BOEF OGL Violation?

[Truth Seeker]

(head swooning from the legal eagle talking of OGL usage)

Okay.....okay....in a nutshell.

Was it a goof?

Did someone miscalculated in the language of the OGL language structure.

Aye or Nay will suffice.

(head stilllllll swooning.....ohhhhhhhhhhhh)

 

[SemperJase]

Anyway - AV knows the rules better than most of us here (he's the guy who enforces them!)

Which would be exactly why (from Hasbro/WotC's) point of view he would have a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to work for another company and/or publish OGC.

How can one ethically put himself in the position of enforcing a license on himself?

Foolishness. (On WotC's part). Lucky for him if he can get away with it (but still not ethical). I am just blown away that any company would let a decision maker produce material for a competitor. Sweetheart deal for AV.

Think of all the possible conflicts.

1. Being responsible for both parties in a contract (OGL). A clear conflict of interest and reason alone for WotC to terminate AV's employment.

2. Having access to proprietary information (e.g. market studies) that can be used in the competitor's decision making.

3. Having access to product submissions. "Ooo! this one looks good, maybe I can deny it here and publish it under Valar to prop up that company."

People have pointed out writers working for other publishers, but they don't have positions nearly as sensitive to the well-being of the company. Your top decision makers however.....?

Danger Will Robinson, Danger! How stupid is WotC to allow this to happen?

 

[William Ronald]

While I am not certain of the legal issues, there is a GREAT potential for both a conflict of interest and a weakening of the Dungeons and Dragons brand name. Many companies have tried to defend their brand names both in court and advertising. (For example, in some publications aimed at writers, Xerox has placed advertising to remind people that Xerox is a brand name. ) Some past brand names have become weaker over time, and I recall one or two have become common words. (I think corn flakes was a brand name originally.)

I am puzzled as to what actually occurred in this issue. There are legal risks for WotC and a possible appearance of favoritism or impropriety. If the Valar Project can use the Dungeons and Dragons name in its advertisement, other publishers will want to do so. WotC and Hasbro may have to spend more money trying to clarify this entire issue.

Sooner or later, the legal issues will be cleared up. However, all the discussions are raising the profiles of the BoEF and the Valar Project. The BoEF is definitely getting a lot of free publicity -- which may have been the whole point to begin with.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think WoTC saying that other companies are allowed to make products compatible with D&D dilutes the D&D brand. Also, it's true. They want to protect the D&D brand by not having 'Dungeons & Dragons' plastered over third party products, but I think this may be more for commercial reasons (they think they make more money if only theirs and a few licensed products have D&D on them) than legal reasons (a fear that D&D could become a generic term and lose its trademark status).

 

[Gargoyle]

Of course, someone could just, like, ask instead of guessing.... AV's and WotC's email addresses are far from secret.

What's the worst that can happen? They may well say that any discussion, agreement, disagreement or situation between WotC and Valar Project Inc. is none of our business, but it'd do no harm.

I'm curious what he has to say about the OGL issue. However, I assume he's read the posts here and on the OGL list, and will respond soon. He's always responded to questions in the past, so I don't see the need to ask him directly.

Are you planning to take up his offer of "candid interviews" from the press release?

I've listend to Anthony Valterra a couple of times at GenCon seminars and he seems intelligent and reasonable. I'd really like to hear his side on the various OGL issues the press release brought up. It's all very confusing to me, as a non-lawyer and novice publisher.

I do hope he responds to the publicly posted questions soon; not doing so is causing a lot of needless speculation.

 

[KDLadage]

While I am not certain of the legal issues, there is a GREAT potential for both a conflict of interest and a weakening of the Dungeons and Dragons brand name. Many companies have tried to defend their brand names both in court and advertising. (For example, in some publications aimed at writers, Xerox has placed advertising to remind people that Xerox is a brand name. ) Some past brand names have become weaker over time, and I recall one or two have become common words. (I think corn flakes was a brand name originally.)

The big one that I can recall was Thermos Vacuum Bottles which lost its name when the brand (Thermos) became synonymous with the product (Vacuum Bottles); others that are or were recently getting really close to that territory are: Kleenex Facial Tissue, Q-Tip Cotton Swabs, Xerox Copiers (although lately I have heard the term Xox, promounced zoks, more often than Xerox) and so on.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

If you are not permitted to claim compatibility, then why say in their own release that anyone can make products compatible with D&D regardless of WoTC's opinion on the product?

Because you are allowed to claim compatibility with D&D, and in fact it is the d20 Standard License which grants you the right to do so under trademark law (without such a license, you are at risk of violating the law if you make any use of someone else's trademark). And anybody can make use of the license to do so, with or without WotC's approval.

Therefore, it is in fact the case that anyone can make products compatible with D&D (and say that they are compatible with D&D, which is a de facto requirement of doing such business), regardless of WotC's opinion.

However, that license only grants the rights to use those trademarks in certain, specific ways. By way of illustration, you may (and in fact, must) indicate the relationship to D&D in the product itself, using one of the phrases indicated in the license for such use. The license as I understand it does not grant the right to make other claims, as seems to be the case in the instance of these press materials.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Then you can get a benifit concert and apply for a foriegn aid package to help you rebuild, so it could work out fine in the end.

Your benefit concert for a nation without copyrights will, I predict, consist mostly of cover bands.

 

[Orcus]

Morrus, I have asked. And gotten no response. (Come on now, you didnt imagine I would think of that )

Clark

 

[Morrus]

Are you planning to take up his offer of "candid interviews" from the press release?

Yeah. I offered him the moderated chat slot for next Wednesday. Waiting for confirmation from him.