Uncategorized

By: Katelin Schaub

Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) is a tabletop role-playing game that was released commercially in 1974.[2] The game operates with player characters created and piloted by members of the group and a Dungeon Master who acts as the author, narrator, and judge of potential disputes. [3] All the characters make their way through the game by creating a story using dice to determine their successes and failures. [4] D&D became much more popular during the pandemic, with sales jumping by 33%, leading to more curiosity about how the game’s intellectual property is protected. [5] The game itself is part of the intellectual property of the Wizards of the Coast, who protect intellectual property through trademarks.[6]
A trademark can be a work, design, symbol, or combination identifying a specific good or service. [7] Trademarks help customers connect the product or service to its source instead of any competitors. [8] For example, Wizards of the Coast currently owns a trademark in “DUNGEONS & DRAGONS” for “Entertainment services, namely, the provision of movies and ongoing television shows featuring fantasy stories and fantasy characters delivered by television, satellite, portable electronic devices or the internet; organizing and conducting game tournaments and entertainment exhibitions in the field of fantasy role-playing games; production and distribution of movies.” [9] Wizards of the Coast does not own the phrase “Dungeons & Dragons.” [10] They have the rights to “Dungeons & Dragons” being used with the stated goods or services.[11] Wizards of the Coast has registered 451 different trademarks, including the word “chainmail” as it pertains to fantasy role-playing war games.[12]
Wizards of the Coast also uses copyright protection. Copyright extends to an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.[13] The idea for a game of D&D, including the basic mechanics and rules of the game, cannot be copyrighted.[14] Instead, the written descriptions or plot lines, artwork associated with the manual, or even an especially distinct character could have access to copyright protection.[15] So, no one is allowed to copy or prepare derivatives of this material.[16]
It may be possible to get a patent for the mechanics of a game. The qualification requirements for a patent are that the invention must be new and useful and either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. [17]The invention must also be novel and non-obvious. [18] Wizards of the Coast has even patented an on-trading card game method of play for one of the other intellectual properties.[19] However, for D&D, the Wizards of the Coast have chosen two options for people to use their content: the open gaming license (OGL) with the System Reference Documents (SRDs) and Creative Commons.
Wizards of the Coast allows the use of their content in System Reference Documents (SRDs) through either the current original gaming license (OGL 1.0a) or through Creative Commons.[20] The open gaming license is an open content license that allows people to use the information contained in the SRD as long as they comply with the OGL 1.0a.[21] While Wizards of the Coast still hold their trademarks and protects the brand in this fashion, they have made these rules available to the D&D community. [22] The OGL 1.0a has some requirements for the use of their content, including that any open game content they distribute must contain a copy of the OGL 1.0a. [23] Creative Commons allows creators to use any content in the SRDs as long as they include an attribution statement. [24] Wizards of the Coast states that they chose to have Creative Commons as there are fewer restrictions than the OGL, and creators can be sure that Wizards of the Coast “can never revoke or deauthorize SRD 5.1 content.” [25] Both of these options allow users to design content or create their own stories and worlds using the rules and mechanics of D&D Fifth Edition.[26] With trademarks, copyrights, the OGL, and Creative Commons, Wizards of the Coast has fostered a vibrant community where players can become creators and continue to grow and improve the many worlds of D&D while still managing to protect and monetize their brand.

Citations:

[1] Cate Puglia, Photograph of TheWizardsVault Treasure of Atlantis dice set and Personal Notebook, https://www.etsy.com/listing/1206345346/treasure-of-atlantis-dice-set-liquid?click_key=29ebb85f1ebeaac430164caa8f6fc91e96550de3%3A1206345346&click_sum=3827c229&ref=shop_home_active_7&pro=1&sts=1

[2] Giuseppe Roberto Tarantino, If You Love Something, Set it Free? Open Content Copyright Licensing and Creative Cultural Expression (Nov. 22, 2019) (Ph.D. dissertation, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University), https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=phd.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Sarah Whitten, Dungeons & Dragons had its biggest year ever as Covid forced the game off tables and onto the web, CNBC, (Mar. 13, 2021, 9:08 AM), Dungeons & Dragons had its biggest year despite the coronavirus (cnbc.com)

[6] Tarantino, supra note 2.

[7] What is a Trademark?, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark (Jul. 18, 2023, 9:10 AM).

[8] Id.

[9] DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, Registration No. 86,757,217.

[10] What is a Trademark?, Supra note 8.

[11] Id.

[12] CHAINMAIL, Registration No. 75,289,174.

[13] 17 U.S.C. § 102 (a).

[14] Id.  

[15] U.S. COPYRIGHT OFF., COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFF. PRACTICES § 714 (3d ed. 2021).; DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9^th Cir. 2015).

[16] 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 (1)-(2).

[17] 35 U.S.C. § 101.

[18] 35 U.S.C § 102.; 35 U.S.C. § 103.

[19] U.S. Patent No. 5,662,332 (filed Oct. 17, 1995).

[20] Systems Reference Document (SRD), Dnd.Wizards, https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document

[21] Tarantino, supra note 2.

[22] Id.

[23] V5.1 Systems Reference Document (including the OGL), Dnd.Wizards, https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

[24] V5.1 Systems Reference Document (including the Creative Commons), Dnd.Wizards, https://media.wizards.com/2023/downloads/dnd/SRD_CC_v5.1.pdf

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

By: Brandon J. Bryant

In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC, alleging that the company has unlawfully maintained monopolies in the search and search advertising markets. The DOJ’s complaint alleges that Google has engaged in a variety of anti-competitive practices, including:

• Giving its own search engine preferential treatment in its web browser, Chrome, and other products and services.
• Making it difficult for other search engines to compete by requiring device manufacturers and mobile carriers to pre-install Google Search on their products.
• Paying billions of dollars to Apple to be the default search engine on iPhones and iPads.

The DOJ’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of antitrust investigations into Google’s business practices. In 2019, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion (about $5 billion) for abusing its dominance in the search market. In 2021, the DOJ filed a separate lawsuit against Google alleging that the company has monopolized the digital advertising market.

The trial in the DOJ’s search monopolization case is scheduled to begin in September 2023. If the DOJ is successful, it could force Google to change its business practices and open up the search market to more competition.

United States of America v. Microsoft Corp.

In its complaint, the DOJ relies heavily on the Microsoft antitrust case of 1998. In that case, the DOJ alleged that Microsoft had unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the operating system market by using its market power to force computer manufacturers to install its web browser, Internet Explorer, as the default browser on their computers.

The DOJ’s case against Google is similar in many ways to the Microsoft case. Both companies are dominant players in their respective markets, and both companies have been accused of using their market power to stifle competition. However, there are also some important differences between the two cases. For example, Google’s dominance in the search market is not as complete as Microsoft’s dominance in the operating system market. There are other search engines available, such as Bing and DuckDuckGo, that compete with Google.

The DOJ is hoping that the Microsoft case will provide a roadmap for how to break up Google’s search monopoly. In the Microsoft case, the court ordered the company to be split into two separate companies: one that would develop the Windows operating system, and the other that would develop other software products, such as Internet Explorer.

It is unclear whether the DOJ will be able to break up Google’s search monopoly. The case is likely to be long and complex, and Google is likely to fight the DOJ’s allegations vigorously. However, the Microsoft case shows that it is possible for the government to break up a tech giant that has become too powerful.

Why is the government relying on the Microsoft Antitrust Case?

There are a few reasons why the government is relying on the Microsoft Antitrust Case in its case against Google. First, the Microsoft case is a precedent-setting case that established the principle that companies can be held liable for abusing their monopoly power. Second, the Microsoft case provides a roadmap for how to break up a tech giant. Third, the Microsoft case shows that the government is willing to take on big tech companies.

The government’s reliance on the Microsoft Antitrust Case is not without its critics. Some argue that the case is outdated and does not apply to the tech industry today. Others argue that the government is overreaching and that breaking up Google would harm consumers.

What are the potential consequences of the DOJ’s case against Google?

The potential consequences of the DOJ’s case against Google are significant. If the DOJ is successful, it could force Google to change its business practices and open up the search market to more competition. This could lead to lower prices for consumers, more choices for businesses, and a more innovative search landscape.

However, it is important to note that the DOJ’s case is still in its early stages. It is possible that Google will be able to defend itself against the DOJ’s allegations. Even if Google is found to have violated antitrust law, the court could decide to impose a relatively mild penalty.

Only time will tell what the ultimate outcome of the DOJ’s case against Google will be. However, the case is a significant development in the ongoing antitrust scrutiny of Google’s business practices. It remains to be seen whether the DOJ will be able to break up Google’s search monopoly, but the case is a sign that the government is taking a hard look at the company’s power.

By: Rachel Crabtree

It may come as a surprise that drones were originally developed by the United States military to assist in surveillance during the Vietnam war.¹ Now in the 21st century, drones evolved to have deadlier capabilities.² The United States military now uses tens of thousands armed drones as a part of modern warfare. 

An obvious advantage of using drones is that it allows militaries to conduct strikes that prevent them from having boots on the ground and risking the lifes of their soldiers. The ramifications of this transformation and wide use of drones raise questions in international humanitarian law. What rules apply to armed drones and who is accountable if things go wrong? 

International humanitarian law, sometimes referred to as the “rules of war,” governs countries actions during armed conflicts.³ While this body of law does not expressly limit or prohibit the use of armed drones, it does apply general rules.⁴ Broadly, the law requires three things. First, the parties must target the opponent’s military, limiting civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure.⁵ Second, the rules require that the military act within reason, not excessively.⁶ Third, there must be precautions to ensure that rules one and two are satisfied. The military’s ability to control and conduct strikes remotely does not change or bend the rules of war.⁷ The law views armed drones as any other weapon.⁸  

A critical aspect of international humanitarian law is who is held accountable. Even though the operator of armed drones is thousands of miles away from the conflict this does not affect or reduce accountability.⁹ The operators and their chain of command are still accountable for potential negative effects from their use.¹⁰ Accountability persists regardless of the location of who is in control. 

Even though armed drones have shaped modern warfare, the law has not expanded to explicitly control their use or applied specific rules. This balancing act of following the rules of war and appropriate use of drones will continue to be an issue as drones become more integrated into military application. 

Citations 

1. Kashyap Vyas, A brief history of drones: From pilotless balloons to roaming killers, Interesting Enginering (Apr. 18, 2023), https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/a-brief-history-of-drones-the-remote-controlled-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uavs. 

2. Id. 

3. The use of armed drones must comply with laws, International Committee of the Red Cross (Mar. 10, 203), https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/2013/05-10-drone-weapons-ihl.htm 

4. Filip Noubel, Drone warfare: Can international humanitarian law catch up with the technology?, Global Voices (Mar. 30, 2022), https://globalvoices.org/2022/03/30/drone-warfare-can-international-humanitarian-law-catch-up-with-the-technology/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20provision%20in,law%20in%20times%20of%20war 

5. Sandra Krähenmann, Humanitarian concerns raised by the use of armed drones, ReliefWeb (Jun. 16, 2020), https://reliefweb.int/report/world/humanitarian-concerns-raised-use-armed-drones. 

6. Id. 

7. Id. 

8. Id. 

9. Supra note 3. 

10.  Id.  

By: Regina Trevizo

Hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, is the invasive method used to extract gas and oil from deep rock formations.[1] By forcing water, sand, and a mix of chemicals into horizontally drilled wells, drilling operators cause the shale to crack and release natural gas and oil.[2] Although this seems like an easy enough process, hydraulic fracturing poses significant health and environmental risks such as water pollution, seismic activity, and emissions of air pollutants. Although there are some federal regulations in place to minimize damages from fracking, fracking regulations are largely implemented at the state governing level. However, there are many fallbacks to state-by-state regulations, such as inconsistent standards, regulatory competition, and conflict of interests.

States with high fracking activity, such as Texas and Oklahoma, have the most to gain from Fracking and are therefore strongly incentivized to regulate loosely. For instance, in 2015, Oklahoma passed SB 809 which created a regulatory agency with full authority over the regulation of the oil and gas industry within the state.[3] Although this act may at first seem to provide efficient regulation over fracking in the state, this bill stripped cities and municipalities of their authority to regulate fracking within their jurisdictions and fully gave that authority to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, making it illegal for cities to ban fracking.[4] 

Legal loopholes exempt fracking from certain elements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s hazardous-waste laws, endangering surrounding communities and putting drinking water at risk of contamination. One important exception from the Safe Drinking Water Act is commonly known as the Halliburton loophole. The Halliburton loophole exempts fracking industries from having to disclose the harmful chemicals they use in the fracking process and prevents the EPA from regulating fracking fluids.[5]

The oil and gas industry is also exempt from federal EPA hazardous waste regulations and Superfund regulations, which exclude waste associated with the exploration and development of oil and natural gas.[6] Drilling fluids, produced water, and other waste are not disposed of as hazardous and are exempt from the hazardous-waste cleanup process when it comes to spills or leaks.[7]

Flowback and produced water may contain heavy metals such as barium and lead, hydrocarbons, radioactive material, and high levels of salinity.[8] The risk to drinking water comes in two major ways. Firstly, water used in the fracking process can leak into aquifers and other groundwater supplies and secondly, the wastewater that fracking produces can contaminate supplies when waste leaks from multiple sources such as landfills that contain oil remains, trucks or pipelines transporting it, equipment failure, or unlined disposal pits.[9]

With hydraulic fracturing drastically increasing, federal regulations on fracking should be governing the oil and gas industry by requiring states to meet basic measures to protect people, the environment, and our limited resources. Fracking has left its mark in our communities and people on both the national and state level are calling for a change.

Citations

1. Hydraulic Fracturing, INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, https://www.ipaa.org/fracking/.
2. Id.
3. Sara Douki, A National Problem with No National Solution, THE GEORGETOWN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW (February 26, 2020), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/blog/a-national-problem- with-no-national-solution/.
4. Supra note 3.
5. Fracking: Regulatory Failures and Delays, GREENPEACE, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues/fracking/regulatory- failures-and-delays/.
6. Elena Bruess, How Fracking Has Contaminated Drinking Water, CONSUMER REPORTS (December 3, 2020), https://www.consumerreports.org/water-contamination/how- fracking-has-contaminated-drinking-water- a1256135490/#:~:text=Drilling%20fluids%2C%20produced%20water%2C%20and,gas% 20waste%20was%20not%20hazardous.
7. Supra note 6.
8. Supra note 6.
9. Supra note 6.