What actually occured between TSR and Role Aids?

[Fifth Element]

I think the burden would be to demonstrate that there was a relationship or agreement such as you suggest. It's pretty unbelievable to think that every generic product in the entire store just happens to have some licensing agreement behind the scenes.

Some generic product is actually manufactured in the same factories as the name-brand stuff. It has to do with the economics of excess production capacity, and the market for lower-priced alternatives.

 

[Flynn]

I think the burden would be to demonstrate that there was a relationship or agreement such as you suggest. It's pretty unbelievable to think that every generic product in the entire store just happens to have some licensing agreement behind the scenes.

This is way off topic, and it's okay if you don't believe me. I could easily be wrong in general, though I've found specific examples in my local area where I am correct in my assertions.

I would suggest, if you want to check yourself, that you might look at all the meds that are referenced by these ads placed directly on the packaging. From my observations, many of those "brand-name" products that are referenced are owned by one or two central "brand-name" companies, and only one or two "generic" subsidiary companies have those labels on the packaging. Given that, and a little research with Google as to who owns each of the companies involved, and you can make up your own mind.

However, it's a long cry from the "Like that? You'll love this!" rack, or the indie band promotions, where the packaging makes no such claims, even if the people involved do make claims through other means, or more specifically, if others not involved in either product make such analogies on their own. Different discussion there, and one I feel is not related to the packaging claims issue that originally inspired our comments and observations.

But really, none of this really matters as far as gaming goes. (That is, unless it serves as the basis for an adventure or something like that, and then we can link it back somehow to using the Role-Aids product line as part of the adventure, such as Demons that control the companies involved in a modern-day variant of the Demons setting.)

Let's try to get back on topic here. If it helps, I apologize for making an observation that you didn't like or agree with.

Hope That Helps,
Flynn

 

[Glyfair]

Some generic product is actually manufactured in the same factories as the name-brand stuff. It has to do with the economics of excess production capacity, and the market for lower-priced alternatives.

I don't know about medical products (but could ask my friend in the pharmaceutical industry). However, I do know that the generic food products in the supermarkets are almost always just name brand food with different labels (arranged by the supermarket).

 

[Melan]

2) Although the court documents outline the official reasons for going after Mayfair, there might be some unofficial reasons. The game designers I spoke to said TSR management was irritated by Mayfairs Witches supplement and Demons product line, because those products were focusing on subject matter that TSR management was removing from official products.

Which is precisely one of the reasons which made the supplement line successful. I know that when I saw a review about a "Demons" boxed set, I immediately became interested, and bought it soon afterwards (Demons II; that's the only one the store had in stock). It wasn't even a good D&D supplement, more suitable for a mediaeval Ars Magica campaign, but the promises it held - Official TSR Products(TM) never had that kind of thing!

 

[ephemeron]

I would suggest that you first check this out if you are interested in the old Role-Aids products:
http://www.mayfairgames.com/shop-special/roleaids/mfg-ra.html

The prices are incredible.

In case anyone has been meaning to check this out but hasn't gotten around to it yet, they're sold out of the "Worlds and Wonders Set" and "Demons Set", but the "Source and Background Set" and adventures are still available.

 

[rogueattorney]

While the case wasn't directly on point, as a contractual dispute, the TSR v. Mayfair decision does have some interesting dicta with regard to production of "compatible with" gaming products. ("Dicta" is fancy lawyer talk for a statement by the court that is not essential to the case at hand; it can be used as persuasive argument but is not a definitive statement on the law; thus you often hear lawyers and judges dismissing some language in decisions as "merely dicta.")

As far as I know, it's the only published decision anywhere that has anything to do with producing "compatible with" products for rpgs. However, the tangential nature of the subject to the case at hand doesn't make it much more than merely interesting.

EDIT - the entire opinion can be read right here:
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html

 

[Delta]

I would suggest, if you want to check yourself, that you might look at all the meds that are referenced by these ads placed directly on the packaging. From my observations, many of those "brand-name" products that are referenced are owned by one or two central "brand-name" companies, and only one or two "generic" subsidiary companies have those labels on the packaging. Given that, and a little research with Google as to who owns each of the companies involved, and you can make up your own mind.

I'll remain skeptical until you give at least one concrete example.

Here's the first thing I could lay my hand on in NYC: Duane Reade Aspirin. It's stamped on the bottom with a "TPC" logo, which I'm assuming may be the Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The box compares it to Bayer Aspirin, and the fine print says "This product is not distributed by Bayer, Inc."

My Googling doesn't come up with any relationship between Duane Reade/TPC or Bayer, Inc. Can you find evidence of such a connection?

 

[rogueattorney]

I'll remain skeptical until you give at least one concrete example.

Here's the first thing I could lay my hand on in NYC: Duane Reade Aspirin. It's stamped on the bottom with a "TPC" logo, which I'm assuming may be the Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The box compares it to Bayer Aspirin, and the fine print says "This product is not distributed by Bayer, Inc."

My Googling doesn't come up with any relationship between Duane Reade/TPC or Bayer, Inc. Can you find evidence of such a connection?

There's two seperate issues - copyright and trademark.

Saying that your product compares to or is compatible with another product is not a trademark violation so long as you are quite clear in your labeling that you are not the producer of that other product.

Saying that your product is compatible with another product can be a copyright violation where copyright is an issue. Copyright is not an issue with car parts and medicines. (A patent violation might, on the other hand.) It is at issue with rpgs. The copyright holder has the exculsive right to produce "derivative products" of the copyrighted materials. Thus the holder of the Star Wars copyright is the only person who could authorize another Star Wars movie, rpg, video game, comic book, whatever.

Thus pretty much any adventure module is going to be a derivative product of the original rpg. Saying that your product is compatible with, for example, D&D is probably an admission of a copyright violation (the statement isn't a copyright violation, the creation of the derivative product is) unless you have permission from the copyright holders of D&D (the D20 license, for example) to make such a claim. (Note that the OGL explicitly prohibits making compatability claims.) However, as the Mayfair case cited above seems to indicate, it is probably not a copyright violation to produce products intended for use with a broad array of games and to advertise it as "suitable for use with most fantasy role playing games."

 

[Flynn]

I'll remain skeptical until you give at least one concrete example.

Here's the first thing I could lay my hand on in NYC: Duane Reade Aspirin. It's stamped on the bottom with a "TPC" logo, which I'm assuming may be the Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The box compares it to Bayer Aspirin, and the fine print says "This product is not distributed by Bayer, Inc."

My Googling doesn't come up with any relationship between Duane Reade/TPC or Bayer, Inc. Can you find evidence of such a connection?

Gee, Delta, do I have to? No, actually, I don't. I already said that this is off-topic, and that you don't have to believe me. I assume that your continued push on this matter is because you feel the need to be right. It doesn't hurt me to say "I'm wrong." Okay, here goes...

I'm wrong.

Look, does that help? Do you feel better? And what does this have to do with Role-Aids products?

As for my Google Fu...

Please read pages 50 and 51 of the following:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/6xx/doc655/pharm.pdf

Or perhaps this might help:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/..._generic-drugs-your-questions-answered_ov.htm

Namely...

Much of the time the same company that makes a brand-name drug also makes its less-expensive, generic version in order to sell to both markets.

and later...

Over-the-counter generics, which are often sold under the house brand of large retailers, such as CVS or Walgreens, have to meet the same manufacturing standards as the name brands with which they compete.

But I'm wrong, remember... I'm wrong and you're right. My examples do not contain specific examples, which is what you are looking for to prove your point. Yay, you win! Woohoo! Party at Delta's house!

Now, I ask for the last time, let's drop this stupid thing and move on. Please let it go. Congrats on your victory!

Enjoy,
Flynn

BTW, I still find your opinion on gaming matters to be insightful and thought-provoking, and I still look forward to reading your posts. You just don't like my generalizations in the arena of generic drugs, and I'm okay with that.

As an aside, this is my last post on this particular side topic, as I do not find it gaming related.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Also unverified but in the same vein, not only demons and witches, but a planned assassins book, demons sourcebooks, and an undead II book.

but at least TSR got Shaman and Chronomancer out of 'em.

I talked to some TSR staffers about this case back when it was still in the courts. Two things they said that I've never been able to verify:

1) TSR's original case against Mayfair was complicated because old management had OKed Mayfair producing D&D-compatible stuff, much as it had OKed Judge's Guild. (I know Gygax says that Brian Blume was responsible for the JG deal.) The crazy 1984 dealing was an effort by TSR to constrain what Mayfair could do with that permission, because the original contract wasn't very detailed. (1982, incidentally, is the year TSR cancelled Judge's Guild's license to print D&D supplements.)

2) Although the court documents outline the official reasons for going after Mayfair, there might be some unofficial reasons. The game designers I spoke to said TSR management was irritated by Mayfairs Witches supplement and Demons product line, because those products were focusing on subject matter that TSR management was removing from official products. To a lesser extent, there was also some concern that Mayfair had started published 2E-compatible supplements (Witches has non-weapon proficiencies), which some TSR people didn't think Mayfair had permission to use.

Again, that's all second-hand info, from game designers who probably didn't follow the case that closely. Take it with a grain of salt.