The Shadowrun Situation

duo31 · Post by **duo31** » Thu May 13, 2010 2:55 pm

I sit corrected.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:04 pm

Jason Hardy posts those, they are written by Randall Bills. Jason Hardy is the Shadowrun line developer and also runs the website now. But he doesn't write the press releases.

-Username17

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:08 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Jason Hardy posts those, they are written by Randall Bills. Jason Hardy is the Shadowrun line developer and also runs the website now. But he doesn't write the press releases.

-Username17

... Whoops

Ehehe. Nevermind then.

BeeRockxs · Post by **BeeRockxs** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:17 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: Well yes. That is what he said. But he said it in a way that was deliberately crafted to be misconstrued as to being that Topps had renewed the license. After all, the short form of his announcement was: "a new, long-term license for the Shadowrun intellectual property." Stating it in that manner was definitely intended to give the impression that the license for making books had been renewed.

No.
See the press release, which has this title:
LONE WOLF DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP SHADOWRUN DATA PACKAGE FOR HERO LAB

The first sentence is this:
"Catalyst Game Labs and Lone Wolf Development are pleased to announce that they have entered into a new, long-term license for the Shadowrun intellectual property."

That's as unambiguous as it gets.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:19 pm

BeeRockxs wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: Well yes. That is what he said. But he said it in a way that was deliberately crafted to be misconstrued as to being that Topps had renewed the license. After all, the short form of his announcement was: "a new, long-term license for the Shadowrun intellectual property." Stating it in that manner was definitely intended to give the impression that the license for making books had been renewed.
No.
See the press release, which has this title:
LONE WOLF DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP SHADOWRUN DATA PACKAGE FOR HERO LAB

The first sentence is this:
"Catalyst Game Labs and Lone Wolf Development are pleased to announce that they have entered into a new, long-term license for the Shadowrun intellectual property."

That's as unambiguous as it gets.

A relationship between two companies isn't called a license. It's called an agreement or partnership.

Licenses are awarded if you're producing something for an IP somebody else owns. So if anyone is awarding a license, it's from Topps to LW.

BeeRockxs · Post by **BeeRockxs** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:27 pm

Zinegata wrote:
A relationship between two companies isn't called a license. It's called an agreement or partnership.

Licenses are awarded if you're producing something for an IP somebody else owns. So if anyone is awarding a license, it's from Topps to LW.

You can sub-license IP.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu May 13, 2010 4:17 pm

BeeRockxs wrote:You can sub-license IP.

Only if it's in the original license.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu May 13, 2010 4:33 pm

BeeRockxs wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: Well yes. That is what he said. But he said it in a way that was deliberately crafted to be misconstrued as to being that Topps had renewed the license. After all, the short form of his announcement was: "a new, long-term license for the Shadowrun intellectual property." Stating it in that manner was definitely intended to give the impression that the license for making books had been renewed.
No.
See the press release, which has this title:
LONE WOLF DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP SHADOWRUN DATA PACKAGE FOR HERO LAB

The first sentence is this:
"Catalyst Game Labs and Lone Wolf Development are pleased to announce that they have entered into a new, long-term license for the Shadowrun intellectual property."

That's as unambiguous as it gets.

This must be one of those "unambiguous" statements that generate people asking on dumpshock and even here on this thread whether they got their license renewed. Which would seem to imply that there was a fair amount of ambiguity on that point.

Not a prosecutable amount of ambiguity, but certainly skirting that line.

-Username17

Semerkhet · Post by **Semerkhet** » Thu May 13, 2010 5:43 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: This must be one of those "unambiguous" statements that generate people asking on dumpshock and even here on this thread whether they got their license renewed. Which would seem to imply that there was a fair amount of ambiguity on that point.

Not a prosecutable amount of ambiguity, but certainly skirting that line.

-Username17

Tortuous wording aside, what do you say to those who are arguing along the lines of "Why would Topps approve this sort of thing right now if they're planning on dropping IMR in less than a week?"

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu May 13, 2010 6:23 pm

Semerkhet wrote: Tortuous wording aside, what do you say to those who are arguing along the lines of "Why would Topps approve this sort of thing right now if they're planning on dropping IMR in less than a week?"

Money is money. Topps was never going to say no to a company offering to pay them small amounts of money to advertise a product that they license. If IMR loses the license, Lonewolf is still paying the same money to Topps and still advertising their product. If IMR keeps the license, then same deal.

The only thing IMR is licensing is the use of the books that they own (for now). IMR wants to sell that license now because there's a very real chance that they won't be able to sell it in a week. But Topps doesn't care when it is sold. Seriously, they don't. If the middle man is IMR or some other company, the cut is exactly the same. And Topps' cut is the same either way too.

The tortured wording is deliberately crafted to make it seem like Topps is all up in their junk about giving them the license. But the reality is that the piece of news doesn't really say anything about the future of IMR or the financial opinions of Topps itself. It's not really positive or negative news for the future of IMR. It is positive news for Shadowrun, since it implies that Topps thinks Shadowrun will be in print one way or the other for the next couple of years. And while fears of Topps shutting the license all the way down were I think overstated - it is always nice to get some more solid evidence that they intend no such thing.

-Username17

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu May 13, 2010 6:25 pm

Topps probably approved of it years ago.

-Crissa

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Thu May 13, 2010 11:58 pm

Or Topps approved it under terms where LW is supposed to follow whoever Topps gives the main license to - whether it stays with Catalyst Games or not.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri May 14, 2010 12:05 am

BeeRockxs wrote:
Zinegata wrote:
A relationship between two companies isn't called a license. It's called an agreement or partnership.

Licenses are awarded if you're producing something for an IP somebody else owns. So if anyone is awarding a license, it's from Topps to LW.
You can sub-license IP.

Two parties do not "enter" into a license. You award a license. One company to another.

BeeRockxs · Post by **BeeRockxs** » Fri May 14, 2010 12:52 am

Zinegata wrote: Two parties do not "enter" into a license. You award a license. One company to another.

Two parties enter into a license agreement that awards a license to one of them.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri May 14, 2010 1:48 am

BeeRockxs wrote:
Zinegata wrote: Two parties do not "enter" into a license. You award a license. One company to another.
Two parties enter into a license agreement that awards a license to one of them.

License agreement. Not license.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri May 14, 2010 2:01 am

Zinegata wrote:
BeeRockxs wrote:
Zinegata wrote: Two parties do not "enter" into a license. You award a license. One company to another.
Two parties enter into a license agreement that awards a license to one of them.
License agreement. Not license.

*Sigh*

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri May 14, 2010 2:06 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Zinegata wrote:
BeeRockxs wrote: Two parties enter into a license agreement that awards a license to one of them.
License agreement. Not license.

*Sigh*

Legal language has to be really painfully exact. And I've been irreperably damaged to the point of OC by my company's Legal department because practically all of my department's business dealings are drafted by me first

.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri May 14, 2010 3:56 am

Sure, whatever, stop being pedantic.

-Crissa

Kithkanan · Post by **Kithkanan** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:03 am

Zinegata wrote:
BeeRockxs wrote:
Zinegata wrote: Two parties do not "enter" into a license. You award a license. One company to another.
Two parties enter into a license agreement that awards a license to one of them.
License agreement. Not license.

The state of California gave me a license, not a license agreement.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:06 am

Kithkanan wrote:
Zinegata wrote:
BeeRockxs wrote: Two parties enter into a license agreement that awards a license to one of them.
License agreement. Not license.
The state of California gave me a license, not a license agreement.

Driver's license is a bit different from an IP license, and the driver's license was "given" to you by California rather than you and California entering into a license

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:08 am

Crissa wrote:Sure, whatever, stop being pedantic.

-Crissa

I can't help it.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:12 am

Zinegata wrote:I can't help it. :P

I noticed 9-9

-Crissa

Kithkanan · Post by **Kithkanan** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:26 am

Zinegata wrote:
Kithkanan wrote:
Zinegata wrote:
License agreement. Not license.
The state of California gave me a license, not a license agreement.
Driver's license is a bit different from a IP license, and the driver's license was "given" to you by California rather than you and California entering into a license

Please, I don't a license to pee. I P when I wanna.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:33 am

Kithkanan wrote:Please, I don't a license to pee. I P when I wanna.

*deadpan* Very funny.

kzt · Post by **kzt** » Fri May 14, 2010 6:03 am

Crissa wrote:
BeeRockxs wrote:You can sub-license IP.
Only if it's in the original license.

-Crissa

Sometime you can anyway. The twisted tale of Franz Joseph Designs, Paramount and Amarillo Design Bureau is an interesting example. The fact that Steve Cole doesn't effectively use the license to mint money that he owns is besides the point.