Author
|
Topic: Stardock Litigation Discussion (Read 132156 times)
|
|
|
Kaiser
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 39
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
I've seen lists that put Paul Reiche at an estimated net worth of 19 mil. While Brad Wardell's is estimated 1.9 million. Both as of 2018.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
I would go to great lengths to try and stop another one of Brad's godawful 'apology' letters from being published, if that were about to happen due to lack of money.
I don't understand the context for this. Why would you not want Brad to apologize for whatever it is you're referencing? The sexual harassment case against Brad Wardell from a few years back ended with the victim (alleged, whatever) issuing a public apology letter to Brad. Brad's joke of a settlement offer to F&P also demands that they issue a similar public apology.
I seems pretty odd if Brad were to make fun of sexual harassment, I don't see any reason to think that would be his intention if he apologized for a completely separate legal issue. Although I guess I did bring up possible issues with assumptions of gender and masculinity in one of Stardock's games and it was quickly and aggressively dismissed by Stardock staff and/or supporters, but that doesn't speak for Brad himself. I think a CEO who tries to be as contemporary as him would probably keep up with the times and make an effort to move away from that kind of behavior.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 01:25:08 am by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
Oh, I wouldn't call it an apology; Brad complained vociferously about it being inaccurately called an apology. And he's right; it wasn't an apology; it was a forced insincere endorsement. Which is actually worse, in my book. A forced apology is "just" a humiliation, but this would have required P&F to tell all of their fans how genuinely excited they were to have Brad continue their story.
I feel like I'm misunderstanding something here. I think you are. Did you try following the link?
Are you talking purely about the apology Stardock wants to receive from Fred and Paul? I was, yes.
I don't understand why the two would have a connection. They are connected in that both instances show Brad attempting to force his litigation opponent to submit to coerced speech.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
I see Fred and Paul are being asked for an apology in Stardock's complaint, but I don't know if that, on its own, is unreasonable given that it's a complex case and it is possible there are misunderstandings either side may have. Stardock clearly has a more aggressive stance, but asking for an apology alone isn't unreasonable if they are ruled correct in some of their claims.
As I said, it wasn't an apology; it was a requirement that P&F endorse Brad's ownership of the UQM story using a statement authored by Brad. The intended effect of it, as best I can surmise, was to ensure that Brad's continuation of the UQM story would be accepted by the old fans as canonical, and to keep Paul from being able to disavow it as illegitimate. Brad couldn't gain that legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the SC2 fans if he was viewed as having taken it by force, so he tried to coerce P&F into giving the fans the false impression that they were happy with the arrangement.
They are connected in that both instances show Brad attempting to force his litigation opponent to submit to coerced speech. I suppose I could see a loose connection that could set precedence for this coercion of Stardock's, but I more mean to ask where your actual credible reference is for this sexual harassment allegation, because that's news to me.
I'll leave that one to Shiver.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
As I said, it wasn't an apology; it was a requirement that P&F endorse Brad's ownership of the UQM story using a statement authored by Brad.
I could understand that then, it does explain why Brad said that UQM isn't actually safe.
The intended effect of it, as best I can surmise, was to ensure that Brad's continuation of the UQM story would be accepted by the old fans as canonical, and to keep Paul from being able to disavow it as illegitimate. Brad couldn't gain that legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the SC2 fans if he was viewed as having taken it by force, so he tried to coerce P&F into giving the fans the false impression that they were happy with the arrangement.
I suppose that's possible, because when looking through the correspondence mentioned in Fred and Paul's countercomplaint, they claimed Brad was being misleading to the public by implying Fred and Paul were unofficially working with Stardock, which would have been a violation of Fred and Paul's alleged agreement with Activision, which, in the gaming industry, seems very likely to include a no-compete clause. So, Brad implying any work for a competing game company like Stardock might have actually gotten Fred and Paul in trouble with Activision and delayed Activision's permission for any development and announcement of content relating to Fred and Paul's sequel.
I'll leave that one to Shiver.
Even if they find it though, it doesn't seem like a very strong connection to this completely separate legal case. Bringing it up seems like the same kind of tactic Stardock itself would use to paint Fred and Paul as morally reprehensible. If they bring it up with that intention, then they are no more legitimate than the party they claim to oppose on that same moral basis.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 07:29:57 pm by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
