Front Page GSL Q&A

[Positronica]

The clause states that this includes "all content contained within the Core Rulebooks and all Licensed Materials, including without limitation the SRD", but I would think that this has to be read within the context of the clause as a whole: given that the recognition is of rights and interests arising under law, and that no law gives WoTC any property rights in the words "the" or "dragon", then the most natural reading is that these individual words do not fall within the meaning of the phrase "content contained within the Core Rulebooks".

Well, that's the thing. How do we know that wizards doesn't "own" the rights to the concept of dragons in a fantasy based rpg? Sure, common sense tells us that they don't, but as of right now, that's all we've got to go on. But let's look at some cases that are a little more vague...

Does Wizards own the rights to the concept of presenting Bahamut as a dragon?
Does Wizards own the rights to the word "halfling" as it pertains to hobbit type creatures?
Does Wizards own the rights to the cocept of elemental planes connected to an astral sea?
Does Wizards own the rights to the cocept of elves meditating instead of sleeping?

Obviously, it would be possible to keep going on and on like this. The risk I see in section 10 is that the licensee agrees that all "content" in the core rules books is Wizards IP, and the licensee agrees to never violate that IP in perpetuity. Granted, the word "content" is nebulous, but it still gives Wizards a shaky foundation to base a suit on. I can understand why they put section 10 in the GSL, and I'd be very surprised if it was there for any sort of nefarious reasons, however I think it would have been better if the part of section 10 in question wasn't included in section 11.2 Survival.

Keep in mind, section 19 never expires, either. Coupled with section 10, this would give Wizards a backdoor to demand that you comply with section 19 even in an IP suit concerning a future, non-GSL product.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that section 10, due to its survivability, could potentially give Wizards a slight leg-up in any sort of IP dispute you have with them in the future, even concerning something that you might feel is far removed from any GSL products.

 

[pemerton]

Positronica, WoTC does not need clause 10 to enforce it's IP rights against anyone. Roughly speaking, those rights are good against all the world (that's what makes them property rights).

So, as I said, the main effect of clause 10 that I can see is that you waive rights you would otherwise enjoy to make lawful use of WoTC's IP (eg via compatability declarations).

 

[Positronica]

Positronica, WoTC does not need clause 10 to enforce it's IP rights against anyone. Roughly speaking, those rights are good against all the world (that's what makes them property rights).

I agree, however the point I'm trying to make is that section 10 gives Wizards an avenue to claim a suit has merit, when it would have otherwise been considered frivolous. Sure, section 10 alone isn't going to give then any greater chance at winning such a frivolous suit, however when the defendant turns around and tries to counter sue for legal expenses, Wizards is able to go to the judge and say "We had a reasonable belief that our suit had merit, based upon the defendants acceptance of our broad IP claims in section 10. Therefore, even though we ultimately lost the suit, we shouldn't be liable for the defendant's court costs." Now, is this a serious risk? Probably not, but we've seen plenty of companies use essentially baseless harassment suits against their competitors before, including within the gaming industry. Since section 10 never expires, any prospective GSL licensee needs to make sure they're ready to be saddled with that section in perpetuity before they jump in.

I think even more troublesome though is the effect of sections 10 and 19 together. Let's say that 10 years from now, long after you've stopped making any GSL products, you decide to put out a new fantasy rpg that has drow in it. You base your drow on the traditional drow from Scottish folklore, and not drow as they are presented in D&D. Despite this, Wizards decides to sue you anyways, claiming that your use of drow is a violation of their IP, regardless of your difference in portrayal. Furthermore, they claim that this use is a violation of section 10 of the GSL, and as such, section 19 entitles them to a bench trial in King County, Washington.

 

[pemerton]

Positronica, unless the law in the US on costs and vexatious litigation is very very different from that of Australia and the US, I don't think that you are right. But the law may be very different.