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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8903051" data-attributes="member: 18">So let's assume the OGL 1.0a doesn't hold up. Because if that holds up, it's basically case over - and WotC will want it to be too.Ok so then WotC has to say that the company are doing an IP violation - likely a combination of trademark and copyright. This is what happened in both TSR v GDW and and GW vs CHS. In both cases the "big mean company" got a giant list of trademark and copyright violations, many of them very far-fetched, and threw them at the "little poor company".GDW decided not to fight, despite the weakness of TSR's case, I think in part honestly because Dangerous Journeys was never going to set the world on fire. So they reached an out-of-court settlement.CHS, on the other hand, in 2013, did fight, and GW lost about 60-70% of their IP claims. Including the ludicrous claim that "big shoulderpads" were somehow GW IP.Because they lost some of the claims, CHS ended up paying $25k. Not a huge amount. GW, on the other hand, realized that now people could much more freely and safely make competitors to GW products, because loads of things people thought were "risky" when CHS were doing it proved to be completely fine. And a court case said so.This lead to GW renaming huge numbers of lines, and it even seems to have been part of what lead to Age of Sigmar being created, because one of the main things Age of Sigmar does is eliminate older, more "generic fantasy" models, and instead to put in tons of wackier and wilder fantasy stuff that's more specific to GW, and also it renames tons and tons of factions to unique stuff which they can potentially make IP claims on (Orc goes to Orruk, Elf goes to Aelf, Dwarf goes to Duardin and so on).Then you just don't know what you're talking about, sorry. That's pure ignorance.You didn't actually answer any of my points, I note. And "TSR could have won" illustrates a fundamental failure to understand how IP law works. No, they could not have, not without losses. Many of those claims would never have stood.</blockquote>

Verification