No, you couldn't... because you capitalized your Sodoku... making it an infringement of a trademark. You would need the approval of the trademark owner to use that term ? (Although I'm ignoring that if your purpose is non-commercial you could do that. You could print a blank grid off at home, show it to your wife, and say "look honey, I made a Sodoku puzzle"... and get away with it.)
If what you are saying is that if you did that... you wouldn't feel right about it for some reason... because it was somehow "sneaky" to the point of being dishonest ?
Well... good on you... it seems you've disqualified yourself from becoming a "transparent conduit of others works" who instead acts as "a publisher" and "a censor" of others words... who seeks immunity as a non-publisher while abusing the power to impose limits on others access to the utility of communications...
I didn't capitalize my use... I wrote "sodoku"... so I could do that... exactly as I did.
What it shows... is that the rules by which the (which ?) puzzle operates... are complex.
First, there's the mathematical underpinnings... the definition of the puzzle and how the technology of it works... I think I handily made the case that, yes, I can make a puzzle with more than one solution.
Then, there's the element in the creation of the design in a specific instance, related to the use intended...
I think I did that well, too... choosing an example with sufficient complexity to make my point ?
Then, there's the marketing... and all the legalisms of the business of making money publishing the puzzles while following the rules. Again... I did that well. I didn't capitalize my sodoku.
And, then, there's the criminal element... who lie about what the rules intend... while doing exactly the opposite of what they intend... doing it in a deceptive way... hoping to get away with it... with a lot of bluster and piles of money thrown at lawyers... who have no intent on playing by the rules...
And, there... maybe you got me. Perhaps I wasn't acting in good faith... in my use of the word... although, its not like I was trying to censor your objection... while claiming that as my right as an editor, having found your objection was offensive... while claiming full exemption from liability for my "editorial act" of denying you access to communications... because I'm "not a publisher" ? |
