Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lonewolfdevel" data-source="post: 5078267" data-attributes="member: 87800">There were two issues cited and two actions that were called for. Issue #1 was the use of our trademark in the names of multiple tools created for Privateer's games (one specific example: &quot;Warmachine/Hordes Army Builder&quot;). Action #1 was that references to these directly infringing tools needed to be removed.Issue #2 was educating the user community. Action #2 was to inform us whether this was something they wanted to do or if they would leave it to us. If education of the user community did not occur, then it was quite likely that someone else would create a new tool named &quot;Fred's Army Builder&quot;. That would necessitate us having to contact Privateer about removing those references. With education, the likelihood of such a mistake would be mitigated, which would in turn mitigate the need for such removals in the future. So the education would both achieve an awareness of the trademark and avoid problems in the future.In hindsight, could the language have been refined in the message so that it would be less open to the various interpretations presented here? No question. Was the message incompetently written? Everyone here is their own judge and jury in that regard.So coming in here and taking all this heat is an attempt to whitewash the situation? Seriously? I'm just going to take a few deep breaths, fight the urge to bang my head on the wall, and move on to the next post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lonewolfdevel, post: 5078267, member: 87800"] There were two issues cited and two actions that were called for. Issue #1 was the use of our trademark in the names of multiple tools created for Privateer's games (one specific example: "Warmachine/Hordes Army Builder"). Action #1 was that references to these directly infringing tools needed to be removed. Issue #2 was educating the user community. Action #2 was to inform us whether this was something they wanted to do or if they would leave it to us. If education of the user community did not occur, then it was quite likely that someone else would create a new tool named "Fred's Army Builder". That would necessitate us having to contact Privateer about removing those references. With education, the likelihood of such a mistake would be mitigated, which would in turn mitigate the need for such removals in the future. So the education would both achieve an awareness of the trademark [I][B]and[/B][/I] avoid problems in the future. In hindsight, could the language have been refined in the message so that it would be less open to the various interpretations presented here? No question. Was the message incompetently written? Everyone here is their own judge and jury in that regard. So coming in here and taking all this heat is an attempt to whitewash the situation? Seriously? I'm just going to take a few deep breaths, fight the urge to bang my head on the wall, and move on to the next post. [/QUOTE]

Verification