Bethesda Calls Fallout MMO Contract "Clear and Unambiguous"

[Logan Westbrook]

Bethesda Calls Fallout MMO Contract "Clear and Unambiguous"

Interplay's arguments over wording of MMO contract are "meritless," say Bethesda's lawyers.

Bethesda has restated its claim that the contract between it and Interplay over the Fallout MMO did not include the use of any assets from previous titles. What's more, it said that the contract that Interplay agreed to made this very clear, and the courts should reject any arguments to the contrary.

In December of last year, Bethesda claimed [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106407-Bethesda-and-Interplay-Continue-Fallout-MMO-Fight] that Interplay was only allowed to use the Fallout name for its MMO, and by using any other elements from the Fallout franchise, it had broken the terms of the contract. Interplay responded to these claims earlier this week, calling such an interpretation "absurd [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106812-Interplay-Calls-Bethesdas-Fallout-Claim-Absurd]," and making the case that there was no point in using the Fallout name if it couldn't set the game in the Fallout world.

Bethesda rejected that idea however, saying that Interplay had submitted a number of "meritless arguments" to the court, which suggested that the wording of the contract rendered it meaningless. It said that the term "Fallout-branded MMO" clearly meant an MMO called Fallout and nothing else, and that Bethesda was under no contractual obligation to allow Interplay to use any other assets. It said that it hadn't contested this violation of the contract before, because it didn't realize that it had even taken place until Interplay started sending out marketing materials for the game.

The rights to the MMO have been a bone of contention between the two companies for quite some time. When Bethesda bought the rights [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/70622-Bethesda-Softworks-Purchases-Fallout-IP] to the franchise in 2007, it licensed the MMO rights back to Interplay on the understanding that it would begin work on the game no later than 24 months after the date of the agreement, and would release the game within four years of work commencing.

Bethesda sued [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94655-Bethesda-Sues-Interplay-Over-Fallout-MMO] Interplay in September of 2009, saying that Interplay had broken the terms of the agreement. Bethesda tried to obtain a temporary injunction against Interplay, but was unable to do so [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96806-Judge-Denies-Bethesda-Fallout-Injunction], and eventually dropped [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100192-Bethesda-Drops-Fallout-MMOG-Appeal-Against-Interplay] the suit in April 2010.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32411/Bethesda_Interplay_Is_Wrong.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News)]


Permalink

 

[ryo02]

you can have the name BUT DONT DARE use anything else? ... so a game called fallout cant have radiation then? that comes under "any" right?.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

This whole lawsuit is getting silly.

And not just silly...

Silly-willy.

 

[p3t3r]

if i were interplay i would just make a horrible game just to piss bethesda off after all this tomfollery

 

[BenzSmoke]

The contract may say that Bethesda, but that doesn't mean it's still not idiot logic.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Their legal argument doesn't even make sense - why would you allow dilution of a strong IP by licensing the naming rights to another company, but not use of any elements of the IP itself?

-m

 

[Ausir]

As I noted in my article about it at The Vault [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Bethesda:_Our_arguments_have_been_consistent], there is at least one clear inconsistency in Bethesda's statement.

Bethesda claims that they hadn't made the claim about Interplay not having the rights to use any Fallout assets aside from the name before now because "Bethesda only recently learned of Interplay?s multiple infringements from Interplay?s public marketing materials". Even though actually the public materials, which were, by the way, first released over 6 months ago, definitely weren't the first use of Fallout assets that Bethesda knew of. The following proof of concept Fallout Online screenshots were admitted as evidence in this very case already in 2009:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fileroject_V13_screenshot1.jpg
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fileroject_V13_screenshot2.jpg
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fileroject_V13_screenshot3.jpg

And they show super mutants and a Nuka-Cola sign. If these are not Fallout-related assets, what is?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I'm sorry Bethesda, but what? Interplay is going to win this, at this point Bethesda is really just making shit up.

 

[ThePeaceFrog]

If the contract did say that, than Interplay are perhaps the most monumental idiots on the face of the planet.

 

[Danpascooch]

you can have the name BUT DONT DARE use anything else? ... so a game called fallout cant have radiation then? that comes under "any" right?.

You realize "radiation" isn't a registered trademark or asset of the Fallout franchise right?

They just mean they can't use any source material, such as source code or art or textures.

I think it's ridiculous too, but get your facts straight.

 

[twistedheat15]

Sounds like some hardcore trolling on Bethesdas end.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I thought the lawsuit was dropped

 

[Danpascooch]

As I noted in my article about it at The Vault [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Bethesda:_Our_arguments_have_been_consistent], there is at least one clear inconsistency in Bethesda's statement.

Bethesda claims that they hadn't made the claim about Interplay not having the rights to use any Fallout assets aside from the name before now because "Bethesda only recently learned of Interplay?s multiple infringements from Interplay?s public marketing materials". Even though actually the public materials, which were, by the way, first released over 6 months ago, definitely weren't the first use of Fallout assets that Bethesda knew of. The following proof of concept Fallout Online screenshots were admitted as evidence in this very case already in 2009:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fileroject_V13_screenshot1.jpg
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fileroject_V13_screenshot2.jpg
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fileroject_V13_screenshot3.jpg

And they show super mutants and a Nuka-Cola sign. If these are not Fallout-related assets, what is?

Did they actually trademark the terms supermutant and nuka-cola?

Because I think by "elements" Bethesda just means they can't use any existing source code, art, textures, or other property.

Because regardless of what the contract might have said, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to say they can't use anything that they don't own such as "nuka cola" (if it is indeed not trademarked) and Bethesda's legal team couldn't possibly be THAT stupid.

 

[Catalyst6]

While you *could* make a MMO that is unrelated to Fallout, any attempt to do so would probably result in a lawsuit from Bethesda. After all, saying that Interplay can't take any of the material from Fallout is severely crippling, as that could potentially apply to *anything* in the game.

After all, I assume that the game would take place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Thus, putting any of these things could be considered "ripping off the Fallout games":

1. Posh, out-of-place hotel.
2. Large, radiation-soaked monsters. (Practically guaranteed in a post-nuke MMO)
3. Cities with unexploded nukes in them.
4. Underground bunkers (This is The Bomb-era thinking, after all, bunkers would probably be the new cave)
5. Irradiated water
6. Using useless goods as currency (Paperclips, doorknobs, all of these things could be considered caps clones)

The list goes on. There's such a massive potential for a lawsuit.

More to the spirit of the dispute, however, it seems equatable to selling a picture of a boat to a man for 5 million dollars then informing him that he doesn't get the boat, just the picture. Aka, a dirty gambit of bait-and-switch.

Really, how did this issue not come up during negotiations? Was there not a single case when someone offhandedly mentioned how awesome it would be to have a Brothers of Steel raid boss, prompting a "uhhh, what? No." from Bethesda?

 

[mattttherman3]

Ok so no: Brotherhood of Steel, NCR, Ceasar's Legion, Super Mutants, VAULTS. Yeah so I guess you could do a version set in china because that place was bombed to shit too(america and china were at war when the bombs dropped so).

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Man, I like their games, but Bethesda are being pretty big jerk-offs here. Why the hell would they WANT another company using the name "Fallout" for a game that was completely unrelated to, well, "Fallout"? If they're just trying to stop the game from happening, why the hell did they sell the rights in the first place? This whole thing is just retarded.

 

[MolotoK]

I already hated what Bethesda has done to the Fallout franchise. Fallout 3 was one of the most disappointing sequels I ever put my eyes on.

Bethesda now trying to prevent Interplay from making a Fallout MMO? That's it! I'm NEVER going to buy a game made by Bethesda again.

 

[Ibanez887]

This case is so stupid, I dont see why Bethesda wont let them use what Interplay originally published back in '97-'99. This is starting to look like mostly just a way to get free publicity, at least to me.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I don't really care about this that much, because a Fallout MMO sounds like a terrible idea.

Bethesda's logic behind this is just stupid though.

 

[thirion1850]

Rofl. Why can't they just work together to make something amazing? I mean, they -were- pretty much one entity before.