scarykitties on 15/9/2009 at 12:39
Now, I'm not EA fan by any means (seeing their logo on something instantly makes me suspicious of some kind of cruel money-grubbing involved at the player's expense), but I'm with them on this one. True, maybe that state law says that the personality is protected for a hundred years, but how exactly does a company then own exclusive rights to the name? I agree that it should fall under the First Amendment, a federal law, which thereby overrules the state law of protected personality, at least in this case. If anything, wouldn't the use of the brand name be getting the name out there? How does this harm the company that's complaining?
Epos Nix on 15/9/2009 at 17:15
Quote:
Bethesda was never going to approve new packaging, that's why the contract breach was constructively attained- it's a requirement which requires basic good will that was never going to be evident.
Okay, so do you have any sort of evidence to substantiate this? Some inside source that exists solely in your head maybe? Hmmm?
Even if that were true, what of it? If I buy a car and let my friend drive it a couple times, that doesn't give them the right to get a new paintjob on it without my consent. Bethesda owns the rights to the Fallout license and thus has full control over it. End of story.
Quote:
Well, at least you've actually read the filing and now have the basic details right.
I'm curious where I got the basic details wrong, actually. I'm guessing my first post where I said "Interplay is selling what is rightly Bethesda's property without their consent" which, according to those shady news outlets and Bethesda's lawsuit, is actually true.
I also said Interplay were "misrepresenting the Fallout license by slapping the Fallout name on a random MMO" which is substantiated by this quote:
Quote:
Interplay argues that Masthead's project, codenamed Project V13, is not the Fallout MMO. However, Bethesda claims that V13 is a reference to Vault 13, "both the starting location and the the initial working title of the original Fallout game." In addition, concept art for Project V13 contains references to the Fallout universe, such as (
http://www.shacknews.com/screenshots.x?gallery=11712&game_id=#img132921) "Nuka Cola"
So Interplay wanted to show they had
something before Bethesda pulled the plug, so they got Masthead to take (
http://www.mastheadstudios.com/games.php) this game, apply some Fallout related decor, and call it Fallout MMO... and then deny the whole thing ever existed. Sounds like blatant misrepresentation to me. :o
Zygoptera on 15/9/2009 at 21:47
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Okay, so do you have any sort of evidence to substantiate this?
According to Ausir, that is what a recently ex Interplay employee (ie almost certainly Jason Anderson) said about it. You are, of course, free to wave your hands and shout about NMA and how their brand of mouth foaming fan hysteria is so much worse than our brand of fan hysteria and everyone there just makes things up because they're great Herve Caen fans or something. I am free to laugh if you do so.
Quote:
Even if that were true, what of it?
Your analogy is false. It's more like leasing a car to be used as a taxi, the person leasing it knows its purpose but then uses the strict agreement terms to refuse to allow you to repaint it or put signage on it, carry out maintenance to keep it running and says you can only keep the clients you already have- making it useless for its intended purpose. The conditions of the agreement only work if there is basic good will, else you aren't actually agreeing to anything other than a very large paperweight.
Quote:
I'm curious where I got the basic details wrong, actually. I'm guessing my first post where I said "Interplay is selling what is rightly Bethesda's property without their consent" which, according to those shady news outlets and Bethesda's lawsuit, is actually true.
Sigh. It's up to Bethesda to prove a breach of contract (effectively the whole point of their case, the trade mark action is is just PR bunk to suck in the gullible and credulous, and silly, by making it look like that issue has already been decided), their mere say so does not prove anything any more than me simply deciding that a loan agreement with a bank is invalid. Basically what you are doing is the old "the police say he's guilty, he must be guilty, thus the Truth is he is guilty" deal. The actual Fact is that Iply has a right to sell the old Fallout titles set out in the sale document, Bethesda thinks they are in breach and is trying to get a judgement against them.
Quote:
I also said Interplay were "misrepresenting the Fallout license by slapping the Fallout name on a random MMO" ..
The MMO was designed as FOOL- it's like saying that because Bioware were going to swap NeverWinterNights' over to non D&D when they got into a fight with iply it was never going to be a D&D game. The "Fallout" part of it is the only way to secure funding as noone is going to give Herve Caen, with or without random Bulgarians, money otherwise.
Iply is definitively going to lose that part of the lawsuit in any case, there's no way they've got $30 million. But once again
just because Bethesda says something in a legal submission does not make it fact.
Epos Nix on 15/9/2009 at 22:44
Quote:
Basically what you are doing is the old "the police say he's guilty, he must be guilty, thus the Truth is he is guilty" deal.
No. I'm simply deducing that Bethesda probably wouldn't have given permission to release a package called "Fallout Trilogy" around the same time they released Fallout 3. Even if Interplay has the right to do such a thing, that's a move that reeks of desperation and was designed primarily to confuse the customer. Mind you, my initial post was not "Interplay is at fault!" but rather, "how can Bethesda be blamed for suing?"
And if Jason Anderson or whoever at Interplay are condemning Bethesda for the suit, claiming Bethesda set them up, they need to get better lawyers for one and for two, avoid stepping on the toes of the license holder with snarky marketing tactics ala Fallout Trilogy.
Zygoptera on 16/9/2009 at 02:22
Whoever Ausir's source, he also said that he had left Iply (hence why I presume it was JA, who I know has left) and ended up not getting paid- so they are hardly likely to be biased in Iply's favour.
