Third Party Character Creation iOS App Removed

The d20 Fight Club for D&D 5th Edition iOS app has been removed from the Apple App Store by its creator at the request of WotC. The creator reports that he received a Cease & Desist demand (although it's worth noting that some supposed recent C&Ds appear to have turned out to be amicable requests). This follows on from the removal of the D&D Tools website and the more recent online character generator.

The creator reports that "I received a cease and desist order from Wizards of the Coast. All D&D apps will be removed from the App Store as they weren't compliant with WotC's copyrights and trademarks. Hopefully they'll be back in some form someday. Til then, thanks for all the support."

Nobody has actually shared one of these C&Ds yet, and others have indicated that what they actually received was simply a friendly email asking that they respect WotC's trademarks, so it's not entirely clear what is happening. Hopefully somebody will share one soon!

It does look like this particular app contained text and stat blocks copied directly from the D&D books. Below is the DM version of the app (the companion to the character creation app).

​

 

[Hussar]

The problem with that is that Wizards want there to be a character builder. (They just want it to be theirs, or at least properly licensed).

Wizards got burnt badly by the failure of Morningstar. As a rule, companies really don't like announcing things that then fail to eventuate.

I'm pretty sure the current state of things is that they're working to get a new builder up, but the negotiations (or coding) hasn't yet reached the state where they're ready to announce something.

Cheers!

AIR, WOTC never did actually announce that Morningstar was making the Character Builder, Morningstar did so. I seem to recall that Morningstar was pretty vocal about getting their program off the ground. I can't imagine, after being burned like that, that anyone licensing from WOTC for another CB will be allowed to announce anything before the program is ready to be released.

That there is no announcement isn't evidence of lack of progress.

 

[seebs]

Under the law, they have to defend their patents & trademarks (copyrights are different) or risk having them diluted or even losing them. While they may not have derivative product X in development NOW, if they have any plan of doing so in the future, they have to act.

I've seen lawyers discuss this at length, and they have always come down very unambiguously on the side that says "this is not even a tiny bit how it works".

There's no patents here that we know of. Trademarks, you don't have to sue people or demand that they stop, only that the usage reflects your ownership of the mark. For instance, Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark, but they do have to make sure that people distinguish between their products and Official Ford Products.

There's no reason for which WotC would be obliged to prevent people from making a thing which clearly indicates that it's not a Wizards product, but claims to be compatible with D&D, and reminds the user that D&D is a trademark of Wizards.

Well, none in terms of things they must do in order to protect their legal rights, anyway.

Personally, I just think they haven't got a coherent plan and they don't want anyone else muddying the waters and possibly hurting their position in negotiations, and I think that the huge error here is not having had a coherent plan ready to go. They should have at least known what their licensing plans were by the time the PHB was in final editing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I am a lawyer, so with both apologies and respect:

First, I was incorrect about patents. I was thinking of 35 U.S.C §102(b), which talks about loss of a patent by abandonment. However, that code refers to the patent holder's abandoning the pursuit of filing patent papers in a timely fashion, which can result in the loss of the ability to patent the invention if certain other conditions are met. IOW, I was in error. That's what happens when I try to express opinions outside of my areas of expertise.

(There are reasons why patent attorneys have to pass a separate bar exam, and I haven't done so. )

However, computer programs are patentable, so it is possible that WotC is defending software we don't know about.T

Trademarks differ in that extant trademarks can be lost by Genericism, Abandonment, Naked Licensing or Failure to Police. The key here is that lawsuits and C&D letters are key in defending against all four.

And to clarify, the reason

Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark

Is because that is fair use of its trademark. IOW, there is nothing they CAN do.

There's no reason for which WotC would be obliged to prevent people from making a thing which clearly indicates that it's not a Wizards product, but claims to be compatible with D&D, and reminds the user that D&D is a trademark of Wizards.

"D&D" is not the only trademark being defended. There's all the little terminology within the game product they've protected over the years.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(copyrights are different)

Damn, was I having a bad day or what? That's wrong and I know better. Better proofreading is clearly required on my part.

The doctrine of laches means that a failure to act to enforce your copyrights in a timely fashion can lead to a loss of them. According to the Supreme Court's 2014 case, Petrella v. MGM, the window to act is 3 years. Beyond that point, you snooze, you lose.

Furthermore, the duty to police your copyrights is essentially a self-help thing- there is no universal method of seeking out all copyright violations, and modern tech makes it much easier to access, copy and distribute copyrighted content without permission than it is to protect it.

Since it IS the IP holder's responsibility to find out who is doing what with their stuff, it is understandable that many seek to use certain cases as examples to other would-be infringers.

 

[aramis erak]

I've seen lawyers discuss this at length, and they have always come down very unambiguously on the side that says "this is not even a tiny bit how it works".

There's no patents here that we know of. Trademarks, you don't have to sue people or demand that they stop, only that the usage reflects your ownership of the mark. For instance, Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark, but they do have to make sure that people distinguish between their products and Official Ford Products.

There's no reason for which WotC would be obliged to prevent people from making a thing which clearly indicates that it's not a Wizards product, but claims to be compatible with D&D, and reminds the user that D&D is a trademark of Wizards.

Well, none in terms of things they must do in order to protect their legal rights, anyway.

Personally, I just think they haven't got a coherent plan and they don't want anyone else muddying the waters and possibly hurting their position in negotiations, and I think that the huge error here is not having had a coherent plan ready to go. They should have at least known what their licensing plans were by the time the PHB was in final editing.

The law for Trademarks, in the US, blackletter, pretty much requires the trademark defense start with a C&D letter. Next step can be a lawsuit or requesting an injunction, or as is usual, both. Failure to obey a properly worded C&D letter is grounds to be sued - the laws as presented in the CFR are not quite as intelligible, about this part, but it's not too hard. Any trademark litigation is a major risk, but usually, the plaintiff wins by settlement as the cost of litigation renders the respondent in danger of bankruptcy. Even when it doesn't settle, it still favors the plaintiff, especially with the standard being preponderance of the evidence ("is it more likely than not")...

Look at USOC vs AEG... their trademarks are quite distinct, and in totally separate fields (both of which contribute to lack of confusion of one for the other, one of the standard elements in defense in trademark), but the ruling came down that AEG's was too close to USOC's... because both are 5 interlocking rings, despite one being a chain, and the other a rosette.

 

[Mistwell]

I've seen lawyers discuss this at length, and they have always come down very unambiguously on the side that says "this is not even a tiny bit how it works".

There's no patents here that we know of. Trademarks, you don't have to sue people or demand that they stop, only that the usage reflects your ownership of the mark. For instance, Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark, but they do have to make sure that people distinguish between their products and Official Ford Products.

There's no reason for which WotC would be obliged to prevent people from making a thing which clearly indicates that it's not a Wizards product, but claims to be compatible with D&D, and reminds the user that D&D is a trademark of Wizards.

Well, none in terms of things they must do in order to protect their legal rights, anyway

I disagree. First, this is mostly a copyright issue - these sites were using whole sections of WOTC text in their tools. Second, you can see a brief review of the three defenses related to this issue here.

 

[Dausuul]

Personally, I just think they haven't got a coherent plan and they don't want anyone else muddying the waters and possibly hurting their position in negotiations, and I think that the huge error here is not having had a coherent plan ready to go. They should have at least known what their licensing plans were by the time the PHB was in final editing.

They did know. They even told us about it. Their plans were to have Trapdoor Technologies develop a licensed set of digital tools. If I remember right, those tools were supposed to ship sometime around the PHB release.

Then something happened which made them abandon that plan. What, we don't know. Trapdoor's oblique hints are not very informative, and Wizards hasn't even hinted. The simplest explanation is that Trapdoor was failing to deliver and WotC pulled the plug, but there are any number of other possibilities. Regardless, it knocked WotC's stated plan into a cocked hat.

Have they got a new plan? Probably. It's been months since the Dungeonscape meltdown. That's plenty of time to come up with a new strategy. Are they going to tell us the new plan before they have something to show? Heck no. Considering how deep the budget knife has sliced into the D&D division over the last few years, I doubt they have the capital for a big in-house effort. Therefore, their new plan almost surely relies on some other software company (my bet is Lone Wolf), and they don't want to risk a repeat of Dungeonscape.

 

[Icon_Charlie]

I disagree. First, this is mostly a copyright issue - these sites were using whole sections of WOTC text in their tools. Second, you can see a brief review of the three defenses related to this issue here.

Regardless it still comes down to money. He who has the money has the power to influence things. That is the most unfortunate thing that exists. Seen it first hand. Dealt with situations (not this particular situation as due to how I protect my IP's ) in a court of law. In the end of the game it comes down to who as the money and the better attorney in any litigation.

These are the situations I have had to deal with. I would rather deal with people and come to a conclusion than become my signature.

 

[delericho]

Regardless it still comes down to money. He who has the money has the power to influence things. That is the most unfortunate thing that exists. Seen it first hand. Dealt with situations (not this particular situation as due to how I protect my IP's ) in a court of law. In the end of the game it comes down to who as the money and the better attorney in any litigation.

And if the person with the most money is also the person who happens to be right, is it still an injustice?

Because that appears to be the case here - yes, WotC have the big scary lawyers, but they also happen to be the rightful owners of the IP. And it does appear that there has been infringement on their rights.

 

[Curmudjinn]

Here is an interesting snippet by Trapdoor Technologies.

"Just FYI, we did not fail to meet deadlines re: wotc partnership. The contract was dissolved due to differences in core business philosophies, especially regarding digital distribution."