orionquest said:
Well I have and that is why I am commenting so thank you for your honesty and your ability to contradict yourself so succinctly by your way of your comments.
Great, care to link us to the evidence that proves their case? So far I've seen a lot of claims but not much in the way of evidence. The two are not the same thing.
orionquest said:
Excuse me, Sir Garlic but Bethesda did sign a contract that does not allow them to license the MMO to anyone else including themselves until after the deadline expired and Interplay alleges that Bethesda already assigned the license to Zenimax online mere months after signing a document that says Interplay has exclusive rights to the MMO based on a deadline that was more than 18 months away.
Alleges is the key word. Again, Bethesda owns the rights to Fallout and the MMO, they simply licensed the rights to Interplay with Interplay owing royalties if the product made it to market. I'm not saying that Bethesda didn't start development on a Fallout MMO, just that I've seen no evidence that they have. A claim is not evidence.
orionquest said:
Interplay is building the case for "ill will bargaining" against Bethesda if you actually take the time to read Interplay's rebuttal with all the attached evidence documents otherwise you like to continue commenting from a position of ignorance which is fine if you are okay with it in addition to contradicting your own statements by doing so.
Care to link me to Interplay's proof?
orionquest said:
I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, Interplay presented proofs that Bethesda violated the contract agreement first and that is why Interplay lawyers are asking the judge to address their grievance in addition to place an injunction on the Bethesda lawsuit.
In the case of
United States v. Microsoft, the plaintiff presented evidence that Internet Explorer could be completely removed from Windows without any effect on the operating system. After a few minutes with a Microsoft tech person, Internet Explorer was up and running.
orionquest said:
You are entitled to your opinion. There are also other avenues of raising money in the world of finance but Fallout Trilogy sales did crack the top 10 for several weeks which proves that they do have legs since these are reissues of the same Fallout trilogy that was released in 2005.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Interplay was not going to raise the required capital from sales of Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics. Why? They were selling the package for $20 and games that sell for $50 and top 10 for that long don't make $10 million.
orionquest said:
Bethesda tried to pull back catalog Interplay Fallout games off the shelves and wants the judge to agree that only Bethesda has the right to sell the games that Interplay currently has the right to which is a classic definition of what is termed: Monopoly.
Sole ownership of a franchise is just that and not a Monopoly, unless you try to prevent a partner from selling games that they have an inherent right to sell per the agreement you have with them to allow them to sell the games they have a right to sell since there is something called an "agreement".
Bethesda in this case is trying to monopolize the ability to sell Fallout games to itself because they don't want Interplay to have a detrimental effect on Fallout 3 + beyond sales.
Bethesda is in a legal battle over who has rights to what in terms of the Fallout product line, it's a copyright and trademark battle. Bethesda argues that they have a "monopoly" on the Fallout license but it doesn't fall under monopoly laws as the product they have licensed doesn't limit competition of similar products (other post apocalyptic games). If monopoly law worked like you seem to think it does then anything that has a copyright held by a single entity would be a monopoly. What Bethesda is doing in terms of blocking sales of Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics might be illegal (depends on how the contract is written, it likely is) but that would be because it's in breach of contract and an anti-competitive practice (which falls under antitrust law, just like monopolies but they aren't the same thing). You seem to be confusing a subset of antitrust law (specifically monopoly) with antitrust law in general.
orionquest said:
Well you are entitled to your opinion but I'd like to see what the Interplay staff can do with Fallout since I know what Bethesda has done and it is an abomination to the 90's Fallout Universe fans.
As Ausir said, we've already seen what they would do with it under Herve, make spin-offs (crappy Diablo clones for consoles and average RT tactics games) instead of making more Fallout games. Interplay was the first to shit in the pool, Bethesda has just continued the tradition.
orionquest said:
As for the next guy, I am not arguing against the system of Trademarks and copyright but I am arguing about a contract that allows two companies to sell one brand of games and it is monopolistic for one of the companies to say that the other is no longer allowed to sell the games that the contract allows them to just because they like to twist the legal system in their favor and the want to eviscerate the other company and grab the rest of the rights for nothing.
That's contract and antitrust law, it has nothing to do with monopoly law. Monopoly law deals with things on a larger scale than this as if they didn't, all copyrights, trademarks, and patents would be illegal.
orionquest said:
<snip>
And the more myself and others rage against this ruler machine that enslaves us, the more we confront minions that suck off the teet of the enslavement system.
<snip>
Yeah, fight the machine because Interplay is totally the anti-machine
. What exactly did that rant have to do with the discussion? It's nice that you hate "the machine" and walk 50 miles uphill, through the snow to work 168 hours a week and all, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
