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...""
-
-
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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
One reason we have law and contracts is that it lets one remove potential headaches and create certainty about the future. Tangentially, I've noticed that there is a continuum of human personality types, from "interaction is a BENEFIT" to "...is a DETRIMENT". I've seen >>>
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
this divide play out in topics as odd as maker-spaces / hacker-spaces. Introverts love owning their own tools bc there are never any future debates about access, fairness, etc. Extroverts / left libertarians love sharing not despite but BECAUSE of the future debates. >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @legalinspire and
"we need to have a three hour meeting to discuss what a fair way to share the metal lathe is, and come up with some rules, and reach consensus" is actually a BENEFIT to some people, not a reason to commit suicide This vid game designer (#1) is prob of this type. >>>
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes - Show replies
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.