An anonymous tipster sent in Bethesda's counter to Interplay's "this is absurd" counterclaim. To not put a fine legalese point on it, it basically repeats their original claim and goes "neener neener".<blockquote>Ignoring these determinative facts, Interplay seeks to create confusion and ambiguity where none exists. Interplay’s opposition is in its entirety based on the unsupported contention that the term “FALLOUT-branded MMOG” is somehow “ambiguous.” Interplay seeks to introduce extrinsic evidence to alter the clear language and terms of the parties’ agreements. Parol evidence, however, is neither permitted nor warranted here. The term “FALLOUTbranded MMOG” is plain and clear on its face – it means an MMOG named FALLOUT. Bethesda gave Interplay a license to call its MMOG “Fallout” if it met the conditions of the TLA. (See Bethesda Mem. at p. 5.) Nothing else was licensed to Interplay. The APA and TLA also contain undisputed, unambiguous integration clauses prohibiting admission of extrinsic agreements or understandings. I. BETHESDA HAS NO DUTY TO ALLOW INTERPLAY TO USE ALL FALLOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSETS Neither the APA nor the TLA creates any duty or obligation on Bethesda’s part to allow Interplay the use of any Fallout related intellectual property assets which it unconditionally sold to Bethesda. In its opposition, Interplay fails to cite one single contractual provision in either agreement that would create such a duty. Instead, Interplay engages in a convoluted analysis of simple and straightforward agreements in a last-ditch effort to present parol evidence. Given the clarity of the relevant agreements, parol evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate. Dismissal of amended counterclaims I and II is warranted as a matter of law.</blockquote>Apply facepalms as needed. Guys, seriously, this is a transfer of a license which always implies transfer of related assets except where specifically void. Bethesda is essentially pointing to a lack of unnecessary provisions as proof, even after Interplay notes how this is contradicting their earlier legal stance.