Bethesda claims Interplay could only use the Fallout name

You mean when you realize you forgot to put in limits on usage of assets you might as well try to bluff your way into "yeah, well, they can not use any assets at all!"

Sure.
 
Ausir said:
However, in the report Bethesda refers to everything that was sold as the "Licensed Marks".
Click to expand...

No, it only specifies in the recital that Licensed Marks are assets sold to Bethesda under the APA, but not that all of these assets fall under "Licensed Marks".

At the bottom where it's explained in depth (in terms of what it actually means) they just say "Fallout".
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's down to the judge's interpretation whether "Fallout" as specified in Schedule 1 means the whole Fallout intellectual property, or just the "Fallout" trademark. It's not entirely clear cut, but I wouldn't call it frivolous either.
Click to expand...

Yes you're right, what I meant to say was that's likely how it was interpreted by Interplay. It's all down to the judge now to see how they interpret it unless Interplay has something to counter that with. The filing itself wouldn't cover the Trilogy would it? If that's the case, it would be odd if Bethesda originally had this in mind and didn't bother letting Herve know when he e-mailed them the marketing plan with Gametap.

In regards to the limits, I think the limits clause is covered under "we can cancel whenever we want!".
 
Well, it is true that while the TLA doesn't give explicit permission to use any assets other than the trademark, it also includes the following:

In the event this Agreement terminates prior to the Commercial Launch of the FALLOUT MMOG, Bethesda agrees that nothing in this Agreement limits or is intended to limit the rights of Interplay to use in a non-FALLOUT MMOG, INTER ALIA, any or all locations, graphic representations, creatures, monsters, names, likenesses, behaviors, religions, deities, environments, legends, fairy tales, stories, universes, character classes or character professions that are in the public domain, are owned by any entity other than Bethesda and/or its affiliates and/or licensors or otherwise are not subject to copyright or trademark protection. For purposes of a non-FALLOUT MMOG, Interplay shall own all rights in any computer software code (object or source code), game play software routines, game or graphics engines, as well as any designs, likenesses, sound and visual representations or other intellectual property rights that are created after the Effective Date by or on behalf of Interplay and which do not include, refer or relate to the Licensed Marks (the "INTERPLAY-DERIVED MMOG ELEMENTS"), provided, however, that the Interplay-Derived MMOG Elements do not use, incorporate, trade on or otherwise exploit any Fallout-related intellectual property created by Interplay or by Bethesda or by their respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns, including without limitation any Fallout artwork, locations, graphic representations, story lines, creatures, monsters, names, likenesses, behaviors, environments (e.g., vaults), universes, settings, legends, characters, character classes, character professions, packaging, advertisements, text and translations, and any and all Fallout proprietary characters, trademarks, copyrights and artwork listed in Exhibit C-2 to the APA, it being understood and agreed by the parties that all such property is and shall remain exclusively owned by Bethesda.
Click to expand...

Why list all of these things if Interplay was supposedly not permitted to use them in the first place?

The filing itself wouldn't cover the Trilogy would it? If that's the case, it would be odd if Bethesda originally had this in mind and didn't bother letting Herve know when he e-mailed them the marketing plan with Gametap.
Click to expand...

No, the use of pre-existing game falls under the APA, not the TLA. This filing concerns only breach of TLA.
 
Hmmm a really strange thing might get some interesting case for understanding us-american copyright laws and such.

I mean it's quite easy to declare some 'trademark' - and it's quite easy to protect this, but as quite a few PnP-companies and writers learnt the hard way, it's not so easy to protect the real content, if you've got creative minds on the other site of the tabel.
But well it would naturally feel less fallout-y.
 
Ausir said:
Well, it is true that while the TLA doesn't give explicit permission to use any assets other than the trademark, it also includes the following:

In the event this Agreement terminates prior to the Commercial Launch of the FALLOUT MMOG, Bethesda agrees that nothing in this Agreement limits or is intended to limit the rights of Interplay to use in a non-FALLOUT MMOG, INTER ALIA, any or all locations, graphic representations, creatures, monsters, names, likenesses, behaviors, religions, deities, environments, legends, fairy tales, stories, universes, character classes or character professions that are in the public domain, are owned by any entity other than Bethesda and/or its affiliates and/or licensors or otherwise are not subject to copyright or trademark protection. For purposes of a non-FALLOUT MMOG, Interplay shall own all rights in any computer software code (object or source code), game play software routines, game or graphics engines, as well as any designs, likenesses, sound and visual representations or other intellectual property rights that are created after the Effective Date by or on behalf of Interplay and which do not include, refer or relate to the Licensed Marks (the "INTERPLAY-DERIVED MMOG ELEMENTS"), provided, however, that the Interplay-Derived MMOG Elements do not use, incorporate, trade on or otherwise exploit any Fallout-related intellectual property created by Interplay or by Bethesda or by their respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns, including without limitation any Fallout artwork, locations, graphic representations, story lines, creatures, monsters, names, likenesses, behaviors, environments (e.g., vaults), universes, settings, legends, characters, character classes, character professions, packaging, advertisements, text and translations, and any and all Fallout proprietary characters, trademarks, copyrights and artwork listed in Exhibit C-2 to the APA, it being understood and agreed by the parties that all such property is and shall remain exclusively owned by Bethesda.
Click to expand...

Why list all of these things if Interplay was supposedly not permitted to use them in the first place?

The filing itself wouldn't cover the Trilogy would it? If that's the case, it would be odd if Bethesda originally had this in mind and didn't bother letting Herve know when he e-mailed them the marketing plan with Gametap.
Click to expand...

No, the use of pre-existing game falls under the APA, not the TLA. This filing concerns only breach of TLA.
Click to expand...

Is this under section 3.4? It seems they are simply saying anything created for the game is property of Interplay assuming it isn't in the launched product and doesn't make reference to any of Bethesda's Fallout stuff.

But at the same time, what good would that section be if Bethesda only licensed out the name and Interplay, according to this agreement made "Fallout: The Las Vegas Poker Experience" as per their contract?
 
Why list all of these things if Interplay was supposedly not permitted to use them in the first place?
Click to expand...

I think that list pretty strongly indicates that Interplay was intending to use Fallout intellectual property in the MMO and, due to that and the 'good faith' contract laws, I think Interplay has a pretty big leg to stand on.

In other news, Bethesda's sure being super-dicks about this. Any indication on when they started claiming Interplay never licensed the intellectual property assets?
 
Ausir said:
Any indication on when they started claiming Interplay never licensed the intellectual property assets?
Click to expand...

Now.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it feel a little that Bethesda is trying to make all kinds of reasons why Iplay broke their agreement and contract with Zenimax Bethesda in order to get the MMO rights back?

It doesn't seem that ridiculous that in the near future Bethesda will accuse Iplay of global warming, the Gulf disaster and all kinds of war, just to get what they want.
 
I'm surprised Zenimax hasn't attempted a hostile takeover of Interplay...their stock price is $0.058 - that's right almost 6 cents a share. :roll:

Anyway I have no sympathy for Interplay...Herve is a mindless bastard, that sunk a great development studio, and shat all over a great game.

interplaysp.gif


The numbers are horrible - Zenimax spends more money on toilet paper each week than Interplay makes in a year.

interplaysp2.gif
 
"Alright heres the deal, you're allowed to make as much apple pie, as you desire, however the following should be taken into account; no apple is allowed within said pie, nor is any pastry or egg based replacment, nor is any fruit or likewise sweet or sugary component, artificial or otherwise, allowed to displace the apple content. Furthermore, no sugar shall be sprinkled on top. However, feel free to call it an apple pie."
 
Interplay is worth - 7.1 million dollars...chump change for Zenimax.

MARKET CAP 7.1M

AVERAGE VOLUME 10 D 45.3K

SHARES OUTSTANDING 122.7M

..............

Interplay sold ( Company news )
posted by Ausir on Thu 27 March 2008, 19:51:10
More info on Interplay - More info on Herve Caen


Our beloved Interplay has just changed hands. According to a recent SEC filing, 56% of the shares of Herve Caen's Titus Interactive, which owns the majority of shares of Interplay, have been sold to a mysterious entity known as Financial Planning and Development S.A., which is not even googlable.

On March 21, 2008 the Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, Herve Caen, received a letter providing written notice of there having been a change in control of the registrant. According to such letter, Financial Planning and Development S.A., a Luxembourg company ("FPD"), acquired the holding of approximately 58 million shares of common stock of the registrant, representing approximately 56% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of the registrant, previously held by Titus Interactive S.A. (in bankruptcy) ("Titus") on April 30, 2007 in a private sale by the bankruptcy trustee of Titus. The amount of the consideration paid for such holding by FPD is not known to the registrant. The source of the funds used for the acquisition is not known to the registrant. There were and are no arrangements or understandings with respect to election of directors or other matters of the registrant, known to the registrant. There are no arrangements, known to the registrant, including any pledge by any person of securities of the registrant or any parent, the operation of which may at a subsequent date result in a change in control of the registrant.

It is not known yet whether Herve will remain as CEO and what it means for Fallout Online or any other projects, mostly because Herve himself claims not to know, even though he was the last known bankruptcy trustee of Titus.

http://www.secinfo.com/dsHsj.t89.htm
 
Isn't the majority of shares owned by the Caens, who are not willing to sell, though?
 
Zenimax probably doesn't believe that's Interplay's actual value. They're probably right, they don't exactly have a library of valuable IPs left, nor are they particularly alluring as a dev studio. This is the cheaper option, at least, so they assume.

Hell, the whole reason Interplay got the Fallout MMO was to provide a discount and since Bethesda assumed they'd get it back anyway. All could've been avoided by being a bit less cheap.
 
I wouldn't call the tricks cheap. They're paying their lawyers quite a lot to come up with these.
 
Ausir said:
I wouldn't call the tricks cheap. They're paying their lawyers quite a lot to come up with these.
Click to expand...
And their lawyers continue to demonstrate that said money is not a good investment. Their best breach of contract arguments were their original ones and ever since they been making embarrassingly poor claims.
 
The potential legality of Bethesda's high-priced lawyers notwithstanding, how is this not patently working in bad faith?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top