Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8890563" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Kit Walsh wrote a brief column. In it, she wrote the following:As a threshold question, can Wizards of the Coast legally revoke their license? Other open licenses like Creative Commons licenses and the GPL are clear that the rights they grant are irrevocable. At the very least, this means that once you rely on the license to make something, you can keep making it and distributing it no matter what the copyright owner says (as long as you comply with the terms of the license).The OGL does not say that it is irrevocable, unfortunately. It’s possible that Wizards of the Coast made other promises or statements that will let the beneficiaries of the license argue that they can’t revoke it, but on its face it seems that they can.Some have pointed to the word “perpetual” to argue that the license is irrevocable, but these are different concepts in the law of licenses. Perpetual means that the license will not expire due to time passing, that’s all.I would say that this is all accurate, in a brief statement, and correctly caveated. Certainly not worth ... well, you well not exactly kind, were you? You also spent some time misstating her qualifications.In short, you were kind of being a jerk about what she wrote - and unnecessarily so. Just because you feel strongly about something doesn't mean you have to rubbish other people.*Again, I have repeatedly noted that I do not understand (a) you insistence on using Canadian law for everything, and (b) why you keep using the standard for a temporary injunction as if it was somehow dispositive for litigation?We have no idea if Hasbro would even move for a temporary injunction!One thing I have learned, and I think most American attorneys will tell you, is that you rely on parol evidence and equitable principles (such as promissory estoppel) as a last resort. Actual practice in American courts (how the law is applied, even when the standards appear the same) is very different than Canadian or UK courts.This has no bearing on the contract. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but bolding and italicization doesn't make post hoc parol evidence more relevant.You keep saying, "{I}n this case." What case? You say that something is fatal to WoTC's position. What position?One more time-THERE IS NO COMPLAINT.WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT ANY FINAL OGL 1.1 WILL STATE.WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT LAW APPLIES.WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HASBRO'S POSITION IS, OR THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE.WE DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS ALLEGED OR THE CAUSES (and there will be more than one) OF ACTION.WE DO NOT KNOW THE DEFENDANT(S). I try to be careful; in my analysis- and that's when I have access to little things like, oh, a copy of the filed complaint! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Yeah, it doesn't work like that in the United States. You can't just intervene in a random case- which, again, we don't know what is being pled! I can't keep saying this but ... you're asking me to agree that Paizo would be able to intervene in a case, filed in another jurisdiction, against another defendant, with causes of action and evidence that might not apply to Paizo?I'll pass on that invitation to agree, thank you!I wasn't talking about pre-suit settlement. I was talking about what happens, in civil litigation in the United States. Cases settle, and they do so for a very good reason. The reason I mention that is because some people keep saying that a court (ahem) is going to resolve this, without first realizing that in the United States, for most issues we have juries, and (in addition!) any action is unlikely to be resolved by a trial.*As a reminder, the reason I got involved again was because you wrote the following:I don't agree with the view of a civil rights attorney, no matter the law school she attended, on that topic. ... I don't care if Kit Walsh got a law degree from Harvard -- she is (most likely) either uninformed of the extreme historical commercial facts of how the parties acted under the OGL 1.0a from 2008 through 2014, or she's a civil rights attorney who is clearly out of her depth - and not a commercial litigator - whose opinion is not worth one red cent.Asa a reminder, Kit Walsh is an experienced litigator, having previously litigated IP numerous IP cases in multiple jurisdictions for a well-known IP firm in the United States prior to joining the EFF. While she is, as you put it, a mere J.D. from Harvard, she also has a B.S. in neuroscience from M.I.T.- which personally I find much more impressive!</blockquote>

Verification