Talk:Game System License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Attorneys' Fees[edit]

A while back, I questioned an edit that explicitly argued that WotC could claim attorneys' fees from a licensee, even if WotC lost their suit against the licensee. The way I read the GSL (and I just looked again) is different. The GSL covers WotC's recovery of attorney fees in 3 circumstances:

1. Remedy for "breach" of the license. (10.4)
2. Injunctive relief in the event of "noncompliance." (11.4)
3. Indemnification in the event of WotC being sued by a third party as a result of the licensee's product. (14)

The only time I can really see the License forcing a licensee to pay WotC's legal fees if the licensee doesn't violate the agreement is 3, where WotC might rack up attorneys' fees defending itself from a fuss that the licensee (even inadvertently) dragged them into. Even that one isn't obvious to me, but I can see the argument. In the other two, the plain language involves breach or noncompliance on the part of the licensee; if WotC loses the suit, logically it's because a breach or noncompliance has been found not to have occurred. I practice criminal law, not IP, but I would be stunned if any judge ordered attorneys fees to be awarded to a party that was already found to have been wrong in bringing the suit. If there's anyone here who does do IP, I'm more than willing to learn something new. As it is though, I stand by my earlier edit, and I'm actually inclined to reword the text that's currently in there to make it a little clearer. DCB4W (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: To clarify, I'm not saying that my interpretation is authoritative. That would be "original research." However, the flip side of that is that the article shouldn't repeat a questionable interpretation as though there were an authoritative reliable source for that interpretation. We probably should rephrase the article to more closely quote the actual language used, in the 3 contexts. DCB4W (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a judge would have to award the fees, but as part of the GSL WotC can just send the licensee the bill if they want, and if the licensee fails to pay it can terminate the license and send notice to the licensee that they are no longer allowed to use the GSL, and under that must destroy current stock of products that exist using the GSL and contain any logo or provisional element provided by the SRD associated with the GSL. IANAL, and this is just the interpretation that some 3PP and other persons have had about the sections, even if they don't think WotC will exercise it in that manner, but it is still a possibility. You may be more correct with your background over us, so It is a very good idea if we had someone in the proper field review any future claims or remarks about the license or its parts so there is not a factual inaccuracy within the article as new edits help grow it. Thanks for the explanation of you edit, and the reasoning behind it so that all may know where you are coming from and can better understand your reasoning. Better to be factually correct rather than guessing in these regards. shadzar-talk 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

Citation links are dead. WoTC must have reorganised their site again since those, and they seem to be bad about supporting old URLs. Dodger (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)