Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars

[Cadfan]

Has the OGL been challenged in a court of law so far, and held up in making a legal precedent of any sort?

No. What would that even look like? Who would sue whom, and why? What provisions would be challenged and how would they be challenged? What would someone gain by "challenging" the OGL? What sort of useful precedent would be established by the interpretation of a specific, privately written license, given that future license writers can adopt or reject the OGL's language as they see fit?

 

[Umbran]

In short, it's basically an unsolicited opinion piece from Joe Blog on the street, neither academic nor scientific. Feel free to go back to ignoring it.

It is an unsolicited opinion piece that passed muster in their editorial process as being high enough quality to appear in their academic publication. The editors get to set the bar of quality - so it still reflects on them that it appeared.

 

[wingsandsword]

No. What would that even look like? Who would sue whom, and why? What provisions would be challenged and how would they be challenged? What would someone gain by "challenging" the OGL? What sort of useful precedent would be established by the interpretation of a specific, privately written license, given that future license writers can adopt or reject the OGL's language as they see fit?

I think the fear here is that somehow WotC will declare that they are rescinding the OGL and sue third party publishers or fans that use the OGL to continue to produce gaming materials for D&D 3.x, d20 Modern, or derivatives those games and WotC will somehow try to get a court to hold the OGL unenforceable and that WotC to get a court to agree that they didn't have the right to grant such an extremely open-ended license regarding their own IP, or even WotC they thought they would eventually lose they could force the issue into litigation where it's Hasbro's deep pockets against smaller parties that would be forced into bankruptcy by any major litigation even if frivolous.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

From what I got from someone I talked to, one of the big reasons for the change was 3PPs taking the 3e rules wholecloth and reprinting them (like Mongoose's pocket player guide). WotC's view was that "Hey, we spent millions of dollars and countless hours working on that, and you turn around and publish it without any effort on your part."

Precisely. That was a (presumably unforeseen) consequence of having a license as the OGL. The OGL was intended, I believe, to allow third parties to publish material compatible with 3E, not reprint 3E itself.

This appears on every thread about the OGL or GSl, and IT'S WRONG IN EVERY FREAKING ONE. GOOD CHRIST, every one of those threads, right after that accusation is made, shows how, oh wait, no, it was actually stated "Hah hah if a developer can reprint the 3e rules and make money, man, go for it." So that's what Monogoose did. And yet people continue to point at it and claim this was badwrong and how WotC hates them for it. Despite that being the opposite of what actually happened.

Oh god there I go vomiting out all blood again.

 

[ggroy]

No. What would that even look like? Who would sue whom, and why? What provisions would be challenged and how would they be challenged? What would someone gain by "challenging" the OGL? What sort of useful precedent would be established by the interpretation of a specific, privately written license, given that future license writers can adopt or reject the OGL's language as they see fit?

An example would be Hasbro attempting to sue Pathfinder or the retroclones (ie. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc ...) out of existence, in a futile bid to reclaim back their intellectual property which they felt was wrongly released by the Adkison/Dancey regime at WotC. One strategy would be to find a way to invalidate the OGL in a court of law.

 

[Cadfan]

An example would be Hasbro attempting to sue Pathfinder or the retroclones (ie. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc ...) out of existence, in a futile bid to reclaim back their intellectual property which they felt was wrongly released by the Adkison/Dancey regime at WotC.

I know that's the fear, but...

One strategy would be to find a way to invalidate the OGL in a court of law.

I'll give free XP to anyone who comes up with an even semi plausible explanation of how this could be done. Its contract law, not witchery.

 

[ggroy]

I'll give free XP to anyone who comes up with an even semi plausible explanation of how this could be done. Its contract law, not witchery.

I can't see an obvious legal strategy offhand, which could invalidate the OGL easily in a court of law. Though that's not to say that somebody won't try, especially if one side has very deep pockets.

More likely the legal strategy will be for Hasbro/WotC to tie up Pathfinder or the retroclones in court, such that one side eventually runs out of money from legal fees and/or are willing to settle out of court. Even if in the end the OGL doesn't get invalidated in a court of law, Hasbro/WotC will have developed a bad reputation for being litigious against others using the OGL.

 

[Cadfan]

I can't see an obvious legal strategy offhand, which could invalidate the OGL easily in a court of law. Though that's not to say that somebody won't try, especially if one side has very deep pockets.

More likely the legal strategy will be for Hasbro/WotC to tie up Pathfinder or the retroclones in court, such that one side eventually runs out of money from legal fees and/or are willing to settle out of court. Even if in the end the OGL doesn't get invalidated in a court of law, Hasbro/WotC will have developed a bad reputation for being litigious against others using the OGL.

Court doesn't work that way. You can't tie someone up in court without a plausible explanation for why you're in court in the first place.

 

[wingsandsword]

Court doesn't work that way. You can't tie someone up in court without a plausible explanation for why you're in court in the first place.

SCO did it in the SCO-Linux lawsuits where they alleged that much of the source code for Linux was their IP and released into open-source improperly, although they didn't have a shred of proof and dragged it through courts for years on the mere suspicion that copyright was violated.

It's that kind of copyright paranoia litigation that people get twitchy about with doomsday scenario theories regarding WotC.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok first I know nothing about law texcept what I picked up from LA law in the 80's and Ally Mcbeal in 90's...

I can't see an obvious legal strategy offhand, which could invalidate the OGL easily in a court of law.

I get this is the most well held theory..

More likely the legal strategy will be for Hasbro/WotC to tie up Pathfinder or the retroclones in court, such that one side eventually runs out of money from legal fees and/or are willing to settle out of court.

now here comes the quastion...doesn't this only work if the company throws money at the case...It seams to me that Hasbro can't sue me for selling my old Magatron on ebay for sevral thousand dollors...they just have no leg to stand on, and throwing money means nothing when the judge loughs it out of court...

So how can they make the suit last when it has no leg to stand on??