Jason West and Vince Zampella fired from Infinity Ward/Activision
- Thread starter Squilliam
- Start date
That's what happens when moneygrubbing shitbag pigs like Bobby Kotick get too powerful. Plain ol' cause and effect, really. Not that he's alone. EA's full of the same caliber people as well for example.
Yeah, no need, other than that, of course.
I highly doubt West/Zampella want to give up what is legally and rightfully theirs to Activision, and there is no way the evil Activision will give up what they managed to steal.
This is exactly why contracts matter.
No one cares about the contract when things are going well, but when the shit hits the fan, it's all that matters.
It's not about good and evil, it's about differences of opinion, future/current and past revenue.
Isn't Infinity Ward a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision? I don't see how it would be possible for Activision to fire Zampella and West from IW if not. When I worked at a large corporation, they informed us there was no such thing as "personal" files, emails, or phone calls when using company networks and company phones. Nor is there any such thing as "my" invention or "my" idea. Everything is owned by the company.
Actually, when I out the gaming press bias, it sounds so far like Zampella and West don't really comprehend what it means to work for someone else's company or send emails with their computers or make phone calls with their phones or develop IP with their resources.
It is highly, highly unlikely that Activision explicitly gave Z&W personal co-ownership of anything developed while employed by Activision. This would be a truly unique and bizarre situation, as pretty much every corporate employment contract in the world spells out that every single thing you develop with company resources belongs to them, not to you. If they own the MW or COD IPs, Activision would have had to go out of their way to give it to them, and their attorneys would have noticed already.BRiT said:
Unless Activision's a lot stupider than the companies I've worked for, they're going to easily win this lawsuit.
That's exactly what they did. You can read the agreement Activision made with West & Zampella when they renewed their contract following the first Modern Warfare's monstrous success. The whole document is online. Activision ceded all sorts of rights to keep them happy and working on sequel. But you're also right that Activision probably did so thinking at the end of the day they owned the company and would never have to live up to anything, which they didn't and that's why they are being sued.
Every corporation is different with various privacy policies. e.g. The 4k person corp I work for has a very different policy for emails: when the person before me left the company had no access to their work email due to privacy concerns and when I was off work for 3 months recently due to surgery I had to submit in writing that my email records could be accessed by the company
Further there is the issue of how the acquisition contracts are established in regards to how Zampella and West relate to Activision; there may be a degree of partnership (which in creative industries unlike widget industries isn't uncommon). In fact this is pretty much implied in IW input on their creative direction, title development, profit sharing, and the fact every report I have seen indicated IW under the direction of Zampella and West had control over the CoD brand (hence the events leading to their departure).
I work with a guy who founded a very lucrative company which we purchased. This gentleman is a fellow employee but still operates this brand, but now under our corporation, and is quite independent. I am certain his employment contract is substantially different than mine. My corporation desired not only his brands but his expertise and experience and part of the "carrot" to drop him was a favorable contract.
Since you think the press is so biased, what is your educated assessment of their corporate relationship with Activision? I ask because you come down pretty harsh, e.g. they cannot even comprehend simple things like it isn't their company.
I had gone into a reply detailing the details of the case but I will just wait until more comes out. This isn't a widget industry like you are probably familiar with. IW was founded by Zampella, Collier, and West. Activision had purchased 30% into the company and, after IW was developing successful titles purchased the company. From what we know IW's creative team still had certain sway over IP, schedules, etc and profit sharing. In most cases these companies are only as valuable as the people working there. The IW team, which was behind the MoH games when they had major sway, were a hot commodity and proved their value by creating a new IP that ascended to the heights of the industry.
In context Activision has already settled $42M (hence admitting a degree of perceived fault) and dropped a suit against EA (indicating they don't believe it is winnable). So the whole "easily win this lawsuit" doesn't look so straight forward.
Contracts aren't always binding either. There are several things companies try to force their employees into that then don't hold up in court. Accessing your email without your consent is illegal in many countries btw. Over here penalties are a fine and up to one year prison for both the IT guy who enables it and the person (manager) who requested it.
fearsomepirate, please do further research into this situation to get to know the truth so you can stop making further unfounded statements. It is exactly as others have stated, InfinityWard with Ward/Zampalla were in a significantly different situation than you seem to think. They had completely control and ownership of the MW brand. There is no sure-fire win for Activision in this legal matter. (MOU between Infinity Ward and Activision)
Some specific highlights regarding the contract situation. Now of course this might be their spin, but we will fine out in court soon enough when the trial starts.
Some specific highlights regarding the contract situation. Now of course this might be their spin, but we will fine out in court soon enough when the trial starts.
Certainly the defense spin is pretty compelling. Activision signed very generous contracts. I'm not sure they 'owned' W&Z in the same way a parent company is assumed to own a purchased company lock, stock and barrel.
I think it's safe to say that the situation Fearsomepirate described does not apply here, for the very simple reason that the lawsuit never would have gotten off the ground, much less as far as it has. We wouldn't be reading about it if that were the case, so the very fact that it's making news is a pretty strong indicator that their contract situation was different.
Creative control, as long as they remained with IW/Activision, certainly. But ownership? Where did you get that? See Section 4d of the document you linked.
Still, those guys taking their extension bonuses and stay on for another 3+ years, dicking around with some new IP as if they were an independent studio, while retaining the right to veto any new MW game or other use of the MW brand... That must have seemed like a pretty poor prospect for Activision at the time.
"Widget companies" have lots of IP, including patents, labels, and brands. Employees don't own any of it. In acquisitions, previous owners rarely if ever retain ownership. In fact, in acquisitions, you've usually got a PLC or LLC acquiring an S-Corp, and the creative assets are owned by the S-corp, not the guy who founded it.
It's just a very, very weird situation for the most valuable assets a company works with to not be owned by the company (either IW, Inc or Activision, Inc), but personally by the employees, because they can't be used as collateral for loans or liquidated in the event of bankruptcy. It means Activision bought pretty much nothing except the computers and cubicle dividers in the offices. That's why I said if it's as straightforward as BRiT thinks it is, Activision is much stupider than any company I've worked with, worked for, or even known of.
And looking at that contract, it's not straightforward. Z&W are identified as "IW management," suggesting that the contract applies to them in their roles as IW employees, not as personal agents who retain those rights (which include personnel decisions and network infrastructure) for life. In fact, as Zaphod points out, that is explicitly spelled out in 4d. Z&W are basically arguing this contract guarantees them lifetime employment.
And it sounds like the grounds for termination was 4b, and the fact that they went off to EA immediately is not going to help their case (personally, I think non-competition clauses are bullshit and no judge should ever hold them up, ever, period, end, but I'm not the government).
The only chance Z&W have is if they win a wrongful termination claim. Those claims are hard to win...not impossible, but hard. If they win that, they will win MW3 damages and possibly Black Ops 2. In the case of Black Ops, the contract says "post-Vietnam." Every mission in Black Ops takes place in 1968 or before, which is not "post-Vietnam," so I doubt they'll win that specific claim.
Just a general observation that both gaming companies and the people who work for them don't think the same laws that apply to everyone else apply to them. Like if a Ford executive said, "Hey, let's put a contract in the glove box that every Mustang buyer automatically agrees to by opening the box," his lawyers would tell him to put the crack pipe down.
That was for denied compensation. Refusing to pay your employees is a much, much, much harder lawsuit to win than arguing that your employees don't own the property developed using company assets. I've seen corps do this kind of stunt before, and it's usually because they hope the employees (or small contractors) will balk at the legal fees and ask to settle out of court for less than what they're legally owed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Those are some pretty strong statements but to use a word we are both familiar with I would say it is a fallacious use of eisegesis to (a) take your own experience and (b) superimpose it on another industry and (c) conclude, with such strong words, things like "weird" "stupider" etc.
I didn't say Widget companies don't do research, have valuable IPs, etc. The different with creative industries like gaming is that the people are an extremely important resource. The industry has very few "mega-IPs" that can stand multiple iterations on their own (do you disagree?). Gutting out the core developers from an IP can destroy the value. Hence when the core at Bungie threatened walking MS sought a resolution that would maximize their investment.
Furthermore, I think you are looking at it very much as Activision was looking at CoD "at the time" versus the progression of the business relationship. The IW devs were valuable pre-CoD IP as their MoH resume was impressive. The IW games (CoD1, 2) were standing out due to development quality and not the IP so, on a progressive contract basis, it was the CoD development talent, not the "WWII themed IP" that was extremely valuable. Want some proof? Look how quickly MoH sales tanked
It really isn't until 3-6 months post-MW1 that there becomes a tension between IP value and developer value.
And from the article linked earlier it is shortly after this time in the relationship that Activision began to sour on the relationship and, if the *testimony is true* had requested a member of the IT staff to begin a search for data for grounds for dismissal.
In some states they are actually illegal and, even in legal situations, they often apply only in one direction (e.g. you cannot terminate your own contract for a higher bid during the contract terms w/o a 6mo penalty BUT if the employer terminates the contract you are at free direction to seek immediate employment at no delay). It will be interesting to see if Activision has any legal legs to stand on: They are already being challenged on the basis of termination (even in right to work states seeking termination of a contract, especially one that includes profit sharing, with a non-disciplinary record basis may not sit well) but if Activision is found to have any fault in process (specifically seeking grounds for termination) and then trying to also impose a non-compete it may fall into very unfavorable territory. Yes, you have pointed out repeatedly that they were employees, but that isn't carte blanche for any and all activity.
But as I said I think we can go back to this statement later as it raised my eyebrow when you said, "Unless Activision's a lot stupider than the companies I've worked for, they're going to easily win this lawsuit." as I don't think it is an issue of Activision being stupid in regards to the contract but more in terms, if they lose, their actions.
It is really easy to look now backwards at CoD's IP value but I don't think that is as easy to say looking at CoD2-to-MW1 when many of these contracts went into place. IW was considered a top tier multiplatform developer and their services were in high demand on an open market. Incentivising a contract with profit sharing, creative control, and studio management when you consider the talent the driving force behind a companies profits isn't dumb.
Then again, big picture industry wide, is the cost of development, the fiscal failure of 70% of titles, and the publisher favorable contracts (which makes senses when they put up the cash) we will be seeing fewer and fewer of these issues as developers will be on a "take it on our terms or leave" option. From a big-box perspective the marketing aspect of big time publishing is considered as important, if not more so, and on big titles marketing can outstrip development costs. From a business perspective we don't have an industry with a sea of 3rd party independent developers having publishers bid on their projects; instead IPs are now almost always owned by the publisher and 3rd parties rarely have the funds to break into console development without publisher support.
It is my opinion, but this is why I think we have seen a resurgence in the "indie" industry and the movement toward lower cost development platforms because great development talent can afford to develop a title and have great control of development as well as profits; the cost of failure is also much, much lower. *IF* what Z&W is saying is true (if) it points a pretty ugly picture for console game development.
You really have no idea, do you? You really think a guy who's responsible for two dozen patents isn't an "extremely important resource?" This is kind of what I'm talking about--people in the game industry are really convinced their industry is a super-special, super unique thing that doesn't operate by the same rules as the rest of the world. That just plain isn't true. And corporate law doesn't work any differently, either.
No, I'm looking at this from the standpoint of corporate law. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's very, very weird for a media company to not actually own the media created in its offices. And it turns out indeed, this is no exception.
That's not what I meant. I meant that in the event of bankruptcy, an entertainment company's IP is among its most valuable assets to be sold off and pay off creditors. Forming a corporation (like Infinity Ward, Inc) and still retaining most of the assets under your own name would make it nearly impossible to raise capital, since there are few assets backing the company's credit. Further, it means in the case of any lawsuits or regulatory action against the company arising from the COD or MW IPs would involve Z, W, & C personally, e.g., if Hasbro decides a COD game is infringes on G.I. Joe (suppose that some character in a COD game was a blatant ripoff of Cobra Commander), they could sue Vince Zampelli personally and, if they win, the courts slap him with a personal bajillion-dollar liability that he'll never pay off. It defeats the entire purpose of forming a limited liability corporation in the first place.
There is no clause in the contract giving them ownership. There are clauses giving them a certain amount of autonomy, authority, and privilege within the company. These were very smart clauses to have from the standpoint of IW, and reasonable concessions on Activision's part. But the developers have incorrectly confused these clauses with ownership, and it's a shame there's a lawyer happy to take their money to try to argue that case.
No, it's not. Granting them personal ownership, which Activision didn't do, is. If it had, there would have been a clause like this in IW's original company charter:
There's no clause like that, or Gamasutra would already be making hay out of it. The language of the Activision employment contract makes it pretty obvious that COD and MW were IW (and thus Activision) properties, not Z, W, & C properties.ImaginaryIWCharter said:
Well that was a miserable anticlimax!
I wonder if this settlement also includes the other IW employees and the bonuses they were due.
It covers everything. The suits had been combined into a single trial.
Similar threads
