|
On October 18 2010 05:08 AyJay wrote:
I think gretech not wanting to shut down proleague means something
Flame me on.
I won't flame you, but as others have pointed out, these negotiations won't be fair from the get go as Blizzard gets to pick the lawyer. Sure, KeSPA can say no to their choice but then Gretech/Blizzard can claim that KeSPA is just trying to be uncooperative.
I think Gretech knows exactly what it's doing right here, trying to put KeSPA in a bad light or else make an easy 100 million won per year simply because Blizzard decided that Gretech > KeSPA. It's a win/win for Gretech and a lose/lose for KeSPA...
|
On October 18 2010 06:38 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2010 05:08 AyJay wrote:
I think gretech not wanting to shut down proleague means something
Flame me on. I won't flame you, but as others have pointed out, these negotiations won't be fair from the get go as Blizzard gets to pick the lawyer. Sure, KeSPA can say no to their choice but then Gretech/Blizzard can claim that KeSPA is just trying to be uncooperative. I think Gretech knows exactly what it's doing right here, trying to put KeSPA in a bad light or else make an easy 100 million won per year simply because Blizzard decided that Gretech > KeSPA. It's a win/win for Gretech and a lose/lose for KeSPA...
Personally, I think that argument attacks itself a bit, as it's based on assumptions of bad faith on one side's part. It's easy to paint people as right and wrong when you assume every intention of theirs is wrong.
|
On October 18 2010 05:14 MetalSlug wrote:
KeSPa wants something from Gretech/Blizzard.
Blizzard recommends the IP lawyer.
KeSPa can accept or not.
The lawyer will be some kind of referee in the negotiations.
How is that unfair ?
This.
FFS people just want to find something in every news post on this subject to hate on Blizzard/Gretech It's really becoming completely ridiculous. Be happy Gretech is willing to re-attempt negotiations after KeSPA spit in their faces and started the proleague without actually coming to an agreement in the first place.
|
On October 18 2010 06:43 Kibibit wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2010 06:38 overt wrote:On October 18 2010 05:08 AyJay wrote:
I think gretech not wanting to shut down proleague means something
Flame me on. I won't flame you, but as others have pointed out, these negotiations won't be fair from the get go as Blizzard gets to pick the lawyer. Sure, KeSPA can say no to their choice but then Gretech/Blizzard can claim that KeSPA is just trying to be uncooperative. I think Gretech knows exactly what it's doing right here, trying to put KeSPA in a bad light or else make an easy 100 million won per year simply because Blizzard decided that Gretech > KeSPA. It's a win/win for Gretech and a lose/lose for KeSPA... Personally, I think that argument attacks itself a bit, as it's based on assumptions of bad faith on one side's part. It's easy to paint people as right and wrong when you assume every intention of theirs is wrong.
Gretech was pretty clear with their intentions when they wanted to force kespa off of the same time slots, so it's hard to believe they want to operate in good faith.
|
On October 18 2010 06:56 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2010 06:43 Kibibit wrote:On October 18 2010 06:38 overt wrote:On October 18 2010 05:08 AyJay wrote:
I think gretech not wanting to shut down proleague means something
Flame me on. I won't flame you, but as others have pointed out, these negotiations won't be fair from the get go as Blizzard gets to pick the lawyer. Sure, KeSPA can say no to their choice but then Gretech/Blizzard can claim that KeSPA is just trying to be uncooperative. I think Gretech knows exactly what it's doing right here, trying to put KeSPA in a bad light or else make an easy 100 million won per year simply because Blizzard decided that Gretech > KeSPA. It's a win/win for Gretech and a lose/lose for KeSPA... Personally, I think that argument attacks itself a bit, as it's based on assumptions of bad faith on one side's part. It's easy to paint people as right and wrong when you assume every intention of theirs is wrong. Gretech was pretty clear with their intentions when they wanted to force kespa off of the same time slots, so it's hard to believe they want to operate in good faith.
Ehhh. Not really. That's far and away gretech looking out for it's own base interests. Lack of raw altruism != bad faith.
|
The lawyer could be discredited and pretty much ruin his career for being biased in a situation that requires him to be neutral. I think the idea that it's unfair is just an invalid excuse for anti-Blizzard people to keep on shit talking. Basically this:
On October 18 2010 05:19 Slow Motion wrote:
It's likely the lawyer recommended will not be a Blizzard in-house lawyer, but one from an outside firm and that specializes in arbitration. The lawyer has to think about his (and his firm's) reputation when acting as a referee. He's probably not going to try to corrupt the process unless he really wants to commit professional suicide.
|
On October 18 2010 07:04 Kibibit wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2010 06:56 robertdinh wrote:On October 18 2010 06:43 Kibibit wrote:On October 18 2010 06:38 overt wrote:On October 18 2010 05:08 AyJay wrote:
I think gretech not wanting to shut down proleague means something
Flame me on. I won't flame you, but as others have pointed out, these negotiations won't be fair from the get go as Blizzard gets to pick the lawyer. Sure, KeSPA can say no to their choice but then Gretech/Blizzard can claim that KeSPA is just trying to be uncooperative. I think Gretech knows exactly what it's doing right here, trying to put KeSPA in a bad light or else make an easy 100 million won per year simply because Blizzard decided that Gretech > KeSPA. It's a win/win for Gretech and a lose/lose for KeSPA... Personally, I think that argument attacks itself a bit, as it's based on assumptions of bad faith on one side's part. It's easy to paint people as right and wrong when you assume every intention of theirs is wrong. Gretech was pretty clear with their intentions when they wanted to force kespa off of the same time slots, so it's hard to believe they want to operate in good faith. Ehhh. Not really. That's far and away gretech looking out for it's own base interests. Lack of raw altruism != bad faith.
Yea sort of like how gretech throwing out terms, and then kespa agreeing to them, and then gretech altering those terms after kespa agreed so that kespa can't possibly agree is in good faith right?
|
Gretech couldn't shut down Proleague even if they wanted to. KeSPA called the bluff and now they're gonna try to renegotiate. Bunch of wankers.
|
On October 18 2010 07:05 xBillehx wrote:The lawyer could be discredited and pretty much ruin his career for being biased in a situation that requires him to be neutral. I think the idea that it's unfair is just an invalid excuse for anti-Blizzard people to keep on shit talking. Basically this: Show nested quote +On October 18 2010 05:19 Slow Motion wrote:
It's likely the lawyer recommended will not be a Blizzard in-house lawyer, but one from an outside firm and that specializes in arbitration. The lawyer has to think about his (and his firm's) reputation when acting as a referee. He's probably not going to try to corrupt the process unless he really wants to commit professional suicide.
When there is no closely related law and no precedent on this issue, neutral stand can go either direction with enough excuses, which will only work better for lawyer's career with his own choice of direction.
|
I just hope that both of them will stop being silly so this entire mess can be gone.
|
The arbitrator -- the IP rights lawyer -- can be seen as the 'referee'. For fairness, the IP rights lawyer will be recommended by Blizzard, and if both sides agree on the choice of the IP rights lawyer, negotiation will start.
Let's keep going in circles.
|
On October 18 2010 05:07 emperorchampion wrote:
*crosses fingers*
I cross both fingers
|
The lawyer will just be an arbiter to answer IP right questions during the negotiations. It is being recommended by blizzard, because they probably need a lawyer that had prior access to blizzard's IP documents and has already read up on the case. It would be too time consuming to get a fresh lawyer to learn the case from scratch.
|
Please please PLEASE work this time!
/beg
/plead
/grovel
/more-words-that-are-related-to-the-act-of-begging
Hopefully if this goes well the individual leagues will start up again too!
|
On October 18 2010 09:11 StarStruck wrote:
The arbitrator -- the IP rights lawyer -- can be seen as the 'referee'. For fairness, the IP rights lawyer will be recommended by Blizzard, and if both sides agree on the choice of the IP rights lawyer, negotiation will start.
Let's keep going in circles.
it's similar to the classic method of dividing something fairly (although the analogy isn't precise.) Party A splits the disputed items into two groups and Party B gets to choose which one they prefer and take it.
|
I think people are reading way too much into that one line.
tbh it's pretty obvious Blizzard's not going to go 'oh here's our lawyer, he's completely impartial nudge nudge wink wink'. I assume Kespa is made of adults, they're not complete idiots lol. Probably Blizzard will just pick a firm that's well-known, Kespa sees that it has a good reputation, they go on. You guys are acting like this is some sort of mafia negotiation.
|
Our hope is kept alive. This is good.
But MSL hope is pointless, right? 
|
On October 18 2010 05:27 Selith wrote:
It's probably very likely, since Blizzard has to go "Hey, I recommend so-and-so", then KeSPA will probably launch a very thorough background check on this guy, then say yes or no. Doesn't seem like KeSPA is that legally adept. Their actions up to now have been tantrum-level.
|
On October 18 2010 10:19 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2010 09:11 StarStruck wrote:
The arbitrator -- the IP rights lawyer -- can be seen as the 'referee'. For fairness, the IP rights lawyer will be recommended by Blizzard, and if both sides agree on the choice of the IP rights lawyer, negotiation will start.
Let's keep going in circles. it's similar to the classic method of dividing something fairly (although the analogy isn't precise.) Party A splits the disputed items into two groups and Party B gets to choose which one they prefer and take it.
That's how I felt it was.
But then I don't know much about law, so who knows.
|
This is mostly speculation on this particular situation based on how the arbitration process typically works, so it's possible this won't apply. Take it with a grain of salt.
What typically happens is a third party lawyer is either assigned or agreed upon by both parties to be the arbitrator. This will not (likely) be an in-house lawyer for blizzard or activision.These are typically professionals who do arbitration for a living and who publish their decisions in order for parties to determine whether or not they are being fair. Unless they're just being jackasses, Blizzard is not going to pick someone who is obviously biased for their side, for no other reason than KeSPA will easily notice this and refuse to agree to submit to the arbitrator.
There is also different types of arbitration. There is arbitration in which the arbitrator's decision is legally binding, no matter if the parties agree with it (this is done by both parties beforehand agreeing to this or by the arbitrator being given that power by the courts). Or, the arbitrator simply offers a possible solution and the parties still have to agree to do it. While that might seem dumb, because it doesn't solve the problem outright, it's great for whichever side it benefits most, because they can argue their position is the "fair" one.
It's a step in the right direction, but as people have noted, it can take a long time for two sides to even agree on an arbitrator. We'll have to see what happens.
Credentials- I'm a law student who studied communication and negotiation in undergrad. You can PM me if you have any questions or just wanna tell me how I'm wrong :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
