View Single Post

Default 

May 27th, 2009, 01:18
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I don't understand your answer, because I don't understand what is irrelevant about this either.
He means whether or not Interplay used to be the owner is irrelevant to determine whether Bethesda had the right to include such terms in the agreement. And it's likely that had Interplay not agreed to these terms, Bethesda would have not accepted to let Interplay develop a MMO, or worse, buy the franchise altogether.

The contract actually contained 2 subcontracts: one whereby Interplay sold the Fallout IP to Bethesda, and another whereby Bethesda licensed the Fallout IP back to Interplay.

With the first subcontract Bethesda became the owner, therefore in the second subcontract they were the "licensor". They could then impose whatever conditions/restrictions they want to the licensee.

So Interplay first agreed to sell the entire Fallout IP and then agreed to license it under Bethesda's conditions.

I'm still not convinced that "The MMO must meet or exceed such quality standards as may be set by Bethesda from time to time" is a common clause in the industry. And if it were, I'm pretty sure it'd be possible to render most of these contracts void on the basis of the vagueness and unfairness of this clause.
My interpretation of this is it gives full, absolutely unpredictable, subjective, and discretionary power to the licensor. It's in effect a "I can take the money and cancel the contract any time I want with no counterpart/compensation/guarantee/protection whatsoever for the other party" term.
Last edited by Hedek; May 27th, 2009 at 01:34.
Hedek is offline

Hedek

Hedek's Avatar
Watchdog

#20

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 203