poppabk said:Yeah going back to 2003/2004 to complain about Activision purchasing IW seems kinda petty and entirely irrelevant to the lawsuit.
TheOMan said:Weird - you'd think they'd be *sitting* on said documents already, no?
Vinci said:This is back-up in case they do find something to bring against W&Z. If they don't, no problem - pay a settlement of maybe $100 million and get control of CoD completely to do with as Activision pleases. If they find something, then hey, they're not out the settlement money.
TheOMan said:Why would W and Z settle? If ATVI fired them for what they said they did...shouldn't they already have the "proof" at their fingertips? Seems odd to me.
Vinci said:They'll settle because Activision actually might have something to use against them that would hurt their chances of finding future employment or... truthfully... just for a large shitload of money.
robjoh said:The funny thing is if this is somewhat correct and they actualy win the rights for call of duty back from activision, then Activision only has Blizzard to keep them a flout.
They have run every brand they have to the ground.
Plus I think they are looking for control of the modern warfare franchise not the rights to the IP. So at most they would be able to stop Activision from releasing MW3, not release MW3 themselves.kiun said:They are asking for the modern warfare rights, not cod
I always wonder whether the person writing something like that actually believes it, or smirks to themselves. Or maybe they lean over to the person sitting beside them and reads it out loud as a joke.-COOLIO- said:considering gh and tony hawk, this is a fucking lie.
Wow. It's sad you think that's true and funny.wud said:deserve it after modern warfare 2 :lol
I'm going to take a shot in the dark: Michael Pachter? He's the only guy I really hear about that likes to predict and analyze thingsYoungHav said:what's crazy is I dunno who said it but some analyst predicted at least a yr ago that IW/Activision will have a full blown beef in their future.