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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 8882201" data-attributes="member: 463">The OGL 1.0 has no choice-of-jurisdiction clause. This is why OSRIC was authored and first published in the UK - WoTC would have had to sue the author, Marshall, in the UK. This looks to apply equally to EN Publishing (as far as I know). AFAICT, UK companies and sole traders (like several friends of mine) who use the OGL in the UK would have to be sued in the UK.I don't think it looks good for existing US based publishers. AFAICT they agreed the OGL in the USA and would need to go before a US court. Where the Law would be on their side AFAICT, but Macris' friend thinks they can be buried in Lawfare before ever getting to court.It is conceivable that the OGL could be held revocable in some jurisdictions and non-revocable in others. Personally I think it's unlikely it would be held revocable in a US court, or at least I don't think that finding would survive an appeal, but (a) I'm not a US Contract lawyer and (b) it sounds like WoTC's strategy is to not actually go to a court judgment, but rather use 'the process is the punishment' to intimidate 3PPs.In future, should OGL works be authored and first published in a jurisdiction like England less amenable to lawfare than the USA? That seems like a reasonable tactic to me; but if you are a US based publisher I don't think that is a foolproof defence to lawfare attacks. In lawfare the claims can be spurious, the point is to inflict pain. I don't see anything stopping WotC lawyers from claiming the case should go before a US court and inflicting pain that way. Maybe not millions of $, but enough to hurt.</blockquote>

Verification