Duck and Cover has obtained the latest court document in the Interplay vs. Bethesda Fallout: Online case. In this latest development, Interplay's attorney rips apart Bethesda's legal argument.
Seeing one side does nothing. Also, I don't think people understand how lawyers work. They contradict everything the opposing council says by default, whether they are right or wrong. In all honesty, this is far from any clear evidence of who is right or who is wrong. It just means more BS work for the judge and his assistants to work through more tedious research on which points are valid and relating to the case and which are not.
@cgoodno- Sorry man but I think you are the one who does not understand how lawyers and the courts work. Arguments in court have nothing to do with being right or wrong, but what you can prove. Showing case presidence and how that relates to your argument is how these things play out in cases such as this. Contradicting everything by default as you say would make for a very poor attorney, one whom I would never want to represent me. In your second paragraph you explain things much better. If an attorney were to get in front of a judge and just contradict opposing council on all their points the judge would get very angry, unless those contradictions can be proven using case presidence pertinent case law and articulate explanations. I work in a law firm and it irritates me to no end when people just assume that things work a certain way. Unless you are involved in the court system and watch trials weekly you won't get it. TV has it so wrong it's not even funny. I'm not ripping on you, just putting the accurate information out there so people understand it better.
***Contradicting everything by default as you say would make for a very poor attorney, one whom I would never want to represent me.**** You obviously have no clue how law works when it comes to these sort of cases. And, by 'contradicting by default' I did not mean lie, but make a case that opposes it, that contradicts it. That means finding ways to contradict what they say, not just lie. That doesn't mean what they find to contradict is is 'right' or valid in the case at hand. ***I work in a law firm and it irritates me to no end when people just assume that things work a certain way. Unless you are involved in the court system and watch trials weekly you won't get it.*** I've worked with an IP law firm on cases... this is how it works. You pile on as much 'evidence' as you can to contradict the opposing side's claims. Even if it means bringing up matter that has no precedent within the scope of he case (meaning, it's wrong). Look at the recent Sony case against GeoHot where both sides were jumping through hoops to provide any and everything that could prove or disprove the reason for the case being tried in California.
"They contradict everything the opposing council says by default, whether they are right or wrong." If you never meant for it to mean that, then you should have articulated your statement, because regardless of your explanation now, your statement was a blanket one which made it sound like all attorneys make up lies in the court just to contradict one another. You just gave a much better explanation of what you were trying to say, next time just think a little before typing, because people are not smart and will just take what you say and repeat it because they think it's accurate, for no other reason than they read it on the internet. Based on your initial comment you really sounded like one of our client's who thinks they know everything. You fixed and explained what I took issue with in your first statement, congrats sir.
***If you never meant for it to mean that, then you should have articulated your statement*** Actually, it is articulated correctly. The word 'wrong' means not right, which includes providing an invalid argument as it pertains to the current case. It doesn't mean that wrong is equivalent to lying unless that's what you choose to read into it. I explained further because that's what you chose to read into it, not because the statement was not articulated well enough.
After seeing what Bethesda did with Skyrim, would it really be a problem for them to have complete control over the Fallout franchise? Just saying. What was the last game Interplay made?
EXACTLY. Bethesda single-handedly turned the Fallout franchise into a huge money maker. And if anything, Interplay should be thanking them.
They didn't really prove themselves until skyrim though. Fallout 3 was shoddy and New Vegas was good because Obsidian did the writing and brought back many themes from the first 2 games.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.