Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4022137" data-attributes="member: 1003">Although forcing a settlement rather than rack up legal fees is a strategy, I'd be curious to see what WotC's argument for damages would be if the playtester's opinion was an honest one (not libelous). They'd have to show that him releasing his opinion now caused them more damages than it being released in June (when the NDA surely expires).They'd also have to consider the PR costs of suing their own playtester for posting an opinion that WotC's customers would probably want to know. They could lose sales to people who'd rather pirate the books than give such a company another cent (I know people who feel this way about the record labels).That being said, I really don't believe that WotC would have put in writing &quot;You can talk about your opinions now, but only if they're positive.&quot;&nbsp; That sounds like something that someone who's not too smart but wants to smear a company would say, rather than an intelligent company with competent business and legal advisers (or anyone with a sense of decency or common sense).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 4022137, member: 1003"] Although forcing a settlement rather than rack up legal fees is a strategy, I'd be curious to see what WotC's argument for damages would be if the playtester's opinion was an honest one (not libelous). They'd have to show that him releasing his opinion now caused them more damages than it being released in June (when the NDA surely expires). They'd also have to consider the PR costs of suing their own playtester for posting an opinion that WotC's customers would probably want to know. They could lose sales to people who'd rather pirate the books than give such a company another cent (I know people who feel this way about the record labels). That being said, I really don't believe that WotC would have put in writing "You can talk about your opinions now, but only if they're positive." That sounds like something that someone who's not too smart but wants to smear a company would say, rather than an intelligent company with competent business and legal advisers (or anyone with a sense of decency or common sense). [/QUOTE]

Verification