Interplay vs. Bethesda, Continued
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 2415
The document itself is 23 pages long, and I've gone through and highlighted the most relevant and interesting points. From what Interplay says, it seems that Bethesda opposed Interplay's first motion for court fee reimbursement, arguing basically the same things which the court struck down in the Preliminary Injunction hearing. For example, Bethesda said that Interplay did not deserve the fees because "Interplay had not secured any kind of financing for the [Fallout] MMOG...within the required two year period and its license automatically terminated." Interplay argues that not only had they already presented evidence of a financing arrangement that was made within the timeframe, but that the entire argument is without merit in this motion for attorneys' fees:
"In any event, Interplay's Motion is unrelated to Interplay's financing for the MMOG or Interplay's financial circumstances. The Motion is based solely on Interplay's successful defense of Bethesda's PI [Preliminary Injunction] Motion."
Interplay also claims that:
"not only was the preliminary injunction unnecessary and pursued in bad faith, Bethesda's filing of the lawsuit is a bad faith attempt to deny Interplay the merchandising rights to which its entitled under the Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") and the MMOG rights it is entitled to under the Trademark Licensing Agreement ("TLA").
Interplay provides more claims that Bethesda is trying to bully them into submission - basically bleeding them dry:
"Bethesda continued to pursue the PI Motion while continuously emphasizing Interplay's negative financial situation. Bethesda was keenly aware that Interplay could not fund expensive, protracted litigation. However, even after discovery was conducted and Bethesda knew it could not prevail because it had insufficient evidence to carry its burden of proof, it nevertheless continued to press for the injunction which it knew would increase the expense of litigation and delay the case."
