>>9711648>they've always counted POA differently.Like i said, that's McFarlane-style counting and it doesn't make sense how they count PoA, because it literally has as many PoA as an ML.
We're talking about licenses here, hence the Marvel license needing to spell out what Hasbro ISN'T allowed to produce. They're super fucking anal about this shit, because lawyers.
So if Diamond's license had language about PoAs, it would also be specific on what constitutes a PoA and what it DOESN'T.
It's ridiculous to say the license restricts the PoA, because why would it? Because of Hasbro? If it's because of Hasbro, the same language would also exist with Hasbro and Marvel's lawyers would define what PoA means for them as well. So a PoA for Diamond is exactly what a PoA would mean for Hasbro. The fact that MS have as many PoA as they do (that spiderman actually has more JOINTS (read: McFarlane style PoA) than MLs too) just doesn't make sense, if the license had restrictions for PoA.
So again, why is there a restriction on the PoA from a licensing standpoint if their figures have as many PoA (even McFarlane style counting) as other lines, if not more? It's completely arbitrary to just include that clause.
Again, to use an actual example of how licenses work: Hasbro's license specifically mentions Diamond to show what toys they CAN'T sell/make. It's to spell out to Hasbro where the other licensors' toes are and how to avoid stepping on them, because those licenses exist as described in their specific forms.
... and it also includes descriptions of what they can make, but that's not important here.
