[rob]

I moved your post into this thread to keep discussions of the topic centralized for everyone following this issue.

First of all, I find it odd that you felt the need to re-post this exact same text in numerous places (at least three that I'm aware of). Isn't it more appropriate to simply post this on the d6Generation discussion forum (i.e. the audience you're apparently appealing to) instead of using a shotgun approach?

Anyways, the responses from Russ on the d6Generation forums pretty much addressed all of your claims over there. However, many of our readers might not also read those forums, so I'll comment where required below.

Originally Posted by DrD

Honestly, was the "Trademark Law" segment even necessary? Although it was delivered as an opportunity to "educate" gamers about the finer nuances of trademark law, it appeared, to me at least, as an underhanded attempt to allow Lone Wolf, unabashedly a paid sponsor of the D6G, a venue for backpedaling in order to justify their comments and actions.

Russ at d6Generation already planned to do the segment on intellectual property, since it's an integral part of the industry and something that many gamers don't have any familiarity with. They asked us if we wanted to come on to answer questions, assuming that we would say "no". We said "yes", since we don't have anything to hide. That led to the interview, wherein there was no "backpedaling" involved - only explanation. In addition, the d6Generation guys clearly acknowledged our sponsorship connection leading into the interview.

You can characterize this however you wish, but most people who listen to the podcast have come away with a very different opinion from yours (according to Russ' comments).

Originally Posted by DrD

One crucial part of this debacle that was conveniently downplayed was the actual tone of the letter sent to Privateer Press.

The issue of the "tone" was clearly discussed on the podcast, and different members of the podcast took different positions in regards to their interpretation of the tone - some positive, some negative. You are entitled to draw your own opinions, as is everyone else out there.

Colen clearly stated that we tried the super-polite approach when contacting multiple sites in years past. Every time, that approach netted us zero response. So we followed up those polite emails with something much more insistent that clearly indicated there would be ramifications if we didn't get a response. At that point, people responded. If the polite approach had worked in the past, we'd still be doing it. Since it has proven to be a waste of time, we stopped it in recent years. If you look at companies like Games Workshop, they go straight to the lawyers all the time and don't even bother with an informal email. We believed we had found a middle ground that was working until the Privateer blow-up. Now we'll be doing most everything through the lawyers, which is unfortunate, but apparently necessary.

Originally Posted by DrD

Moreover, Lone Wolf ends on this delightfully diplomatic note: "so your assistance in getting forum users to utilize appropriate terms will benefit us all." How, prithee, does this benefit Privateer Press, let alone the nebulous community of "us all"? If anything, it imposes the tedious task of requiring the forum moderators to filter the words "Army Builder" from countless posts and monitor future uses of the term. This is imposing a very inconvenient detriment on Privateer Press completely devoid of any perceived "benefit."

This one's easy. Multiple Privateer Press players had created their own tools and portrayed them using our trademark. We had to send those players C&D notices. Similarly, posts on the forums referring to those tools needed to addressed by Privateer. By educating the user community on the trademark, Privateer players who create their own tools in the future won't make the same mistake. That means we won't have to send future C&D letters to the now-educated players and we also won't have to ask Privateer to fix trademark infringements on their forums in the future. The net result is a definite benefit to everyone involved, including Privateer and their players.

Originally Posted by DrD

But the crux of this argument revolves around Trademark Law. As a 3rd year law student (3L) with a number of courses in Trademark law under my belt, I will direct you to the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, H.R. 683.

It seems you didn't read the explanation and apology letter that was posted nearly two weeks ago. It's readily available here on these forums and addresses this very topic, as well as others that you have brought up here. You'll find it at the link below.
http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=9753

If you have further comments that you'd like to make, please read everything that has been posted first. That way, we can hopefully avoid the need to re-hash details that were put to bed two weeks ago. If there are new topics, please post them here and we'll respond as appropriate.