New GSL Announcement

[Stilvan]

Seems like this couldn't be better news for new publishers without any existing interest in 3e/OGL. With the major 3pps left to choose between being gelded by the GSL and opting out of 4e entirely, it looks like the playing field will be leveled dramatically.

As to how this benefits the consumer in any way...

 

[Delta]

Here's a question, based on the Microsoft analogy.

In 1994 Microsoft was charged by the US with violations of the Sherman Act. A key part of that charge was anticompetitive licensing terms forced onto third-party computer manufacturers. Such as this part of the official complaint ( http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm ).

20. Because of Microsoft's monopoly position in the marketplace, OEMs believe that they must offer MS-DOS and Windows to their customers. Profit margins in the computer hardware industry are very thin and OEMs want to obtain MS-DOS and Windows at the lowest possible cost. Microsoft has induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" contracts for MS-DOS and Windows, even though many would prefer to preserve their freedom to offer PCs with non-Microsoft operating systems.

With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act? Can someone explain how it would be different?

 

[Alzrius]

The part that makes me sad about this is that ultimately it's the customers who lose, along with the companies.

Prior to this announcement, I was lukewarm towards 4E. However, with the news that Necromancer Games was going to release a 3.5 PDF adaptation to their 4E Advanced Player's Guide, I counted myself likely to purchase a copy of the APG so I could use that 3.5 version with it (assuming said PDF would require a copy of the book to be useful).

If that can't happen now, however, then I won't be purchasing the APG because Necromancer won't be allowed to have a 3.5 version out there. Necromancer has lost a sale, and I've lost out on a product I wanted. How, exactly, is this a win for WotC then?

 

[Cergorach]

I understand WotC's position on this. The OGL doesn't serve their 4e interests. That's not necessarily malicious, but neither is the lion particularly malicious when he eats the gazelle.

When I watch nature shows, I usually root for the predator.

The Lion needs to eat, or it will starve and die. It's not as if WotC was starving when it released the SRD under the OGL. WotC won't starve now if it released 4E under a GSL (or better yet under the OGL) that doesn't enforce draconian limitations.

When the Lions kills the Gazelle just because it can, it is malicious. WotC might have a 'reason' to possibly sell those few extra 4E PHBs, so it might not technically be malice, but we can call it extremely self-absorbed, and with very little regard to others.

WotC is effectively saying (if what Lidda hinted at is true) that if your a Publisher. "Your either with us or against us." For a game company that is so dependant on a strong player community, that is a very... Unique... Stance to take. While I can understand that when WotC moves to 4E, they don't make a cent from the folks that will forever continue to play 3E. There are still a lot of folks that are still undecided on what they want, forcing them to make a choice (by forcing thehand of the publishers they buy from) is going to get ugly. Imagine how fans of GR will react when there's no 4E version of Freeport and GR responds with "Sorry can't make no 4E material without abandoning our T20 or Mutants and Masterminds fans.". The same goes for other companies, Paizo can't test the 4E waters in a year or two, they'll have to jump in all the way. A lot of companies are not going to blindly jump after Orcus into the fiery pit called 4E ;-)

I'm also very curious if this part of the license will hold up in court either in the US or in Europe (where WotC also has offices). Around here something like that would be labled as "unfair competition". While limiting a license within a 'product', limiting a license within a whole company would be impossible to enforce and probably be declared invalid. Imagine MS putting in their license that if your company accepts the license of Windows Vista, then they would never be allowed to use Windows XP within their company, and then stop selling/supporting WinXP (as every new PC would come with Windows Vista). That would probably make a lot of business sense, but I'm pretty sure that would not hold up in court.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act?

Not remotely.

Can someone explain how it would be different?

Honestly, is that really necessary?

Well, for starters, WotC doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a monopoly position. For goodness sakes.

Easy on the hyperbole, please.

EDIT: Ooooh. Or did you mean that Hasbro owns Monopoly?

 

[defendi]

WotC isn't a Monopoly. The Microsoft complaint was based on the fact that they were a monopoly, and so the other companies had no other choice. Wizards isn't a monopoly. You can walk away and do your own game at any time, and be very successful at it. In fact, I THINK the reason Microsoft won that case is that they declared Microsoft wasn't a monopoly (the case went up so many times I'm not positive on that one). Since WotC isn't a monopoly, you aren't forced.

 

[S'mon]

With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act? Can someone explain how it would be different?

If WoTC said "You can't publish any games except our stuff" (eg, no OGL Traveller if you publish D&D material) in the GSL, that would raise anti-trust issues. If the GSL only says "You can't use our IP under the OGL" - ie no 3e material - I think that'd be ok under US law, though the term would likely be unenforcable in some jurisdictions, eg Germany.

 

[Scipio202]

With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act? Can someone explain how it would be different?

Well, WOTC itself, and the RPG market as a whole are much smaller. WOTC doesn't have the monopoly power that Microsoft has. Plus, RPG systems are much more stand-alone, and complementary products like campaign worlds and adventures can be made system-neutral in a way that doesn't analogize to computers.

Plus the closest analogy to the big 3PPs is more like Apple or a Linux distributer, rather than an OEM, since they are producing potentially competing base systems. Companies who compete on some products but want to establish a joint venture in other areas often set parameters for the scope of their activities.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I am reminded of an ancient proverb.

If one wishes to keep sand, you don't hold it with a fist, you cup with your palm.

ps: 4e has been a wild roller coaster ride... and i think I'm going to be sick...

 

[kalanijasmine]

That is an interesting question, although I am fairly certain that Hasbro legal is fully aware of their rights under the Sherman Act (I could be wrong however).

In respect to the Microsoft Case, Microsoft was in violation of the Sharman Act because OEMs were forced to purchase new licences for DOS/Windows for each hardware product they released, and for the fact that said hardware is not a derivitive product of either DOS or Windows.

In order to show clearly why Microsoft was in breach of the Sherman Act, I will use the following analogue.

Lets say I create a product, we will call it Peanut Butter, and (for purposes of this example), lets say I hold the legal copyright for all peanut butter products. For the purposes of this analogy, peanut butter is a direct analogue to Windows.

Another company makes bread for a living. Again, bread is a direct analogue to the personal computer for the purposes of this analogy.

Now, Bread just isnt the same dry as it is with Peanut butter, and many of bread-makers consumers prefer to eat their bread with peanut butter over another similar product (eg: Strawberry Jam, which could be analogue to Apple or Linux).

If I decided to create a limited licence for peanut butter, which forced bread-making companies to purchase a new peanut butter licence for each version of "Bread" that they produce (flax-seed, whole wheat, white, multi-grain, etc), I would be in clear violation of the Sherman act in the same way that Microsoft was, because the creation of Flax-Seed or Multi-Grain Bread is in no way a byproduct of peanut butter.

The key distinction here is the fact that all products using the OGL are considered derivitive works, simply by virtue of having used the licence. They are not considered stand-alone products in the same way that a PC is a stand-alone product from an OS.

PCs can just as easily run Linux/Unix as they can run Windows or DOS. Therefore, how can a PC be considered a derivitive of Windows or DOS? More to the point, Windows, DOS and all other Operating Systems are derivative of Machine Language, and Binary.

If Microsoft had designed Machine Language or Binary, then they would have had the legal right to place limitations on every product which was a derivitive of machine language/binary, but not on hardware itself. Microsoft was in breach because they were placing sanctions on hardware, and as a result, were placing sanctions on products which had no direct relationship to Windows/DOS other than by virtue of those two OSs being the most popular, and therefore wide-spread.




Im no lawyer, but thats how I interpret the Sharman Act in this situation.