Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Martin J. Dürst]

On 2021-09-18 00:23, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> 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.

To end up with a settlement isn't an *even if*, it's pretty much a 
given. IANAL, and I don't have statistics, but most disputes get 
settled. It's simply way cheaper, way less risky, and allows both sides 
to claim (what they think are) their rights in subsequent disputes with 
other parties.

Regards,   Martin.


> --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.
>>