Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Baron Opal II]

I have not been able to find any games mechanics cases on RPGs.

Thank you for posting this.

There was a case of TSR vs. Role Aids in the late 80s (?), but I don't know if it ever went to trial or if they just settled out of court.

 

[Haplo781]

 

[pemerton]

The arguments in that letter - both interpretive and estoppel/relliance-based - are the ones that have been canvassed in this thread. I think it's up for grabs whether section 13 is the sole basis for termination, but that does seem to be one candidate reading.

EDIT: corrected "interpretation" to "termination" - mistyping words is apparently a thing that happens when one reaches middle age.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Oh no if only there were some way to sell some sort of electronic file

Exactly. This further discussion of state-by-state American law on how it might resolve an action this way and that way in a given U.S. state concerning the 1.0 OGL is laughably myopic American navel gazing.

The vast majority of activity under the OGL is via .pdf. There is no way to functionally prevent the sale or importation of those products over the Internet from a foreign jurisdiction. Even if you could be successful on obtaining an injunction (which I highly doubt -- the balance of convenience test is one WotC could not win under these facts) you cannot get an injunction with teeth under these circumstances; there is an explicit color of right and an explicit derivative works license, too. It won't happen. Any TRO you get in an American state jurisdiction will fail on contact with internet commerce. This isn't Napster or a piracy case.

And if you think a foreign corporation is going to routinely attorn to the jurisdiction of the state of Texas (or wherever you think your litigation will be successful ) you are now dreaming in technicolor. You also aren't going to pick off small companies with impunity to obtain a precedent. There will be intervenors galore -- and one of them - Paizo Inc., has all the money it needs to have in order to pay lawyers to litigate this. There will be no injunction; the vicissitudes of systemic delay than accrue to the licensees, not the plaintiff licensor.

And suddenly, the predicted doom and gloom gets blown away in a light spring breeze.

Accordingly, this is largely an academic discussion. If and when a practical case arises in which rights are engaged and real money is in dispute - I'll give it more attention. Until then, this gets exactly the attention it deserves.

 

[Cadence]

Another lawyer at: Noah "MyLawyerFriend" Downs on Medium

 

[pogre]

I am also a lawyer, and this is my 28th year as an attorney. I also have represented RPG companies using the OGL. Companies almost everyone here know. I am familiar with these topics as I've had to work with them, on a practical basis not just a theoretical one, for decades now.

I disagree with your legal interpretation. I am not interested in that debate as I think it's unwise to be posting definitively on this topic. But I think you're legally in error on several important points.

And here is why attorneys make money!

The old saying: If a town has one lawyer they are poor and if it has two lawyers they are rich...

Aside from my nonsensical posting, I'll pipe in as another attorney and say I agree with @Mistwell that there is a lot of room for arguments.

 

[Greg K]

This US contract lawyer is currently agreeing with everything I've said


One thing he just pointed out is that the OGL says sub-licences shall survive termination of the original licence. He also agrees that 1.0 doesn't look to be revocable, and was clearly 'authorised'.

Yeah, after watching that, I posted in another thread asking the lawyers what they thought about the arguments he stated were stacked against WOTC revoking 1.0a at this time, but also a federal statute (?) that would allow for them to end the license in another 12 years (i.e. 35 years after the 1.0 a was released).

 

[Steel_Wind]

This depends on the constitutional rules in a given jurisdiction. In the UK, for instance, there are no bars on retrospective legislation.

I don't believe that's the tradition on the criminal side of the common law; still, that's because the U.K. does not have a constitution, it just pretends it does.

As a Canadian lawyer in his late-50s, I remember a time when we tried to pass out the "unwritten constitution" Kool-Aid, too.

We don't do that anymore here. Not even a little bit.

 

[FrogReaver]

Three lawyers, four opinions.

Same as it ever was.

And not one of them right!

 

[FrogReaver]

Look, there is no rule that says that I have to fall when I stand over an empty space. If the rulebook doesn't say that I fall when I set off a cliff, I think I should be allowed to walk across thin air.

So long as the same reasoning works for the DM, if there's not a rule that prevents it then I can do it to your character.