Activision Responds to Lawsuit from Ex-IW Heads

[modeps]

Activision has issued a statement regarding the lawsuit (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107679) filed against them by Jason West and Vince Zampelle (ex-heads of Infinity Ward). LETS HAVE A LISTEN!

Activision is disappointed that Mr. Zampella and Mr. West have chosen to file a lawsuit, and believes their claims are meritless. Over eight years, Activision shareholders provided these executives with the capital they needed to start Infinity Ward, as well as the financial support, resources and creative independence that helped them flourish and achieve enormous professional success and personal wealth.

In return, Activision legitimately expected them to honor their obligations to Activision, just like any other executives who hold positions of trust in the company. While the company showed enormous patience, it firmly believes that its decision was justified based on their course of conduct and actions. Activision remains committed to the Call of Duty franchise, which it owns, and will continue to produce exciting and innovative games for its millions of fans.

Thanks Shack (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62638).

See what happens next on, As the World Turns. I like how they point out that they still own Call of Duty.

[HornetAJC]

The way this statement reads, I think they will need a divorce lawyer...

[Bludgums]

If Infinity Ward was bought by Activision then their claim that Activision gave them the capital to start their business would be false.

[Demo_Boy]

"creative independance"... like the part where Activision didnt want IW to start the Modern Warfare IP and just keep working on WWII shooters?

and let's not forget the enormous wealth that Activision execs earned for providing the IW guys with their magnanimous capital.

work done, success earned, royalties due... that chain doesn't seem broken by Acti's counter statement.

[ÜberJumper]

Bludgums:

Not entirely true. Dev houses can start as privately owned, and get funded when they get a publishing deal for their first game. That dev house often gets subjects attached to the funding, such as "your next X number of games we get first option on".

If Infinity Ward's first game was funded by Activision, and then the studio was bought out by them, then yeah, Activision could very well have funded their studio's rise.

When the studio was bought by Activision, there were probably stipulations in the purchase deal that gave each of them royalties and what not (as well as specified their responsibilities).

Anyway, let's see what the courts say.

[Gedd]

"Creative Independance" Is this they call their bastardized console port of a PC version from a once solid PC game developer? Yeah, i'm still not buying it.

[TeeCakes]

The best revenge against Acti would be success. Ala Rock Band vs. Guitar Hero-- the IW team should come out with a new shooter titled Contemporary Combat that does everything Modern Warfare does, but better. I'm sure they'd be able to get any number of publishers to fund them.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

The best revenge against Acti would be success. Ala Rock Band vs. Guitar Hero-- the IW team should come out with a new shooter titled Contemporary Combat that does everything Modern Warfare does, but better. I'm sure they'd be able to get any number of publishers to fund them.

Certainly. There may be a problem if they signed a no-compete though. Most publishers have you sign a statement, which among other things, state that if you leave their employ, you cannot take another job in the industry for @ a year. I'm sure the language changes from place to place, but many of these companies have them.

If memory serves, a bunch of Ubi employees tried to bail and work for EA. Ubi waived this claus in their faces stating that they legally could not start work with another studio for a period of time.

[brandonjclark]

Certainly. There may be a problem if they signed a no-compete though. Most publishers have you sign a statement, which among other things, state that if you leave their employ, you cannot take another job in the industry for @ a year. I'm sure the language changes from place to place, but many of these companies have them.

If memory serves, a bunch of Ubi employees tried to bail and work for EA. Ubi waived this claus in their faces stating that they legally could not start work with another studio for a period of time.


Then why not just work for free for one year under the company, as an "unpaid advisor" or something?

Lawyers would find a way, I'm sure..... fucking lawyers....

[Evil Avatar]

Certainly. There may be a problem if they signed a no-compete though. Most publishers have you sign a statement, which among other things, state that if you leave their employ, you cannot take another job in the industry for @ a year. I'm sure the language changes from place to place, but many of these companies have them.

The key phrase is 'leave their employ'. Activision screwed that pooch when it fired them. Once they are terminated, that no-compete clause goes right out the window.

[Sensei-X]

The key phrase is 'leave their employ'. Activision screwed that pooch when it fired them. Once they are terminated, that no-compete clause goes right out the window.

Sorry, but termination also activates the non-compete clause, otherwise all someone would have to do is act like a real tool until they get fired to get off the hook.

[modeps]

Sorry, but termination also activates the non-compete clause, otherwise all someone would have to do is act like a real tool until they get fired to get off the hook.

I have no idea what any of this stuff means, but this sounds like it's not lawful to have one of them in California.

Noncompete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute. (California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/2/1/s16600http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/2/1/s16600)). See, e.g., Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008). They were outlawed by the original California Civil Code in 1872.[6]

[PopoWRX]

I have no idea what any of this stuff means, but this sounds like it's not lawful to have one of them in California.

Makes me wonder what Activision has up their sleeves because they HAVE to have something to have gone ahead with their "investigation," and termination. Right? Reminds me when NFL teams dump players before they get big time roster bonuses when they feel the players aren't worth the investment anymore.

[blackzc]

"creative independance"... like the part where Activision didnt want IW to start the Modern Warfare IP and just keep working on WWII shooters?
.

They didnt have to team up with activision.

[ElPresidente]

I just love that amongst all the things listed that Activision gave them royalties was not numbered amongst them. :P

Look we don't know what is really going on and who is right but it's worth a giggle regardless. :)

[FreezaSama]

While the company showed enormous patience, it firmly believes that its decision was justified based on their course of conduct and actions.

I like this bit. It seems Activision believes a lot of strange things out there in fucking la-la land.

[Phoenix1985]

I like this bit. It seems Activision believes a lot of strange things out there in fucking la-la land.

ENORMOUS PATIENCE. Really? That's what you're going for, huh? Saying it's the employees who screwed up and you just had to keep being there for them, until you shoved them away like abused spouses?

*sigh* . We don't believe you're the victims here. And it doesn't help that the statement reads like it's some kind of explanation for children , telling us how the "real business world" works, instead of actually telling us just what went down.

[Apex]

Sorry, but termination also activates the non-compete clause, otherwise all someone would have to do is act like a real tool until they get fired to get off the hook.

Evil is right, in reality non-compete clause means jack once you no longer work for a company. Your right to work is greater than a companys need to prevent you from competing against them. Doesnt matter if you leave or if you get fired otherwise the industry would of been dead many many years ago.

What a non-compete typically means in those sorts of cases is that you must not use tools/tech/company secrets blah blah/ (or my favourite!) knowledge gained while in the employment of that company.



It's sounding more and more as foul play on Activisions part and I hope W&Z clean house with them. Seriously, the arrogance in the quotes in the main headline astound me. They supported them because those guys had a proven history in what they were doing. Quite frankly they honoured their obligations by delivering a highly successful franchise with one game being a record breaker.

[Butters66]

Certainly. There may be a problem if they signed a no-compete though. Most publishers have you sign a statement, which among other things, state that if you leave their employ, you cannot take another job in the industry for @ a year. I'm sure the language changes from place to place, but many of these companies have them.

If memory serves, a bunch of Ubi employees tried to bail and work for EA. Ubi waived this claus in their faces stating that they legally could not start work with another studio for a period of time.

Pretty sure if a company fires you, as in this case, no competes are off the table. I know that is the case for a layoff. If a company is not able to honor their part of the agreement, ie employment, then you are entitled to pursue any employment you can get. They can't stop you from making a living.