Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Brother None, Jan 21, 2011.
Interplay would most likely still consider New Vegas canon. Unless they are complete assholes.
Interplay would not have rights to use any of the stuff created by Bethesda and Obsidian for FO3 and FNV.
BTW, I'm looking at the 2004 licensing contract and I think Bethesda could block Interplay's Fallout 6 by licensing but not releasing their "Fallout 5". I don't see any clause anywhere that the license will terminate if Bethesda doesn't release Fallout 5 by date X. On the contrary, "the timing and exercise of all rights granted hereunder being matters entirely withing the discretion of Bethesda".
So if I were Bethesda, if IPLY won back the rights, I'd fuck them over by officially working on Fallout 5 in perpetuity, since the contract is terminated only if Bethesda gives written notice that it doesn't want to make another sequel.
Why are you giving Bethesda's lawyer advice?
They would have surely fucked that one up on their own.
I thought the same thing and they should be intelligent enough to come to the same conclusion.
All in all I still think Obsidian would do the best job on an own Fo5, better than the company Interplay as of today.
@Ausir: Is there some more information about your appeal?
So Interplay wins Fallout back and then what? they fuck up again and sell it again?
From your signature.
Ah. All the necessary details are under the link.
I don't like Bethesda's direction on the series at all but at this point, I have to say that just the thought of the franchise being in the hands of the Caens makes me rage like a madman. Original developers be damned.
No matter who wins, I will be very sad on the day the court announces its decision.
5 years from now.
Another sad fact is that I'll (possibly) have to wait that long.
Wouldn't it be nice if the verdict was the following?
* from a fictional paper article *
In a surprise twist regarding the franchise ownership and property rights of the Fallout IP, the court ruled that either sides were incompetent in handling it and neither of them would receive the rights.
After the case our reporter spoke with Vault Boy, mascot and icon of the Fallout franchise.
Vault Boy "Truth be told, this comes as a relief to me. For the last decade I felt I was trapped in some terrible nightmare I could not escape from. Surrounded by creepy strangers who ordered me to dress funny and act like an idiot."
When asked what his immediate future plans were Vault Boy told our reporter that he would take a vacation for the time being to rediscover himself and the Fallout franchise.
"Long term fans do not need to worry, I just want to rediscover again what made the original Fallout games so good before the franchise was soiled with terrible ideas and releases. Hopefully in a couple of years I will be back."
Dream come true...
This might work for a while, and it might succeed in forcing Interplay into another legal battle, but I don't think Bethesda could hold the license hostage indefinitely with this tactic. The original license to develop the three games was clearly signed with the expectation that Bethesda would actually develop and publish the games. Refusing to develop a third game without relinquishing control of the license would constitute a material breach of the contract, which would free Interplay from their obligations in the deal, allowing them to do whatever they pleased with the license, and allow them to sue for damages.
Proving that Bethesda did not intend to make the game could be problematic for Interplay, especially since the contract contains no specific time-frame for completion. However, a court could force Bethesda to provide evidence for the game's development as part of discovery, just as the court forced Interplay to do for their MMOG. Even when there is no clearly defined time for performance in a contract, a reasonable time is considered implied. I don't have any idea what would constitute a reasonable time for the development of a videogame, but it certainly does not include holding on to the license indefinitely.
There are two important caveats I want to include. The first of these is that I'm not a lawyer but an accountant, and it's definitely possible that my understanding of contract laws is flawed. The second is that I think there is basically no chance that ownership of the IP reverts back to Interplay, so this is totally academic.
There are tools for that, it case it's just a Mediawiki template for a [[Category:]] tag:
Since you are an accountant, I had a question ( my knowledge of the stock market is woeful) . Interplay has a stock symbol of IPLY. On CNBC it says there are 122,700,000 outstanding shares, currently at 7 cent a share. So if i am figuring correctly they have a worth of about $ 9 million. Someone posted a while back why Bethesda didn't just buy interplay and I was wondering why not. If they owned more that 51% of the company stock they could not control the company? I just thought as stupid as bethesda's lawyers seem to be (again from a person with no legal experience) buying them looks to be a better cheaper solution. Or am I looking at this too simply ?
I was wondering the same thing. You'd think Bethesda's made enough from Fallout 3 alone to make it worthwhile to just buy the company and end the lawsuit there. At 7¢ a share it can't be that much to just buy them outright. Then again I probably don't understand it.
I will laugh really hard if Bethesda is now loosing their IP because they wanted to fuck with Interplay...
Hmm does anyone know a side for 'stupidly failed legal measures'? I'm just interested on how other companies fucked up, to see if it's just Bethesda.
In the end the Ip will be handed over to the community and Interplay, Bethesda and Oblivion have to work together to build a fallout based on a concept entirely made by the community itself.