Bethesda v. Interplay: A summary

Post by **King of Creation** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:21 am

[ Company -> Article ] - More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bethesda Softworks">Company: Bethesda Softworks</a> | More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bethesda v. Interplay">Company: Bethesda v. Interplay</a> | More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Interplay">Company: Interplay</a>

For those of you who couldn't really be bothered to pay attention to all the recent media surrounding the Bethesdsa v. Interplay court case, <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i ... >Gamasutra has a nice summary up for you to read</a>. It lays out the issues in layman's terms in a nice, short (compared to the court documents) article:
<blockquote>
Original Fallout IP owner and current licensee Interplay has filed a counterclaim accusing current Fallout owner Bethesda for breach of contract, claiming that Interplay's own Fallout MMO has a playable demo -- indicating production status -- and that Bethesda tried to grant Fallout MMO rights to sister company ZeniMax Online.

Interplay, which sold the rights of the venerable PC-derived Fallout series to Bethesda in 2007 for $5.75 million, alleged in an October 16 court filing that Bethesda breached the Fallout series asset purchase agreement -- the same allegation that Bethesda put to Interplay.

"As a result of Bethesda's breach of the [asset purchase agreement], Interplay has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer substantial damages and irreparable harm in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court," said Interplay's filing, which was obtained by Gamasutra.

Bethesda filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Maryland on September 9 requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction against Interplay's manufacture, sale, and distribution of Fallout Trilogy, which includes the classic PC games Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics. Interplay retained the rights to sell the catalog titles as part of its deal with Bethesda.

But Bethesda accused Interplay of violating the deal, claiming that while Interplay was permitted to sell pre-existing Fallout games, it was required to submit to Bethesda all relevant packaging, advertising, and promotional material prior to bringing the catalog titles to market. Bethesda alleged that Interplay did not do so, causing confusion in the market, a claim that Interplay denied in its answer to the complaint.

Fallout MMO Licensing Dispute

Along with the asset purchase agreement, the two companies signed a trademark licensing agreement. After Interplay sold off the Fallout series, it licensed back from Bethesda the rights to develop an MMO based on the franchise.

The terms of the agreement stipulated that Interplay gather at least $30 million in funding and that full-scale development begin on a Fallout MMO within the 24 months after the deal was signed, or else license-owner Bethesda could take over full control of the MMO license.

Interplay's counterclaim alleges that Bethesda is trying to grant the rights to develop a Fallout MMO to "another party." Detailing further, Interplay alleged, "On information and belief, Bethesda's ultimate goal is to recapture through gamesmanship the Fallout MMOG rights and award them to its sister company, ZeniMax Online Studios, formation of which was announced in August 2007, just four short months after the APA [licensing agreement] was signed."

Interplay is suing for damages, legal fees and is asking a court to declare that Interplay still holds the particular Fallout rights originally detailed in the agreements.

Alternatively, Interplay said if Bethesda terminates its asset purchase agreement, the court should rescind the agreement and return the parties to the "status quo prior to that agreement's execution" -- when Interplay still owned Fallout. In that case, Bethesda might owe Interplay as much as $15 million or more from royalties to Fallout 3 and its expansions.

Interplay's Opposition To Motion For Preliminary Injunction

In a separate court filing from October 26 in opposition to Bethesda's motion for a preliminary injunction, Interplay reiterated its claims that it did not violate either of the agreements, that Interplay did not infringe on the Fallout trademark, that Bethesda "cannot show imminent irreparable harm" from Interplay's actions, and that the asset purchase agreement "contains no termination provision."

That filing also said that Interplay originally sought "a much higher price" for the Fallout franchise. But Interplay agreed to the $5.75 million because it believed that it would be able to "exceed [that amount] by <img style="float: right;" src="http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images ... allout.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="200" />millions of dollars," as its older Fallout games could ride the popularity of October 2008's blockbuster Fallout 3, developed by Bethesda.

As for the Fallout MMO -- confirmed to be Project V13 -- Interplay said that it has created over 600 pages of "extensive" design documents that include characters, weapons, concept art and other elements.

(Interestingly, Bethesda refused to approve use of the Fallout name for use with Project V13, and there's now legal controversy around Interplay's allusive workaround. Interplay commented on the current name choice for the MMO, "Even if V13 is evocative of 'Vault 13,' the starting location of the original Fallout game developed by Interplay, Bethesda presents no evidence that it has used this or a substantially similar mark in commerce.")

Interplay also said it, along with MMO studio Masthead, created a Fallout MMO game demo "that included a playable portion of the 3D environment" as well as network code partly based on previous Masthead game Earthrise.

Interplay claimed this qualifies as "full production," thus meeting the licensing agreement's requirements. The filing also said that Bethesda did not allow Interplay to announce its MMO as Fallout MMO due to trademark concerns.

"The harm to Interplay's business from an improperly granted preliminary injunction decidedly outweighs the risk to Bethesda of maintaining the status quo during litigation," the filing read, noting that Interplay makes much of its current revenues from selling older versions of Fallout.

Gamasutra will continue to follow the ongoing litigation in the case. Thus far, both sides are laying out their arguments, and no rulings have been made.
</blockquote>Spotted @ <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/">Gamasutra</a>

jimmypneumatic · Post by **jimmypneumatic** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:54 pm

Isn't it a bit ironic that the term 'gamesmanship' is used here to describe Bethesda conning back the rights to the MMO?

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:34 pm

Seems a bit interesting, Interplay may have a case and could butthurt Bethesda good if Bethesda has to hand over the sales to interplay.

Post by **King of Creation** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:47 pm

In other news, I've finally managed to link all of our "More Info" links to the wiki again. I couldn't figure out how to do it until yesterday.

jiujitsu · Post by **jiujitsu** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:05 pm

I hope IPLY loses and they finally fucking die.

SenisterDenister · Post by **SenisterDenister** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:06 pm

And let Bethesda win? Fuck that. I choose the lesser of two evils.

Frater Perdurabo · Post by **Frater Perdurabo** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:39 pm

Agreed. Rather see Bethesda die (as if that was going to happen

)

I'm actually interested in what FOOL is going to be like - maybe there's a minute chance that it could be good? If not, it can just join the FOBOS and FO3 crowd and no harm done.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:19 pm

We also have a summary at The Vault:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bethesda_ ... orporation

I'm going to expand it soon, since it looks like I might be getting all of the court documents.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:11 am

I just got Bethesda's lawsuit and it actually contains some utterly false claims, like:

Upon information and belief, Interplay began packaging, advertising and promoting the sale of "Fallout Collection" and "Saga Fallout" after Bethesda's launch of "Fallout 3"

Both Fallout Collection and Saga Fallout compilations in fact predate even the original Exclusive Licensing Agreement for Fallout 3, and Fallout Trilogy was first published before the Asset Purchase Agreement. I actually think IPLY has pretty good chances with the rights to sell pre-existing games. Not so much with FOOL, though.

In recent months, Bethesda has become aware that Interplay entered into a licensing agreement with a third party, Good Old Games, for the digital distribution of the Pre-existing Fallout Games

Recent months? It's been more than a year, ffs.

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:04 am

Are these the actual court documents, or just the most recent filings by Interplay?

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:08 am

I have filings both by Interplay and by Bethesda.

Cimmerian Nights · Post by **Cimmerian Nights** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:18 pm

Ausir wrote:I just got Bethesda's lawsuit and it actually contains some utterly false claims, like.

Bethesda and false claims?

How uncharacteristic.

POOPERSCOOPER wrote:Seems a bit interesting, Interplay may have a case and could butthurt Bethesda good if Bethesda has to hand over the sales to interplay.

Yeah seems like Bethesda wants to end them for good, but they don't realize that slimy fuck Herve has some Rasputin-like ability to avoid death.