So, I had some thoughts today about the legal wording of intellectual properties all together.
original IPs were a claim to monopolization, but now most countries have banned monopolies and the wording has changed to express an "Exclusive" right or ownership.
Exclusive is the key word that has been running around in my head all day. In legal terminology it defines that there must be one occurrence, "Exclusive" == "Must be a minimum of One".
for example, NCSoft has exclusive rights to run the CoX server unless/until they sell it. But they are not running even 1 server. so technically that is a legal loophole which voids their exclusive rights to a running server.
What am I saying? It wont be accepted off the bat, but I believe it could be fought in court;
our situation is different than other 'Private' servers, other private servers run for games which are still in operation (that's a violation of the exclusive rights of the original server owners), CoX servers are not in operation. It is on this grounds that according to the word "Exclusive" there is nothing to offend. If NCSoft doesn't run the CoX servers then any private servers are technically out of their jurisdiction to sue or C&D because they themselves are not fulfilling their end of the IPs they own by at least running 1 server.
ok I realize this may not be very clearly worded, infact I'm just kinda throwing it out there, let me try to summarize more completely:
Exclusive = MUST BE AT LEAST 1, can't have exclusive rights to nothing!!! NCSOFT had exclusive rights to run the CoX server, but now they are not running the servers!! they cannot have exclusive rights to /run/ the servers if they are /not running/!! just like you can't /own/ something you do /not own/, and can't /use/ something you do /not use/.
therefore if someone were to make a private server for CoX, I believe any C&D's or suits could be successfully fought in court (unless NCSoft runs their servers, then any privates are in for a world of financial hurt).
"yes, NCSoft has exclusive right to run the servers, but no one is offending that right because people only ran CoX servers when NCSoft were not running their CoX servers"
There are even ownership laws in some places dealing with properties intellectual or otherwise that state even if you didn't originally own something but were legally the sole responsible party for it for a minimum of 7 years then you own it.
so technically if someone could get a CoX server running and NCSoft still decides to keep their servers offline and someone maintains their own for 7 years, then they could file for ownership rights.
For all NCSoft or we know; someone may already have a server running (even if it is as old as issue 3 or 5). If in 5 more years NCSoft still has not run or sold the servers to someone who will, then who ever owns what ever private server is out there for whatever issue release it is could easily file for the full exclusive ownership of it in certain regions courts (which would cause a huge high level legal argument between different courts).
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not wrong then this is all the more reason for NCSoft to hurry up and sell the server before they lose it!
why delay the inevitable? or are they playing chicken in believing there are no other COX servers out there and never will be?
