But that's her fault for not holding out for more. That's not them stealing, by the letter of the law. Sounds like a woman who was over her head in patent law
-
-
I mean, they tricked her They made her think they were going to sell her game and give her royalties for it, but they didn't, they did it as legal cover so they could sell Charles Darrow's knockoff (because they'd already made a deal with him)
4 replies 4 retweets 93 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnitedWhofans and
If she'd had the money to hire her own army of lawyers she could've sued them over that because it was a contract in blatant bad faith Getting away with it because the other person can't fight doesn't make you right
1 reply 6 retweets 64 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnitedWhofans and
I hate this view of the law people have where being able to get away with it means what you did was objectively legal and no one should whine or complain about it anymore Is OJ objectively innocent
1 reply 3 retweets 62 likes -
The only reason I object to it in this case is because she had the opportunity. I look at a guy like James Garner who was in litigation for YEARS with WB and Universal and lost a ton of money with lawyers. But he kept to it. If you believe in something strongly, go for it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Again it's because she was tricked She thought that deal *was* her big break because they told her they were gonna sell her game and pay her royalties She didn't hold out for that much of an upfront fee because that game was her baby and she just wanted to see it succeed
2 replies 1 retweet 38 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnitedWhofans and
She didn't know about the other game even existing, it only became obvious what happened *after* the contract was signed, they told her her game "failed" on store shelves (because they barely printed any) and they moved on to the Monopoly deal
2 replies 1 retweet 37 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnitedWhofans and
She would've had to start a new process of raising more money to hire new lawyers to actively sue them and make a stink about it, and she didn't have the resources to do that - very few individuals do This kind of thing happens all the time
1 reply 1 retweet 41 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnitedWhofans and
In the 1930s, in a pre Internet world, it would've cost a lot of money even to make a big stink about it and try to draw public attention to it She was angry about it her whole life but no one heard about it until the newspapers tracked her down years later
1 reply 1 retweet 34 likes -
I still feel worse for Bill Finger than Lizzie Magie.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's not a contest
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnitedWhofans and
"She didn't have the money to do this" "Ah, but did she consider.. having the money to do the thing you just said she didn't have the money to do? Other people have the money to do the thing!" I don't know how you put up with that for so long.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.