tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post7882515479155563107..comments2024-03-29T07:58:31.156-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: A Kerfuffle in the Offing?James Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-54290273093541760982021-08-06T10:30:07.603-04:002021-08-06T10:30:07.603-04:00Or brouhaha.Or brouhaha.Frankymolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09888795637212025551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-29562092338055146062010-08-14T17:48:35.284-04:002010-08-14T17:48:35.284-04:00Why is kerfuffle a non-word? Do you have something...<i>Why is kerfuffle a non-word? Do you have something against english words that came from scottish gaelic?</i><br /><br>Perhaps I should use foofaraw next time.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-36945628987101237012010-08-14T17:47:13.154-04:002010-08-14T17:47:13.154-04:00After GenCon, I heard a lot of comments about the ...<i>After GenCon, I heard a lot of comments about the lack of an OSR presence or any real buzz for OSR games and products. It's ironic that this train wreck in the making of a product seems to be compensating for that...</i><br /><br>The thing is "the OSR" is just a bunch of guys who like older games (and their retro-clones) and produce -- and sometimes sell -- stuff to use with them. Some of those products were available at GenCon. If what people are expecting some kind of "OSR" booth, they're likely never going to see that.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41506158916654588042010-08-14T17:43:55.253-04:002010-08-14T17:43:55.253-04:00A serious challenge to the monopoly on the D&D...<i>A serious challenge to the monopoly on the D&D name would have been so great. Oh, well.</i><br /><br>A serious challenge would be awesome, but who and on what basis could such a challenge be mounted?James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-74561495486460455752010-08-14T17:43:19.717-04:002010-08-14T17:43:19.717-04:00So basically it's just a gimmick, a publicity ...<i>So basically it's just a gimmick, a publicity stunt, and an attempt to create a "collector's item" where that isn't really warranted.</i><br /><br>It's kind of sad, isn't it?James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69995322845253039652010-08-14T17:42:05.551-04:002010-08-14T17:42:05.551-04:00Plenty of OSR publishers respect the law, regardle...<i>Plenty of OSR publishers respect the law, regardless of their personal feelings toward Hasbro/WotC.</i><br /><br>That's the thing for me. It's not about liking WotC or agreeing with what they've done to <i>D&D</i> or any of the other TSR properties they control. It's about a basic respect for the law, especially when dealing with the OGL, which, in my opinion, is the single greatest thing WotC has ever done. It's a gift to gamers everywhere, giving us nearly every bit of our Gygaxo-Arnesonian heritage <i>except</i> the name <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>. That's a pretty impressive gift.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-83056427812390766962010-08-14T17:39:22.447-04:002010-08-14T17:39:22.447-04:00D&D belongs to gamers everywhere now. I applau...<i>D&D belongs to gamers everywhere now. I applaud these guys for having the guts to tell Hasbro where to shove it.</i><br /><br>But is that what they were doing? More and more, it seems as if what Die Cast did was a combination of completing misunderstanding what the OGL permitted and marketing.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-54496704160524783742010-08-14T08:27:23.577-04:002010-08-14T08:27:23.577-04:00@Luke: thats fine, but one can see how some big co...@Luke: thats fine, but one can see how some big companies can act when they think someone could step on their toes. their minds were on profit only, not reasonrafael beltramehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028259465633616284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23644455006787640952010-08-13T21:59:06.888-04:002010-08-13T21:59:06.888-04:00Except that was TSR, and this is Hasbro.
Also, K...Except that was TSR, and this is Hasbro. <br /><br />Also, Kerfuffle has been used in English since at least the 19th century. I don't know how it is suddenly a non-word.Luke Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17613401274696711406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43296877345247948472010-08-13T20:30:22.882-04:002010-08-13T20:30:22.882-04:00if they were against gary gygax using "D&...if they were against gary gygax using "D&D" for Dungerous Dimensions, i believe they are against all forms of use for D&Drafael beltramehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028259465633616284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-5611316163291796032010-08-13T15:14:12.506-04:002010-08-13T15:14:12.506-04:00Why is kerfuffle a non-word? Do you have something...Why is kerfuffle a non-word? Do you have something against english words that came from scottish gaelic?<br /><br />"If it ain't Scottish, it's CRAP!"Rob of the Northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08970111441532206496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23620821654378517932010-08-13T12:56:33.020-04:002010-08-13T12:56:33.020-04:00[sarcasm]What is the kerfuffle wrong with you, you...[sarcasm]What is the kerfuffle wrong with you, you kerfuffle head. Kerfuffle is a kerfuffling wonderful word! I have it in my "Cool Words and Sayings" file.[/sarcasm]<br /><br />Blah, silly silly interlags.Akhier the Dragon Heartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982936563965623813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57115632012502468432010-08-13T12:54:33.726-04:002010-08-13T12:54:33.726-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Akhier the Dragon Heartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982936563965623813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-79849115281003391742010-08-13T12:53:44.360-04:002010-08-13T12:53:44.360-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Akhier the Dragon Heartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982936563965623813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3613773024473136542010-08-13T12:42:21.554-04:002010-08-13T12:42:21.554-04:00I forgot to mention what an utterly craptacular wo...I forgot to mention what an utterly craptacular word (nay, NON-word) "kerfuffle" is...<br /><br />Seriously, can we stop saying/typing that non-word?<br /><br />I know we play a game as a hobby, but do we really need another reason for the world at large to stereotype us as nerd-pansies?<br /><br />Not that I care what the world at large thinks. I don't expect a clutch of bullies to give me a wedgie anytime soon.<br /><br />Let's use terms like "issue," "debate," "bone of contention," etc...<br /><br />Anything but kerfuffle!Anthony Simeonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312134763577949405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43679250250728718042010-08-13T10:36:08.454-04:002010-08-13T10:36:08.454-04:00@dhowarth333: "Devon has already posted on th...@dhowarth333: "Devon has already posted on the Acaeum that the 2nd printing will have a different cover, without the 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons'. So basically, WotC no longer needs to send a cease and desist letter."<br /><br />That is not what I see him saying. I see this: "There will be changes to the cover of the second printing whenever it is done. Just a little asterisk and fine print to cover ones arse Smile I may even totally drop the OGL crap as it seems I really don't need it."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.acaeum.com/forum/about10369-0-asc-120.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.acaeum.com/forum/about10369-0-asc-120.html</a><br /><br />So obviously he has practically no informed idea about what he's doing.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-2113057526321092072010-08-13T00:50:00.815-04:002010-08-13T00:50:00.815-04:00@Zzarchov: "From what I see he isn't usin...@Zzarchov: "From what I see he isn't using the OGL."<br /><br />Author says otherwise at Dragonsfoot: "It falls under the Open Gaming License v1.0 that WOTC released several years ago. A copy of the license is printed in the module."<br /><br />@Paul: "It is possible (though I think unlikely) that Die Cast Games has permission from Wizards to use the AD&D mark. If so, they're fully compliant with the OGL."<br /><br />Author says otherwise at Dragonsfoot: "Wizards came up with the OGL v1.0 to let other people release product for their game system (D&D 3.0 at the time)... I cannot for the life of me see why WOTC wouldn't let you mention the game system your product is to be used for."<br /><br />http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=44132&start=15Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-37072360454507113832010-08-12T20:04:21.983-04:002010-08-12T20:04:21.983-04:00We were about due for a good kerfuffle.We were about due for a good kerfuffle.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00155926145150934199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43971214973644542162010-08-12T19:58:12.337-04:002010-08-12T19:58:12.337-04:00> Jon Hendry said...
> So basically it's...> Jon Hendry said...<br />> So basically it's just a gimmick, a publicity stunt, and an attempt to create a "collector's item" where that isn't really warranted. (I also noted that their website says all physical copies they sell are "bagged and boarded", as if they were de facto collectibles worth preserving.)<br /><br />You've never had USPS leave a package in the rain, try to fold it in two or bounce it repeatedly off the sorting office floor, evidently? :)irbyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215185881501392755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15574853799140256512010-08-12T19:14:23.109-04:002010-08-12T19:14:23.109-04:00The most likely, and my most hoped-for outcome to ...The most likely, and my most hoped-for outcome to all of this is a C&D letter. I think and hope that the C&D letter is the way it goes, and no further. If some suit decides that flagging 4e sales can be blamed in part on legal not doing their job and makes a fuss about it, citing to the clones as an example, someone in legal may decide to make an example of the clones. Perhaps I'm more worried than I would normally be about it, since WOTC is making an obvious play for older gamers with the new Red Box, and the older gamers are the ones most likely to play and spend money on clones and clone-related products. I don't want to see a perfect storm of corporate stupidity happen.Joethelawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380090049725742287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-64095997305614101792010-08-12T19:12:32.234-04:002010-08-12T19:12:32.234-04:00Maybe its my old eyes, but I don't see anywher...Maybe its my old eyes, but I don't see anywhere the AD&D trademark used. All I see is "Dungeons and Dragons", an obvious TM of WOTC. Also, it is preceded by the word "Advanced", which is really irrelevant. The trademarked words which are being used in violation of the OGL are "Dungeons and Dragons." Not AD&D, D&D, or any other abbreviation.Joethelawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380090049725742287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-44674308498555566082010-08-12T17:50:11.354-04:002010-08-12T17:50:11.354-04:00I'm not debating trademark law, I'm simply...<i>I'm not debating trademark law, I'm simply asking why you think this is the case? Educate us. Why do you hold the opinion that the AD&D trademark is a subset of the D&D trademark?</i><br /><br />Because of case law in other cases. D&D is considered a "strong trademark", tied to the TSR/WoTC company. There is a specific statement in the USPTO Manual (US Patent and Trademark Office) that discusses this particular item.<br /><br />http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T120701biii<br /><br />From that section:<br /><br />It is a general rule that likelihood of confusion is not avoided between otherwise confusingly similar marks merely by adding or deleting a house mark or matter that is descriptive or suggestive of the named goods or services. Sometimes, the rule is expressed in terms of the dominance of the common term. Therefore, if the dominant portion of both marks is the same, then confusion may be likely notwithstanding peripheral differences. See, e.g., Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (VEUVE ROYALE for sparkling wine found likely to be confused with VEUVE CLICQUOT and VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN for champagne, noting that the presence of the “strong distinctive term [VEUVE] as the first word in both parties’ marks renders the marks similar, especially in light of the largely laudatory (and hence non-source identifying) significance of the word ROYALE”); In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1343, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Viewed in their entireties with non-dominant features appropriately discounted, the marks [GASPAR’S ALE for beer and ale and JOSE GASPAR GOLD for tequila] become nearly identical”); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (even though applicant’s mark PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES (with “TECHNOLOGIES” disclaimed) does not incorporate every feature of opposer’s HEWLETT PACKARD marks, similar overall commercial impression is created); In re Toshiba Medical Systems Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) (VANTAGE TITAN for MRI diagnostic equipment held likely to be confused with TITAN for medical ultrasound device, noting that the marks are more similar than they are different and that the addition of applicant’s “product mark” to the registered mark would not avoid confusion); In re SL&E Training Stable, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1216 (TTAB 2008) (Board found likelihood of confusion between SAM EDELMAN and EDELMAN both for wallets and various types of bags noting that the marks are similar because they share the same surname, and it is the practice in the fashion industry to refer to surnames alone)...<br /><br />This goes on for several examples if you follow that link<br /><br />So, based on all of that...<br /><br />Dungeons & Dragons, because it is a combination word, is a strong, rather than weak, trademark.<br /><br />Adding Advanced to it would be considered a violation. <br /><br />And just because they abandoned the combined AD&D mark, it does NOT mean that anybody can pick it up. They can successfully argue that any adjective like "Advanced", "Improved", "Enhanced", etc, would violate this particular interpretation of the law.JRThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06028363896728357260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-34334837038363923432010-08-12T17:16:40.803-04:002010-08-12T17:16:40.803-04:00"I'm not sure why you think that the &quo...<i>"I'm not sure why you think that the "AD&D" trademark is some sort of subset of the "D&D" trademark."<br /><br />If you're not interested in Trademark law, why debate it. Case law and legal precedent counts, not your opinion of what a "subset" is.</i><br /><br />I'm not debating trademark law, I'm simply asking why you think this is the case? Educate us. Why do you hold the opinion that the AD&D trademark is a subset of the D&D trademark?metamorphosissigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18163514061779555557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-45121524500554130432010-08-12T16:43:00.070-04:002010-08-12T16:43:00.070-04:00@Drance, I don't know how things would shake-o...@Drance, I don't know how things would shake-out if tested in court, but most people operate under the understanding that Wizards can not revoke the OGL (unlike the license to use the d20 mark, which was explicitly revokable.)<br /><br />This current kerfuffle will silently vanish after a Wizards C&D letter, leaving the rest of the OSR to carry on as usual.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12096724870715714696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-33076966964738807962010-08-12T16:33:11.169-04:002010-08-12T16:33:11.169-04:00@John Hendry: It takes more than just similar name...@John Hendry: <em>It takes more than just similar names to make something a parody. For instance, *humor*.</em><br /><br />Nope. Parody does not have to be funny. Take, for instance, <em>The Kobold Wizard's Dildo of Enlightenment +2 (an adventure for 3-6 players, levels 2-5</em>, <em>Sense & Sensibility & Seamonsters</em>, or <em>Pride & Prejudice & Zombies</em> or <em>The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn & Zombie Jim: Mark Twain's Classic with Crazy Zombie Goodness</em> or <em>The Wind Done Gone</em> (search for these on Amazon.com, as I'm too lazy to dig up the links myself). <br /><br />All of these are parodies, but are not essentially humorous. From my understanding, the legal definition of parody is different from common usage--we commonly think a parody has to be funny in a mocking way (ala SNL or Colbert or Jon Stewart). But in a legal sense, a parody is a work that comments on or criticizes a prior work. This commentary can be funny, but it can also be satiric or ironic. <br /><br />The key, however, is that an audience should be readily able to able to recognize the allusions to the original in order to understand the parody--otherwise, we might mistake the parody as "authentic."<br /><br />I point you to <a href="http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf" rel="nofollow">Chicken, Chicken, Chicken</a>, a PDF file that parodies the typical scholarly work churned out by math professors. Even better, view it here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004496.html<br /><br />I doubt you would find this funny, unless you were an academic who has attended academic conference--in which case, you would be the ideal audience because you were in the know.<br /><br />So, to make a long post short--I think they are going for the parody defense here. There are enough in-jokes that have already been discussed on the various blogs to safely say this. I will wait for my print copy to arrive to confirm this.Matthew Schmeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11348372645986806502noreply@blogger.com