Activision asserts Brutal Legend rights, sues Double Fine

EA showcased and heavily promoted their new game Brutal Legends at E3 this year. This year's E3 has been arguably one of the best E3 displays for a long time, especially with all sorts of new innovations such as Microsoft's Xbox 360 no controller Project Natal motion sensing technology.

EA and Activision both had an impressive line up of games they would be offering, but Activion Blizzard has decided to take some decisive action against the EA and Double Fine deal of publishing Brutal Legends, a game that was had a $15 million investment from Activision Blizzard.

How did this happen? Well you may already know this, but Vivendi Games merged with Activision awhile ago but apparently Activision did not include Brutal Legend in their list of projects they would inherit. Double Fine thought this meant Activision no longer wanted Brutal Games, so they went looking for another developer, namely EA. Activision has previously threatened to sue if Double Fine didn't stop the publishing of Brutal Legends, and now that threat has become a reality.

The lawsuit claims that Double Fine missed a key deadline last year, and asked for another $7 million infusion. Then it claims that Activision was not compensated for their initial $15 million investment when Double Fine went to EA. Activision says that they never gave up their rights to the game, and was still in negotiations with Double Fine, but failed to reach an agreement.
In response, Double Fine President Tim Schafer stated,

"Hey, if Activision liked it, then they should have put a ring on it," "Oh great, now Beyonce is going to sue me too."

Later, EA also commented by comparing Activision to

"a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy."

Should Activision be able to keep their "rights"? It only seems natural that if Activision doesn't include the game in the projects they would inherit, that they mean to give up the game. On the other hand, if they really were negotiating, then perhaps Double Fine is at fault. However, I doubt this is the case, and it's more likely that Activision didn't care much about it until Double Fine was forced to find another publisher.

Sphere: Related Content

Librarian files a grand $70 lawsuit against Facebook

A Florida librarian and activist has filed a civil lawsuit against Facebook which claims that FB failed to protect its users effectively, resulting in his $70.50 damages.
Theodore Karantsalis, a week ago, filed this $70.50 lawsuit against Facebook claiming that a virus managed to compromise his account on Facebook, changed his name to John Doe, then started sending out spam.
According to Karantsalis, Facebook deleted his friends and other related objects from his account during their restoral process. He then claims that he was forced to manually re-add such data back onto his account, and suffered from a monetary loss of approximately 30 cents per friend he had, which was about 250.

Facebook, in a statement said,

"We're very interested to hear how he came up with the figure of $70.50. He's not going to get it but we promise to refund all the money he paid to use Facebook. Seriously, we're glad to know how important Facebook is to Mr. Karantsalis but his account was not disabled, is currently active, and he is using it, so I'm not sure what the problem is."

Karantsalis says that he did not fall for anying phishing scams and is takes steps to maintain his security. Apparently, he is a privacy advocate that has taken extra caution when dealing with safety, including the use of anonymous proxies. He thinks that if such an issue could happen to him, then it can very easily be happening to many other users, especially because he takes steps that many other users tend not to take in order to protect his security.

This guy also happens to have a background in suing organiztions and companies. He has previously sued the city of Miami Springs for not providing sufficient access to roads, he sued Sprint and Wells Fargo due to a privacy exposure, and he also sued the U.S. Defense Department and Air Force.

This case however, doesn't seem to me that it has any real merit here. First off, the $70.50 is ridiculous in how he managed to come up with such a random figure (each friend is worth 30 cents?? And why exactly is that?). Then there's the issue of Facebook's TOS which states that they're not liable for such problems that they did not cause.
It is an interesting case, but I highly doubt it will pass and I think it'll be striked down as soon as it hits any judge.

Sphere: Related Content

5 Reasons EU plan to cut IE from windows will fail

Recently, the European Union (EU) has decided to take serious legal action against Microsoft, by claiming their Internet Explorer (IE) should not be bundled with Windows, because it is anti competitive and is taking advantage of Microsoft's immense market power. They want Microsoft to stop immediately, and change their marketing tactics so that Internet Explorer will no longer be bundled with future releases of Windows. They have not made any statements concerning whether Windows can come with different versions with and without IE.
Now, it may sound fine, but this logic is seriously flawed. There are too many reasons why Internet Explorer is essential to the Windows OS, and taking it off will not help consumers at all. Here's a list of reasons for why this plan must and surely will fail.

1. Internet Explorer is a part of OS
Unlike many other programs, Internet Explorer is not just any other program, but rather a part of the windows environment and operating systems. There are a variety of functions in Windows that are based on Internet Explorer, and cannot be done with Internet Explorer or another browser, and even sometimes, only Internet Explorer will suffice. Windows uses Internet Explorer to read .xml files, to set up configurations settings for various functions, to set up router settings, and much more. If we take out Internet Explorer, we are taking out a vital aspect of Windows.

2. All browsers need to be downloaded
Internet Explorer comes with Windows for one main reasons: to let users use the Internet quickly, and without hassle. Now, where do we get new browsers? Obviously, the INTERNET! And how are we supposed to get these browsers if we don't have one to begin with? There are some methods, including possibly ftp and other protocols available with command prompt, etc, but will NORMAL users be able to do this? The answer is no. They rely on the simplicity of web browsers to get around, and they probably can't get a new browser, without using Internet Explorer to download one! Thus, we have a computer that is cut off from the Internet, unless we hire somebody or ask somebody else to use sophisticated methods of downloading software.

3. Users want simplicity
For most users, the hassle of getting a new browser is far too great, and that is exactly why IE holds so much market share. The fact is, people don't want to download new browsers because there's too much hassle! Everybody just wants to get on the Internet, and be done. They don't care how bad Internet Explorer is, as long as it gets them to where they want. This is precisely why taking off Internet Explorer is not helping the consumer, and in fact causing a vareity of problems in accord with problem 2.

4. If Internet Explorer can be cut off from windows, then so should the browsers from other Operating Systems right?
Well if it really were this case, why don't the EU chase after every company or operating system? All they want, is to take off and unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows because the EU is a big Microsoft hate group. All the operatings systems around come with a browser, because it's the only natural thing to do. Most people use the computer because they want to access the Internet, so we shouldn't be impeding their desires. Of course, a computer can do many things without the Internet, but our world revolves around the Internet! Most average consumers even use the computer solely for that purpose! Thus, the EU can't strip every Operating system of their browsers, and they shouldn't strip Windows of IE.

5. Without programs like IE, Operating systems could end up with nothing left
If they can really take off IE, then in theory, they should take off every program every OS comes with. What's left of that? Maybe the recycling bin, control panel, and basic system features such as the registry. Perhaps not even that. Registry editor is a program by windows too no? So is recycling bin and all the tools in control panel. Why don't we get rid of those? Then whats left? It's very simple actually. By removing every software except the OS, what we have left is the command prompt, if you can really call it an "operating system". Here's an idea, how about Microsoft lose this case on purpose, then make a version of windows called Windows 7 Command Prompt Basic, and include nothing but command prompt in that version? I'd like to see how the world and the European Union would react. I doubt the anyone will buy this version, and even complain about it to Microsoft or the EU. Then Microsoft will just issue a statement saying they are trying to abide by the EU's laws, and making a version of Windows with just the core. In fact, this will barely affect Microsoft if they did this anyway, because people will only buy the "premium" version.

Conclusion
The EU has absolutely no grounds to be complaining about Microsoft's marketing tactics, because it's not really marketing, it's just putting a piece of software where it belongs. Internet Explorer isn't being bundled WITH Windows, it is a PART of windows. The EU cannot do anything to Microsoft, and even if they did, they would have no public backing at all. There is no way this case will go through, and I'm surprised such a ridiculous notion has even been proposed. It goes to show what Microsoft hates will do.

Sphere: Related Content