#1 Posted by billnyethesciencepie (1335 posts) -
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1105064p1.html

In case you forgot, the lawsuit over the firing of the couple dozen IW employees begins may 23.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, considering the size and clout of the players in this trial.

 
#2 Posted by Jeffsekai (7027 posts) -

GET HYPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

#3 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1807 posts) -
@billnyethesciencepie: It'll probably competing motions to move forward vs. postpone the trial. It's in Activision's best interest to keep the Call of Duty name out of the mud. While it is in EA's/Respawn's best interest to get this thing out of the way as quick as possible so they can get back to work.

I ain't no lawyer, and I ain't no analyst...
#4 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@Jeffsekai said:
GET HYPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
EXCLUSIVE BY PATRICK!
#5 Posted by spartanlolz92 (511 posts) -

hope infinity wins
#6 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

awesome


i hope they rip each other apart
#7 Posted by Yummylee (21509 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
awesome

i hope they rip each other apart
Wonder which one'll get the best K/D ratio.
#8 Posted by billnyethesciencepie (1335 posts) -
@Abyssfull: iw's tactical nuke is a sublawsuit where they accuse kottick of beastlality
#9 Posted by mnzy (2914 posts) -

They should play it out.

#10 Posted by MaFoLu (1858 posts) -

They're just gonna boost until they get the nuke, and then they win.

That's how everything related to MW2 goes, right?
#11 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

Honestly I think the IW guys are probably in the wrong. I really don't think a company like Activision would go and improperly fire two guys or withhold substantial payment to 38 employees without consulting its legal team before doing so. The IW guys also seemed so far up there own arse that they probably would contact EA on Activision's time. 

#12 Posted by EuanDewar (4895 posts) -

Patrick is going to have such a field day with this. The wonderfully haired bastard.

#13 Posted by billnyethesciencepie (1335 posts) -
@EuanDewar@ShaneDev: :(
#14 Posted by EuanDewar (4895 posts) -
@billnyethesciencepie said:
@EuanDewar@ShaneDev: :(
:( What did I do wrong?
#15 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Will there be live stream?

#16 Posted by billnyethesciencepie (1335 posts) -
@EuanDewar: EVERYTHING
#17 Posted by EuanDewar (4895 posts) -
@billnyethesciencepie: THIS IS WHY THE KIDS AT SCHOOL MAKE FUN OF ME, YOU NEVER LISTEN TO ME! *runs into his room and locks door"
#18 Edited by Slaker117 (4838 posts) -

I'm no lawyer, but I don't understand IW's claim. Sorry to say it, but unless someone can explain it, I don't think they have a case. I'm pretty sure Activision knew what it was doing when the contracts were made.

#19 Posted by Daveyo520 (6685 posts) -

In my mind I thought they settled this already because it happened so long ago. Damn the law takes forever to get rolling.

#20 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

i forgot about this. it's going to be pretty interesting thing of them to do.

if i remember correctly, the two guys are suing activision because they didn't get money from modern warfare 2. they also got fired so they want more money. the two guys are trying to make a video game develop company just because they want want to.

#21 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
@ShaneDev said:
Honestly I think the IW guys are probably in the wrong. I really don't think a company like Activision would go and improperly fire two guys or withhold substantial payment to 38 employees without consulting its legal team before doing so. The IW guys also seemed so far up there own arse that they probably would contact EA on Activision's time. 
Yes, because they have such a solid and above board business plan everywhere else.
#22 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -
@HandsomeDead said:
@ShaneDev said:
Honestly I think the IW guys are probably in the wrong. I really don't think a company like Activision would go and improperly fire two guys or withhold substantial payment to 38 employees without consulting its legal team before doing so. The IW guys also seemed so far up there own arse that they probably would contact EA on Activision's time. 
Yes, because they have such a solid and above board business plan everywhere else.
I am not sure what your talking about. If its Activision, what would their business practices have to do with anything? They are out to make the most amount of money possible I do not think they would be stupid enough to violate the law in such a dramatic way that could potentially cost them 500 million.
#23 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
@Jeffsekai said:
GET HYPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
EXCLUSIVE BY PATRICK!
EEEEXXXXXCLUSIVE.

DROP A BOMB AWN IT!
#24 Posted by Zoolander (34 posts) -

No media coverage of this yet... I wonder what is going on.

#25 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Good

#26 Posted by Zoolander (34 posts) -

Why is that good?

#27 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2690 posts) -

The way I see it they will both paint each other in the worst possible light, as if to be expected from a court case, but I doubt anyone who reads about what is said will makes heads or tails out of what it all means until the judge says what it means.   For most of us nerds, they decision has been made -- we either fall into the “Activision sucks camp” or we fall into the “West & Zampella were arrogant pricks” camp.

#28 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -

about time

#29 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@Jeffsekai said:
GET HYPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Good timing, or greatest timing?
#30 Posted by wwfundertaker (1400 posts) -

Support for Infinity Ward.

#31 Posted by Sidfiou (70 posts) -

I just hope Respawn will be able to put something out before the end of the current generation of consoles. Can they do much of anything until this matter is settled?

#32 Posted by Zoolander (34 posts) -

5/27/2011 (Discovery Hearing)
6/03/2011 (Informal Status Conference)
 
Those are the scheduled hearings regarding this case. I'm not a lawyer though so I don't know what will come from those events, but I'm guessing since hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake here this case is going to be hung up in court for years. I feel sorry for the two IW heads who are going up against a corporation that can afford to be in court for years, and part of the reason they can do that is their earnings from the call of duty series, which IW heads created. Sad bit of Irony right there.

That's a really good question Sidfiou. Respawn seemed aggressive in its hiring and as far as I can tell has plenty of employees, so they must have been working on something for the past year, I guess the question is whether Activision could sue to stop any release, claiming something along the lines of "stolen assets" or some such bullshit. Time will tell.

#33 Posted by Zoolander (34 posts) -

6/14/2011 Demurrer, which according to wikipedia is a "pleading that challenges or objects to a pleading of the opposing party"

#34 Posted by Siphillis (1291 posts) -

I know it's a long-shot, but imagine for a second if Activision somehow lost the Call of Duty license...

#35 Posted by Siphillis (1291 posts) -
@wwfundertaker said:
Support for Infinity Ward.
Infinity Ward are Activision loyalists.  Respawn needs our support.
#36 Posted by wwfundertaker (1400 posts) -
@Siphillis said:
@wwfundertaker said:
Support for Infinity Ward.
Infinity Ward are Activision loyalists.  Respawn needs our support.
You know what, your totally right.
#37 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

I hope they both go under as a result of this.