Search results

Well, I just completed a 708-page project in InDesign, about which you may have heard, and it went quite smoothly if I do say so myself. :) The final product occupies 24 separate InDesign files, but even so making a book-wide TOC *and* a TOC for a single chapter was simplicity itself...

So Ptolus, World's Largest Dungeon, World's Largest City, and...? :) (I'm actually genuinely curious to know who else has cracked the 600-page mark in a single book.)

You appear to be reading too much into what I said. I said I think WOTC is neither in the wrong nor doing something evil when they send C&D letters regarding the unauthorized distribution of copies of large portions of the 4E PHB to the people doing the distributing. I have made and choose to...

Let me be clear one last time, as I'm not interested in being bombarded by your low opinion of the legal process and of WOTC any longer. TTBOMK, we're not talking about people who accidentally crossed the line and posted something they shouldn't have in a blog or in their fan wiki. We're...

That's all WOTC has done. It's just that WOTC has (it would seem) employed an attorney to do this. But what triggered the C&D letters must be noted: to all appearances, the C&D letters showed up where "fans" were giving away most of the 4E Player's Handbook for free over the Internet. The 3.5...

Applesauce... I can't wait until it's time for applesauce. Applesauce will be fun. The girls are a little over a month old (and by "preemie math" that means they have just reached zero); lucky for you, those are formula stains.

And yes, for the curious, some of the layout was performed with a baby strapped to me. I neither condone this nor recommend against it... but I will say that it can be tricky.

The typical C&D letter is written and sent by an attorney on behalf of a client. It states that the addressee is engaging in some kind of ongoing wrong against the attorney's client, insists that the addressee cease and desist from engaging in the ongoing wrong, and warns that if the wrong...

FWIW (and I take it you're not addressing me directly), I'm not insisting on anything. I personally happen to agree with this: ... but I've been trying to keep an open mind. Thanks for offering your views, Clark.

Neither do I question that they have the right. But WOTC's ability to unilaterally revoke the D20 STL absent cause has been questioned by at least three different posters in this thread. So the claim was made that they cannot. Has anyone bought a Necromancer product in 2009 who can verify that...

I've seen it claimed multiple times that the D20 STL cannot be revoked except for cause. Yet WOTC clearly intends to do just that, if they have not already (at least one major publisher agrees with several posters in this thread that they have not). The claim is equivalent to saying that the...

This is very telling on the issue of whether WOTC has in fact terminated the license; thanks for finding that. I'd be very interested to hear Paizo's views on how they expect WOTC to go about terminating the license, but it seems that Vic, at least, believes WOTC is within its rights to do so...

I agree that it would be incorrect in the case of a *bilateral* contract (wherein, for example, I fax my signature to WOTC indicating my personal acceptance of their terms). I posit that it is correct in the case of a unilateral contract, which I think the D20 STL is.

I never said anything of the sort. [EDIT: In the US, owning a trademark makes you, at best, a demigod, with a very limited sphere of influence.] I said that WOTC is entitled to revoke their unilateral contract providing a license to use their property under certain conditions. You're welcome...

What I'm really trying to say is, there's another way to look at this beyond "WOTC's lawyers don't know as much about the law as do random posters on an Internet forum!" I see this attitude all the time in another forum I frequent. It's bewildering. Why the urge to find a third-party...

The point of a unilateral contract, in contrast, is to put an offer "out there" that anyone may take the offeror up on; the offeror may generally retract the offer at any time (there is some built-in machinery in contract law that protects the offeree from bad effects of that retraction, but the...

Here is the official notice that the D20 STL is terminated upon publication of the 4E GSL: D&D 4th Edition Game System License The D20 STL is in no way similar to a lease. Publishers were never given "tenant" rights in d20 trademarks. They were given permission to use them to market their...

Consider, however, the following: a company offering a license to use their trademarks can revoke that license at any time for any reason. The trademark is WOTC's property; they have the right to say "get off my lawn!" for no reason at all other than they want their lawn back. The Termination...

As I understand it, the facts are these. WOTC owns the d20 trademark, lock, stock, and barrel. It is theirs to do with as they please. WOTC permitted products bearing the d20 trademark to enter the stream of commerce unchallenged pursuant to the D20 System Trademark License. The D20 System...

I hate to bring this up, since it's a minor thing, but it's been bugging me for a while... Shouldn't it be "premier"? Otherwise, I think the front page is coming along nicely. I hope you can find a "cohesive" set of images and my vote is for a darker grey in the panels so they'll "pop" more.