Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Positronica" data-source="post: 4318541" data-attributes="member: 70471">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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;We had a reasonable belief that our suit had merit, based upon the defendants acceptance of our broad IP claims in section 10.&nbsp; Therefore, even though we ultimately lost the suit, we shouldn't be liable for the defendant's court costs.&quot;&nbsp; Now, is this a serious risk?&nbsp; Probably not, but we've seen plenty of companies use essentially baseless harassment suits against their competitors before, including within the gaming industry.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; You base your drow on the traditional drow from Scottish folklore, and not drow as they are presented in D&amp;D.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Positronica, post: 4318541, member: 70471"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification