AKAramis said:
Phil, ADB vs CHS dba Companion Games is all about the trademark being violated by reference, and use of a trade secret. The interim injunctive relief put Companion Games out of business.
Excellent.
That makes it obviously irrelevant.
KoK is
not "using a trade secret" ... or every fantasy world created since TSR created DnD back in 1975ish has done the same thing.
The fact that *any* fantasy world is "compatible" with DnD of *any* iteration is self-evident.
The fact that someone states that is NOT violation of a trademark, simply statement of a fact.
As I noted, if they were silly enough to use the 4e Logo, then you'd be correct ... since the solitary case you have given has not been decided before a court, we don't know whether the Trademark infringement part would have stood the test, or, for that matter, whether the use of a trade secret part would have.
I would suspect that the idiot in question probably used some specific IP, reference to actually ship names or suchlike ... which, some at least, being part of the Star Trek IP that TFG licenses, were actionable.
However, this case is even more obviously irrelevant in that Kenzer and Co is run by an IP lawyer ... and, of course, has more than one product line and the *other* products couldn't be closed down as they are not subject to any supposed infringement.
So, at best, Hasbro could do a 900 gorilla impression, piss everyone off, cruel the 4e license (insofar as anyone was going to follow it anyway, and I can assure you that a number of major publishers were already going to ignore it before K&Co made their public announcement ... and those publishers still plan to do
exactly what K&Co plan to do ... and, undoubtedly, you'll see their products and announcements "real soon now") to the point where no-one is likely to want to take it up.
AND they
still won't be certain of a win, and, unless the people in question (big companies, if not 900 pound gorillas) have done something amazingly stupid like using the 4e logo unauthorised rather than simply indicating compatibility, Hasbro will fail.
TFG was able to succeed by bluff, in effect, against a small, undercapitalised company, none of these are in that position.0
AKAramis said:
The initial problem is that they used the Trademark "Star Fleet Battles" (which is a registered trademark of ADB) in a manner that implied consent to use it.
Which is irrelevant, as K&Co and the others will simply be mentioning compatibility, which is not the same at all.
Or, as I noted, Serif Pageplus and <your favourite non M$ software> wouldn't be able to produce software that has as its minimum requirements "Microsoft Windows 2000, XP or Vista Operating System" in the fine print on the back of the CD case, and with no use of the MS/Window logo.
You are discussing pineapples, I am discussing oranges.
AKAramis said:
Not being in Texas, Mr. Schutte also faces a texas law based violation of the trade secret laws of Texas (a 4th form of IP from the state laws of texas) since he used a formula never released by ADB whihc he had access to when he was part of ADB.
Which makes it even more blindingly obviously a pineapple and, therefore, completely irrelevant to purely nominative use.
AKAramis said:
It is
entirely clear ... your example is a pineapple, and totally irrelevant to what I have been discussing.
Since there are no magic hidden formulae in KoK and since a rules
process can't be copyrighted, and since they aren't using the 4e logo ... trademarks have nothing to do with it, copyright can't be claimed and ... well, I'm still talking oranges.
Phil
