Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Steve Downey]

Essentially, for a nominally IP encumbered script, you want the party that
is claiming ownership to propose that it be encoded.
And while that was a bizarre idea when all this first came up a few
decades ago, it's less so now. Pitching that everyone will be able to write
Klingon on their phone is believable.

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021, 20:29 Peter Constable via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> Indeed.
>
>
>
> Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to want
> to create fonts and sell licenses when there’s a question as to whether
> Paramount might go after them?
>
>
>
> Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal departments
> sign off on supporting the script?
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> *On Behalf Of *Ken
> Whistler via Unicode
> *Sent:* September 17, 2021 8:24 AM
> *To:* Mark E. Shoulson <mark at kli.org>
> *Cc:* unicode at corp.unicode.org
> *Subject:* Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar
>
>
>
> 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/20210918/38151fbf/attachment.htm>