reeeee
-
-
tired: "You don't want to appear in the newspaper headlines." wired: "You don't want to appear in law school textbooks."
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie @Enichan
I have had clients who were *in* law school textbooks. Inspired: "You REALLY don't want law professors coming up to you at seminars and saying, "Hey, aren't you the ones who...""
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
from these links, it seems clear to me that group #2 is in the right original author tried to roll-his-own legal/moral thing, and it was incoherent see also: FSP people who hate the state and write their own contracts. 1 step above (below?) sovereign citizens
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
It's a mess and no mistake, but while I see #1's point, #2 has done more than they could be reasonably expected, and way more than they could legally be required, to do.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
To be fair group 2 probably should've hesitated to use the exact same name and should've been afraid of consumer confusion creating this kind of conflict, they could (and should have) rebranded the game under a new name from the very start.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Not saying you're wrong but counterpoint: Using the existence and appeal of the already released version was a huge part of their business plan, I'm thinking. If they couldn't rely on the existing understanding of the game, it would have been way more difficult to sell.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah you're totally right about that, but if your business plan relies on cashing in on the brand recognition of someone else's mark I'd say you should reevaluate your business plan. >_>
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
biz plans that cash in on other people's reputations are entirely legit! Look at all the big consulting companies that leverage the fact that they know Linux! Or cross-branding (firms that license NFL IP to make jerseys). It works...IF THEY ARE ALLOWED. Party #2 was allowed
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The distinctions are obvious but by and large, you're right, if you do it *right* it's not the worst idea. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Often there are benefits that flow in both direction above and beyond the cash flow (if any). E.g. IBM gets to brag that it knows Linux, and the linux foundation gets extra marketing from IBM. This video game deal COULD have been like that ... but wasn't. Or ... maybe wasn't?
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
From my non-lawyer perspective, the core issue is that the first party had some sort of non-analytical view on what's "fair", and it evolved over time. The problem is that he gave promises to party 2, and with those promises the deal was done.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
It could be that it evolved, and/or it could be that it was more complicated than it was represented to be. Same result either way: bad.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.