Daybreak sues THJ

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

>Seems odd a company whos sole aim is to make money would ignore something that clearly works.

it's sadly easier to do lay offs and cash grabs to make the books look good so you can sell the pile of zombie companies you have assembled and gutted to the next sucker for profit.

This trend could be coming to an end for video games. I have a feeling video game industry is on the verge of collapse, and 90% of the people/investors involved with it will go fuck off to AI.

And we can go back to PC gaming being made for gamers, by gamers.

[Reiwa]

By which I mean to say I think Secrets wrote all that for eq/emu and is a powerful sorcerer irl.

[shovelquest]

Play a group of 18 classes!

On Daybreak Games New 3 class server!

[shovelquest]

Blaming THJ for flying too close to the sun is pure emotion and speculation.

Even Daybreak doesn't claim that.

The document implies that the unauthorized use of EverQuest’s intellectual property in THJ undermines Daybreak’s control over its brand and creative works, which could lead to loss of goodwill, brand reputation, and market exclusivity, though these are not quantified.

Its the free aspect of it that they are going after:

[QUOTE]Daybreak asserts that THJ’s operation as an unauthorized emulator competes with its legitimate EverQuest game, a "massively multiplayer online role-playing game" that has achieved commercial success

The complaint suggests that THJ constitutes unfair competition under federal and California law, implying economic harm through market dilution or diversion of players.

Key Observations:

The document emphasizes qualitative harm (e.g., irreparable damage to intellectual property rights, brand dilution, and unfair competition) rather than specific, quantified losses like lost profits or reduced server populations.

Daybreak’s arguments focus on the urgency of stopping THJ to prevent further unspecified harm, as seen in their TRO Application and Motion to Seal, but they lack concrete evidence of specific losses (e.g., no mention of lost players, revenue declines, or server data).

There's no mention of donations, revinue, or profits being made being the catalyst for this.

But it does mention the irreparable harm the brand faces as a result of people liking THJ more than Live.

Ironic, because the irreparable harm would be the lawsuit nuking THJ from orbit.

The provided court document (Case 3:25-cv-01489-BAS-BLM, Document 14) from Daybreak Game Company LLC v. Kristopher Takahashi, et al. does not explicitly mention specific revenue, donations, or other financial earnings made by "The Heroes' Journey" (THJ) or the defendants (Kristopher Takahashi, Alexander Taylor, and Does 1-20). The document focuses primarily on Daybreak’s allegations of intellectual property infringement and the legal remedies sought, rather than detailing the financial operations of THJ.

[Ekco]

nobody was worried about Daybreak or that other company that was the owner 10 years ago, people are rightfully worried about EG7 and the fine print of that arrangement now.

[cd288]

Unless there's something where P99 agreed to allow the IP holder to terminate the contract at any time for any reason, then the current holder doesn't have the legal ability to just terminate it. P99 could file to stop them, and win pretty easily (whether they would care to is obviously another matter).

P99 is fine. These other servers though, depends on what Daybreak wants to do.

[Kutark Validus]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Unless there's something where P99 agreed to allow the IP holder to terminate the contract at any time for any reason, then the current holder doesn't have the legal ability to just terminate it. P99 could file to stop them, and win pretty easily (whether they would care to is obviously another matter).

P99 is fine. These other servers though, depends on what Daybreak wants to do.

Exactly

[Ekco]

pointless to argue about it because the document is private, but your basically assuming altruism in a document with zero clauses that can be exercised by the *checks notes* corporation with regards to a fan made emulator server who had access to their own legal department

CEOs like the costco dude who wants to punch someone over changing of the hotdog price exist, but they are the exception that proves the rule

i will gladly take the non hopium side of this bet and be pleasantly surprised if proven wrong, but i bet i won't be.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

pointless to argue about it because the document is private, but your basically assuming altruism in a document with zero clauses that can be exercised by the *checks notes* corporation with regards to a fan made emulator server who had access to their own legal department

CEOs like the costco dude who wants to punch someone over changing of the hotdog price exist, but they are the exception that proves the rule

i will gladly take the non hopium side of this bet and be pleasantly surprised if proven wrong, but i bet i won't be.

No, see I'm an expert and high priced corporate lawyers would definitely set their organization up to be in breach. It's just basic law.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

pointless to argue about it because the document is private, but your basically assuming altruism in a document with zero clauses that can be exercised by the *checks notes* corporation with regards to a fan made emulator server who had access to their own legal department

CEOs like the costco dude who wants to punch someone over changing of the hotdog price exist, but they are the exception that proves the rule

i will gladly take the non hopium side of this bet and be pleasantly surprised if proven wrong, but i bet i won't be.

I didn't assume anything. I said P99 could've agreed to an anytime/any reason termination clause in the agreement. If they did, then yeah Daybreak could revoke it at any time.

Otherwise, if the agreement doesn't allow termination for any reason/without cause, then P99 has strong legal arguments if Daybreak tried to pull the rug on them.

Although, going back to the scenario where there is an for any reason termination clause, even there you could have estoppel arguments depending on what was said during the contractual negotiations. For example, if you have that provision but Daybreak wrote in an email "Don't worry, this is just belt and suspenders, we will never terminate the agreement as long as you never go past Velious" you could try and use that. Written representations like that can be deemed a modification of the terms of the language in the contract. Now, that's a much harder argument to make, but it's also not impossible.