7th December 2003, 9:10 PM
I don't think that just the fact that they brought the market back to life would at all validate copywrite infringement... copywrites are new, unique ideas... or they are supposed to be! Nintendo didn't invent anything in making a console... sure, if not for them Sony and Sega might not have gotten in, but I don't see how that could lead to a (successful) lawsuit.
Uh, why is this relevant? Sure, a few months back they decided to keep their gaming division... a decision that left me conflicted. Me the Blizzard fan was happy because it'd be a disaster if Microsoft or EA got their hands on Blizz. But me the Sierra fan... Vivendi hasn't exactly been good with Sierra... but then again I doubt a change in ownership would help there. Anyway, they kept the gaming division. But how does this relate to this suit at all? I mean, they're a giant multinational who (like all big gaming companies) has occasionally done bad things to its developers, etc... I just don't get your point here... I just don't see how the Vivendi game division situation has anything to do with whether they "deserved" this.
Quote: To bad Vivendi didnt need this kind of crap , They already decided to hold on too their gaming devision and not sell it.
Uh, why is this relevant? Sure, a few months back they decided to keep their gaming division... a decision that left me conflicted. Me the Blizzard fan was happy because it'd be a disaster if Microsoft or EA got their hands on Blizz. But me the Sierra fan... Vivendi hasn't exactly been good with Sierra... but then again I doubt a change in ownership would help there. Anyway, they kept the gaming division. But how does this relate to this suit at all? I mean, they're a giant multinational who (like all big gaming companies) has occasionally done bad things to its developers, etc... I just don't get your point here... I just don't see how the Vivendi game division situation has anything to do with whether they "deserved" this.