Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Why We Should Work With WotC
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caerdwyn" data-source="post: 8912185" data-attributes="member: 7040161"><p>I must strongly disagree.</p><p></p><p>Hasbro is trying to revoke and claim ownership of rights that it never actually owned.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They cannot copyright, patent or trademark game mechanics; that's settled law with cases going all the way to the top.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They cannot copyright the rules systems in the SRD, only the <em>verbatim</em> text thereof, and the <em>verbatim </em>text of the Player's Handbook etc. And they do not need an OGL to assert proper copyright protections.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Similarly, they do not need an OGL to assert trademark protections and associated product identity.</li> </ul><p>The OGL in all its forms is irrelevant and unenforceable; it serves only to list trademarks and product identity, which third parties need not even acknowledge as long as they don't use those trademarks. If I don't say "Mordenkainen" or "Forgotten Realms" or anything else in the list, I don't even need to admit that anyone in Hasbro still draws breath.</p><p></p><p>Has-been is claiming ownership of something that it does not, in fact, own (the rules system mechanics and the ability to publish material adhering to and compatible with the mechanics of the rules); what they are trying to do is to have third parties (including <strong>you</strong>, Gentle Reader) to give up rights which <strong>you </strong>own to Hasbro, without compensation. They are relying entirely upon the fear of incurring legal costs. And for that, there are laws about anticompetitive behavior, and anti-SLAPP laws,</p><p></p><p>There is no need to negotiate, and if they litigate, they have a lot more to lose than we do. Per the major investor advice site Motley Fool, <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/01/17/big-change-coming-for-hasbro-should-investor-worry/" target="_blank">WotC accounts for only 22% of revenue but 72% of <strong>profit </strong>for Hasbro as a whole</a>. MTG and D&D are almost 4 times as cheap to extract profit from than anything else Hasbro has, and they think this is a cheap way to squeeze even harder to support the rest of its underperforming lineup. WotC is carrying the rest of Hasbro on its back; it's as close to "free money" as can be. And Hasbro is dead set upon killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, strictly out of fear of competition that applicable law insists MUST be allowed to exist unhindered.</p><p></p><p>Specifics and sources:</p><p></p><p>You <strong>do not need a license or permission from Hasbro to say "my product is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons."</strong> That's backed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision: <a href="https://www.theiplawblog.com/2019/05/articles/intellectual-property-litigation/hidden-trademark-landmines-in-comparative-and-compatibility-advertisements/" target="_blank">Hidden Trademark Landmines in Comparative and Compatibility Advertisements</a> I can put out an adventure for D&D, say it's 5e-compatible, and there's not a damned thing Hasbro can do about it... <em>unless</em> I, not they, say it's released under the OGL.</p><p></p><p>Hasbro <strong>cannot copyright game mechanics,</strong> directly per the U.S. Copyright Office itself. Source: <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/U.S._Copyright_Office_fl108.pdf" target="_blank">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/U.S._Copyright_Office_fl108.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>Hasbro <strong>cannot patent game mechanics</strong>. The relevant case is Baker vs. Selden 1879 (<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/" target="_blank">Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)</a>). The U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that methods of accounting were neither copyrightable nor patentable. The court ruled that a method of accounting could not be protected by copyright, because it was a system or process, and therefore not subject to copyright. The court also held that it was not patentable because it was a principle or method, and not a tangible invention. Intellectual property lawyers recognize that this is a very strong precedent for game mechanics claims.</p><p></p><p>Even were this theoretically possible, it's much too late for that. There are almost 50 years of widely established prior art and "public disclosure"; <strong>you have at most one year after disclosure to seek the patent.</strong> Even if a patent had been issued back in the 70's, the patent would have lasted only 20 years. Source: <a href="https://www.mewburn.com/law-practice-library/grace-periods-for-disclosure-of-an-invention-before-applying-for-a-patent" target="_blank">Grace Periods for Disclosure of an Invention before Applying for a Patent</a></p><p></p><p>My conclusion is that Hasbro has no rights to assert any sort of ownership or control, or to demand royalties for, D&D-compatible products... <strong>unless</strong> the third party foolishly signs a contract giving that all away, or foolishly uses something from a very limited list of trademarks in very specific ways, i.e. use of registered Hasbro logos in trade or claiming Hasbro specifically endorses the product.</p><p></p><p>I am not a lawyer. I am a GM of 45 years of experience, a software quality engineer of 30 years experience, a publisher of widely-distributed independent print-media comics, with a keen interest in intellectual property law, who does not back down to a meaningless cease-and-desist just because it's on fancy letterhead.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caerdwyn, post: 8912185, member: 7040161"] I must strongly disagree. Hasbro is trying to revoke and claim ownership of rights that it never actually owned. [LIST] [*]They cannot copyright, patent or trademark game mechanics; that's settled law with cases going all the way to the top. [*]They cannot copyright the rules systems in the SRD, only the [I]verbatim[/I] text thereof, and the [I]verbatim [/I]text of the Player's Handbook etc. And they do not need an OGL to assert proper copyright protections. [*]Similarly, they do not need an OGL to assert trademark protections and associated product identity. [/LIST] The OGL in all its forms is irrelevant and unenforceable; it serves only to list trademarks and product identity, which third parties need not even acknowledge as long as they don't use those trademarks. If I don't say "Mordenkainen" or "Forgotten Realms" or anything else in the list, I don't even need to admit that anyone in Hasbro still draws breath. Has-been is claiming ownership of something that it does not, in fact, own (the rules system mechanics and the ability to publish material adhering to and compatible with the mechanics of the rules); what they are trying to do is to have third parties (including [B]you[/B], Gentle Reader) to give up rights which [B]you [/B]own to Hasbro, without compensation. They are relying entirely upon the fear of incurring legal costs. And for that, there are laws about anticompetitive behavior, and anti-SLAPP laws, There is no need to negotiate, and if they litigate, they have a lot more to lose than we do. Per the major investor advice site Motley Fool, [URL='https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/01/17/big-change-coming-for-hasbro-should-investor-worry/']WotC accounts for only 22% of revenue but 72% of [B]profit [/B]for Hasbro as a whole[/URL]. MTG and D&D are almost 4 times as cheap to extract profit from than anything else Hasbro has, and they think this is a cheap way to squeeze even harder to support the rest of its underperforming lineup. WotC is carrying the rest of Hasbro on its back; it's as close to "free money" as can be. And Hasbro is dead set upon killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, strictly out of fear of competition that applicable law insists MUST be allowed to exist unhindered. Specifics and sources: You [B]do not need a license or permission from Hasbro to say "my product is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons."[/B] That's backed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision: [URL='https://www.theiplawblog.com/2019/05/articles/intellectual-property-litigation/hidden-trademark-landmines-in-comparative-and-compatibility-advertisements/']Hidden Trademark Landmines in Comparative and Compatibility Advertisements[/URL] I can put out an adventure for D&D, say it's 5e-compatible, and there's not a damned thing Hasbro can do about it... [I]unless[/I] I, not they, say it's released under the OGL. Hasbro [B]cannot copyright game mechanics,[/B] directly per the U.S. Copyright Office itself. Source: [URL]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/U.S._Copyright_Office_fl108.pdf[/URL] Hasbro [B]cannot patent game mechanics[/B]. The relevant case is Baker vs. Selden 1879 ([URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/']Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)[/URL]). The U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that methods of accounting were neither copyrightable nor patentable. The court ruled that a method of accounting could not be protected by copyright, because it was a system or process, and therefore not subject to copyright. The court also held that it was not patentable because it was a principle or method, and not a tangible invention. Intellectual property lawyers recognize that this is a very strong precedent for game mechanics claims. Even were this theoretically possible, it's much too late for that. There are almost 50 years of widely established prior art and "public disclosure"; [B]you have at most one year after disclosure to seek the patent.[/B] Even if a patent had been issued back in the 70's, the patent would have lasted only 20 years. Source: [URL='https://www.mewburn.com/law-practice-library/grace-periods-for-disclosure-of-an-invention-before-applying-for-a-patent']Grace Periods for Disclosure of an Invention before Applying for a Patent[/URL] My conclusion is that Hasbro has no rights to assert any sort of ownership or control, or to demand royalties for, D&D-compatible products... [B]unless[/B] the third party foolishly signs a contract giving that all away, or foolishly uses something from a very limited list of trademarks in very specific ways, i.e. use of registered Hasbro logos in trade or claiming Hasbro specifically endorses the product. I am not a lawyer. I am a GM of 45 years of experience, a software quality engineer of 30 years experience, a publisher of widely-distributed independent print-media comics, with a keen interest in intellectual property law, who does not back down to a meaningless cease-and-desist just because it's on fancy letterhead. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Why We Should Work With WotC
Top