Valve versus Sierra [Sep 20, 2004, 11:34 am ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Valve vs.
Vivendi Universal dogfight heats up in US District Court on GameSpot (thanks
Democritus) reveals some details of a behind-the-scenes legal battle between
Valve and Sierra (now part of VU Games) over Half-Life and Half-Life 2 that's
been brewing for several years now. The article picks through details of a
recent court filing by Valve that reveals the current state of the litigation,
which has its next court date on October 8, though an actual trial is not
scheduled until March 21, 2005. Included are disputes over what
role Steam is to take in the game's distribution and who actually holds rights
to the Half-Life intellectual property. Here's a segment that summarizes some of
this:
In court filings, Sierra/VUG says that the current distribution of Half-Life 2 via Steam exceeds the scope of the current software publishing agreement between the two parties. It is apparently seeking the court's assistance in compelling Valve not to use Steam as an avenue of distribution.
On Friday, when asked if Valve was remained intent on making Half-Life 2 available to gamers via Steam, regardless of what was determined on October 8, Lombardi replied, "Yes."
Interestingly, and in spite of the ongoing legal dispute, Sierra/VUG still wants to work with Valve in the future and is asking the court via filings to force Valve to work with it on whatever is next in the development pipeline. It asks the court, in filings, "for a declaration that Sierra and VUG have the right to a fourth engine license pursuant to the terms of...the 2001 Agreement."
According to Lombardi, "We're going to meet the obligations of our current agreement."
After reading the article it seems that some of Sierra's arguements are weak. Isn't there a thing called due dilligence? Was Valve supposed to lay all their cards on the negotiating table?
that struck me as laughable as wel when I read the following
"During the parties' negotiations...Counterclaim Defendants [Valve] repeatedly and falsely assured Sierra and VUG that retail sales would remain "the key to [their] strategy." In September 2000, for example, Newell told Hubert Joly, then VUG's CEO, that "online is a way to nurture the retail business" and that he "could not understand how one can make money online today."
"Sierra and VUG would later learn that these statements were flatly false...Incredibly, Counterclaim Defendant Newell also stated that he "could not understand how one can make money online today," plainly with the intention to falsely imply that Valve had no present or future strategy to engage in widespread online distribution of the games. This misleading half-truth was Newell's deliberate concealment of the extent to which Valve intended through the parties' negotiations to appropriate the substantial value of the distribution rights to Valve, rather than to Sierra and VUG."
so Sierra's argument is hinging on something Newell said several years ago? Even if it was recent comment I doubt any attorney worth the money would have a problem getting it tossed out (that particular aspect of the suit anyway)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Would Fred Do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 17 June 2025, 03:18.