly being in the public domain? (Correct me if I'm wrong there.)

Brown Jenkin · Jul 15, 2008

Fifth Element said:
Does it have anything to do with Monopoly being in the public domain? (Correct me if I'm wrong there.)

You are wrong. Monopoly is a Registered Trademark of Hasbro and the copyright of the game dates to 1935 which puts it expiration (of just the copyright not the trademark) in 2030. The Trademark does not expire as long as they continue to use and defend it.

BryonD · Jul 15, 2008

Green Ronin has announced that they will not be going GSL.

http://greenronin.com/2008/07/green_ronin_and_4e.php

Wulf Ratbane · Jul 15, 2008

BryonD said:
Green Ronin has announced that they will not be going GSL.

http://greenronin.com/2008/07/green_ronin_and_4e.php

What a surprise.

thundershot · Jul 15, 2008

*scratches another one off the list*

Chris

Doing the GSL. Who?

Scribble

First Post

Desdichado

Hero

Brown Jenkin

First Post

Glyfair

Explorer

Brown Jenkin

First Post

Fifth Element

Legend

Brown Jenkin

First Post

BryonD

Hero

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer

thundershot

Adventurer

Similar Threads