Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

More Fallout Online Legal News

Duck and Cover has more from the courtrooms, where lawyers from Interplay and Bethesda continue to fight over whether Interplay still retains the rights to make a Fallout MMORPG, or whether they have failed to live up to the conditions that would allow them to do so. Word is Bethesda has filed what's called a motion in limine, saying a source tells them "Bethesda is trying to prevent Interplay from bringing damning evidence up in the jury trial." Here's the legalese:

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, Bethesda moves the Court for an order:

(1) Holding that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Interplay Entertainment Corp. (“Interplay”) bears the burden of proof at trial on each of the following issues: (a) that Interplay has a trademark and copyright license; (b) that Interplay had commenced “full-scale development of its FALLOUT MMOG” by April 4, 2009 as set forth in Section 2.3 of the Trademark License Agreement entered into by Bethesda and Interplay on April 4, 2007 (the “TLA”); and (c) that Interplay had “secured financing for the FALLOUT MMOG in an amount no less than US$30,000,000.00” by April 4, 2009 as set forth in Section 2.3 of the TLA;

(2) Precluding Interplay from offering parol evidence to support its defense that the TLA granted Interplay a copyright license;

(3) Precluding Interplay from arguing at trial that it had satisfied the “full-scale development” and “Minimum Financing” requirements set forth in Section 2.3 of the TLA by April 4, 2009; and

(4) Precluding Interplay from amending its pleadings to assert the affirmative defense of mistake.

View
1. Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Nov 7, 2011, 22:23 Dev
 
I really really doubt that interplay had full scale development going on 4 years ago, and that 2 years ago they had $30 million funding for it.

1) Nothing wrong with this, interplay does INDEED has burden of proof for showing that they funded and had full development at those dates. Thats what they signed after all in the contract, that they would lose the MMO IP if they didn't. Bethesda can't really prove it one way or the other, its up to interplay to cough up the documentation showing they had it under full development and funding.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule
Parol evidence is external to the contract. Since this hinges around the contract, seems logical that they'd want to keep the lawsuit to the contract. For instance, interplay could try and say since they let them keep selling fallout 1/2, that must mean they still owned all rights to the IP, and were just letting beth use it temporarily, and that argument would be external to the contract since its not what the contract says.

3) I'm guessing this won't fly, its what it hinges around. If it does fly it will probably be something like "they can't say they proved it in court unless they actually do try and prove it"

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
Sounds like it means they don't want Interplay claiming they didn't know what they signed and try to void the contract that way.

Sounds to me like normal legal pre-trial motions. I doubt all of them will fly with the judge, and even if they do, its still going to revolve around the question of if interplay satisfied the contract about funding and development. If they didn't, they lose the IP. Bethesda wants to settle this in pre-trial because its far cheaper. But from what I understand, in general if there's any doubt, judges don't normally do summary type judgments and stop it in the pre-trial stage unless something is ultra clear that one party has absolutely no possible defense (or they don't even show up to trial). On the off chance it can be done in pre-trial normally both sides spam a bunch of these motions, even silly sounding ones. That also helps set them up for appeals if needed. Normally the judge lets things proceed to trial so everything can have its fair hearing and fully argue the case.

IANAL, and this isn't legal advice. I just did some quick wiki searching for the terms that appeared.

This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2011, 22:51.
 
Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
>> 1. Nov 7, 22:23 Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Dev
  2. Nov 7, 22:40  Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Sepharo
  3. Nov 7, 22:55   Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Beelzebud
  5. Nov 7, 23:36    Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Parallax Abstraction
  6. Nov 8, 00:03     Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Dev
  8. Nov 8, 00:38      Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Warskull
  10. Nov 8, 01:00       Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Dev
  9. Nov 8, 00:43      Re: More Fallout Online Legal News WyldKat
  14. Nov 8, 04:54     Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Fibrocyte
  16. Nov 8, 06:41      Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Dev
  17. Nov 8, 08:26       Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Lorcin
  20. Nov 9, 00:46       Re: More Fallout Online Legal News orionquest
  21. Nov 9, 04:23        Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Dev
  7. Nov 8, 00:11   Re: More Fallout Online Legal News killer_roach
  4. Nov 7, 23:27 Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Krodge
  15. Nov 8, 06:01  Re: More Fallout Online Legal News WarpCrow
  11. Nov 8, 02:14 Re: More Fallout Online Legal News WyldKat
  12. Nov 8, 02:56  scott@lampert.org Scottso
  13. Nov 8, 04:23   Re: scott@lampert.org Dev
  18. Nov 8, 10:27 Re: More Fallout Online Legal News Shineyguy
  19. Nov 9, 00:32 Re: More Fallout Online Legal News orionquest


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo