Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenmarable" data-source="post: 3849884" data-attributes="member: 40359">So, is your argument that the term is too generic already, so that Paizo legally cannot register it as a trademark?Or that, since Paizo has based their business on using WotC's open content, they should, in the spirit of openness, let others use the term?Or both?The first argument, I think has merit, but it's up to lawyers to sort that out, not people posting on a messageboard.The second argument, that there is a moral imperative that Paizo let &quot;us&quot; have the term, to me, seems to be one that many, myself included, would argue with.Just trying to clarify things a bit so that people aren't jumping between the Legal Argument and the Moral Argument. (I knew those philosophy degrees would be handy someday.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenmarable, post: 3849884, member: 40359"] So, is your argument that the term is too generic already, so that Paizo legally cannot register it as a trademark? Or that, since Paizo has based their business on using WotC's open content, they should, in the spirit of openness, let others use the term? Or both? The first argument, I think has merit, but it's up to lawyers to sort that out, not people posting on a messageboard. The second argument, that there is a moral imperative that Paizo let "us" have the term, to me, seems to be one that many, myself included, would argue with. Just trying to clarify things a bit so that people aren't jumping between the Legal Argument and the Moral Argument. (I knew those philosophy degrees would be handy someday.) :) [/QUOTE]

Verification