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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8883752" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Makes more sense.  I was thinking 2 things with my question.1.  If WOTC did win on their deautorizaiton/revocation OGL claims, then all their statements to the contrary that stood online for years would be evidence that they deceived and misled the users of the OGL.  So worst case for 3pp is they could likely be reimbursed for loses due to the change.  In fraud in the U.S. it clearly matters what promises and reassurances were made to a person.  This potential for a fraud claim also provides 3pp some leverage over the OGL situation.2.  As a legal strategy for the community it might be easier to pursue the fraud claims first.  Fraud claims wouldn't be required to wait on individualized action from WOTC - their statement that it's deauthorized/revoked and any monetary damage afterwards due to trying to comply would be enough for standing according to my understanding.  It puts WOTC on defense so to speak and prevents them from targeting companies 1 at a time.  Also, the chance a fraud claim succeeds in this situation seems higher than the chance the license claims succeed.  Not that the contract case isn't good, but the fraud case is a slam dunk.  After some company has done this, another could challenge the legitimacy of WOTC's interpretation of the OGL assuming WOTC even wants to push the issue at that point.  If WOTC did sue any other company for copyright infringement for using OGL 1.0a still they would then countersue for fraud while also defending against WOTC's claims.</blockquote>

Verification