The Litigation Hammer
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
At this point anyone who does business with activision really only has themselves to blame. It isn't like anyone following the industry doesn't know about their shenanigans.
I look forward to a publisher-free future where all games come directly from developer to player. With digital downloads there is no need for devil deals to secure retail space. All a game needs to succeed is a demo and to be good.
I look forward to a publisher-free future where all games come directly from developer to player. With digital downloads there is no need for devil deals to secure retail space. All a game needs to succeed is a demo and to be good.
So are West and Zampella not relevant to this life-lesson you learned during the time when dot-com-ers thought themselves invincible, because I think they think they have just as much leverage in their favor as Activision has in theirs and either have the dough to go a few rounds or are cocksure enough to think they'll net a gain.
Why not just make massive fines for companies who are obviously suing on a case that would never win. Or better yet, if the little guy fights and wins, the losing company has to pay all their legal fees.
It has problems, but i am a teenager and i live in an ideal world!
It has problems, but i am a teenager and i live in an ideal world!
"Keep telling new people about it. Keep making clear just how cancerous they are to the industry. Keep demanding better. An organized internet boycott / petition isn't usually very harmful to a publisher, but having a majority of your customers hate your freaking guts is bad for any business."
Already done. Numerous friends of mine arn't buying Black Ops because of the supposed charging money to play every month.
Already done. Numerous friends of mine arn't buying Black Ops because of the supposed charging money to play every month.
I think the systems for suing people in most countries are broken, might help if they fixed that first, could help.
It does also seem to be an issue of what culture you're from, there's less lawsuits in Britain than America, for instance and there's different rules about said lawsuits as well.
Just my thoughts here, though.
It does also seem to be an issue of what culture you're from, there's less lawsuits in Britain than America, for instance and there's different rules about said lawsuits as well.
Just my thoughts here, though.
You're missing the point. This isn't about them being screwed by a bad contract. This is when people have perfectly reasonable contracts, don't break them, and the big company sues them anyway. The big company should lose from a legal perspective, the only reason they don't is because they have so much money they can get the legal battle to drag on long enough for the small guys to go bankrupt.Sartan0 said:
That's a pretty big eye-opener for me... I never thought about it that way and it's a comparative disgrace that the judicial system has this glaring flaw yet cannot patch it up. We could always create new legislation prohibiting these sort of actions by big publishers.
That is a danger yes but some of this is not reading the contract. It makes it easier for the bigger company. Why make it easier for them? One possible solution is to get smaller companies to pool some of their resources to use when one of them is picked on.Hexenwolf said:
You mean like your house? Your family?Pugiron said:
You have a *LOT* to prove to a judge if you want to act as your own attorney. Many judges simply will not allow it, and will declare a mistrial, before allowing you to tank your case and lose everything you own.
So, do you REALLY think that these companies don't have lawyers reviewing contracts before they sign? Respawn (nee IW) is certainly going to review their future contracts, but I *guarantee* that they will encounter the same type of dispute. The issue is that the contracts were read, deemed fair, and adhered to. Then the companies were railroaded by lawyers who make more in a month than they make in a year.Sartan0 said:
So you're saying that a company can't defend his IP as well as he could? That will only make small company copy IPs so much that the big one can't sue the small one on all the IPs that got stolen. That would be a lot worse than what we have right now.Hopeless Bastard said:
In some cases yes. Where is your evidence that it never happens? As I suggested in my other comment it is time for other legal solutions and possibly forming some kind of pooled fund to combat baseless claims. The situation could be improved through the actions of all the players involved. I do, on the other hand, realize that small developers are just trying to make games. So likely it would take someone making it there mission to set something up.RvLeshrac said:
1) It does happen. It happens less often than you think. Additionally, the claims aren't "baseless," or they'd be thrown out as soon as a judge saw them. The basis, however, is usually technical, not actual, breach.Sartan0 said:
2) This has already been offered to game developers and other IT workers, many times, in the last 40 years. The majority keeps saying that they don't want unionisation, however, so benefits like collective bargaining and collective legal defence are out of the question.
now i know why fat ppl sue McDonald for getting fat. why coffee drinkers sue Starbucks for having hot coffee. why smokers sue Marlboro for getting cancer. Its just ezier/cheaper to pay them off than to take them to court! XD
Guess it works the other way around too!
Guess it works the other way around too!
So the knee-jerk reaction is to punish the rich companies for doing this or put a cap on how much they can spend; why? If the problem is one side outspending the other than put into place a system that means neither side have to pay anything.
In civil matters such as this the court appoints two attorneys to represent each side. The loser pays damages and the costs of both attorneys. Now if one side has a lot of money they can hire an extra team of lawyers and even have them represent them in court, but they won't get the money directly back and the other side need not spend anything
Is that too simple?
In civil matters such as this the court appoints two attorneys to represent each side. The loser pays damages and the costs of both attorneys. Now if one side has a lot of money they can hire an extra team of lawyers and even have them represent them in court, but they won't get the money directly back and the other side need not spend anything
Is that too simple?
This is why independent gaming needs to rise. If ShootGuy could have been published without sitting at the signing table with Kotick and his spawn, then there would be no legal battle left for them to fight. We can't lose if we don't play.
It would also be nice to have some lawyers that are committed against being evil (pipe dream, I know.) A lot of great pro bono work could go towards defending independent developers from exploitation like this, even if it lacks the same PR-hype as defending a homeless shelter or whatever.
It would also be nice to have some lawyers that are committed against being evil (pipe dream, I know.) A lot of great pro bono work could go towards defending independent developers from exploitation like this, even if it lacks the same PR-hype as defending a homeless shelter or whatever.
An excellent analogy.Mysnomer said:
Don't just boycott Activision. Boycott the Vivendi/Sierra/Activision/Blizzard company. Don't let Blizzard and Sierra and Vivendi slyly get the other part of the giant company to do all the dirty work and to make a bad name for itself while the other parts of the company get to pretend they're clean. Boycott World of Warcraft. Boycott everything made by the giant company (which is a lot bigger than just Activision).
It's the only way they'll feel any real pressure to clean up their act.
It's the only way they'll feel any real pressure to clean up their act.