Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 14:34:41 +0000 From: Spalls Hurgenson Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd Subject: Re: [Des Moines Register] Iowa game master sues Texas company over control of his role-playing game Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 09:34:40 -0500 Message-ID: <2rhjui1e5sc4pa23o1iea4kha03q9v2gc7@4ax.com> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 53 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-TXHuGpnA/Uj4nCC7wgUrzwFCWd8oW7ihi+tCgivGcFcHuXyl08gQTiSK4nvz7TFlEZOSe55g9ifh/Pe!P1DzUK6YJ7gwITKMFvSiGGDmaQcCuD+GtRy8g37np0IQ/2+oN63j2gS473EtOBnc4zBwipw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 3678 On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:23:12 +0100, kyonshi wrote: >On 3/6/2024 4:53 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:40:23 +0100, kyonshi wrote: >> >>> Source: >>> https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2024/03/02/ankeny-man-files-suit-over-control-of-his-role-playing-game/72796356007/ > >The problem is I think in general that according to one side the >contract says something different than what the other side believes. >Wouldn't surprise me if the contract just isn't saying much about the >issue because when they made it they never thought it would come up. >And, to be fair, it's also hinging on what WotC was trying to do during >the OGL fiasco. After all lots of people had their rug pulled out from >under them during that debacle. As for the said dispute, well, yeah... obviously both sides have differing interpretations of what the contract says. That's what a contract dispute is. The WOTC licensing debacle is incidental to the actual case. It's the nominal reason for the partnership between Thomas and Geek Therapeutics ("Oh no, WOTC is taking away my D&Ds!!!"), but its irrelevant to the case itself. Of course, Thomas says there was no /finalized/ licensing agreement' between the two parties, but he also says that there was /some/ agreement between the two parties (including Geek Therapeutics (GT) saying ultimate control of the IP would remain with Thomas). The best (and most easily enforcable) contracts are written, but 'a word and a handshake' are also legally valid... if harder to defend by either side. I can well imagine that Thomas and GT leaving a meeting, with Thomas saying something like, "Let's go forward with this" (meaning, 'I am interested in continuing this relationship') but GT hearing 'I am in full agreement with your plan, please start to put it into action'). So now GT feels it is the aggrevied party because it put effort into making the website and kickstarter only for Thomas to pull out later. Contracts. It's all about the contracts and - barring one existing - what was said and written down beforehand. Without doing more research (for instance, is GT a significant company that should know about the importance of contracts or just another 'guy-in-a-garage' like Thomas?) it's hard to say who is in the right. But ultimately, it's not really that interesting a case. At least, not to me. YMMV ;-)