Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8506831" data-attributes="member: 7023840">1. No, not "no matter what." If nuTSR immediately dismissed the declaratory action, and had their attorney respond to the C&D appropriately (and include assurance and affidavits and they stop using WoTC's IP) then she would not be involved.2. Further, if nuTSR did not choose to contest the prima facie case regarding ownership (they could amend the Complaint in the declaratory action) then it likely would not come up. That's much less likely.3. Next, if WoTC has reasonable records then they probably aren't concerned. Neither of us know- but regardless, if that's the case, then WoTC won't care. Obviously, if Darlene ever sought to assert her own rights independently, that might be different. But nuTSR's filing isn't a contested claim of ownership, since it can't even assert the allegation other than as a Hail Mary.But I think you're probably missing the gist of all of this- it's odd (?) that you find it necessary to keep stating that WoTC might end up deposing Darlene. Yeah, they might have to if the lawsuit continues, because nuTSR is trying to use her for their own purposes. That's it. More importantly, they specifically named her in the Complaint, and tried to get her to sign away her work (and defend them!) without telling her what was going on.Which is why people are reacting against you- of course she might get dragged into this now. And it's odd for someone to keep saying, "Yes, and WoTC might depose her!" Weirdly, she hasn't been deposed for more than two decades ... what changed?</blockquote>

Verification