More details from same Interplay vs Bethesda filings

[Brother None]

The Vault lost the race to post the Interplay v Bethesda filings this time, so instead one-ups DaC by posting a more detailed summary, as well as the entire log of correspondence between Interplay and Bethesda. An interesting read if you want to Herve Caen getting snubbed over and over again.

 

[TheWesDude]

so wait a sec, interplay has the liscence to create a Fallout MMOG but not the permission from beth to advertise it.

nor the permission to advertise their progress on it.

unless there is a clause in the agreements stating that IPLY is not allowed to advertise or notify the press/on their website, then by those emails, beth is proving they are not acting in good faith.

and thats the problem with beth.

they wrote a contract that heavily favors them, and herve signed it probably knowing that beth would not "act in good faith" knowing he could take beth to court, or else defend themselves based on beth not acting in good faith.

so there is the possibility that herve signed it knowing beth would screw up and could portray himself as the victim successfully in court.


yes, i know that has been discussed before, but these emails just lend credence much more so than peoples thoughts and ideas. what we seem to be seeing is proof that beth is not acting in good faith. which will make them lose in court.

the question is, why doesnt beth know this? are they really that obtuse?

 

[Pope Viper]

Good read, thanks Ausir.

 

[swampcat]

so wait a sec, interplay has the liscence to create a Fallout MMOG but not the permission from beth to advertise it.

nor the permission to advertise their progress on it.

unless there is a clause in the agreements stating that IPLY is not allowed to advertise or notify the press/on their website, then by those emails, beth is proving they are not acting in good faith.

and thats the problem with beth.

they wrote a contract that heavily favors them, and herve signed it probably knowing that beth would not "act in good faith" knowing he could take beth to court, or else defend themselves based on beth not acting in good faith.

so there is the possibility that herve signed it knowing beth would screw up and could portray himself as the victim successfully in court.


yes, i know that has been discussed before, but these emails just lend credence much more so than peoples thoughts and ideas. what we seem to be seeing is proof that beth is not acting in good faith. which will make them lose in court.

the question is, why doesnt beth know this? are they really that obtuse?

so they cannot advertise it in USA or Europe
or it just cannot be advertised in all the world ?

i don't think the advertise thing can be intended in
all the nations outside USA . Or not ?




sorry for my bad english.

 

[Dionysus]

so wait a sec, interplay has the liscence to create a Fallout MMOG but not the permission from beth to advertise it.

nor the permission to advertise their progress on it.

unless there is a clause in the agreements stating that IPLY is not allowed to advertise or notify the press/on their website, then by those emails, beth is proving they are not acting in good faith.

Well, Bethesda owns the franchise, and IP needs to get approval from them. Furthermore, I believe IP specifically needed to meet criteria (including the funding requirement) in order to advertise a Fallout MMO. From Bethesda's perspective (I assume), they needed to show that they were fit and ready to create a product that lived up to Beth's quality standards (please stop snickering).

It's tough to say that Beth wasn't acting in good faith at this point, because Herve was promising a miracle. If he managed to pull it off (and he doesn't pretend that he did), and Beth still was antagonistic, then I think it would be clear that they weren't acting in good faith when they signed the contract (or that they changed their minds at some point). But the contract itself seems pretty rigorous considering IP's financial state at the time.

 

[Ausir]

I believe IP specifically needed to meet criteria (including the funding requirement) in order to advertise a Fallout MMO.

There is no such requirement in the TLA, as far as I see.

 

[Dionysus]

I believe IP specifically needed to meet criteria (including the funding requirement) in order to advertise a Fallout MMO.

There is no such requirement in the TLA, as far as I see.

I was thinking of this part:

4.0 USE OF LICENSED MARKS. Provided Interplay fulfills the
conditions set forth in Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of this Agreement, Interplay
is granted the right to use the Licensed Marks but only in connection with
Interplay's FALLOUT MMOG. Interplay agrees not to use the Licensed Marks in
conjunction with or connection to any other products or marketing materials.

Now, I don't think that's entirely clear, but that is probably what Beth will point to, especially considering Lesher's first reply in those e-mails. And there's some other language regarding quality control that they can refer to. I think it's pretty easy for Beth to contend that they honestly expected IP to bootstrap before advertising the game. Remember that Beth doesn't advertise their own games until they are well into development. But I'm just addressing the "good faith" issue. Whether they technically should have been able to do whatever advertising they wanted before April 2009 is another issue.

 

[Ausir]

The paragraph that you quoted doesn't mean that Interplay would only be allowed to use the mark after the conditions in sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 are fulfilled, only that it would be able to keep using it after the deadlines specified therein only if these conditions are met. Otherwise, it would mean that Interplay cannot use the Fallout trademark until after the game is launched and operating for 3 months, which would be a rather far-fetched claim even for this case.

 

[Dionysus]

The paragraph that you quoted doesn't mean that Interplay would only be allowed to use the mark after the conditions in sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 are fulfilled, only that it would be able to keep using it after the deadlines specified therein only if these conditions are met. Otherwise, it would mean that Interplay cannot use the Fallout trademark until after the game is launched and operating for 3 months, which would be a rather far-fetched claim even for this case.

I think the issue will be whether they were allowed to use it before they met the first deadline. I suspect that Bethesda will take that position that IP needed to demonstrate the capability to make a "quality" game. Whether that actually holds up is a different issue from whether Bethesda was signing the agreement "in good faith."

Of course, the fact that IP rolled over without a peep suggests that they were not certain that they had the right to use the license to advertise the MMO at that time. Regardless of whether anyone is operating in good faith, I think that's IP's biggest problem. At this point, they clearly missed a deadline in the contract, and their excuse seems to center around the fact that they weren't allowed to advertise even though Bethesda did not and (from IP's current perspective) could not legally stop them from advertising the MMO.

 

[Ausir]

Well, I definitely don't think that Bethesda can prove that they had the right to force Interplay not to release post-apocalyptic art that actually used no Fallout-related trademarks, which they did.

 

[Dionysus]

Well, I definitely don't think that Bethesda can prove that they had the right to force Interplay not to release post-apocalyptic art that actually used no Fallout-related trademarks, which they did.

I don't think they can either. But like I said, Beth didn't and couldn't force them to take anything off of their website. Beth asked them and referred to the contract. If that isn't in the contract, then IP shouldn't have listened. Even if we buy the fact that Bethesda's interpretation of the contract was wrong AND they knew it at the time, it's still true that IP ultimately fucked themselves over.

 

[Ausir]

Of course that a lot of this is due to Herve's ineptness. It doesn't make Bethesda's actions any better, though.

 

[King of Creation]

so instead one-ups DaC by posting really old news that DAC posted months ago.

Fixed

 

[Ausir]

The news itself is not new, but I figured that people might find the actual correspondence interesting.

 

[alec]

The news itself is not new, but I figured that people might find the actual correspondence interesting.

It's sad and hilarious at the same time.

At some point I actually felt bad for Hervé.

 

[Corith]

Again, I wonder if somebody at Beth is now beginning to regret pulling Herve from the jaws of involuntary bankruptcy.

 

[Pope Viper]

They probably thought they had a sure thing because of his previous incompetency.

 

[Crni Vuk]

like someome said already Herve = Weasel. He even looks a bit like one!

 

[Sicblades]

As sad as it is; I'd rather the frog have it than toad.

Whatever the outcome, no good can come out of this.