More info about this OSRIC thing?

[tenkar]

C & C, which I think is a great game, requires interested publishers to acquire a license from them before they can make products with the C & C trademark. OSRIC requires no fee to use, making it a much more attractive package for would be publishers.

 

[John Stark]

So what happens after OSRIC has been out for a couple of years then it gets challenged? Would all the infringing companies be required to pay royalties or destroy stock?

Highly unlikely. Its a matter of public record that WotC is aware of OSRIC (very much so). Whatever might happen is going to come out in the wash in the short term, not the long. And the OSRIC authors are very confident in the integrity of the work they have done.

The companies publishing with OSRIC couldn't be forced to do anything IMO (and thats all that is, an opinion) if the worst case scenario came about. OSRIC can't just be shut down. Either the legal challengers have to state what parts of OSRIC they claim are off base so that the authors can fix it, which would settle the whole matter once and for all, or they would need to buy the brand from the OSRIC trademark owners to keep it from being used, and I'm sure those owners wouldn't be selling cheap, heh.

Why not just use C&C? It is for all intents and purposes 100% compatible with OAD&D? We ran Castle Zagig out of the box and I don't even have the PH or M&T for C&C. Wouldn't C&C be a safer bet? Doesn't C&C already fill the niche of a published set of rules compatible with AD&D?

You cannot legally publishing using the C&C system. They own that trademark, and have put trademarks on certain parts of their products, that would require you to get their permission to use C&C as a publishing vehicle, and most likely they would end up owning your work and paying you a pittance for it.

With OSRIC there are no strings attached, other than including the OGL and the OSRIC license in your work, and making sure that you don't put anything in it that violates the OGL (which would reflect only upon you, not OSRIC, if you made the mistake of not following these requirements). You would not need permission from the owners of the OSRIC trademark to say, "This is compatible with OSRIC," you would retain the rights to your own work, and you would not be required to pay any kind of royalty or whatnot to the owners of the OSRIC trademark.

EDIT: Let me just add that I think your points are well taken, and that I'm sure the feedback is most welcome by the OSRIC authors.

 

[Ranger REG]

Game rules simply are not subject to copyright. You can't copyright "roll 3d6 to generate ability scores." You can't copyright "roll 2d6 and move your token X number of squares." You can't copyright "elves recieve a +1 bonus to attacks made with longswords."

If each of the phrases are separate bodies of work itself, you can't. But those phrases have belonged to a much larger body of work which can be copyrighted, and so the owner can sue you for using those excerpts for other purpose than Fair Use, that assumes that WotC can prove you lifted those texts from their works.

While it is apparent that WotC might lose if they try to sue, they have a very deep pocket to tie litigants in court.

Further, the "non-linear mathmatical function" standard that he asserts is also erroneous. It doesn't matter whether the rule or formula in a game is linear or non-linear. Neither are subject to copyright.

I think he's referring to the ability chart that determines benefits and bonuses. 3e's ability score is derived from a mathematical formula to determine ability modifiers. AD&D ability modifiers are not derived from a mathematical equation.

 

[John Stark]

If each of the phrases are separate bodies of work itself, you can't. But those phrases have belonged to a much larger body of work which can be copyrighted, and so the owner can sue you for using those excerpts for other purpose than Fair Use, that assumes that WotC can prove you lifted those texts from their works.

The thing is, these kinds of phrases, terms, and rules are in the SRD and under the terms of the OGL. The OGL not only allows for use of those phrases, terms, and rules, but modification of them as well. That is clearly stated in the OGL. Its tough to prove an infringment when the company licensed the use AND modification of the phrases, terms, and rules in question.

While it is apparent that WotC might lose if they try to sue, they have a very deep pocket to tie litigants in court.

Well, this is another matter entirely. And deep pockets don't necessarily mean a win. Anti-trust laws come to mind.

I think he's referring to the ability chart that determines benefits and bonuses. 3e's ability score is derived from a mathematical formula to determine ability modifiers. AD&D ability modifiers are not derived from a mathematical equation.

The point is moot if non-linaer mathematical equations are in fact not subject to copyright. I would maintain that this is the case. If you can site law or court cases otherwise, with links to those laws or decisions, I'd love to read them, but from what I've read this matter of "non-linear algorithms" is not an issue at all.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think he's referring to the ability chart that determines benefits and bonuses. 3e's ability score is derived from a mathematical formula to determine ability modifiers. AD&D ability modifiers are not derived from a mathematical equation.

That's what I figured. His view is that because the AD&D tables were arbitrarily (creatively?) established where the author felt, they are copyrightable. That someone could reproduce it for a computer program to reference is irrelevant, in his opinion.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Before I start: I like John Stark on a personal level, and I'm deeply grateful for his support for OSRIC, but his views are his, and mine are mine. I haven't said what he's said. It's possible that I might take a similar position if challenged, but it's also possible that I might not.

Another thing I want to get clear is that issues of OSRIC's legality are between WOTC and me, Stuart Marshall, personally. I'm afraid I'm not going to engage in a detailed debate over my legal position on a public messageboard.

The point I want prospective publishers to take from this post, if you take nothing else, is that I'm taking the risks. Publishers aren't; if they write or produce OSRIC materials, then they're just doing what I've licensed them to do.
___________________________________________________________________

The remarks attributed to Ryan Dancey up there are a first. They're completely unlike any comment that's been directed at the system in the past, because they present an intelligible, reasonably specific, consistent statement of where there's an alleged breach. It's also expressed in reasonably courteous and dispassionate language.

I absolutely welcome that. Remarks like this will strengthen my position, because they give me the opportunity to consider new viewpoints.

The only response I'll make in public is this: There are several matters that Ryan hasn't been able to take into account, because he doesn't know about them. If I received that comment from WOTC's legal department then I know how I'd respond.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

So what happens after OSRIC has been out for a couple of years then it gets challenged? Would all the infringing companies be required to pay royalties or destroy stock?

Well, let's imagine that OSRIC did infringe WOTC's intellectual property or somehow breach the OGL. (It doesn't do either of these things.)

If that were the case, then WOTC's lawyers would be able to give me a specific period of time to cure the breach, or take OSRIC down. (I haven't heard anything at all from WOTC's legal department.)

If they didn't do that within a reasonable period of time after OSRIC's launch, then they would open themselves up to a defence of laches, which would quite likely mean that they would lose the rights to that IP.

Waiting for a couple of years before challenge really isn't a realistic option for them; they need to do it soon or not at all.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

While it is apparent that WotC might lose if they try to sue, they have a very deep pocket to tie litigants in court.

In the US court system this would be a factor.

 

[dcas]

I don't think this is accurate. If memory serves, Mayfair won a court case against TSR over some of these very same issues. Let me try and dig that up for you, as I want to be sure of that before I say more.

The documents from the various cases between Mayfair Games and TSR over the "Role-Aids" can be found on the Internet. If I remember correctly, the cases can be summarized as follows:

(1) Mayfair said that their Role-Aids products were compatible with AD&D (without a license).
(2) TSR sued.
(3) Mayfair and TSR came to an agreement over how Role-Aids products could indicate compatibility (still no license, though).
(4) TSR bought Mayfair to court contending that they had violated that agreement.
(5) Court found that Mayfair had violated some provisions of their agreement with TSR, but not so much that the Role-Aids line could be cancelled or stopped.

If TSR did buy the Role-Aids line then I find it curious that they didn't buy the existing stock of the products (Mayfair was still selling them a short while ago, but not producing them). TSR did buy the existing stock of Dangerous Journeys (skids and skids of it, from what I've heard).

 

[dcas]

You cannot legally publishing using the C&C system. They [TLG] own that trademark, and have put trademarks on certain parts of their products, that would require you to get their permission to use C&C as a publishing vehicle, and most likely they would end up owning your work and paying you a pittance for it.

Yes. What's interesting is that if one uses the OGL then one can't use another company's trademarks, even to indicate compatibility or by way of comparison, and it's hard to see how one could make a C&C-compatible product without using at least some open-game content (but I wouldn't say it's impossible). Therefore, in a sense, the C&C trademark is actually protected by the OGL where the AD&D trademark is not (because, legally, one can write an AD&D-compatible module and say that it is AD&D-compatible -- the use of other company's trademarks is permitted to indicate compatibility -- but not if one uses the OGL).

Of course OSRIC uses the OGL, too (mainly for spells if I understand correctly), so OSRIC's designers can't say that it is compatible with AD&D (or C&C, for that matter), even though it substantially is.