TSR TSR (2) Confirms TSR (3)'s Acquisition of Trademark (Updated!)

Jayson Elliot registered the TSR trademark back in 2011 and used it to launch Gygax Magazine along with Ernie and Luke Gygax. The two Gygax's left the company a few years later after Gary Gygax's (co-founder of TSR (1) back in the 1970s) widow, Gail Gygax, forced the closure of Gygax Magazine. Then, earlier this year, TSR (3) swooped in on the TSR trademark, after Jayson Elliot accidentally let it lapse, as TSR (2) confirms:

We have owned the TSR trademark since 2011. Last year, we missed a filing date, and another company registered it, though we are still using it in commerce. While we could win a lawsuit, we frankly don't have the money to litigate. So, we're licensing it back from them.

As a result, there are two companies now using the name TSR. You can tell when it's us because we're the only ones using the new logo.

They're opening a museum in Lake Geneva at the old TSR house, and we wish them success with it, it's important to celebrate the legacy that Gary Gygax created.

Ernie Gygax, formerly of TSR (1) under Gary Gygax, then working with Jayson Elliot as part of TSR (2), is one of the founders of of TSR (3), and confirmed in his (now infamous) interview --

The other TSR is a licensee because [Jayson Elliot] let it lapse. But he had absolutely ... love for the game and the products. There was no reason to say 'oh you've screwed up, oh it's all ours, ha ha ha ha!' Instead, Justin [LaNasa] came to him and said ... we love that you're doing Top Secret things, we have a much broader goal for the whole thing. But there's no reason for you to stop or even have any troubles. Justin said, I'll take care of the paperwork, you just give me $10 a year, and you put out all this love for old school gaming that you can. And we appreciate that you were there to try and pick up things, and you produced Gygax Magazine, for in its time that you're also working on a game that you love to play ... because Top Secret was Jayson's love, as a young man.

TSR (2), still run by Jayson Elliot, publishes Top Secret, and is not connected to TSR (3) other than now having to license it’s own name from them. TSR (3) has also registered the trademark to Star Frontiers, a game owned by and still currently sold by D&D-owner WotC.

In other news the GYGAX trademark appears to have lapsed.

UPDATE! TSR (2) has decided NOT to license its own name from TSR (3):

Update to our earlier tweet - we will NOT be licensing anything from the new company claiming rights to the TSR logos. We are not working with them in any fashion.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So "a reasonable person would virtue signal whenever they discuss fictional ethics or morals"?

How about "a person who had made odious comments in the past would, if they wanted to show they had moved on from that perspective, make it clear they no longer held those beliefs when discussing morality."

 

[Parmandur]

So "a reasonable person would virtue signal whenever they discuss fictional ethics or morals"?

That's not an accurate use of the term "virtue signal", which involves participating in shared public ritual to demonstrate reliability within the tribe.

A reasonable person discussing a hypothetical ethical system should qualify their own actual position for clarity.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Because of posts like this:
View attachment 138886

That's a different thread, not what was actually cited. As I said above, I'm not defending Gary. I'm attacking the use of that particular citation in that particular argument.

I'm saying that that specific thread is a particularly poor example because it's a thread where Gary is specifically talking about what a fictional character in a fictional universe believes.

In other words, "I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you were intending to look wrong you've chosen exactly the correct citation to make."

 

[Cadence]

The bit about the LG paladin? Sure, maybe. The bit where Gary outright says women are less then men? Not a chance. At the very least, Gary was clearly a misogynist.

For anyone who wants more reading... this one was mentioned above, but scrolling down there is some follow-up, including the White Wolf games (that is in the same vein)...

Q&A With Gary Gygax, Part III - Page 3 - Dragonsfoot

Here's one on Jean Wells. I wonder how differently the part about the chicken would have sounded to me in 2005 or seemed in the 1970s...

Q&A with Gary Gygax, Part II - Page 8 - Dragonsfoot

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's a different thread, not what was actually cited. As I said above, I'm not defending Gary. I'm attacking the use of that particular citation in that particular argument.

I'm saying that that specific thread is a particularly poor example because it's a thread where Gary is specifically talking about what a fictional character in a fictional universe believes.

In other words, "I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you were intending to look wrong you've chosen exactly the correct citation to make."

Okay

 

[PsyzhranV2]

That's a different thread, not what was actually cited. As I said above, I'm not defending Gary. I'm attacking the use of that particular citation in that particular argument.

I'm saying that that specific thread is a particularly poor example because it's a thread where Gary is specifically talking about what a fictional character in a fictional universe believes.

In other words, "I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you were intending to look wrong you've chosen exactly the correct citation to make."

Well, from where I stand, the fact that he wrote up such a scenario in the first place and doesn't seem to have intended it as satire or as criticism of the acts and beliefs of said fictional character says something.

 

[Umbran]

Why would you assume that there wouldn't be?

This isn't about me. This is about communicating with the public, broadly.

In a thread that's full of unprofessional dumpster-fire communications, this rises to be a clear point - professionals speaking to the public are well-served to rely little on what people will or won't assume.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So "a reasonable person would virtue signal whenever they discuss fictional ethics or morals"?

A person writing about a moral code that clashed with their own would say so.

 

[Cadence]

A person writing about a moral code that clashed with their own would say so.

Later on that page he writes about the various good alignments, that would all disagree with what to do, and he doesn't specify which is the "right alignment".

That being said, I wish I could say starting to try to read through the Q&A's on ENworld doesn't give me hope of finding anything that sounded redeeming.

 

[Bacon Bits]

That's not an accurate use of the term "virtue signal", which involves participating in shared public ritual to demonstrate reliability within the tribe.

A reasonable person discussing a hypothetical ethical system should qualify their own actual position for clarity.

This isn't about me. This is about communicating with the public, broadly.

In a thread that's full of unprofessional dumpster-fire communications, this rises to be a clear point - professionals speaking to the public are well-served to rely little on what people will or won't assume.

A person writing about a moral code that clashed with their own would say so.

Okay, I genuinely can't agree with any of this. It's patently ridiculous to me. I'm sorry, but nobody qualifies their own personal ethics or beliefs in a discussion about alignment on a gaming message board. I can't even imagine it would be difficult to find each of you not doing that very thing on these boards.

The only reason to do it is so that you can't have your personal character impugned 16 years later on a different message board when you couldn't be asked for clarification or your current opinion because you've died. Nevermind that that thread is older today than the entire world wide web was when it was written.