Revenge of the Litigated

[ascagnel]

I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article, but a few states have anti-SLAPP laws now. Although this isn't directly related to a "loser-pays" system, it is still relevant. SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- usually when an a large, powerful party tries to use the court system to bury a smaller party that lacks the same resources. The idea is that, at the outset of such a lawsuit, a defendant can bring an anti-SLAPP motion before the court, staying discovery (which is very time- and lawyer-intensive, so its very expensive) and can provide a quick resolution to the case while the onus is on the prosecution to prove that they have a reasonable chance to win.

I'm not sure if this would directly apply in this situation (contract law vs. free speech rights/constitutional law), but it seems relevant.

Wikipedia has a good writeup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Shamus, if there's a smarter thing written on this forum somewhere, I don't know what it is. On a related note,
My father used to tell me a story about my great-great grandfather, it goes like this: (short, I promise)

My grand-dad once started up a carpentry business, and to do so he borrowed a lot of money from a lot of people. He was successful for a few years, but he was a carpenter not a businessman and he went under around year 5. He hadn't paid back even half of his investors.

There was no contract involved, my Grandfather simply shook hands with everyone who invested in his company. In this day and age, even an investor who had a contract as thick as a phonebook wouldn't be protected if a company went bankrupt. My great great grandfather paid back every dime, over the next 15 years. I've been inspired by that story of integrity my entire life.

It's not a DREAMWORLD for people to honour their word, and if you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. That kind of cynicism eats away at your well-being.

When you shake a man's hand, it should MEAN something. Forget people working FOR Activision, who is working AT Activision, and how are they rationalizing it to themselves? How can they look these people in the eyes, promise them something, watch the higher-ups screw them, and then go to work on the next project with any kind of hope? How can they not say, "I work hard for these people, and they turned me into a liar, I'm out."

Your Grandfather was an awesome person and your Dad was great to tell you that story. I've a similar story my dad told me about my grandpa and to this day I pay my debts ASAP.

I mean, I was in a convenience store getting a drink and a pack of smokes and I was a dime short. I had a dime in the car and asked them to hold up and I'd get it when an older guy talking with the cashier reached in his pocket and dropped 10 cents down on the counter. I told him thanks and walked out to the car which was almost a half block away (I had parked at the casino next door) and walked back over and gave the guy back his dime. He laughed and said I didn't have to do that and I told him my dad always taught me to pay my debts. He smiled and said more people my age needed dad's like that.

 

[Headless]

"I know the game is crooked but it's the only game in town." - Wild Bill (I think)

 

[FruitFusion]

True dooley.
I live in one of those western countries that has looser-pays laws and even frivilous-accuser
gets fined laws. We almost never hear of stories like this in our economical climate.
Then again sueing in my country is alot less easier and alot less profitable, this has the
downside of "punishment" being to light for your sense of "fairness".

 

[lijenstina]

Join the Communist party and work Your way up the ladders using plenty of backstabbing of the fellow Apparatchiks in the process of "leveling up"...
Uh, wait this is not the SSSR. Bribe a Congressman.

 

[Nurb]

Gamers are angry that there's no way to punish Activision. But this is the punishment that Activision should have to endure: Smart and talented people should simply refuse to do business with them out of fear of finding themselves in Greg Hasting's shoes.

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
-George Washington

 

[Fensfield]

I'm not really following this logic.

Yes, we're at a point where Activision is an obvious 'Work with them and you'll get burned' situation, but what about other companies? Activision got away with these things so far because it wasn't well-known they're a bunch of back-stabbers. But what about companies that seem to have a spotless record, but actually have a massive pile of restraining orders? Or the unavoidable possibility that your development company will be the first to get betrayed like this?

So yes, don't co-operate with people with a bad rep' is obvious logic. But what do you do to protect yourself from this sort of behaviour by someone that's just very good at hiding their skeletons? I think the 'loser pays' rule is very much a step in the right direction, at the very least in company vs company legal warfare (perhaps not elsewhere, though, as it might deter the reporting of criminal cases or something..) but even then, there are still dangers.

 

[Bruce Edwards]

Surely, a tight enough contract would prevent all these shenanigans?

It seems that much of the pain caused by Activision recently has been with studios who signed 'Memo's of understanding' (*cough* IW *cough*) rather than binding contracts.

It may be a pain in the arse writing an iron clad contract, and it may mean you lose a little up-front cash in the negotiations required, but it surely beats getting destroyed in court by a giant publishing firm.*

* Disclaimer - I know nothing about the US legal system, and could be talking out of my arse.

 

[T_ConX]

Gamers are angry that there's no way to punish Activision.

Actually, there is a way for gamers to punish Activision...

Don't buy their crap.

Seriously. It's one thing to rant on an online forum about how much you hate high gas prices, but all that ranting becomes meaningless if you don't actively change your lifestyle to reduce your own fuel purchases.

Guess what? It's the same with anything else.

As long as 'gamers' continue to buy whatever C-Class FPS Activision slaps the CoD name on, Activision will continue to produce a steady profit, pleasing investors, who will continue to keep Bobby Kotick on board as President and CEO.

I've avoided buying anything with the Activision (or Blizzard) name on it for two years. I know that, alone, I'm not doing much, but I am doing all that I can do as a consumer. Not only that, I can be happy that my dollars aren't going towards buying Bobby Kotick a new Gulfstream III to sexually harass flight attendants on.

 

[DayDark]

The problem with the "don't do business with corps that have questionable background" is that the (Western) gaming industry is dominated by a few publishing megahouses that all have dodgy pasts to some degree. Consequently, by your reasoning, surely developers are left with a Hobson's choice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice] since all publishers with the big bucks to spend on game development have got skeletons in the closet?,*

*in before someone starts worshiping Valve as the saviors of gaming

This is pretty much what I fear. In any competition, you can always expect the top players to be ruthless. Any multiplayer experience you have, if you get good enough to rise to one of upper skill lvls, you'll notes a rise in cheaters, campers, and overall people who play dirty.

Who you gonna deal with when everyone has blood on their hands?

 

[MongoBaer]

Good article, Shamus.

Here's another point to concider: What if the small guy is the one in the wrong? My point is this Big Company agrees to terms with Small Fry, Small Fry decides to change the deal midstream (AKA Vader's Agreement) with threats of bad PR, lawsuit ad infanightum (sp?),etc...

While this isn't a perfect parallel to Activison/IW, I think this is what's going on there.

Thoughts

 

[Sikachu]

You're wrong on so many points. Primarily on your 'simple fix' solution which is so limited in its consideration that I'm surprised someone didn't send back your copy for more development. So if you aren't going to deal with people you don't know you can trust, who are you going to deal with? Do you think there are mysterious publishers that don't engage in the cut-and-thrust arms length business practises that every other big company does? Which is this mysterious trustworthy publisher that's more interested in the people on the other end of its contracts that it is in its bottom line. Short sighted, shallow analysis - I'm disappointed, you're usually much better than this.

As for "don't live in the US" being wrong and every system having holes because every system has human beings, what a cop-out bereft of analysis. Of course every system will have some problems because of human beings. That is trivially true and not an argument. If it was, then there would be no point comparing any systems of any sort because hey, they've all got problems! 'Don't live in the US' is actually wonderful advice if you don't want to be ruined in the legal system, precisely because of the 'loser pays' safeguard that prevents malicious lawsuits. The lawsuit culture that is so entrenched in the USA is not present in the overwhelming majority of other western countries, though Britain at least seems to sliding ever closer.

 

[Sikachu]

Good article, Shamus.

Here's another point to concider: What if the small guy is the one in the wrong? My point is this Big Company agrees to terms with Small Fry, Small Fry decides to change the deal midstream (AKA Vader's Agreement) with threats of bad PR, lawsuit ad infanightum (sp?),etc...

While this isn't a perfect parallel to Activison/IW, I think this is what's going on there.

Thoughts

ad infinitum

 

[Blackbird71]

There is a way that small companies can protect themselves, and it doesn't even require an overhaul to our legal system. If you're worried that your little development studio might get crushed under the heel of (say) Activision, then there are some pretty easy things you can do to make it almost impossible for them to come after you.

This peaked my interest, considering one day I may well find myself in that situation. Alas, it seems it fell beyond the scope of the article to deliver.

Go back and read the article; more than being within the scope, the answer you are looking for is the crux of the article. If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice).

 

[geldonyetich]

Go back and read the article; more than being within the scope, the answer you are looking for is the crux of the article. If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice).

Considering I've been unemployed for an extended period, I've been avoiding the business world rather excellently against my will.

It's all very good advice to most people who don't bother to read articles, but I do, and I still couldn't pick up on it. How about you explain to it me, smart guy?

 

[ArekExcelsior]

The main problem is the high degree of inequality in the American market. Inequality has many noted impacts on the quality of democracy, this being just one of them. That's why our systems are DESIGNED with the idea that equal sized opponents will be fighting: The Founding Fathers were very skeptical about private inequality, particularly Jefferson. It wouldn't be that hard to get back to the 50-70s "golden" era of state-capitalism.

The problem with this idea is that some companies may take it to heart and refuse deals with larger companies (like Activision) but there will always be one or two that could take advantage of the situation and work as... well... scabs.
Like those shifty people who fill in worker positions during a labor strike only more videogame-y

But if that were the case, it'd mean that Activision was dealing with the shiftiest members of the market and could produce less games, as well as paying those guys really well. It'd still be an improvement.

 

[Blackbird71]

Go back and read the article; more than being within the scope, the answer you are looking for is the crux of the article. If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice).

Considering I've been unemployed for an extended period, I've been avoiding the business world rather excellently against my will.

It's all very good advice to most people who don't bother to read articles, but I do, and I still couldn't pick up on it. How about you explain to it me, smart guy?

Avoiding business does not mean avoiding employment entirely; it means don't take a position in which you are involved in making hte business decisions for a company.

The whole point of the article was that the best way to avoid entanglements and legal repurcussions from unscrupulous companies is to not get involved with companies that have such a reputation and a history in the first place. That's exactly the point that the quote you mentioned "piqued [your] interest" was leading to, and it was the main thrust of the article, and if you couldn't get that, then I can only assume that you either 1) seriously lack in reading comprehension skills, 2) did not read the article in its entirety, or 3) are being willfully ignorant and/or a troll.

 

[geldonyetich]

Go back and read the article; more than being within the scope, the answer you are looking for is the crux of the article. If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice).

Considering I've been unemployed for an extended period, I've been avoiding the business world rather excellently against my will.

It's all very good advice to most people who don't bother to read articles, but I do, and I still couldn't pick up on it. How about you explain to it me, smart guy?

Avoiding business does not mean avoiding employment entirely; it means don't take a position in which you are involved in making hte business decisions for a company.

The whole point of the article was that the best way to avoid entanglements and legal repurcussions from unscrupulous companies is to not get involved with companies that have such a reputation and a history in the first place. That's exactly the point that the quote you mentioned "piqued [your] interest" was leading to, and it was the main thrust of the article, and if you couldn't get that, then I can only assume that you either 1) seriously lack in reading comprehension skills, 2) did not read the article in its entirety, or 3) are being willfully ignorant and/or a troll.

Try 4) I was expecting something a little more comprehensive than, "in order to avoid getting ripped off by big companies, don't bother doing business with them." But, hey, thanks for assuming I was an idiot or trolling for not being satisfied with such an easy answer.

I just figured that maybe Shamus Young, as an industry insider, knew something a bit more comprehensive, such as how a small fish could work with a big fish in relative safety. That was the whole point of my original post.

Not that I expect you to care, but you may want to note for educational purposes that your critiques have just backfired. That you were unaware that I was getting at something below the simpler blanket solution establishes you're even worse at business than I am. That you automatically assumed I would miss something so obvious when I wrote it establishes you're worse at reading than I am.