It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to Sue Valve

It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to Sue Valve

April 30, 2009

An ugly court action is underway and it involves a pair of video game titans.

On Tuesday Valve filed suit against Activision Blizzard in U.S. District Court in Seattle. The suit alleges that Activision refused to honor an agreement to abide by an arbitrator's April 6th award decision involving a 2002 dispute over royalties.

The arbitrator in that case awarded Valve $2,391,932, an amount that Valve says is less than it sought, but which it will accept because both parties agreed to be bound by the arbitration process.

Activision, however, challenged the award, claiming that Valve had been overpaid by $424,136 in years past. For its part Valve alleges that Activision failed to properly raise this issue before the abitrator whom, the suit claims, refused to consider it for procedural reasons.

Against that backdrop, Activision cut Valve a check last week for $1,967,796 - the amount handed down by the arbitrator less the disputed $424K. According to Valve's suit, Activision said that it wouldn't pay the rest and if Valve went to court Activision would countersue. Valve has apparently called Activision's bluff and the parties are now once again at odds.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the complaint... 

UPDATE: The original 2002 lawsuit was not against Activision, but instead targeted Sierra in a dispute over licensing Valve games to cyber-cafes. Sierra was owned by Vivendi, so when Activision merged with Vivendi in 2008 it inherited the Valve case in the deal.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Thats not ulgy thats business.

 


I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Being business does not make it any less ugly.

-Gray17

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Pft, Activision.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

What, are you still pissed about the Ghostbusters thing?

"De minimus non curat lex"

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Yes I am.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

I always like how suits are for a very specific amount. What's bad about rounding?

Yet Another Gaming Show

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

When people sue to get money that's owed to them, they can't round up, and aren't going to round down. And when money is owed, it tends to not be in round numbers, especially if it's a percentage of something.

-Gray17

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Add intrest it gets rounded up then.... hehehehe

 


I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Adding interest isn't rounding up, it's adding interest.

-Gray17

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

Valve doesn't have to worry because Activision will only sue if they can annualize the law suit.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

They're disputing 424 large when the subscription rates for WoW alone must make that a little less than a rounding error?  They should just pay up and get on with nerfing Shamans or whatever it is they pay the devs to do.

---
The Mammon Philosophy

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

Just pay Valve Activision. Thats all im gonna say.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

If ValvE has gotten the difference earlier (whether through overpayments or not), then ValvE ought to lose the case. I am rooting for ValvE emotionally though.

---- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians. http://www.goteamretard.com

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

lol, isn't everyone? When you sell Orange Box for $10, you can expect some consumer love.

--------------------------------------------------------

Believe in something! Even if it's wrong, believe in it! -Glenn Beck

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

If they failed to raise it in front of the arbiter, then it's their loss, and they need to pay the full amount. That's the law. Valve wins, end of story.

 

Check out my blog - http://serveratcapacity.blogspot.com

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

I wanna root for Valve, but Sierra has such nostalgia value for me.

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

They're probably both just doing this because they're a little bored; $2 Million has got to be like pocket change for these guys.

-- Olly

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

My first thought too. But hey, all's fair in love and war. If a particular part was never brought up in front of the arbiter when the arbiter decided...it's Activision's loss.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

Sueing will bring no stable solution. It only increase fears

diet recipes

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

For its part Valve alleges that Activision failed to properly raise this issue before the abitrator whom, the suit claims, refused to consider it for procedural reasons.

 

Am I miss reading it? It sounds kinda like Activision is saying they raised the issue with the Abitrator and the Abitrator blew them off because of some by the book non-sense...which isn't completely un-heard of...but at the same time could be false...but still wanna make sure I'm reading it right that Activision is saying they talked to the Abitrator and the Abitrator said "Nope none of my concern!" So if it can be proven that the Abitrator denied to discuss it...doesn't that give Activision something to cling to?

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...
Here's my take on how that probably went. Valve and Vivendi went to arbitration. As part of that arbitration, Valve and Vivendi submitted documents, claims, counter-claims, etc. to the arbitrator before arbitration actually started. During arbitration, Vivendi brought up another issue that was not properly submitted to the arbitrator at the correct time and the arbitrator told them that they missed the boat on submitting it. And since Vivendi didn't properly raise the issue in the arbitration, Valve is saying that they are estopped from raising that issue in any subsequent cases involving the same subject matter.

I might be wrong on my analysis of that small section of the report, but that's usually how these things work out.
Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

I don't think it's so much that Vivendi can't raise the issue in a future case.  It's that Vivendi agreed to abide by the arbitration, and Vivendi was told by the arbitrator to pay the $2.4M.  The $424K is now a separate issue, since they didn't get it included in the arbitration.  They are still free to try to get it later, but they can't just subtract it from the $2.4M they agreed to pay when they agreed to abide by the arbitration.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

The law has a lot of provisions that basically come down to this: "Use it or lose it."  It's the same sort of policy reasons that underlie statutes of limitations.  If you know you have a claim, you can't just sit on it.  That's all Valve seems to be saying here, and it's pretty unremarkable.

Whether Activision can recover in its own suit is a different matter, and the answer is not immediately clear to me--we need more facts.  Most likely, though, that's what Activision will claim, either in a counterclaim here or in a separate suit.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

valve ftw.

activision ftl.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

Maybe with the extra cash Valve will get off their asses and put Episode 3 out.

 

 

....oh who the hell am i kidding, i'll have kids before that damn thing shows it's face in even the tiniest screenshot.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens ...

You know how VALVe is, but I think they would say something this E3. We waited long enough.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

Activision should just buy out Valve.

Re: It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to

F**k NO! Valve should buy Activision instead.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Merhaba

This post makes no sense to me

sohbet - sohbet siteleri - özlü sözler - sevgi sözleri - madencilik - sikiş

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Login or register to post shouts