4 ms·

I’ve been mostly reading Kevin Standlee on bluesky, for that interpretation. Comments like: https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjlvaqxi4b

I’ve been mostly reading Kevin Standlee on bluesky, for that interpretation. Comments like: https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjlvaqxi4b2w https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjl... > I ask again: how could you take away the license from an organization based in China? And what do you do when they tell you to get stuffed? And: https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjj3d22a3n2q https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjj... > The WSFS Constitution depends upon its members to abide by it. There is no external enforcement mechanism. There is no Strong Man who comes in and imposes their will upon committees. And the members have nearly always rejected anything that would make it more enforceable. (It’s hard to point to specific links, because a lot of it is back and forth conversations that have taken place over several days) I assume Kevin Standlee is a reasonable authority on this because of this infodump: https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html > Further disclaimers: I am the current Chair of the legal entity that owns the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society (“Worldcon,” “Hugo Award,” etc.)

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
He can certainly be expected to be well-informed, but he does not officially represent WSFS in this scenario. He is the chair of the Mark Protection Committee. The Mark Protection Committee has the power to enforce trademarks. Nothing else.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  The concern from the IP attorneys I was following on Bluesky was that the fact that the WSFS cannot require that the Worldcon follow its rules, puts the trademark at some level of risk. That is, if WSFS and the MPC cannot effectively police the trademark there is a risk that they could lose the trademark. Which is why is position on the MPC is relevant, in this context. The lack of _ability_ to enforce the WSFS constitution, _threatens the validity_ of the trademark. But, that's a good correction, that it's not a formal position of the WSFS as a body.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

He can certainly be expected to be well-informed, but he does not officially represent WSFS in this scenario. He is the chair of the Mark Protection Committee. The Mark Protection Committee has the power to enforce trademarks. Nothing else.

ncallaway 3y ago
The concern from the IP attorneys I was following on Bluesky was that the fact that the WSFS cannot require that the Worldcon follow its rules, puts the trademark at some level of risk. That is, if WSFS and the MPC cannot effectively police the trademark there is a risk that they could lose the trademark. Which is why is position on the MPC is relevant, in this context. The lack of _ability_ to enforce the WSFS constitution, _threatens the validity_ of the trademark. But, that's a good correction, that it's not a formal position of the WSFS as a body.