Sections

Judge rules West and Zampella have enough evidence against Activision to go to trial

Friday, 17th June 2011 20:41 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that there was sufficient evidence to support Jason West and Vincent Zampella’s case against Activision, therefore the case will be going to trial.

According to court documents obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, the judge felt there was enough evidence to support the March 2010 claim Activision defrauded the duo by firing them before having to cut a royalty check for Modern Warfare 2.

In March, a superior court judge ruled that Activision also had sufficient claims against Electronic Arts, which it claimed were courting the duo in a secretive manner.

A trial will likely be set for the end of the year or early next year, so don’t expect any of this to be resolved soon.

Latest

21 Comments

  1. sg1974

    Woohoo. Televize it!

    #1 4 years ago
  2. DSB

    I don’t like it when mommy and daddy fight :(

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Maximum Payne

    @2 But Daddy was drunk when hit a mom when there was not necessary :(

    #3 4 years ago
  4. AHA-Lambda

    i thought this trial was supposed to have already happened in may O__o

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Alakratt

    Activision needs to learn the hard way that their extreme greed has consequences. I hope that they lose this case.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Edo

    Well I’ll be damned…

    #6 4 years ago
  7. ExOAte

    If Acti loses the case. Will Bobby get fired? no? Fire him anyway :<

    #7 4 years ago
  8. thesamy

    YES FUCK THEM UP WOOOOOOOOOOO!!

    #8 4 years ago
  9. OrbitMonkey

    Wonder if they’ll take it all the way, or settle out of court for a serious chunk of change?

    #9 4 years ago
  10. DSB

    Gotta love that meta-RPG people have set up where Activision is the evil eye of Sauron :P

    Looks like a bit of a stalemate. It stands to reason that Activision will have a harder time proving that they were scheming with EA, than Z-Dubya will have making the claim that they fulfilled all the requirements for those bonuses.

    Regardless, Infinity Ward gets to prove whether they can carry on Modern Warfare without them, and Z-Dubya get to make the games they want. That’s a win and win in my book.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Phoenixblight

    @10 they are not just going after the unpaid bonuses but also taking away the Modern Warfare name away from Activision.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. pukem0n

    but cod sells extremely well, even without the modern warfare name. so that wont really bother activision

    #12 4 years ago
  13. DSB

    @11 It’s a possibility, but they would literally need the judge to agree with every single thing they say. You always aim for more than you’re likely to get in a lawsuit, that way you definitely won’t end up with less than what you’re owed.

    @12 Sure, but where would that leave them if Respawn signs the brand off to EA? It’s an interesting hypothesis, but I strongly doubt that they’ll get the brand. They signed to EA mighty fast.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Espers

    It seems like BF3 is really raining on MW parade …. LMAO

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Dralen

    Take them for everything they have!! Go Go West and Zampella.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. GwynbleiddiuM

    LoL, I’d be very happy if they could rip acti from CoD IP ownership, would laugh until I explode or die from stomachache..

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Phoenixblight

    @17

    They aren’t going for the Call of Duty name just the Modern Warfare title. Yes there is a difference.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. GwynbleiddiuM

    Oh, sorry I usually observe well before make a comment, my bad :P

    #18 4 years ago
  19. NightCrawler1970

    Yeap, Acti gonna put the money on the wood!!!! ya’ll gonna bleed so bad like a PIG!!!

    #19 4 years ago
  20. KingCancer

    @12 but, who invented cod in the first place?

    #20 4 years ago
  21. DSB

    @17 The only place they have it in writing is in an MOU, which might as well be called an I-O-U slip, since it’s not legally binding.

    Essentially that’s so weak that they’ll need to somehow convince the judge that they’ve been screwed over so bad, that Activision need to give up the brand to compensate for it.

    I’m not a lawyer, but to me it looks like a tall order, and more of a question of how many dollars and cents they’re likely to get, and even that may depend on what Activision knows about their dealings with EA.

    #21 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.