Search results

I would agree. Revocation is a discretionary - and potentially even arbitrary - choice by a party who has that discretion under a contract or trust. Termination is consequential on a event(s) or other condition; it may include a discretionary revocation -- but it is more than that so that there...

Oh I think that is definitely true. There have not been horsehair wigs anywhere here since... well ... I'm not sure they were ever formal court wear at any time, really. But counsel here all still gown, (robes and tabs) -- and "my Friend" "my Honourable Friend" and "my Learned Friend" are still...

There is a middle ground option, too; that the OGL 1.0a can't be gotten rid of by those who have exercised it, but it can be withdrawn on a go-forward basis. That leaves the status of those who have already exercised it to be resolved going forward. I think it will mean that if "A" has...

I think the litigation part dominates the legal reputation aspect of things. As between the three countries, the USA certainly is more technical in all aspects of its process and formalities. Part of the problem stems from frequently overlapping and concurrent jurisdiction between State and...

Doesn't look like one. It's not an offer, acceptance & consideration license contract. What it is instead is merely a policy statement, whereby WotC represents to people that they will not sue them for "X" should they follow the guidelines noted at "A though D". To go further on this, you...

I think it's simpler than that: when you want to charge somebody a monthly subscription price to play via VTT, you want to be sure that your VTT is great AND that you are the only VTT option available. Hasbro appreciates the concept of "Monopoly"! From that central commercial objective, all...

When there are delays in speaking to commercial legal issues like this, you look to the following to cover most of it. This is a non-exhaustive "Occam's Razor" list of boring explanations: 1 - somebody who is charge of this PR rollout on it is unavailable, ill, bereavement, on vacation, etc...

I am in complete agreement with this sentiment.

For my own part, I am not all that attached to 5e. I just jumped in from PF2 9 months ago. I just changed systems, dropped a bunch of money on DDB, and have a couple of campaigns to run and finish. I'm going to do that and I'm still keen on it, thankfully. They haven't killed that joy (yet). I...

First of all, I feel for everybody in this thread -- and across the hobby over the past week. It's made a thing which is supposed to fun -- and which is a hobby which is not only a pleasant escape but something that most of are deeply attached to emotionally and have been for most of our lives...

I'm not sure if that's true -- but I AM sure this is a great line!

I know. I saw it. I read it. She provided no particulars. She also worked for a time as an IP lawyer. But yes, when you are on for the EFF, you are a civil rights attorney pre-occupied with freedom of expression. There was no misstatement. I didn't say this arises only in the context of an...

You are jumping in on a lengthy discussion where I have been careful to express, multiple times, that nothing is certain in litigation. I have said so both in this thread and in threads on the main page in which you have participated, too. I trust you saw those posts? I have also mentioned...

And me: Robert Trifts #36946S

Firstly, I'm a Canadian lawyer (Ontario). While I have appeared pro hac vice in American courts, I'm not an American lawyer; all true. That said, if you re looking for an injunction such as this, ordinarily, that would be under your Rule 65 in Federal Court, right? I assume that this injunction...

Oh every jurisdiction would do that. That's part of the test on these facts. It's all part of the merits. In a motion or application to grant an in junction (in some US jurisdictions a Temporary Restraining Order pending trial, or "TRO"). It's a three part test: 1. The Merits A) The...

The test for an injunction does not materially change, no matter the jurisdiction selected (albeit, some apply the strong prima facie case standard, others the serious question to be tried standard). The balance of the test, including the balance of convenience, remain. This isn't about the law...

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...

I don't accept the suggestion that what was being offered in the OGL 1.0a was that it was ever revocable, once relied upon - as against those who relied upon it. I don't agree with the view of a civil rights attorney, no matter the law school she attended, on that topic. This isn't about...

Who cares? It's a contract -- motive is irrelevant; cause is irrelevant, termination is irrelevant when it comes to the subs. It's not about Todd -- it's about the subs.