• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

West and Zampella file a lawsuit against Activision. You HAVE to read this...

Sorry if you think a new thread isn't necessary but imo everyone needs to read this and the other thread is too big. The summary thanks to Articate:

Articate said:
These allegations do not prove Activision is guilty in any way. It is the Plaintiff's side and is a document meant to give them a good case.

but
-Here's the summary of the court document:
(quotation are straight from the document - and my wording meant to be only reflecting what the document said, nothing more or less)

They alledge that Activision had "shoestringed" them budget-wise to buy them for a total of 1.5 (30% first), 3.5 (remaining 70%) - 6 million dollars for a franchise that earned them according to Activision itself, 3$ billion. At this point, Activision and Kotick told them to "keep doing what they do" to "retain the magic of their creations", as in basically work as if they hadn't been bought by Activision. West and Zampella became the co-heads of IW and were hired under Activision for a 3 year contract, with two supplement years afterwards, ending late 2008. Then Activision wanted them to make MW2, but W and Z weren't sure. Activision then assured them to work as an independent studio, but had already begun to intrude by "[...] for example, Activision forced IW's employees to continue producing the games at a break neck pace under aggressive schedules, and W and Z were concerned that Activision was emphasizing quantity over quality." Forcing them to work only on MW also was a creative concern, burning out employees only working on the same type of game instead of the studio coming up with new titles. Activision was making billions of dollars and IW were "[...] not being provided a fair share".

Due to this a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) was signed by Activision; and W and Z. (these documents are not publically available) - now W and Z were signed until October 2011 and to deliver MW2 by November 15, 2009.

The MOU and an "Employment Agreement" made, promises W and Z creative authority over development under the MW brand or any Call of Duty game set in the post- Vietnam era, the near future or the distant future, including complete control over IW. The MOU also says that no such games can be released without the written consent of W and Z. The MOU also assured IW and W and Z more money via stock options and royalties for any CoD game and tech royalties for Activision games making significant use of IW technology (like IW's engine being used in other games, which has happened earlier [no examples listed]). This to ensure more money also to the hard-working employees.

They lived up to their end of the deal with finishing MW2 five days before deadline, Kotick then touted MW2 as the largest release for Activision ever, exceeding 1$ billion in five days, with 3$ billion to-date.

After this Activision chose "[...] not to honor the MOU or the Employment Agreement with W and Z. Activision chose instead, to launch a pre-textual investigation against W and Z to create a basis to fire two co-heads of IW before the first MW2 royalty payment would be paid on March 31, 2010," starting February 3, 2010. "From the very beginning, it was clear that the purpose of the investigation was not to uncover any facts concerning any actual wrongdoing, but to manufacture a basis to fire W and Z." strengthened by Activision refusing to tell what it was all about, insisting instead in "[...] Orwellian fashion that W and Z 'already have a clear understanding of what they have or have not done.'", only hearing such things as "[...]"breaches of contract" or "violation of Activision's policies" and said that if they asked more, it would be considered insubordination, which itself would justify their termination"

"Activision conducted the investigation in a manner designed to maximize the inconvenience and anxiety it would cause W and Z. On little notice, Activision insisted on conducting interviews over the Presidents' Day holiday weekend; W and Z were interrogated for over six hours in a windowless conference room; Activision brought other IW employees to tears in their questioning and accusations and threatened W and Z with "insubordination" if they attempted to console them; Activision's outside counsel demanded that W and Z surrender their personal computers, phones and communication devoices to Activision for review by Activision's outside counsel and, when W and Z asserted their legally protected privacy rights, Activision's counsel said that doing so constituted further acts of insubordination."

After it was over, it was clear that the investigation was was a charade, by the charges being dispored or not included in the investigation, showing Activision only wanting to fire them to refuse to pay what they've earned. They were given 6 hours to disprove themselves, without interview scripts or clear allegations. It was seemingly also futile, since Activision already had made up its mind.

Despite the MOU, Activision filed on March 1st personel plans to assert complete control over the MW brand and the IW Studio.

They are suing for $36 million due to:
1.) Breach of Contract,
by Activision not living up to their end of the MOU or Employee Agreement, refusing to pay what they said they would, despite IW living up to their side.

2.) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing,
Refusing to pay, assuming control over the franchise despite MOU, and by firing them without probable cause made in bad faith.

3.) Wrongful Termination

4.) Declatory Relief
Suing for control of the MW brand and that Activision cannot release another MW game or Cod game set post-Vietnam era, near future or distant future without the written consent of W and Z
and sues for all royalties not yet paid and all future royalties under the MOU and Employee Agreement




tl;dr:
West and Zampella wanted Infinity Ward to an independent studio, but Activision gave them what they needed to continue working under them - a contracted right to royalties for the MW games and tech royalties for any technology used from IW. Activision allegedly did not want to live up to this by making a phony investigation, making employees cry, threatening to fire W and Z if they tried to console them.

Another summary:

Wow that's a lot of Legalese. Okay, in case anyone doesn't feel like reading all that stuff:

WHAT HAPPENED: The two developers were promised royalties as part of their contract for Modern Warfare 2. They're claiming Activision fired them under false pretenses in order to avoid paying those royalties.

The lawsuit then gives background about the company, including alleging that Activision purposely gave Infinity Ward a small budget for Call of Duty in order to buy 30% of its stock for cheap since the small budget would keep them from fighting it.

It also states some things we all know; sales figures, revenue numbers, etc. West and Zampella (the two developers and plaintiffs) had only one year on their contract before MW2 started. They were reluctant to get an extension on their contract, but did so anyway because Activision promised complete control of IW AND creative control over any post-Vietnam Call of Duty and MW games that might be developed.

Blah, blah, blah; more sales figures and talks of how MW2 was praised upon release. Activision then launched the investigation of Zampella and West about a week after the release of MW2. They hired outside lawyers and investigators to question other employees (some of whom cried from anxiety) and threatened insubordination charges if the two plaintiffs tried to console the other employees.

West and Zampella then said they were going to talk to their lawyers, at which point they were told Activision would make things worse if they did. The two men were also never told what exactly they had done wrong at any given point during the investigation. Activision strung the investigation along, then gave the two IW guys about six hours to respond to the accusations. A couple days later, Activision announced the new Call of Duty games they want to make (which were posted in another article).

WHAT THEY WANT: The first claim is to about US$36 million in damages. Second, they also want control of the Modern Warfare franchise back, since that was what was promised. Third, they also say Activision cannot make any further MW games OR post-Vietnam Call of Duties set in the present, near future, or far future. Fourth, they feel that Activision owes them their royalties and bonuses regardless of whether or not their termination from IW was legitimate. And obviously, they want their attorney fees covered.

And that's about it. I may have misread the complaint a bit, so feel free to correct me

the documents:
http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-in...inst-activision-the-court-documents/gallery/#

A small but very interesting part from these documents (thanks to D4Danger)

2eqe89g.jpg



Disgusting... absolutely disgusting...
 

hellclerk

Everything is tsundere to me
There's always at least two sides to every lawsuit, but Jesus, Activision's does not look very good right now...
 

bone_and_sinew

breaking down barriers in gratuitous nudity
Eh I don't really have a horse in this race. I guess I'll be rooting for IW since Activision is becoming increasingly evil.
 
Firing the 2 guys responsible for the fastest selling biggest videogame franchise of recent years just before they get their royalties should demand this debacle be very public and widely reported on not just by shit "games journalists" but mainstream media as well.

This is the beginning of the end for Activision I hope.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
I'd suggest reading the actual documents and seeing what type of proofs the plaintiffs have before believing every word from a Kotaku summary of all places.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Unless there is a written agreement that they would be given control of MW, I doubt they will win that part of the suit. Even if that contract existed, I bet that is contingent upon them being employees of IW.

So let's see.
 
fortified_concept said:
Sorry if you think a new thread isn't necessary but imo everyone needs to read this and the other thread is too big. A summary:



the documents:
http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-in...inst-activision-the-court-documents/gallery/#


Disgusting... absolutely disgusting...
Are we using Kotaku commenters as legitimate sources of authority now? I'd keep the link to the West & Zampella legal filings, but the block quote you're using in the OP comes from a random commenter to the Kotaku story about the filings - one who complains about the 'legalese' of the docs at that...

Edit: Beaten! Listen to this man...
schuelma said:
I'd suggest reading the actual documents and seeing what type of proofs the plaintiffs have before believing every word from a Kotaku summary of all places.
 

Akia

Member
Kotick and Activision legal: lol please don't bring any lawyers to stop us from backstabbing you!
 
I really do hope West and Zampella take control of the franchise.

I'm not exactly a fan of the series, but I rather see them control it than Activision.
 

jepjepjep

Member
I just read the entire document on Kotaku. Activision sounds like a despicable company. I'm not going to be buying any of their games.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
schuelma said:
I'd suggest reading the actual documents and seeing what type of proofs the plaintiffs have before believing every word from a Kotaku summary of all places.

what schuelma didn't tell you is that he's a junior trial litigator for ATVI ;)
 

Akia

Member
lawblob said:
My god, Activision purchased a 30% stake in Infinity Ward for only $1.5 million

Wow, that's cheap as hell. EA payed $300M for PlayFish and +$800M for BioWare/Pandemic.

The publisher bidding war for the new IW is going to be INSANE. Legal fees be damned.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
MattyGrovesOrMe said:
Are we using Kotaku commenters as legitimate sources of authority now? I'd keep the link to the West & Zampella legal filings, but the block quote you're using in the OP comes from a random commenter to the Kotaku story about the filings - one who complains about the 'legalese' of the docs at that...


Yeah. We complain about videogame journalist non stop and yet it seems many of us are ready to accept a Kotaku interpretation of legal documents because it is in line with the Activision is evil meme.
 

Vinci

Danish
schuelma said:
I'd suggest reading the actual documents and seeing what type of proofs the plaintiffs have before believing every word from a Kotaku summary of all places.

I have read the whole filing. It's pretty fucking lousy of Activision if true. But yeah, people need to try and rein in the hate till something is determined as to the validity of what West and Zampella are alleging.

But again, if much of what the filing states did happen, Activision is just hideous to work for. And Vivendi needs to crack down on that company something fierce.
 

Gomu Gomu

Member
Nostalgic Nightmare said:
So why did IW move to Activision in first place?
Was this a case of IW selling their soul to the devil and he came to take payment?
It was a very different time then.
 

jepjepjep

Member
Nostalgic Nightmare said:
So why did IW move to Activision in first place?
Was this a case of IW selling their soul to the devil and he came to take payment?

They signed a fools contract when they were hard up for money before they finished the first Call of Duty.

The contract gave Activision 30% ownership for $1.5 million, with the option of buying the other 70% for $3.5 million after Call of Duty became a hit. Of course, they exercised that option and ended up with full ownership of IW for only $5 mill.
 

Barrett2

Member
Seems like the real issue is that in March 2008 Activision and West/Zampella signed a "memorandum of understanding" which seems to be the basis of one of their three claims against ACTI. In the memorandum, it purports to grant West/Zampella the ability to approve whether any MW branded game is released, in addition to granting them the right to choose which IP to work on after MW2 was completed.

Sounds like this largely hinges on whether this memorandum retroactively becomes part of the original contract they have with Activision. Looks like some lengthy litigation is in the picture. The court needs to determine (i) what legal rights are granted by the March 2008 MOU, (ii) whether it is enforceable (iii) whether they have a separate wrongful termination claim
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Vinci said:
I have read the whole filing. It's pretty fucking lousy of Activision if true. But yeah, people need to try and rein in the hate till something is determined as to the validity of what West and Zampella are alleging.

But again, if much of what the filing states did happen, Activision is just hideous to work for. And Vivendi needs to crack down on that company something fierce.


If I had to bet, this sounds exactly like something Acitivision would do..but I think many people don't understant how stuff like this works. If a plaintiff's complaint doesn't make the defendant sound like the worst person/company in the world the plaintiff's attorney isn't doing his or her job.
 

Vinci

Danish
jepjepjep said:
They signed a fools contract when they were hard up for money before they finished the first Call of Duty.

The contract gave Activision 30% ownership for $1.5 million, with the option of buying the other 70% for $3.5 million after Call of Duty became a hit. Of course, they exercised that option and ended up with full ownership of IW for only $5 mill.

Yeah, that history lesson was really informative. Talk about a good deal.
 
From the linked legal documents.

Such actions are not suprising, given that Activision is run by a CEO who has been publicly quoted as believing that the best way to run a videogame studio is to engender a culture of "skepticicm, pessimism, and fear," and who prefers to pay his lawyers instead of his employees.
 
Y2Kev said:
Unless there is a written agreement that they would be given control of MW, I doubt they will win that part of the suit. Even if that contract existed, I bet that is contingent upon them being employees of IW.

So let's see.

I'm sure there is something in written. Weather it will be substantial enough to win the case or not, we'll know in future. I don't think lawyers will even bother to take IW guys case based on only verbal promise from Bobby "asshole" Kodick.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
lawblob said:
Sounds like this largely hinges on whether this memorandum retroactively becomes part of the original contract they have with Activision. Looks like some lengthy litigation is in the picture.

Thanks for that summary. That will be an interesting one. This will get settled, obviously.
 
jepjepjep said:
They signed a fools contract when they were hard up for money before they finished the first Call of Duty.

The contract gave Activision 30% ownership for $1.5 million, with the option of buying the other 70% for $3.5 million after Call of Duty became a hit. Of course, they exercised that option and ended up with full ownership of IW for only $5 mill.


Man that is rough. Kind of like many music artists you read about.
This will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.
 

Baki

Member
duckroll said:
I'm sure he won't, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of both sides having questionable interests of their own.
I expect Activision to settle. Going to court risks them losing the MW franchise. Too much of a money maker to lose.
 
Top Bottom