Bethesda files motion in limine against Interplay

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Duck and Cover reports Bethesda filed a motion in limine against Interplay. Only one segment is quoted, and it seems to indicate Bethesda is asking for Interplay to be forced to prove that the TLA is a copyright/trademark license (going back to the "Fallout name only" claim Bethesda made) and - quite reasonably - that Interplay bears the burden of proof that they have the required funding and have commenced full-scale development. So far so good, that makes sense. But to confuse the issue, the filing then offers three points that seem to state that - despite having the burden of proof - Interplay should be precluded from offering evidence or arguments on said claims. Maybe my legalese is breaking down, but I don't see how this filing makes any sense.<blockquote>For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, Bethesda moves the Court for an order:

(1) Holding that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Interplay Entertainment Corp. (“Interplay”) bears the burden of proof at trial on each of the following issues: (a) that Interplay has a trademark and copyright license; (b) that Interplay had commenced “full-scale development of its FALLOUT MMOG” by April 4, 2009 as set forth in Section 2.3 of the Trademark License Agreement entered into by Bethesda and Interplay on April 4, 2007 (the “TLA”); and (c) that Interplay had “secured financing for the FALLOUT MMOG in an amount no less than US$30,000,000.00” by April 4, 2009 as set forth in Section 2.3 of the TLA;

(2) Precluding Interplay from offering parol evidence to support its defense that the TLA granted Interplay a copyright license;

(3) Precluding Interplay from arguing at trial that it had satisfied the “full-scale development” and “Minimum Financing” requirements set forth in Section 2.3 of the TLA by April 4, 2009; and

(4) Precluding Interplay from amending its pleadings to assert the affirmative defense of mistake.</blockquote>Note we don't have the full document so this is just going from a fragment of the filing, but from this quote this is a farcical filing from Bethesda. That would be nothing new.

EDIT: good commentary here, noting it is normal for this kind of filing to be partially rather than fully granted, and noting the only real head-scratcher in this filing is the third point.
 
Now everybody will start saying how Bethesda is bad and all but in the end they will still buy their new game......
 
Bethesda isn't one person. There's Bethesda softworks which publishes the games and Bethesda Game Studios which makes the games. I doubt the Game Studios have anything to do with these things.
 
Brother None said:
Duck and Cover reports Bethesda filed a motion in limine against Interplay. Only one segment is quoted, and it seems to indicate Bethesda is asking for Interplay to be forced to prove that the TLA is a copyright/trademark license (going back to the "Fallout name only" claim Bethesda made) and - quite reasonably - that Interplay bears the burden of proof that they have the required funding and have commenced full-scale development. So far so good, that makes sense. But to confuse the issue, the filing then offers three points that seem to state that - despite having the burden of proof - Interplay should be precluded from offering evidence or arguments on said claims. Maybe my legalese is breaking down, but I don't see how this filing makes any sense.<blockquote>For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, Bethesda moves the Court for an order:

(1) Holding that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Interplay Entertainment Corp. (“Interplay”) bears the burden of proof at trial on each of the following issues: (a) that Interplay has a trademark and copyright license; (b) that Interplay had commenced “full-scale development of its FALLOUT MMOG” by April 4, 2009 as set forth in Section 2.3 of the Trademark License Agreement entered into by Bethesda and Interplay on April 4, 2007 (the “TLA”); and (c) that Interplay had “secured financing for the FALLOUT MMOG in an amount no less than US$30,000,000.00” by April 4, 2009 as set forth in Section 2.3 of the TLA;
Click to expand...
24mw47l.jpg
Just.....so tired of this.Like two teenagers fighting over a blond girl:all you are doing is making fools out yourselfs.Just make another series Interplay, the Fallout name is just not worth it.
 
Bethesda isn't one person. There's Bethesda softworks which publishes the games and Bethesda Game Studios which makes the great games.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, that isn't entirely the case. Pete Hines still commands them all, and the different trademarks are just do separate games that Bethesda themselves make (e.g. the ones Todd Howard keeps making all sorts of questionable design decisions :twisted: ) and the ones Bethesda only publishes (e.g. the ones Tood Howard doesn't put his hands on directly).


... and Bethesda Game Studios which makes the great games.
Click to expand...
Wait, there's a branch of Bethesda that makes great games? Where the fuck were they when Fallout 3 was shat out?
Click to expand...

Or Oblivion, for what matters? After the highly creative Morrowind, they came up with "generic fantasy game poorly disguised as an role play game #37421697", a.k.a. Oblivion. And then FO3... hope Skyrim put them back in the right track.
 
Pete Hines is the VP of marketing, he doesn't command them all, the legal branch is a completely separate part of Zenimax.
 
It's a motion in limine, before trial begins to set the ground rules. They must have some factual basis for asking for some of these things that was likely omitted here.

In any case, it's a form of alternative pleading, or in other words, ask for everything you want, but not expecting to get it all.

The first one is straight forward enough, though unlikely as the plaintiff asserting breach generally has the burden of proving it. (I believe Beth, unless this is regarding Interplay's counter-suit).

The second one is a standard contract rule that the agreement is determined by the text and so other evidence like oral statements and circumstances surrounding the creation of the document (parol evidence) shouldn't be considered. Here, Interplay can argue there is ambiguity in the agreement to allow that kind of evidence in.

The third one is rather strange. They would have to have solid evidence that no reasonable fact-finder could find for Interplay to win on that one in a pretrial motion. Of course, there is a good chance that Beth does have proof that Interplay didn't get the $30mil and didn't meet the terms of full-scale development.

The last one is fairly self-explainatory.

The judge could easily grant only one part of this, multiples parts, or none.
 
Thanks Reed, that was helpful.

I noted that on parol evidence but couldn't quite slot in why Bethesda felt the need to bring it up, but in context it makes sense.

And yeah, we could definitely have done with the full document, rather than one quote and an interpretation by an Interplay investor who is obviously very biased. We don't see Bethesda's arguments or explanations, so it's easy to interpret it against them. I'm going to edit the post slightly.
 
Duh.

Bethesda is using their legal department to drain Interplay of money. For every day Interplay has to pay to have their defense team in court is several thousand dollars they're not putting toward the development of FOOL. Bethesda has the capital to spend. They don't need to win the case, just bleed Interplay dry.

Duh.
 
Would love to be a fly on the wall at both these companies to see what they're really thinking. They're both well versed in smoke, mirrors and bullshit.
 
Don't you see what's going on? They're in love! D'awww. But mean ol' Zenimax doesn't want them to be together ( :< ), so they are keeping contacts thanks to the first thing that helped them lay eyes upon each other; when their hearts fused in a dimension of hopes and dreams. But if one of them dies, the other one will follow soon after! ( D: ) It's a Shakespearean tragedy, really. And that's why it makes people sad.
 
reed, here is the problem...

lets look at 2 very successful MMOs. not in the vein of WoW, but still very successful.

DAOC: 2 years dev time, 12 full time employees, cost of like 25 to 35 mil

UO: dev time of 3 years, 10 mil to make, team of 25. it took 3 years because development stopped 3 times.

the more relevant would be DAOC as it is more recent, but it goes to show that you dont need shitloads of money or a huge ass team to do a MMO and succeed even with a brand new IP.
 
RuneScape could serve as an example - sure, it's not that big, but it's pretty damn successful. Especially within England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top