Killiana1a said:
I want to make sure those of us seriously commenting have our information straight. In this case, you have to look at Activision's legal brief and read it in full. On page 12 of Activision's countersuit, "..., it was clearly underway no later than July 30, 2009. On that date, EA Chief Operating Officer, John Schappert, covertly contacted West, urging West and Zampella to meet with him and John Riccitillo, EA's Chief Executive Officer..." Source: http://kotaku.com/5715884/activision-vs-ea-complaint/gallery/ If, and IF Activision has the text messages and/or email to back this up, then West and Zampella's whole lawsuit and original claim about the bonuses is false and malicious because they violated their Employment Agreements and Memorandum of Understandings before the release of Modern Warfare 2. Activision would not be held liable for any bonuses rendered to West and/or Zampella as they breached their contracts prior to release of Modern Warfare 2. |
Thanks for the infos. If what Activision claims is true, it's obvious that it's right, but West and Zampella claim quite different things. Also, EA trying to meet W and Z, and not the opposite, doesn't imply a guilt of the latter by itself, unless they accepted EA's offers and actually damaged Activision or at least broke contract obligations. Moreover, even proving a meeting was not only requested, but actually happened, doesn't automatically demontrate that at that supposed meeting they conspired to act against Activision while still under contract with it. The trials will decide who's right about what and up to what degree. There is also a thing to be established: if they just talked with EA about a possible contract AFTER their contract with Activision expired, could this be considered a guilt or a breach of contract?
