So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

[Brown Jenkin]

If there's substantial legal doubt over whether the D20 STL is in force, why are publishers scrubbing the d20 logos off their now-OGL products?

1. As had been already mention. They don't want to risk legal fees.

2. No d20 means it goes to OGL so no chance of breach.

3. Because while legal doubt is in effect an intent has been made clear so do it now.

4. The OGL and d20 were based on respect and trust and companies want to remain on the good side of WotC.

 

[Marius Delphus]

What I'm really trying to say is, there's another way to look at this beyond "WOTC's lawyers don't know as much about the law as do random posters on an Internet forum!"

I see this attitude all the time in another forum I frequent. It's bewildering. Why the urge to find a third-party proprietary interest in WOTC's property? If WOTC gives notice that the D20 STL is about to die, and 3PPs dutifully expend effort (in some cases, a great deal of effort) to comply, why does that automatically mean that the 3PPs are caving and WOTC is just being a big bully? Why does WOTC automatically have to be in the wrong, not just ethically but legally?

And how is it that a few random Internet posters can suss out what's "really" going on when WOTC says nothing (or nothing *public*)? Why not explore the assumption that WOTC does, in fact, know what they're doing legally even if (even though) they've made hash of the PR end?

What I've tried to do is provide an alternate view of what happened that backs up Morrus's understanding of things (he having WOTC's ear to a much greater degree than many posters here). I don't have any vested interest in whether anyone buys into it or not. I'm just saying that there's a consistent story here that could be offered in a legal brief (or, heaven forfend, at trial) that explains why WOTC might not have done anything wrong.

 

[Marius Delphus]

That is so false it's not even funny. They can revoke their offer, but certainly not a valid contract.

Owning a trademark doesn't make you God.

I never said anything of the sort. [EDIT: In the US, owning a trademark makes you, at best, a demigod, with a very limited sphere of influence.]

I said that WOTC is entitled to revoke their unilateral contract providing a license to use their property under certain conditions.

You're welcome to find that implausible, but I offer it as a possibility.

 

[Oldtimer]

I said that WOTC is entitled to revoke their unilateral contract providing a license to use their property under certain conditions.

You're welcome to find that implausible, but I offer it as a possibility.

I don't find it implausible. I simply find it incorrect.

Please note that this has nothing to to with trademark law. It's a matter of contract law. I doubt US contract law is that dissimliar to contract law in my country.

 

[Wicht]

And how is it that a few random Internet posters can suss out what's "really" going on when WOTC says nothing (or nothing *public*)? Why not explore the assumption that WOTC does, in fact, know what they're doing legally even if (even though) they've made hash of the PR end?.

Its not just a few random Internet posters who have not been kept in the loop.

Vic Wertz of Paizo wrote the following about three months ago (with bolding by me):

in April, D&D Brand Manager Scott Rouse said this in an interview on ICv2:


Scott Rouse wrote:
"...in June of 2008 [the d20] license will be terminated as we release the new game system license. We're going to give publishers a sell-off period where they'll have until the end of 2008 to move through any stock that they have in their warehouses. Once it's at distribution or in retail, the product can continue to sell through in its natural progression. We're not going to ask publishers to recall that product and destroy it. But any excess inventory that they may happen to have in their warehouses at the end of '08 would need to be destroyed. Any subsequent reprints they can still publish through the Open Gaming License, they just have to remove the d20 system trademark logo. That would include both PDF and physical product that continues to be sold after 2008."

...but, as far as I've been able to tell, there's never been an official announcement that this plan was actually carried out, in June 2008 or any other month. I'd expect notice to be posted on Wizards' d20/OGL license page, but I don't see anything like that there.

Nevertheless, numerous third parties have taken that statement as fact, and have begun the process of rebranding their d20 PDFs as OGL (or planned to stop selling their d20 PDFs entirely).

 

[Marius Delphus]

I don't find it implausible. I simply find it incorrect.

Please note that this has nothing to to with trademark law. It's a matter of contract law. I doubt US contract law is that dissimliar to contract law in my country.

I agree that it would be incorrect in the case of a *bilateral* contract (wherein, for example, I fax my signature to WOTC indicating my personal acceptance of their terms).

I posit that it is correct in the case of a unilateral contract, which I think the D20 STL is.

 

[Wicht]

Vic Wertz also wrote the following on December 23rd.

Again, I've seen no evidence that Wizards actually terminated the d20 license in June 2008 (or at any other time); there's currently nothing about such an action on Wizards' d20 license info page. Nonetheless, some publishers are acting as though the plan Scott laid out in the interview is official.

01 Games and Expeditious Retreat Press have already had us replace all of their d20 PDFs with OGL-rebranded versions, and Skirmisher Publishing is working on doing the same.

The only company I know of that has asked for their d20 products to come down entirely is Goodman Games, but Lisa may know of others.

I'm assuming that every other d20 PDF publisher is waiting for an official announcement ending the license before they take any action; we're not taking any action until we hear otherwise.

link for those interested.

 

[Marius Delphus]

This is very telling on the issue of whether WOTC has in fact terminated the license; thanks for finding that.

I'd be very interested to hear Paizo's views on how they expect WOTC to go about terminating the license, but it seems that Vic, at least, believes WOTC is within its rights to do so in the first place.

 

[Bacris]

Interpretting a belief in a view based upon a wait-and-see approach is a bit of jumping to conclusions.

Again, this is all conjecture. Maybe the reason WotC hasn't done any "official" termination on their website is because all the rhetoric here is correct. Or maybe not. The only people who really know would be those fully versed in contract and trademark law, of which I am not.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

What I'm really trying to say is, there's another way to look at this beyond "WOTC's lawyers don't know as much about the law as do random posters on an Internet forum!"

I don't anyone saying WotC lawyers don't know as much as random internet posters. Wotc lawyers haven't said anything so the random internet posters are interpreting what the d20stl says for themselves.

I see this attitude all the time in another forum I frequent. It's bewildering. Why the urge to find a third-party proprietary interest in WOTC's property? If WOTC gives notice that the D20 STL is about to die, and 3PPs dutifully expend effort (in some cases, a great deal of effort) to comply, why does that automatically mean that the 3PPs are caving and WOTC is just being a big bully? Why does WOTC automatically have to be in the wrong, not just ethically but legally?

There is no right and wrong here as WotC has taken no position at all. This issue being discussed right now is not whether 3PPs are caving, but whether there is a termination of the d20stl at all. I don't care whether 3PPs choose to convert from OGL + d20stl to OGL only at all.

And how is it that a few random Internet posters can suss out what's "really" going on when WOTC says nothing (or nothing *public*)? Why not explore the assumption that WOTC does, in fact, know what they're doing legally even if (even though) they've made hash of the PR end?

I give, what is going on at WotC? No one is questioning their motives, but rather their actions or lack thereof. They may very well know what they are doing legally, but as they have not given any comment at all there is no way to know. No one said they don't know what they are doing, but rather that they have not actually revoked the d20stl as some assume.

What I've tried to do is provide an alternate view of what happened that backs up Morrus's understanding of things (he having WOTC's ear to a much greater degree than many posters here). I don't have any vested interest in whether anyone buys into it or not. I'm just saying that there's a consistent story here that could be offered in a legal brief (or, heaven forfend, at trial) that explains why WOTC might not have done anything wrong.

Again, no one tried to come up with their story or motivations. It is not a question of views, but rather trying to figure out where the legal standing of the d20stl actually is.