<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Indeed! Rebecca is right; I just couldn't find that response
before. Sorry I overlooked those in my response just now. Thank
you for correcting me. So, yes, there is something here which
might answer what I'm looking for. "...proof that Paramount would
not pursue legal action against the Unicode Consortium, or anyone
who implements the script." That does indeed capture the other
aspect that I hadn't been thinking of. Hm. There's really no
point in asking me for "information on why trademark and copyright
are no longer an issue," if you are requiring "a disclaimer from
Paramount," which would settle that question. There are a variety
of reasons why they aren't an issue anyway, but Unicode is
(understandably) leery of putting itself on the line for those
reasons. What you really want is that disclaimer.</p>
<p>I guess it's back to the drawing board, but I am still very
disappointed that Unicode wouldn't even say "maybe."</p>
<p>~mark<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/23/21 5:07 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH=y87YryOOP+AWxo-w_BEoEWYciirTi0ozRw-dDf9opB8uO-A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:52 AM Shawn Steele via
Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-4743857519664893855WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:Bierstadt,sans-serif">IMO,
perhaps it would be good to formally propose it
again, and get a rejection that explicitly notes the
primary concern is around the IP. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Has this not already happened? L2/20-169 (Recommendations
to UTC #164 July 2020 on Script Proposals) addressed this on
page 31:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Document: L2/20-181 Proposal to encode Klingon in Unicode
-- Shoulson and Litaer<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[...]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Comments: We reviewed this proposal for Klingon. [...]
The minutes from UTC #149 in November 2016
recorded an action (149-A103) “Respond to submitter that it
looks like there is sufficient usage to justify
encoding Klingon as a script. <b>UTC would need clear proof
that Paramount would not pursue legal action
against the Unicode Consortium, or anyone who implements
the script.</b>” [emphasis mine]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The following comments were made during discussion:</div>
<div>• It was noted that there was a lawsuit involving
Paramount that raised the issue of Klingon
and an amicus brief (on the Klingon script, see page 12).
The lawsuit was settled in 2017.</div>
<div>• We request the proposal author provide information on
why trademark and copyright are no
longer an issue, pointing to the notice of non-approval. <b>A
disclaimer from Paramount stating
they have no interest in IP rights to the encoding of the
proposal is needed.</b> [emphasis mine]</div>
<div>• Provide some background on the Klingon Language
Institute, which has a font for Klingon.</div>
<div>• Add the date to the proposal.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-4743857519664893855WordSection1">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>