Originally Posted by Articate:
These allegations do not prove Activision is guilty in any way. It is the Plaintiff's side and is a document meant to give them a good case.
but
-Here's the summary of the court document: -
(quotation are straight from the document - and my wording meant to be only reflecting what the document said, nothing more or less)
They alledge that Activision had "shoestringed" them budget-wise to buy them for a total of 1.5 (30% first), 3.5 (remaining 70%) - 6 million dollars for a franchise that earned them according to Activision itself, 3$ billion. At this point, Activision and Kotick told them to "keep doing what they do" to "retain the magic of their creations", as in basically work as if they hadn't been bought by Activision. West and Zampella became the co-heads of IW and were hired under Activision for a 3 year contract, with two supplement years afterwards, ending late 2008. Then Activision wanted them to make MW2, but W and Z weren't sure. Activision then assured them to work as an independent studio, but had already begun to intrude by "[...] for example, Activision forced IW's employees to continue producing the games at a break neck pace under aggressive schedules, and W and Z were concerned that Activision was emphasizing quantity over quality." Forcing them to work only on MW also was a creative concern, burning out employees only working on the same type of game instead of the studio coming up with new titles. Activision was making billions of dollars and IW were "[...] not being provided a fair share".
Due to this a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) was signed by Activision; and W and Z. (these documents are not publically available) - now W and Z were signed until October 2011 and to deliver MW2 by November 15, 2009.
The MOU and an "Employment Agreement" made, promises W and Z creative authority over development under the MW brand or any Call of Duty game set in the post- Vietnam era, the near future or the distant future, including complete control over IW. The MOU also says that no such games can be released without the written consent of W and Z. The MOU also assured IW and W and Z more money via stock options and royalties for any CoD game and tech royalties for Activision games making significant use of IW technology (like IW's engine being used in other games, which has happened earlier [no examples listed]). This to ensure more money also to the hard-working employees.
They lived up to their end of the deal with finishing MW2 five days before deadline, Kotick then touted MW2 as the largest release for Activision ever, exceeding 1$ billion in five days, with 3$ billion to-date.
After this Activision chose "[...] not to honor the MOU or the Employment Agreement with W and Z. Activision chose instead, to launch a pre-textual investigation against W and Z to create a basis to fire two co-heads of IW before the first MW2 royalty payment would be paid on March 31, 2010," starting February 3, 2010. "From the very beginning, it was clear that the purpose of the investigation was not to uncover any facts concerning any actual wrongdoing, but to manufacture a basis to fire W and Z." strengthened by Activision refusing to tell what it was all about, insisting instead in "[...] Orwellian fashion that W and Z 'already have a clear understanding of what they have or have not done.'", only hearing such things as "[...]"breaches of contract" or "violation of Activision's policies" and said that if they asked more, it would be considered insubordination, which itself would justify their termination"
"Activision conducted the investigation in a manner designed to maximize the inconvenience and anxiety it would cause W and Z. On little notice, Activision insisted on conducting interviews over the Presidents' Day holiday weekend; W and Z were interrogated for over six hours in a windowless conference room; Activision brought other IW employees to tears in their questioning and accusations and threatened W and Z with "insubordination" if they attempted to console them; Activision's outside counsel demanded that W and Z surrender their personal computers, phones and communication devoices to Activision for review by Activision's outside counsel and, when W and Z asserted their legally protected privacy rights, Activision's counsel said that doing so constituted further acts of insubordination."
After it was over, it was clear that the investigation was was a charade, by the charges being dispored or not included in the investigation, showing Activision only wanting to fire them to refuse to pay what they've earned. They were given 6 hours to disprove themselves, without interview scripts or clear allegations. It was seemingly also futile, since Activision already had made up its mind.
Despite the MOU, Activision filed on March 1st personel plans to assert complete control over the MW brand and the IW Studio.
They are suing for $36 million due to:
1.) Breach of Contract,
by Activision not living up to their end of the MOU or Employee Agreement, refusing to pay what they said they would, despite IW living up to their side.
2.) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing,
Refusing to pay, assuming control over the franchise despite MOU, and by firing them without probable cause made in bad faith.
3.) Wrongful Termination
4.) Declatory Relief
Suing for control of the MW brand and that Activision cannot release another MW game or Cod game set post-Vietnam era, near future or distant future without the written consent of W and Z
and sues for all royalties not yet paid and all future royalties under the MOU and Employee Agreement
tl;dr:
West and Zampella wanted Infinity Ward to an independent studio, but Activision gave them what they needed to continue working under them - a contracted right to royalties for the MW games and tech royalties for any technology used from IW. Activision allegedly did not want to live up to this by making a phony investigation, making employees cry, threatening to fire W and Z if they tried to console them.
Another summary:
QUOTEQuote:
Wow that's a lot of Legalese. Okay, in case anyone doesn't feel like reading all that stuff:
WHAT HAPPENED: The two developers were promised royalties as part of their contract for Modern Warfare 2. They're claiming Activision fired them under false pretenses in order to avoid paying those royalties.
The lawsuit then gives background about the company, including alleging that Activision purposely gave Infinity Ward a small budget for Call of Duty in order to buy 30% of its stock for cheap since the small budget would keep them from fighting it.
It also states some things we all know; sales figures, revenue numbers, etc. West and Zampella (the two developers and plaintiffs) had only one year on their contract before MW2 started. They were reluctant to get an extension on their contract, but did so anyway because Activision promised complete control of IW AND creative control over any post-Vietnam Call of Duty and MW games that might be developed.
Blah, blah, blah; more sales figures and talks of how MW2 was praised upon release. Activision then launched the investigation of Zampella and West about a week after the release of MW2. They hired outside lawyers and investigators to question other employees (some of whom cried from anxiety) and threatened insubordination charges if the two plaintiffs tried to console the other employees.
West and Zampella then said they were going to talk to their lawyers, at which point they were told Activision would make things worse if they did. The two men were also never told what exactly they had done wrong at any given point during the investigation. Activision strung the investigation along, then gave the two IW guys about six hours to respond to the accusations. A couple days later, Activision announced the new Call of Duty games they want to make (which were posted in another article).
WHAT THEY WANT: The first claim is to about US$36 million in damages. Second, they also want control of the Modern Warfare franchise back, since that was what was promised. Third, they also say Activision cannot make any further MW games OR post-Vietnam Call of Duties set in the present, near future, or far future. Fourth, they feel that Activision owes them their royalties and bonuses regardless of whether or not their termination from IW was legitimate. And obviously, they want their attorney fees covered.
And that's about it. I may have misread the complaint a bit, so feel free to correct me
