Re: [Des Moines Register] Iowa game master sues Texas company over control of his role-playing game

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:23:12 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/6/2024 4:53 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:40:23 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Source:
 https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2024/03/02/ankeny-man-files-suit-over-control-of-his-role-playing-game/72796356007/

>
The problem is I think in general that according to one side the contract says something different than what the other side believes.
Wouldn't surprise me if the contract just isn't saying much about the issue because when they made it they never thought it would come up.
And, to be fair, it's also hinging on what WotC was trying to do during the OGL fiasco. After all lots of people had their rug pulled out from under them during that debacle.

As for the said dispute, well, yeah... obviously both sides have
differing interpretations of what the contract says. That's what a
contract dispute is. The WOTC licensing debacle is incidental to the actual case. It's the
nominal reason for the partnership between Thomas and Geek
Therapeutics ("Oh no, WOTC is taking away my D&Ds!!!"), but its
irrelevant to the case itself. Of course, Thomas says there was no /finalized/ licensing agreement'
between the two parties, but he also says that there was /some/
agreement between the two parties (including Geek Therapeutics (GT)
saying ultimate control of the IP would remain with Thomas). The best
(and most easily enforcable) contracts are written, but 'a word and a
handshake' are also legally valid... if harder to defend by either
side. I can well imagine that Thomas and GT leaving a meeting, with
Thomas saying something like, "Let's go forward with this" (meaning,
'I am interested in continuing this relationship') but GT hearing 'I
am in full agreement with your plan, please start to put it into
action'). So now GT feels it is the aggrevied party because it put
effort into making the website and kickstarter only for Thomas to pull
out later.
Contracts. It's all about the contracts and - barring one existing -
what was said and written down beforehand. Without doing more research
(for instance, is GT a significant company that should know about the
importance of contracts or just another 'guy-in-a-garage' like
Thomas?) it's hard to say who is in the right. But ultimately, it's
not really that interesting a case. At least, not to me. YMMV ;-)