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

[Justice and Rule]

Whoops, wrong thread.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I doubt they'd sue Paizo for that. Paizo is one of the few that can afford to fight. Better to pick on a "weakling" who can't defend himself properly and try to force concessions or win that way.

If it happens, you're likely to see people like Paizo join in because if they let the issue be settled elsewhere, it will be settled for them, too. No one wants someone to set precedent against them while they aren't in the room.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it happens, you're likely to see people like Paizo join in because if they let the issue be settled elsewhere, it will be settled for them, too. No one wants someone to set precedent against them while they aren't in the room.

This is why it might be a good idea for as many other 3pps as possible to talk to Paizo about fighting WotC on this. They can continue to do business and, if and when WotC decides to pursue legal action, the whole community falls on them like a ton of bricks.

Otherwise it seems to me in my in-no-way-an-expert opinion that WotC has functionally succeeded in their goal to get everybody off their lawn, and everyone who makes a living off or is even fond of 5e as a game is the worse off for it.

 

[Maxperson]

If it happens, you're likely to see people like Paizo join in because if they let the issue be settled elsewhere, it will be settled for them, too. No one wants someone to set precedent against them while they aren't in the room.

You can't just walk into someone else's case. They might pay for the legal fees, but beyond that there's not much that they can do.

Also, it wouldn't be settled for Paizo in that case. They'd be suing someone who was using their stuff exactly as is, but since Paizo would have changed things, it wouldn't be exactly the same case.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You can't just walk into someone else's case. They might pay for the legal fees, but beyond that there's not much that they can do.

I didn't say that. The bigger thing would be to provide resources and assistance, which would help mitigate much of the reason for targeting a smaller company in the first place. Along with the bad PR and likely ensuing crowdfunding that'll occur for the victim, and this strategy is just not a good one.

Also, it wouldn't be settled for Paizo in that case. They'd be suing someone who was using their stuff exactly as is, but since Paizo would have changed things, it wouldn't be exactly the same case.

Precedent is precedent. Having no precedent is much safer than having to explain why yours is different. I don't even see how that is arguable.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say that. The bigger thing would be to provide resources and assistance, which would help mitigate much of the reason for targeting a smaller company in the first place. Along with the bad PR and likely ensuing crowdfunding that'll occur for the victim, and this strategy is just not a good one.

Paizo is out to make money, though. If they are walking away from the OGL and switching over, what would persuade them to spend millions of dollars on some other guy? It's not the same scenario. Paizo isn't going to be affected if that guy loses.

Precedent is precedent. Having no precedent is much safer than having to explain why yours is different. I don't even see how that is arguable.

Precedent is very specific. There would be no precedent against Paizo since Paizo isn't copying WotC's stuff. WotC would need to sue Paizo afterwards and win the case showing that Paizo's change wasn't far enough away from WotC's IP/PI.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Paizo is out to make money, though. If they are walking away from the OGL and switching over, what would persuade them to spend millions of dollars on some other guy? It's not the same scenario. Paizo isn't going to be affected if that guy loses.

Just because they are walking away doesn't mean that Wizards may not attempt to kneecap them anyways, especially if they can luck into an expansive ruling. Wizards can always say their stuff is too close anyways, and if they can get a ruling that benefits them in that manner, that just makes things more costly for Paizo.

Precedent is very specific. There would be no precedent against Paizo since Paizo isn't copying WotC's stuff. WotC would need to sue Paizo afterwards and win the case showing that Paizo's change wasn't enough.

No, that there isn't precedent against Paizo doesn't mean that there isn't precedent. If that happens, Hasbro will absolutely use that case against them and Paizo will be stuck trying to point out how it doesn't apply. That's a worse position than not having to make that argument in the first place.

 

[bmcdaniel]

You can't just walk into someone else's case. They might pay for the legal fees, but beyond that there's not much that they can do.

I would not be confident in that conclusion. For one thing, non-parties can inform and argue point through amicus briefs. But also, I don't think it would be too hard for Paizo to intervene as a party. For example, 3pp might make a counterclaim against WOTC, which Paizo might join in. I think this would especially easy if 3pp is using the new ORC license spearheaded by Paizo.

 

[pemerton]

While you're right, proving that the OGL is irrevocable will require a legal battle against Hasbro. And while WotC never officially said they're killing the safe harbour, they refused to clarify the situation with deauthorisation despite the community pleading that they do for weeks. For all we now, the deauthorisation is still underway, it's just that the replacement will be a (slightly) sweeter deal.

So given that, isn't it understandable for 3PPs to no longer consider the harbour safe and move to an actually irrevocable license that will be stewarded by a nonprofit group?

Proving that a modified Pathfinder 2e does not infringe on Wizards' copyrights might also require a legal battle against Hasbro. The lawyers' point is that the irrevocability of 1.0a is a stronger case with fewer uncertainties.

I agree with Greg Benage. If the concern is to avoid litigation, or even more so to avoid risky litigation, I'm not yet seeing how giving up one's licence from WotC while still continuing to publish material which it can be plausibly derived is derived from their copyrighted work(s) achieves that result.

A lot of the discussion seems to be focused on getting an irrevocable licence. But an irrevocable licence between X and Y does nothing to protect either from a claim by Z that they are infringing Z's copyright.

And even though the ORC cannot be put back in the bottle now, Paizo said they are willing to challenge the irrevocability of the OGL if things get there, so they are going to do what you said anyway.

Moreover, it's not at all clear that Wizards is finished retreating. All that said, I wish Paizo and the others had kept their powder dry and forced Wizards to pony up a final, completed license for them to evaluate, before very publicly firing up the ORC van.

My view is that once again Paizo have played this very cleverly.

They are a commercial competitor to WotC, so the OGL v 1.1 (as leaked) seems utterly unviable for them. Thus they always had to either (i) defend their rights under the existing OGL, (ii) abandon the OGL and defend their rights in a copyright suit, or (iii) reach some sort of new settlement with WotC. By going down the ORC path, at least to some extent, they are making themselves the centre of a new 3PP ecology, potentially weakening WotC (to the extent that it is true that WotC benefits from its 3PP ecology) all the while presenting themselves as community-loving rather than commercially motivated. And they still have (i) and (iii) available to them, should (ii) not work out.

Conversely, it seems to me that WotC is gambling that non-D&D games have already pretty much reached their maximum level of sales, and so having the other 3PPs drift from D&D to something new is little or no loss to them.

 

[Ondath]

I've got nothing to say against these points! We'll have to see if WotC does litigate against Paizo for PF2's content, and it's definitely true that Paizo is acting in a very clever manner. I support Paizo's initiative, but I remember the time when they were the bad guys trying to stop their workers from unionising a year ago. So they're definitely not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, and a manichean view of the situation that views WotC as Sauron and Paizo as the plucky hero is absolutely foolish. That said, if ORC gets implemented the way they say it will, I think it will be a massive win for the future of open gaming.