Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[S'mon]

S'mon 1999: PhD Student (Level 1)
S'mon 2000: Research Assistant (Level 2)
S'mon 2002: Research Fellow (Level 3)
S'mon 2004+: Senior Lecturer (Level 4)

Technically I did skip Lecturer level, so maybe I'm 5th.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

S'mon 1999: PhD Student (Level 1)
S'mon 2000: Research Assistant (Level 2)
S'mon 2002: Research Fellow (Level 3)
S'mon 2004+: Senior Lecturer (Level 4)

Technically I did skip Lecturer level, so maybe I'm 5th.

See- try to tell the young'uns that it took forever to level in OD&D and they don't believe you ...

But five years just to hit level 4. That's how you play the game!

 

[Burt Baccara]

I'm listening - Ryan is impressive.

He is.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on Ryan's assessment of how big the stakes are. Sounds like it can go from, the best case of 1.0a can't be revoked to the worst case of finding out the IP (if rewritten) is not protected (with the ORS swooning if that happened).

 

[S'mon]

He is.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on Ryan's assessment of how big the stakes are. Sounds like it can go from, the best case of 1.0a can't be revoked to the worst case of finding out the IP (if rewritten) is not protected (with the ORS swooning if that happened).

You're talking about best & worst case for WoTC? Yes that would be my assessment of likely outcomes should the case go to trial and a full judgement. Most likely they just lose on the OGL. But the case could conceivably expand - especially if WoTC lawyers are throwing crud at it to raise costs - into a general look at the copyrightability of RPGs, and a finding that WoTC basically own nothing except their trade marks.

I REALLY don't think WoTC would ever let this case go to judgement. I've said so upthread.

 

[Burt Baccara]

You're talking about best & worst case for WoTC? Yes that would be my assessment of likely outcomes should the case go to trial and a full judgement. Most likely they just lose on the OGL. But the case could conceivably expand - especially if WoTC lawyers are throwing crud at it to raise costs - into a general look at the copyrightability of RPGs, and a finding that WoTC basically own nothing except their trade marks.

I REALLY don't think WoTC would ever let this case go to judgement. I've said so upthread.

Right best and worst case from WotC's POV since they are the ones making the bet.

For the community, it sounds like the best case and the OMG they just gave away the farm case.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You're talking about best & worst case for WoTC? Yes that would be my assessment of likely outcomes should the case go to trial and a full judgement. Most likely they just lose on the OGL. But the case could conceivably expand - especially if WoTC lawyers are throwing crud at it to raise costs - into a general look at the copyrightability of RPGs, and a finding that WoTC basically own nothing except their trade marks.

I REALLY don't think WoTC would ever let this case go to judgement. I've said so upthread.

I ... don't agree with that.

I think Ryan Dancey did a solid for the industry with the OGL. I think that's why he has always been considered its greatest champion, and the person who is most responsible for the release of the OGL.

Which is why you really have to take his, "Heads Hasbro loses, tails ... Hasbro loses," analysis with a giant block of salt. When you get right down to it, Dancey, despite his prominence in the industry, was let go by Hasbro/WoTC in 2002- more than two decades ago. Now he's with (according to Linked In) Alderac Entertainment Group, which is a competitor of Hasbro/WoTC.

I think he's being completely honest, but I also think that he (like all of us) is prone to wishcasting.

 

[S'mon]

I think he's being completely honest, but I also think that he (like all of us) is prone to wishcasting.

If you think there is a substantial chance that a court would find that the OGL 1.0 is revocable, we can agree to disagree. Do you think WoTC would let this question go to judgement? IME that seems pretty unlikely. I think they'd much more likely settle.

I certainly think that most likely, competent Hasbro lawyers can keep the question of copyright protection of game mechanics well away from the court.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you think there is a substantial chance that a court would find that the OGL 1.0 is revocable, we can agree to disagree.

I certainly think that most likely, competent Hasbro lawyers can keep the question of copyright protection of game mechanics well away from the court.

As to the first ... I genuinely don't know. I don't think you do, either. Because we don't have enough to go on- this is all conjecture and rumor.

Until I see an actual complaint, and I understand fully what Hasbro's theory is, and I know what law applies (the jurisdiction), I can't really make a good determination ... and anyone who says that they can ... I don't trust.

Now, let's say I have all of that. If you litigate, you know better than to say something is a slam dunk; I just told you about a case ... in federal court ... where the appellate court (not the trial court) found that lack of pay was irreparable harm. Now, if you had asked me about that before the ruling, I would have said that it was unpossible (ahem). But my opinion, a furious dissent, and $10 will get you cup of coffee at Starbucks. Point is - if the argument is colorable enough to survive a motion to dismiss and get in front of a judge ... or a jury (we are a lot more likely ot have jury trials in the United States) then you can no longer speak in certainties, but have to look at probabilities and risk management.

Which gets to the final factor- litigation is expensive. When someone "settles" a case, and almost all cases in the United States settle, it's for that reason. So when I keep hearing people say, "Just wait until a court decides this," I almost have to laugh.

It's civil litigation. Civil litigation doesn't go to trial. I kid, but only kind of. Less than 1% of federal cases, and similar (and even lower numbers) at the state court level are disposed of by trial.

 

[GreyLord]

That is the essence of the practical commercial problem WotC faces with 6e; this is what this is REALLY all about.

They don't want the OGL 1.0a to apply to 6e. They most especially do not want there to be any legal basis for a competitor to offer a VTT program that can be used to play 6e.

Ordinarily, this poses no significant issue. The simple solution it to release 6e without any sort of OGL or SRD of any kind. The problem for WotC is that they while they want to change horses to 6e, they want that version of the game to still be backwards compatible with 5e. As initially premised, I have understood that the changes proposed to 6e are minor. They want this to be more like 3.0 to 3.5, or perhaps 1st to 2nd ed. 6e is not to be a true new version of the game, as 3, 4 and 5th ed each were.

The problem: 5e was published with the 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0a. When you maintain backward compatibility with that, you leave a door open for a competing VTT to offer a toolcompatible with your 6e game, in whole or in part.

So in the future, a VTT just continues to use the 5.1 SRD and OGL 1.0a as the basis to maintain broad compatibility with 6e. There are more than a few devils in those details, but that's the core difficulty WotC faces how to be backwards compatible in a AD&D 1st ed ---> 2nd Ed manner (almost identical, really) while shedding the 5.1 SRD.

Practically speaking, it may be quite hard to do this. It adds a dimension and complexity to all of this that the game designers and marketing people within WotC both want to be able to ignore. The designers don't want their hands tied, the marketing people don't want to go back to a blank slate, they want to squeeze more sweet, sweet milk out of this cow. (They just want to do so in a way where they can sell that milk for a lot more money.)

That's very hard to do. So WotC has decided the best solution to this problem is to get rid of the OGL 1.0a by press release that 1.0a is no longer authorized, and creation of "OGL" 1.1.

For all of the reasons mentioned above in my "But what about Paizo? post" this is a position that a court is unlikely to accept. WotC has clearly conducted itself in a manner over a course of decades in its interpretation of a contract that the 1.0a OGL is irrevocable. They used 1.0a again for 5e. That was a mistake that they are now trying to undo.

There are no mulligans here. I don't think that bird is likely to fly.

This MAY be a reason it is taking WotC to respond. This is what they are after, but they had their own in-house people write it up.

Now, with all the attention, the lawyers (perhaps Hasbro has come in utilizing another side organization?) are actually trying to write a document that can hold up and yet do exactly what you are describing without the massive weaknesses the "draft" had in it's writing.

This stuff takes time and rushing it out the door or handing it off to your editor who has a degree in English just results in the fiasco we see unfolding already. If true, the lawyers are probably working at warp speed (comparatively) to write something that actually would hold up and give a SOLID case which can't be refuted or disputed in regards to the picture you paint.

They are in between a rock and a hard place and who knows how it will turn out. It may be they CAN'T figure out a way to write it to seal it all up nice and tight so other options will happen and will have to come out with something else or say something different.

IF this is the case, of course.

 

[S'mon]

As to the first ... I genuinely don't know. I don't think you do, either. Because we don't have enough to go on- this is all conjecture and rumor.

Yeah. I think I can be pretty sure on how it would go in England. But we do get surprising judgements here too (Lucasfilm v Ainsworth 2011 - no copyright in Stormtrooper helmets!)