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."
So, Nova, you're saying that Valve should modify the program so that third party game browsers (such as GameSpy Arcade) will work without a hitch? Programs not made by Valve? Programs not endorsed by Valve? Programs which are rendered obsolete by Steam?
You might say, "Well, but that's what people were used to and that's what they want to get back to." I hate to say it, but, eventually, things simply become redundant or obsolete. Either way, they're not necessary. Why trying to uphold the old "status quo"? <-- That phrase, by the way, is one that is used very frequently by anti-corporation advocates, anti-RIAA people, etc, etc. They say "Out with the old. In with the new." "Evolve or perish." Ditto for GameSpy and anyone using it.
It's time for change.
This comment was edited on Sep 21, 01:27.
You might say, "Well, but that's what people were used to and that's what they want to get back to." I hate to say it, but, eventually, things simply become redundant or obsolete. Either way, they're not necessary. Why trying to uphold the old "status quo"? <-- That phrase, by the way, is one that is used very frequently by anti-corporation advocates, anti-RIAA people, etc, etc. They say "Out with the old. In with the new." "Evolve or perish." Ditto for GameSpy and anyone using it.
It's time for change.
This comment was edited on Sep 21, 01:27.
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 15 June 2025, 07:45.