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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 8889380" data-attributes="member: 463">Both sides would claim irreparable harm, though. The WoTC argument would be that the small, poor 3PP won't be able to compensate them for the terrible losses they're suffering. So just give us an interim injunction and close them down right now.In practice it comes down to how strong the WoTC case is prima facie. But I've seen apparently much stronger cases than this one where interim injunctions were not granted, eg BBC v Pally Screen, the Tellytubbies case. A respondent who could afford to pay lawyers to properly defend their case ought to be pretty safe from an injunction. A sole trader who can't afford a defence might well get enjoined.Edit: Even though Paizo is much smaller than Hasbro, Paizo is exactly the kind of company you would not want to go after if you're Hasbro's lawyers. They're clearly reputable, big enough to pay legal fees, big enough to pay some damages. The balance on granting an interim injunction to stop Paizo publishing under the OGL 1.0 pre-trial would be very very against WoTC-Hasbro. If I'm Hasbro Legal, I want to be going after some schmuck sole trader with no money and, preferably, few personal assets (car, house, etc) that they could sell or mortgage to raise money for a defence. That's the ideal target for an interim injunction.Edit 2: My experience is in England & English Law. While the USA seems pretty similar AFAICT, it's going to vary by State. WoTC might look for a suitable target in a particularly litigant-friendly state. OGL 1.0 has no choice of jurisdiction clause so they'd want to find a resident of their preferred jurisdiction, I'd think.</blockquote>

Verification