Interplay and Bethesda both score a point

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
No end in sight for the ongoing tussle between Bethesda and Interplay. The Vault reports that the court has dismissed both Bethesda's counter to Interplay's counterclaim. That is to say, Bethesda's claim that the contract unambiguously states Interplay has the right to Fallout's name only is dismissed, but the main claim and counterclaim will still both be considered.

Bethesda scored a win as Interplay's claim that putting certain info into court documents hurts its economic interests has been denied. This means a bunch of info will be open to the public as soon as Interplay provides them to the court, which it is obliged to do within 14 days. To wit:<blockquote>* The monthly sales of pre-existing Fallout games worldwide, including Fallout Trilogy, in dollars and units in order to establish any damages from Bethesda’s trademark infringement claim
* A response to “contention interrogatory” that seeks to glean the factual basis for Interplay’s claim that it complied with the Trademark License Agreement’s (“TLA”) financing provision
* Facts concerning any financing it secured after April 4, 2009 and any development efforts after the same date
* Documents documenting the company's relationship with Interactive Game Group and Masthead Studios
* The long-form agreement with Masthead Studios
* Documents concerning packaging for the Fallout games
* Documents concerning distribution for the Fallout games
* Documents relating to Interplay’s affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver, ratification, acquiescence, consent, laches, and unclean hands
* Documents relating to Interplay’s counterclaim
* Documents relating to Glutton Creeper, an Interplay licensee</blockquote>The first claim is interesting as this might indicate revealing information from Good Old Games sales, something both GOG and Interplay are bound to protest to. Interplay's rather shady relations with investment group Interactive Game Group are another point of interest.

Duck and Cover provides quotes pointing out that "at issue" is the financing of FOOL, in answer to which Interplay can only provide spurious claims and a point of the case Bethesda should long have won in if it didn't keep getting distracted by making irrelevant claims.
 
I wonder how many sales they got from people who bought the original games only for beeing able to play FOnline. :>
 
Interactive Game Group isn't a shady organization and I doubt they have any shady dealings with Interplay given the portfolios that company manages and the risk associated with doing so.

If memory serves right, IGG mostly acquires and licenses out IP's to publishers and developers.

According to the public release the deal they had with Interplay was basically Interplay acquired the Micropose library in return for shares given to Microprose. I think there was some private stuff mentioned as well which is probably what the court wants here.

Wasn't the Glutton Creeper stuff denied in Bethesda's favor a few months ago? Any reason why the case is being brought back all of a sudden?
 
Lexx said:
I wonder how many sales they got from people who bought the original games only for beeing able to play FOnline. :>
Click to expand...
Hopefully a good deal of them did... I just dusted off my already installed copy for FOnline. Then commenced getting my ass beaten on an hourly basis.
 
Elven,

Interplay is revisiting the Glutton Creeper deal because Bethesda used that deal to mess with Interplay and cost them a lot of legal fees, part of their master plan to try to break Interplay. Interplay disclosed that they had already licensed out the Fallout name to glutton Creeper prior to the deal with Bethesda. Bethesda did not object at that point, but suddenly, a short while later, Bethesda sent a cease and desist order to Glutton Creeper saying basically, "we now own the license and we do not give you permission to make this game." Interplay said that Behesda should have raised their objection during the disclosure part of the deal, not afterward. Glutton Creeper sued Interplay and Interplay countersued Bethesda, but Bethesda weaseled out of it and won the court case, as technically, they did own the license so they could in theory do all this. It was very, very shady and semi legal, but apparently legal enough. Well, now that all of Bethesda's business practices are being examined and this move by Bethesda's was a part of their whole shady strategy of trying to mess with Interplay and cause them to fail.
 
troybilt said:
Interplay is revisiting the Glutton Creeper deal because
Click to expand...

It's not Interplay who is revisiting this, these documents will come out at Bethesda's request. Interplay tried to prevent it.
 
troybilt said:
Elven,

Interplay is revisiting the Glutton Creeper deal because Bethesda used that deal to mess with Interplay and cost them a lot of legal fees, part of their master plan to try to break Interplay. Interplay disclosed that they had already licensed out the Fallout name to glutton Creeper prior to the deal with Bethesda. Bethesda did not object at that point, but suddenly, a short while later, Bethesda sent a cease and desist order to Glutton Creeper saying basically, "we now own the license and we do not give you permission to make this game." Interplay said that Behesda should have raised their objection during the disclosure part of the deal, not afterward. Glutton Creeper sued Interplay and Interplay countersued Bethesda, but Bethesda weaseled out of it and won the court case, as technically, they did own the license so they could in theory do all this. It was very, very shady and semi legal, but apparently legal enough. Well, now that all of Bethesda's business practices are being examined and this move by Bethesda's was a part of their whole shady strategy of trying to mess with Interplay and cause them to fail.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find the document but I believe it was released in November of last year? Basically, the judge found Interplay was wrong about the Glutton Creeper thing and I think the right to legal fees?

I'm 98% sure I didn't dream this up. :lol:
 
Yep

yep, you're right Elven. Also, I believe that Interplay had to give back the money it made from the license to Glutton Creeper games, if memory serves me right. But, from reading what happened, it seemed to me that Bethesda was very weaselish in how they went about cancelling the deal with Glutton Creeper. It couldn't have hurt Bethesda that much to just let the game get made.
 
Apparently their reasoning was that they wanted to protect the quality of the franchise by preventing sub standard products from being released.

Something along those lines.
 
It's strange that Bethesda would move from one respected law firm to the next simply because they're not happy with the results of their legal adventure...they have lost these legal challenges because the cases are rubbish, and hiring the next best law firm isn't going to change the facts.

Don't these businesses use their legal expenses as a tax right off, which is why they are more than willing to indulge in pointless legal adventures... :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top