Usually if there's a settlement, it's because both parties regard it as being in their interests. The IW execs made enough contestable claims that for all we know, they realized they were looking at a long, expensive court battle without nearly as big a guaranteed payoff as they were expecting. Perhaps the EA settlement had something to do with it, too. Or maybe they found out Activision did have some legitimate dirt on them that was going to make their argument a lot more difficult. Because if you've got a slam-dunk case for a billion dollar payout, you go to court. Or maybe someone at Activision made a mistake, thought Vietnam ended in 1967, and decided Z,C,&W did indeed have an incontestable claim for $1b, paid it out, and got on with things. We won't know for a long time.
Executive power is neither exceptional nor equivalent to ownership.MfA said:
Oh, absolutely. What we aren't getting out of this is the truth and a clear understanding and a secure position to work from in future for all people in similar industries. If the case had gone court, we'd have all the facts and an impartial interpretation and a better undertanding of where the law courts place the rights of creative people.
From a business point of view there is little distinction between owning a profitable franchise but having an exclusive publishing deal or having absolute control over the development of the franchise while a publisher owns it ... either way the bargaining strength of the two parties stays the same.
