A biased illumination of the Interplay vs Bethesda case
First of all let us get the disclosures out of the way: Not only am I a gamer into intellectual RPG and action games but I am also betting that Interplay will skyrocket because of the following and am putting my money where my mouth is and have been doing so for more than a few years while seeing lots of hateful and mocking words fly back and forth on the fan pages. I am not discounting everything said because much of it has basis in fact but the level of hate I see on these boards is indicative of unfulfilled lives that lack direction or a break that can lead to much success.
Back to the topic at hand. I have read most of the filings and here is what I can state while trying to be as objective as possible knowing that subjective bias is inherent in my position:
Interplay's lengthy and cogent rebuttal to Bethesda's lawsuit is arguing that Bethesda "broke" several sections of the Fallout IP sale contract covenants long before Interplay "failed" to meet the deadline based on Bethesda's arguments and Interplay is arguing that it has met the MMO requirements and broken no covenants and it is requesting a nullification of the sale due to unfair business practices by Bethesda using the following archaic defense lingo legalese in addition to others:
doctrine of laches
doctrine of unclean hands
doctrines of acquiescence
doctrine of estoppel
doctrines of waiver
I know some of these statements sound like they were taken right out of a fantasy RPG subquest dialog tree but they do in fact exist in the Informed and vigilant Legal world which Bethesda's lawyers are getting a brutal introduction to:
Interplay released the Fallout compilation under the "Fallout Trilogy" name in 2005, two years before Bethesda bought the sequel rights outright and 3 years before Fallout 3 was released.
1) Based on this fact of Universal causality that is part of our space time 4D existence, Bethesda's claims are completely without merit.Rebuked and repudiated and thrown out for those that need a more colorful language in the lexicon of commentary.
2) Bethesda's error was in thinking that their purchase of the Fallout IP implied they had the right to revoke Interplay's stated right of being able to exploit the back catalog Fallout games. This was never in question and cannot be. It is the basis of the sale contract. Period.
3) Bethesda does not have this right and never did according to Interplay's lawyers who are quoting the contract and several cases to back up their claims.
4) Bethesda went out of their way to contact Interplay partners and unlawfully notify them that Interplay does not have the right to sell the games that the sale contract states they have the right to legally sell. This is malicious intent to harm a contract partner.
This is a very bad move by Bethesda since it is not conjecture like most of their lawsuit but actual verifiable fact to anyone who wants to put in the effort to do minimal real world verification instead of pontification as Bethesda's lawsuit does.
The conjecture on Bethesda's part is their claim that Interplay is causing unmeasurable harm to Bethesda's business by selling Fallout Trilogy and various pre exisiting Fallout compilations without consent when in reality the contract was framed in a way that state Interplay has the unalienable right to sell these games as long as they already previously existed and since they previously existed, they cannot be held liable to infringe on trademark rights and harm the sales of a product that was not even in existence when the Fallout game compilations were first being sold.
5) It is verifiable by the proofs of 3rd parties notified to have nothing to do with Interplay that it was Bethesda who was the guilty party that was trying to undermine Interplay and cause measurable harm to Interplay in order to financially harm Interplay's position as a business.
It is also verifiable that Bethesda continuously stonewalled Interplay at every turn in their back and forth communication and also in their refusal to even allow Interplay to state that they are working on the Fallout MMO when the contract states that they are allowed to work on it. Bethesda refused to even allow Interplay to mention anything about Fallout MMO and prevented their use of any artwork that bore a resemblance to Fallout regardless of whether or not this was clear or not.
This is unfair practice that is detrimental to one party for the benefit of another in clear violation of the tenants of the sale contract.
5) You are not allowed to legally be party to a contract when you are engaging in violating such contract in order to bankrupt the other party to the contract to prevent them from partaking in their enjoyment of their party's benefits of such stated contract.
Conclusion:
What Bethesda has done in transgressing first is legally unlawful and will be proven so and do not be surprised when you hear the following at some point in the near future on a TV or via print and online media:
Interplay is gearing up to release a Warcraft competitor based on the popular Fallout franchise and that is why the stock is up 1500% in one day.
You don't have to believe the last part there about the coming soon news and in fact I encourage the mockers to start mocking my statements but make sure to do so using acerbic humor and not the typical intellectually void drivel drone like response since I like to be entertained and not numbed to death.
There is no emotion without motion. Keep your mind and your body racing and you can have more fun and be more fun to others.
Thank you for you time and patience.
