Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Ken Whistler]

Mark,

By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their 
communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek fan 
convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD 
keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at 
Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or ...) 
have a license from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on their 
phones, those are far juicier targets for an IP infringement lawsuit, 
*even if* the likeliest outcome would not be a decisive win in a court 
case, but rather just some out of court settlement. Even an out of court 
settlement in some case like this would set a terrible precedent, 
encouraging other people claiming IP rights on some writing system being 
considered for encoding in the Unicode Standard.

--Ken

On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
>
> Now, Peter Constable writes:
>
>> The main concern is that _/users/_ of The Unicode Standard won’t be 
>> susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the 
>> onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that.
>
> which is an angle I actually had not heard before.  And here I'm 
> really puzzled.  The users of the script are already using the script, 
> whether Unicode encodes it or not.  So why is Unicode suddenly 
> concerned on their behalf?  This one is really kind of strange.  Could 
> Unicode be legally responsible for people "illegally" using the 
> script?  It's hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by 
> the fact that usage exists.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210917/eed9aad4/attachment.htm>