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

[mamba]

if it's not needed then why update the other ones?

I explained why, so the others do not have to get this clarified in court as well. Adding a word to a license is much cheaper than proving in court that it was not needed in the first place

 

[mamba]

I'm curious about this.

If WotC commences against a 3PP who continues to publish under the OGL v 1.0a, alleging that that licensee is infringing WotC's copyrights, how are they going to prevent their matter from coming in front of a court?

Making it expensive to get there (discovery, dragging things out, ...), offering a good enough deal to avoid litigation altogether

 

[Siltoneous]

That sounds like emotion, not legal fact.

If you want to understand where the Agreement argument comes from, I point you to Page 11 of this thread. User 'bmcdaniel' lines out a very coherent and compelling opinion as to why that is the case. I have no problem believing that opinion comes from a position of considerable experience with these kinds of matters.

 

[Steel_Wind]

It is worth mentioning that injunctions are special for another reason: they are EXPENSIVE, top-shelf Big Ticket items in terms of legal costs. It doesn't matter WHO the client is, you are paying premium retail dollars in terms of legal expenses for an injunction motion.

Practically speaking, they are brought on a hurry-up, in the fastest lane possible basis. Burning the midnight oil is routinely required by them -- and you PAY BIG TIME FOR THAT. The timetable for the conduct of the motion is fast as all hell. This increased premium rate in terms of legal costs applies to both parties.

In terms of interlocutory motions, injunction motions are at the top of the heap in terms of cost. Summary judgment motions are really the only other thing which comes close -- and even then, they tend to lack the urgent 4:30 a.m. factum writing that seems routinely present on injunction motions.

My point: An injunction motion? Better bring your chequebook. That one is an expensive motion to fight.

 

[mamba]

Actually, you didn't change anything. You stated an opinion.

as did you, yours was just a much worse example

Actually, there is a better chance that WotC would win. They own the property, and they have the means to sustain a extended legal battle. All the more so because it is very likely a judge would halt the continued use of the OGL until the matter is resolved.

In the courts, the ability to pay legal costs often equals the ability to win.

That is like saying you win an argument by hitting the other guy over the head. You might get him to shut up, you have not proven your position to be correct (not that at that point there is an appreciable difference for the other guy)

 

[Greg Benage]

While every injunction case turns upon its own specific facts, I do not think based on what we have seen so far that WotC would get an injunction under the OGL 1.0a.... but PLEASE take that well-salted. This stuff is highly fact dependent and every case is different. Trying to moot something like this absent facts is not terribly helpful - or an accurate projection, okay?

Do they need to apply separately for injunctions on different grounds? For example, if they claim...

1. The license doesn't say it's irrevocable, so we can revoke it.
2. Notwithstanding (1), this publisher violated the terms of the license agreement.
3. Notwithstanding (1) or (2), this publisher infringed on our copyrights.

If they bring all these complaints at once, do they need to meet the three-part test @Steel_Wind describes for each complaint separately? Or is it, there's a strong case and prima facie right to relief on at least one of (1), (2), or (3), etc.?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My point: An injunction motion? Better bring your chequebook. That one is an expensive motion to fight.

is it expensive enough that bringing one can tip the scales to the person with the bigger bank account? I am sure that to those of us in the "under 70K a year) range in the US EVERYTHING dealing with this kind of case costs a ton of money... I would not be surprised if my annual salary got spent in a few days on a case like this.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Do they need to apply separately for injunctions on different grounds? For example, if they claim...

1. The license doesn't say it's irrevocable, so we can revoke it.
2. Notwithstanding (1), this publisher violated the terms of the license agreement.
3. Notwithstanding (1) or (2), this publisher infringed on our copyrights.

If they bring all these complaints at once, do they need to meet the three-part test @Steel_Wind describes for each complaint separately? Or is it, there's a strong case and prima facie right to relief on at least one of (1), (2), or (3), etc.?

All factors must be met in order for the injunction to be granted.

I can't anticipate all of the many grounds on which somebody might seek an injunction and I'm not going to do so here; it's not helpful.

Whatever the case, in order to get one? You must ski through each of those gates. Miss one? You lose the motion. No exceptions.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I'm trying to find info on US law on this, to find out what the precedents are for the revocability of 'perpetual' licences. It would matter a lot whether the court said eg "Normally Perpetual licences are non-revocable, but in THIS case..." or "It is settled law that Perpetual merely means of Indefinite Duration" - or something in between.

Here's an interesting case on the subject: RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v. Tech Pharm. Servs. (In re Provider Meds, L.L.C.), 907 F.3d 845, 856 (5th Cir. 2018)

 

[Siltoneous]

Actually, there is a better chance that WotC would win. They own the property, and they have the means to sustain a extended legal battle. All the more so because it is very likely a judge would halt the continued use of the OGL until the matter is resolved.

In the courts, the ability to pay legal costs often equals the ability to win. Particularly since this is WotC against a group.

Don't underestimate the international aspect of this (S'Mon and others on pg 11 is a good start). Additionally, other jurisdictions have much stronger protections for wealth inequality between litigating parties (See S'Mon's post #253 on). In the US though, user AbdulAlhazred's #651 post is probably spot-on for how ugly it'd be (aka 'nuclear lawfare').