Rothe said:
They may fear you will fragment their market or reduce their market for their own 1e AD&D products or re-releases. They may fear this is treading to close in product identity to their 1e AD&D and hence may need to police their 1e AD&D mark by asking you to cease and desist. They may feel their AD&D mark is famous and may fear dilution, asking you to cease and desist. I assume you "checked" US and UK law but there may be other jurisdictions with broader intellectual property protections, regions where WotC has rights. I assume the OSRIC site can be accessed from anywhere in the world? I admire the work you put into this, just don't be surprised if they do object, especially if someone starts making money off of this.
Yes. However, all of what you've mentioned is trademark-oriented. If you're addressing what their concerns might be from a brand management perspective, your post is on point and illustrates why they might try to restrict the formation of a new market (illegal if it's not actually based on valid legal objections).
Trademark law would actually be an extremely weak reed if they want to try to stamp out markets in old school publishing. First, we don't use any of their trademarks at all. They'd have to rely on trade dress they haven't used or defended in decades. That's not a winner. In fact, it could be a big loser in some ways. Moreover, we don't acyually violate their trade dress; we don't use any layouts or other appearances that haven't been openly and conspicuously used by other publishers in the past.
That isn't to say they couldn't claim their day in court if they simply want to prevent the market forming. But there are risks in taking that sort of approach, especially given that they hold a massive percentage of the RPG market. They need a healthy OGL market, one that they aren't kicking at, to avoid allegations that they exercise "monopolistic power" in the relevant market. Any declines in the d20/OGL market relative to WotC increase their legal risks, and that relative decline seems to be happening. From an antitrust perspective, their smart move would actually be to encourage OSRIC - not actively support it, because it's tiny - but they'd gain non-monetary legal benefits (plus, I think, increased sales of their OOP pdfs) if OSRIC succeeds.
On the other hand, a questionable lawsuit or any activity directed at people using the OSRIC license could actually put them in the government's crosshairs at a time when the market's failing diversity makes the math bad for them.
Keep in mind, one reason for the OGL is to maintain competition in a market where without it, they risk antitrust violations for their every move. They wouldn't want to test those waters during a bad time for the small competitors. Trying to stamp out OSRIC would raise the words that no company wants to hear: a "chilling effect on competition."
