Search results

So you're saying that they want to crush small publishers?

Scribble: dmccoy's concerns, no matter how extreme, are valid, because the GSL does indeed leave the door open to such scenarios. I have also recognized that there's no arguing about what the law does and doesn't allow in such a situation. Yes, the law does put limits on such things, but it's...

Ah. I was ignoring the rest of section 6. It looks like I got tunnel visioned on 6.1. You are correct, then. Good catch. No, unless the IP of WOTC is violated, then there's no further action that can be taken. The company can indeed, apparently, reconvert to the OGL.

First, I re-evaluated 6.1, and I see my claims to no cushion was bad memory. It's manufacturing, publication, and the electronic document (.pdf) that has to be removed the moment the new product goes to publication. They can still sell off their remaining physical product. As for your question...

This is where my knowledge of contracts becomes limited. I haven't taken the time to research how such changes work. I know there are definite limits to the liability of the licensee in a contract change, but I can't be sure regarding what other changes are allowed. What you say is certainly...

No, it is assumption. You are assuming that it is limitless, that the law does not protect the licensee against an unlimited statement. That assumption is not true. The law defines the limits of contracts. Contracts do not define the limits of law.

Okayyy. I don't know what you're trying to get at. Yeah, okay, they admit they're in the wrong, and therefore have to pay. They still don't have to pay if they're not in the wrong. So if they don't settle out of court and court proves they're not in the wrong, then they don't have to pay WOTC's...

Sure, they could do that, but they aren't going to get any money until they go to court and win their case. Actual "action" must take place. Just retaining a lawyer is not "action", and drawing up a summons is not "required" unless the reason for the summons is proven, which can only be proven...

That's why I turned it into a concession. Let's call it a fourth deal breaker for some. As I mentioned above, there are contract law provisions that protect the licensee. Yes, there could be changes in a similar vein, but as I said on the previous page, if such changes cause significant...

No, they cannot.

A: What I meant was more of a cushion period in which to fade out the previous product. In other words, sell your stores while simultaneously selling 4e product. Currently 6.1 requires you to get rid of your stores before selling 4e product. B: The problem is that a potential licensee...

The key word in the text you pointed out is "required". If WOTC can't prove their case, then they can't prove that they were required to bring the case.

Enforcing a contract is different than writing a contract. Yes, the WOTC lawyers know their limits within the contract and the limits of the licensee. But just because they know how to enforce the contract doesn't mean its not a poorly thought out contract. I never dismissed anyone's right to...

Okay, let me get this straight. So the public, who usually can't afford the big lawyers, somehow have greater protection than the businesses who can afford the big lawyers? So you're saying that in two centuries of contract law that businesses have made no grounds in protecting themselves and...

Read my post again. I was explaining that your view as thoroughly expressed here is not a concern. Yes, they protect their IP. To explain IP, their IP is different than "content" but content expresses their IP. But it is also different than an "idea". A game mechanic is an "idea" and is not...

Ideas can only be patented, not copyrighted. Copyright covers only authored content. That is why so many systems can use each others' mechanics and why modules can rely on mechanics from another system without signing on to that system. So long as the mechanics are not written out or planned out...

Yes. That's what 6.1 does. But a lot of companies are going to have large stores of old product they want to move, so if they wait until all their stores of product are sold, they may be waiting quite a while. Thus, 6.1 requires them to take a cut if they want to change over soon. 6.1 also...

For anyone that doesn't sign the 4e GSL, they still need a lawyer if they want to implement parts of the system without violating copyright. The problem still persists. An OGL isn't going to stop that. What you mean is that the clause in the 4e GSL about not mixing the OGL and the GSL needs to...

I've already answered that question among several posts, but here's the post with the gist: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4411161&postcount=27 You are correct in that I'm looking to inform and objectively analyze. This thread, though, isn't about what's good in the contract. It's...

The line you quoted was incidental in response to an incorrect assumption (yes, it's incorrect). The point was, that the clause DOES NOT say that. The clause says that the loser (excluding WOTC) must pay the fees. THAT IS enforceable.