d20 without the label, game mechanics, copyrights...

[NPC White Rabbit]

You can't copyright game mechanics right?

Well...lets say I decide to make a game or related material using the D&D3 gamesystem without putting on the d20 logo and write some new words to explain it. I'll redesign the charactersheet and the tables. I'd probably announce it as something using a d20 (if annoucning at all) and...word will get around anyway so in the stores it would probably be put alongside the other d20 products...
What would happen? What COULD happen?

And about rewriting the text explaining the system...If one were to nick just a part of a system like AD&D2's THAC0 and use it in combat mechanics, could it still be called THAC0 or would it have to be named something else? And the terms Armor class and Hitpoints...what about them? All this considering it would be while AD&D2 was still out there...

I think hackmaster uses the old AD&D system...did they nick it or did they license it?


Got the missing "b"

[Clark]

Proceed with extreme caution, if at all. Contrary to popular belief, people CAN come after you for your creation being only SIMILAR to theirs, even if it's not an identical copy.

Can you copyright game mechanics? I think Hasbro's lawyers might disagree with you.

[pointless point]

AFAIK, as long as you don't use the trademarked D20 logo or other WotC trademarks, you can use the OGL contents or other Open Game contents however you desire. I think one has to give proper credit and that's about it. I don't think there are really many restrictions. Most of the existing restrictions are in the D20 system trademark license.

IIRC, there was a lawsuit by TSR a while back over stolen system stuff. The court ruled that a system could not be copyrighted. The trademark logos and the Dungeons and Dragons name certainly can but I don't think system can.

AFAIK, I could put out a game that is, in essence, entirely copied from D&D3E right now without paying WotC a cent. I just couldn't use any of their trademark names or logos. I don't know why I would. It would be the same thing only more expensive because of the smaller print runs. Alternatively, it would be the same price with lower production values. The second is more realistic because I don't have the capital to hire authors, artists and editors that WotC does. Who the heck would want that?

[Mike Zebrowski]

WoTC has released the d20 SRD under the OGL. As long as you follow the license, you can do anything that you want with it.

What you can not do is refer to any other game or use the d20 logo without permission of the copyright/trademarks' owners.

But, we've had enough clones of AD&D2. Do we really need a new wave of D&D3 clones?

Mike Z

[NPC Peter]

I saw a very similar message to this over a year ago on the OGL list. Ryan Dancey's response was "If you want to produce Palladium Fantasy RPG again, go right ahead."

[Clark]

Given the other posts since mine, perhaps I'm incorrect in how I read the situation. I've been a little copyright paranoid ever since two things happened:

1. The latest Austin Powers movie was ordered to alter its name, as it was too similar to a James Bond movie title. (Granted, it wasn't a government entity who ordered them to do it, but still...)

2. A friend of mine who works for an independent film production company handles all their product placement issues. Seems they can be sued for putting a product in their movie without the permission of the producers of the product. Their company was legally threatened by a furniture maker because one of their chairs was in a 5 second scene in one of their films. She says (and I quote): "Free speech is dead in commercial contexts."

These two incidents led to a fit of pessimism where I assumed Hasbro would eat you for lunch if you tried what you proposed above. However, based on what others on the board have said, maybe not.

But the question does remain: Why would you?

[NPC White Rabbit]

I used realworld example to simplify things...

As everybody else, I'm also creating a system and was wondering what could happen with it if ever published (yeah right, as if)...and also...it's kind of a hotchpotch thing, a little from there, a little from here...a patchwork of other mechanics with dashes of own...what's the risks if any? I mean...almost all systems are aren't they? I mean, percentiles, dicepools, hitpoints, d6, d12, d20 are all free concepts...?

?

[Caduceus]

Since you can just directly copy the OGL material in the SRD you could just use all the D&D rules, throw in your own advancement and character creation rules and be done with it. Almost everything is in the SRD now.

[NPC White Rabbit]

Originally posted by Clark
Given the other posts since mine, perhaps I'm incorrect in how I read the situation. I've been a little copyright paranoid ever since two things happened:

1. The latest Austin Powers movie was ordered to alter its name, as it was too similar to a James Bond movie title. (Granted, it wasn't a government entity who ordered them to do it, but still...)

2. A friend of mine who works for an independent film production company handles all their product placement issues. Seems they can be sued for putting a product in their movie without the permission of the producers of the product. Their company was legally threatened by a furniture maker because one of their chairs was in a 5 second scene in one of their films. She says (and I quote): "Free speech is dead in commercial contexts."

These two incidents led to a fit of pessimism where I assumed Hasbro would eat you for lunch if you tried what you proposed above. However, based on what others on the board have said, maybe not.

But the question does remain: Why would you?

-----------

OK...first time I quote...guess this is really easy but if I screwed it up...don't laugh :)

Those incidents seem rather extreme...wow...so, if you're making a movie you got to design and produce everything yourself, all the costumes, kitchen utensils, furniture and whatnot or else you might be sued...totaly... ...I have no words...


by the way...I have no plans making unlicensed D&D3 products...I wast just using it as an example...though it would be "fun" to try just for the #¤%¤/ of it :) ...or maybe not...

[Corporate Dog]

Originally posted by Clark
Given the other posts since mine, perhaps I'm incorrect in how I read the situation. I've been a little copyright paranoid ever since two things happened:

1. The latest Austin Powers movie was ordered to alter its name, as it was too similar to a James Bond movie title. (Granted, it wasn't a government entity who ordered them to do it, but still...)


I don't think they were "ordered" to do anything (and if they were, it was probably just a temporary injunction). MGM is claiming that "Goldmember" (the name of the new AP movie) is an infringement on their trademarked "Goldfinger" (the name of an old Bond movie). Legally, MGM has NO leg to stand on here. However, if the studio behind AP decided to accept MGM's challenge in court, they wouldn't be allowed to use the "Goldmember" name until everything had been straightened out. This would put a huge kink in their marketing campaign for the movie, and thus, it would be far easier to just change the name of the movie (which is what I hear they're doing).

Sometimes, even if you can win a court case, it's just not worth pursuing. You have to pick your battles.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

EDIT: Just to bring this back to the original question, Wizards could easily decide to pursue a similar strategy against someone who decided to rewrite D&D3E in their own words. Yes, it's perfectly legal for you to do so, but do you have the cash and fortitude to back up that up in court? Would it really be worth it for you to do so? You CAN still be taken to court, even if your actions ARE legal.

[Clark]

Originally posted by NPC White Rabbit
Those incidents seem rather extreme...wow...so, if you're making a movie you got to design and produce everything yourself, all the costumes, kitchen utensils, furniture and whatnot or else you might be sued...totaly... ...I have no words...

It was pretty extreme - she said most companies are very accomodating and there's not often trouble with this. However I used that real-world event to illustrate how a big company with skilled lawyers and a bug up its butt can screw up the best laid plans. Is WoTC one of those companies? Sometimes yes, other times no (witness their very reasonable and accomodating resolution of the StarFrontiers.com mess last fall).

Your more general question: If you just take bits & pieces of other systems, pieces small enough to not be instantly identifiable with those systems, you should be fine.

[NPC White Rabbit]

Originally posted by Corporate Dog


I don't think they were "ordered" to do anything (and if they were, it was probably just a temporary injunction). MGM is claiming that "Goldmember" (the name of the new AP movie) is an infringement on their trademarked "Goldfinger" (the name of an old Bond movie). Legally, MGM has NO leg to stand on here. However, if the studio behind AP decided to accept MGM's challenge in court, they wouldn't be allowed to use the "Goldmember" name until everything had been straightened out. This would put a huge kink in their marketing campaign for the movie, and thus, it would be far easier to just change the name of the movie (which is what I hear they're doing).

Sometimes, even if you can win a court case, it's just not worth pursuing. You have to pick your battles.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

Those people just don't have a sense of humor...

[Clark]

Originally posted by Corporate Dog
I don't think they were "ordered" to do anything (and if they were, it was probably just a temporary injunction). MGM is claiming that "Goldmember" (the name of the new AP movie) is an infringement on their trademarked "Goldfinger"

The MPAA (not a real court of law, even though they like to think they are) did order them to. It's not a binding order - the MPAA can't exaclty send police over to enforce its ruling, but as you said, they could make life very difficult for Paramount (?) if they don't comply. Like you said, pick your battles.

[cbatt]

Originally posted by NPC White Rabbit
You can't copyright game mechanics right?

Well...lets say I decide to make a game or related material using the D&D3 gamesystem without putting on the d20 logo and write some new words to explain it. I'll redesign the charactersheet and the tables. I'd probably announce it as something using a d20 (if annoucning at all) and...word will get around anyway so in the stores it would probably be put alongside the other d20 products...
What would happen? What COULD happen?

And about rewriting the text explaining the system...If one were to nick just a part of a system like AD&D2's THAC0 and use it in combat mechanics, could it still be called THAC0 or would it have to be named something else? And the terms Armor class and Hitpoints...what about them? All this considering it would be while AD&D2 was still out there...

I think hackmaster uses the old AD&D system...did they nick it or did they license it?


Got the missing "b"

I too had this idea, quite a while back in fact, and I think that it can "legally" be done. What I'd do is put a label on the product which states something along the lines of: "Compatible with the world's most popular Roleplaying Game!"

The nice thing about this "solution" is that it frees you up to include the character progression information which the d20 license forbids. It also lets you muck with the stats (which I think must be named, and function, exactly like their standard d20 counterparts) and other basic character abilities which, if I've read the d20 license correctly, you cannot normally do. The benefit of all this is of course not requiring the customer to have the DnD3e PHB, and with no ties to the PHB, you are probably freerer to stretch the boundries of typical d20 products (ie you don't have to make Fantasy Game Supplement X).

Example: tired of having STR determine combat bonuses in melee? Change it. Don't like the way HP and AC work? Change it. Don't want an intelligence stat? Change it. Truth be told, I don't <i>exactly</i> know whether or not these changes can be made within the terms of the d20 license (IANAL), but I suspect that they cannot.

The tradeoff is lack of brand recognition. You theoretically have to work harder to get people to notice your stuff.

** <i>Please Note</i>:
The d20 license is an seperate from, though related to, the Open Gaming License. It refers to what sort of requirements must be met by the product in order to be able to legally use the d20 logo and refer to certain WOTC/Hasbro trademarks.

The OGL is simply a license which allows the creator to retain ownership of their original materials while at the same time allowing them to be freely shared for use within products not produced by the owner, so long as certain basic requirements are met. In short, the d20 license is a flavour of the OGL.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Which I probably am.

[Wolfspider]

You could do it, sure, but we'd all think you were pretty darn lame. :D

[NPC Lizard]

Kenzer&Co have rights to the bulk of AD&D1 and 2. You will note the Hackmaster games contain not only similair rules to AD&D, but many long passages of identical text. This is 100% illegal without a license, which they have.

[Patrick Chipman]

The US Copyright Office has stated plainly that the mechanics of a game are ideas and cannot be copyrighted. The original issue was over the concept of Monopoly, I believe, and it was ruled that replications of the game that did not use substantially similar rule texts were outside of the office's concern. (Note that, however, game mechanics could be considered algorithms under the Patent Office's currently very loose interpretation of patent law. Not that I think any mechanic currently in use could be patented due to the one year patent limitation, but that they could fall under USPTO jurisdiction.)

Thus, if you were to write up a clone of D&D3 (including non-OGL content) that used the same ideas but stated them significantly differently, you would have a defense against copyright infringement. You would also be very lame. ;) Hasbro's lawyers would almost certainly come after you rabidly and try to bury you in legal fees, regardless of the inevitable outcome of the case. Unless you really, really want to validate the USCO decision, this seems like an amazingly bad idea.

One issue that's been touched upon is that of trademark law. If you were to release a game such as the above and call it anything even remotely like Dungeons and Dragons (say, "Dungeon Hunter"), you'd definitely find yourself on the other end of a trademark infringment suit, as a strong claim could be made that you're trying to dilute the brand identity of D&D.

[Futilitarian]

Originally posted by Patrick Chipman
One issue that's been touched upon is that of trademark law. If you were to release a game such as the above and call it anything even remotely like Dungeons and Dragons (say, "Dungeon Hunter"), you'd definitely find yourself on the other end of a trademark infringment suit, as a strong claim could be made that you're trying to dilute the brand identity of D&D.

Yes; the value of the copyright of D&D3e material is miniscule compared to the value of the D&D3e trademark.

To make an "real" money in gaming (and maybe the entire entertainment industry if your cyncial), branding beats content 100 to 1.

[Random Nerd]

You could possibly pull it off, yeah.

But why bother? Why not just do a d20 game?

Sure, this means you could include things d20 or OGL products couldn't have.

But, well, why bother? What advantage does it give you that outweighs the fact that it can't have a d20 logo or directly say it works with 3e, the fact that it might anger WotC, and the fact that you'd frankly be a bit of a prick to do it in the first place?

[Marius B]

Originally posted by Clark
Your more general question: If you just take bits & pieces of other systems, pieces small enough to not be instantly identifiable with those systems, you should be fine.

I believe this is precisely how most RPGs are made. Cobbled together from bits and pieces of other systems.

[jfs]

Originally posted by NPC White Rabbit


Those people just don't have a sense of humor...

The main difference between trademarks and copyright from a companies point of view is that you get copyright automatically. A trademark you have to apply for, register and defend. If you don't defend your trade mark, you can lose it.

That's why we can refer to hoovers that aren't made by the Hoover company - they didn't defend their trademark.

In the case quoted (Austin Powers: Goldmember vs James Bond : Goldfinger) I think it's pretty clear that the AP people are spoofing the James Bond title, and so they'd have had a hard case to argue that they weren't infringing the trademark.

And if the James Bond people hadn't sent ominous legal letters, then the next person to come along who wanted to play off the Goldfinger trademark would have had it that little bit easier.

Lawyers don't get to have a sense of humour.

[Corporate Dog]

Originally posted by jfs

In the case quoted (Austin Powers: Goldmember vs James Bond : Goldfinger) I think it's pretty clear that the AP people are spoofing the James Bond title, and so they'd have had a hard case to argue that they weren't infringing the trademark.


You're so wrong, it physically hurts me.

The AP people would most likely win with a slam dunk if they chose to take it to court. Copyright and trademark law allows for parody, which Austin Powers CLEARLY is.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

[NPC Chris D]

Originally posted by Clark
Given the other posts since mine, perhaps I'm incorrect in how I read the situation. I've been a little copyright paranoid ever since two things happened:

1. The latest Austin Powers movie was ordered to alter its name, as it was too similar to a James Bond movie title. (Granted, it wasn't a government entity who ordered them to do it, but still...)

Well, insofar as a US District Court isn't a government entity. Still,
it was only a preliminary injunction, which is hardly dispositive. Even more relevant, it was a trademark, not copyright, issue,
AFAIK.


2. A friend of mine who works for an independent film production company handles all their product placement issues. Seems they can be sued for putting a product in their movie without the permission of the producers of the product. Their company was legally threatened by a furniture maker because one of their chairs was in a 5 second scene in one of their films. She says (and I quote): "Free speech is dead in commercial contexts."


Product placement is *also* a trademark issue. Trademark
fair use is much more restricted than copyright, although
arguably it *shouldn't* be.

Chris Dicely

[NPC Chris D]

Originally posted by Corporate Dog


You're so wrong, it physically hurts me.

The AP people would most likely win with a slam dunk if they chose to take it to court. Copyright and trademark law allows for parody, which Austin Powers CLEARLY is.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

In neither case is the allowance for parody unlimited, particularly
for commercial parody.

Chris Dicely

[Corporate Dog]

Originally posted by NPC Chris D


In neither case is the allowance for parody unlimited, particularly
for commercial parody.



Which is why I said "most likely".
In this particular instance, I find it very hard to believe that the courts would rule against AP's studio. Their lawyers would have to screw up something fierce.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

[ZAON Netrep]

Originally posted by Patrick Chipman
The US Copyright Office has stated plainly that the mechanics of a game are ideas and cannot be copyrighted. The original...

Be very careful before making a game that uses the same rules as another game even if you intend to word them differently. Although copyright was historically used to primarily protect against plagiarism, it does indeed go beyond that. Today's law protects not ideas, but the *arrangement* of those ideas. A game system, by definition under the law, is an arrangement of ideas. This includes the way they are presented (such as a recognized tabular format of stats, or 5 or more out of 10 similar or same rules). The individual game mechanics are not protected (unless patented), BUT a set of ideas (no matter how you go about describing them) is indeed copyrighted.

It is 100% certain that you will lose a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against you if you use any game's entire, or large portion of the, rules set. The fact that there is an open gaming license permits you the opportunity to use that rules set, so long as you follow the terms of that agreement. Without following that agreement, there is no agreement and therefore no granted right to use that rules set.

Finally, you cannot legally create any material that is 'for use with' or 'works with' somebody else's game without their permission or some kind of open license that is followed to the letter. Make no mistake that nothing will happen to you until and if that company sues you, but if they do sue, you will most certainly lose and pay damages. And, if your company is not an actual corporation entity as described by law, then damages may also be applied against some of your own personal property as well as any business assets first.

Happy designing ;-)

[NPC White Rabbit]

OK...this has been great...thanks...

For the record...I have no intentions of making an AD&D or D&D3 clone...just used it as an example...
Nor have I intentions of ripping off entire sets of rules...
This would be lame and I would indeed be a prick...

But some games got some things exactly right (in my mind) so I would like to use elements...I see a lot of this in other games anyway. Attributes system in T8 and Ars magica, Dice pools in Storyteller and Heroquest (!) , percentiles etc...so I guess it's OK...

Just wanted to know what you people think...your philosophy...

Insecure you might call it...

[Evan Waters]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Corporate Dog


You're so wrong, it physically hurts me.

The AP people would most likely win with a slam dunk if they chose to take it to court. Copyright and trademark law allows for parody, which Austin Powers CLEARLY is.

Regards,
Corporate Dog
------------------------------------------------------------------------


In neither case is the allowance for parody unlimited, particularly
for commercial parody.

The way I see it is, if Mad Magazine ran a piece with "Gold"-whatever as its title, MGM wouldn't have much of a case. I think it's the same thing here- the audience would probably not assume "Goldmember" is somehow officially related to "Goldfinger" or is a reflection on that brand.

A likely explanation for all this is that MGM is struggling, and I believe up on the auction block. They're trying to make themselves look powerful.

[Clark]

Originally posted by NPC Chris D

Well, insofar as a US District Court isn't a government entity.

For the record, what I understand is that the order came from the MPAA - the Motion Picture Association of America, a private entity. I could be wrong about the origin of the order.

I would consider US District court a government entity - it can dispatch men with guns and steeeenking badges to enforce its rulings.

[jfs]

Originally posted by Corporate Dog


You're so wrong, it physically hurts me.

The AP people would most likely win with a slam dunk if they chose to take it to court. Copyright and trademark law allows for parody, which Austin Powers CLEARLY is.


Thought I'd quote from your laws rather than mine ...

Finally, certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

So hey - we're both right. Yes, you can use parody as a defence, but the more commercial that use is, the more likely it is to fail as a defence.

Cheers

John

[Flower of December]

2 Live Crew
Nuff Said

[Patrick Chipman]

Originally posted by ZAON Netrep
[B]A game system, by definition under the law, is an arrangement of ideas. This includes the way they are presented (such as a recognized tabular format of stats, or 5 or more out of 10 similar or same rules). The individual game mechanics are not protected (unless patented), BUT a set of ideas (no matter how you go about describing them) is indeed copyrighted.

Nope. You're wrong. Consult FL108 (which clearly and unambiguously states that the methods for playing a game are not protected under copyright -- only the literary expression of those methods can be protected), Circular 1 (which clearly and unambiguously states that "ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration" are not protected), and Circular 31 (whose first line is "Ideas, methods, or systems are not subject to copyright protection").

Copyright law protects the expression of an original work of authorship in a tangible form. It does not protect arrangements of ideas or, in fact, anything having to do with ideas. (Plagiarism, it should be noted, is a much larger ethical issue that rarely has any basis for punishment under law.) I don't know where you got this "5 or more out of 10 similar or same rules" business, since the Copyright Office is very clear on the fact that rules are methods and methods aren't protected by copyright. They may be protectable under patent law, however, but you'd have to show that they were never used in any other game -- which, IMHO, is probably impossible.

It is 100% certain that you will lose a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against you if you use any game's entire, or large portion of the, rules set.

Nope. Milton Bradley tried this to squash the Monopoly clones, and it failed for them, even though the rules used were identical conceptually (but different in their expression). In fact, it was that very lawsuit that resulted in the "rules are methods" ruling on the part of the Copyright Office, IIRC.

To quote and paraphrase Circular 31 (which is perfectly legitimate because no government work can be copyrighted), "Suppose, for example, that an author writes a book explaining a new system for RPGs. The copyright in the book, which comes into effect at the moment the work is fixed in tangible form, will prevent others from publishing the texts and illustrations describing the author's ideas for resolution mechanics, effect charts, and character creation methods. But it will not give the author any rights to prevent others from adopting the ideas for commercial purposes or from developing or using the methods or processes described in the book."

What's more important to note is that while the conceptual rules have no copyright protection, that doesn't mean that the company's lawyers won't come after you, claiming that your wordings are not sufficiently original compared to the original text. Whether or not this claim holds up depends on how significantly you rework the concepts to integrate them into a different original work.

Finally, you cannot legally create any material that is 'for use with' or 'works with' somebody else's game without their permission or some kind of open license that is followed to the letter.

This is not entirely true. The name of a game is a common law trademark once it's used in commerce; it may well be a registered trademark (in the case of D20 System and Dungeons and Dragons). To claim the above while using the trademark is an unauthorized use of trademark and is prosecutable under a completely different set of laws.

[NPC Chris D]

Originally posted by Clark


For the record, what I understand is that the order came from the MPAA - the Motion Picture Association of America, a private entity. I could be wrong about the origin of the order.

I would consider US District court a government entity - it can dispatch men with guns and steeeenking badges to enforce its rulings.

It looks like wherever I saw this first was either confused
or I confused it with the MGM v. Universal "Rollerball" suit;
indeed, it was an MPAA arbitration panel that ruled.

See, for instance:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/bpihw/20020127/en/mgm_universal_in_jam_over_rollerball_credits_1.html

[Flower of December]

And yet the MGM people did nothing when the homocore rockers Pansy Division released their "James Bondage" CD...

[ZAON Netrep]

Patrick, intellectual property case law has already established a line in defining the term 'systems' as described in your quoted circulars. Your argument concerning the Monopoly clones would be irrelevant in any RPG rules system lawsuit because you're carrying the rather simple game system of monopoly (and how game rules for a game of that nature can only be described in so many ways) too far in reference to the extensive and complex systems of an RPG.

Here's where you're right: Any publisher can make a game that uses characters that are generated with random dice rolls or from a point cost system, a combat system that compares the evasive skill and size of a target versus the skill and dextrous accuracy of a shooter, a 'hit-point' system for tracking damage (just like in a video game or through other means), and so forth. These are broad ideas and cannot be protected by copyright law because there are only so many means for ruling on these basic concepts in an RPG.

Here's where you're dead wrong: If you use a significant portion of your rules that are unmistakably similar or identical to an existing game system, you've crossed the line on two fronts. First, you've violated copyright by laying out a series of data (rules) in a form too similar to the original. Second, you've violated trademark law and copyright law (copyright as specific to derivative works) by making a game that could be interpreted to be compatible with or 'work with' another company's game. You may want to research what in fact is considered to be a derivative work under established copyright law.

In any event, I took the time to help the original poster of this thread by outlining some concerns he may want to address before making a game with a system similar to the d20 but where the OGL agreement is 'bypassed'. We work with IP attorneys on a regular basis (you'd be surprised how touchy the television industry is when it comes to IP), and we have an IP attorney on retainer for our own work. I know what I'm talking about here. And, I have no intention of carrying this debate further for the simple reason of the time it would require to 'prove' to you---something I don't feel the need to do for you or anyone else. If someone is going to make a game for public sale they had better consult with appropriate attorneys first anyway rather than relying on your advice that you began with "bearing in mind that i'm no lawyer" when referring to your own misinformation.

Happy designing!

[Guildofblades]

On the issue of copyrights and trying to recreate a game by simply rewriting it, I have these things to say.

Technically, you can't copyright game mechanics. Mechanics are simply a "concept". You can't copyright a concept. Though you might be able to patent a concept, but that's another matter.

But simply rewriting a book in different words may not be enough to avoid legal action. Even if you sucessfully rewite everything and avoid using any of the company's trademarks. You still have the issue of "trade dress".

Trade Dress is essentially the "look and feel" of a product. It makes up a products "image" and reconginzable visual identification within the market place. You can rewrite D&D all you want, but in the end, if you have a D&D clone, you will likely have a product that will be violating D&D's trade dress.

No usage of a particular gaming concept, used within a completely independant publication with its own flavor is another matter.

Though someone referenced THACO earlier. Better bet that is a trademarked term. It may not be a registered trademark, but that really doesn't matter. If TSR even claimed a trademark claim on that term, then they have a case against you.

[NPC Chris D]

Originally posted by ZAON Netrep
Patrick, intellectual property case law has already established a line in defining the term 'systems' as described in your quoted circulars.

I would be much more convinced of this if some actual
case law was cited. I am unaware of *any* case of
an RPG lawsuit being decided on the basis purely, or
even largely, of mechanical similarity *or* any similar
decision in any field closely enough related to have
any precedential value.

Chris Dicely

[ZAON Netrep]

Chris, the case law has nothing to do with RPGs... It's set in business systems regarding software design, accounting systems, and other complex business solutions. But the principles are the same from a legal stance.

[NPC Chris D]

Originally posted by ZAON Netrep
Chris, the case law has nothing to do with RPGs... It's set in business systems regarding software design, accounting systems, and other complex business solutions. But the principles are the same from a legal stance.

Care to provide a citation or two? I find it somewhat suspect,
especially given the explicit denial of copyright to systems
of any kind in 17 USC 102(b), which reads:

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system,
method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless
of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or
embodied in such work."

I mean, its conceivable that the courts have found that
"in no case", means "in a fairly large class of important
cases".

I do know that similar arguments were *raised* in several
prominent cases (Xerox v. Apple, Apple v. Microsoft), all of
which, I'm fairly certain, were notorious failures; which,
incidentally, makes me further suspicious.

Chris Dicely