Kasz216 said:
1. Only if proven before they breach said contracts themselves. Hence you know, why you'd lawyer up. I'm not "buying" anything. I'm looking at the facts objectivly. I mean hell, I can't even name the last activision game I've bought. I recieved Red Steel as a gift... that's all I can thnk of. One the one hand, you've got West and Zampella, who are pretty much known for this kind of thing, who definitly did something illegal that everyone can agree with. On the otherhand you have activision... who may or may not have done something wrong... and who specifically mention correspondense to them about said event. Which either they have or it's more or less an auto-lose so there is no point to bring it up unless it exists unless they exist. I mean, have you even bothered to look at the evidence that HAS released so far? There are text messages of Zampella while working at activison talking about how he did something specifically to hurt activision and "COD: WaW". |
Also the evidences in favour of Activision must be checked in tribunal, though, and about W and Z messages, opinions and wishes, even harsh, will have to be told from actual actions.
About 1, yes, breaking the contract in their turn as an answer to a supposed previous breach by the other part to their disadvantage and BEFORE taking any actual legal action is risky, because then they MUST prove the other part broke the contract first, otherwise they'll be considered the only ones guilty of breach. But if the previous breach by Activision were proven, their successive breach could be fined too or not, but most probably less than Activision's one, or in an extreme case, fined in the same measure, and what it would remain would be that fines would compensate each other and Activision then would still have to pay what was due. BTW, if you look at the chronology of facts, both parts started legal actions later than their respective supposed breaches, they are both at fault at least up to a certain degree from this point of view.
Finally, about W and Z attitudes, if Activision will be found in the right, they'd be quite weasely, besides guily of the breach, otherwise, if their claims against it are proven instead, it would be a reaction to an unfulfillen promise by Activision to leave them more control on their series. But also about this everything still has to be established in tribunal, Activision's claims are still only claims just like W and Z ones are. Both parts claim to have evidences, but it hasn't been extablished yet by a tribunal what these evidences actually prove.
