Bethesda Softworks LLC v Masthead Studios Ltd is a court case linked to the Bethesda Softworks LLC v. Interplay Entertainment Corporation court case.
Background[]
To assist in development of the original Project V13 (or Fallout Online), Interplay Entertainment engaged the services of Bulgarian developer Masthead Studios to help build the game using the codebase of their existing MMO Earthrise.
This work had developed to the stage where the game was playable in some form. However evidence to this effect was prevented from being admitted to the main case as Interplay did not place any witnesses from Masthead on its witness list.
Seeking to prevent further work on the title, Bethesda filed a separate suit against Masthead Studios in the California Central District Court; this sought to cease any work being done by them on Fallout Online.[1]
Dispute[]
The case raised questions as to whether Masthead came under the jurisdiction of the court, if Masthead was required to respond to the case, issues in presenting the summons to Masthead, and whether any of their work actually infringed Bethesda's copyright.
The case raised further questions of jurisdiction, specifically as to whether the jurisdiction should be that of California, or the state where Bethesda is based, in Maryland. In response, Bethesda asserted that, as the case was in relation to Project V13, it would be best handled within the jurisdiction that Interplay is based. The basis of this reasoning being that, as the work done by Masthead was for Interplay, this meant that Masthead had essentially been operating out of California.
Issues with Bethesda serving notice on Masthead lead to Bethesda filing a motion for a default judgement. Masthead president Atanas Atanasov claimed the issues were due firstly, to a belief that Interplay would deal with the legal suit on their behalf, and secondly by documents having been served to the wrong person within Masthead, which were mistakenly never forwarded to him.
In his response to Bethesda's claims of infringement, Mr. Atanasov attested that Masthead had ceased all work on the title in May of 2011 (noting that "considerable work" would be required to get it up to beta level), and that none of their work involved any of the Fallout copyrights or Intellectual property. Further citing that the assets they had created were of the order of generic Californian locations, or generic animal mutations.
The case was ultimately dismissed by mutual agreement following the resolution of the Bethesda Softworks LLC v. Interplay Entertainment Corporation case.
Outcome[]
As the main case was resolved, both parties agreed to dismiss this case. The following is Transcribed from the order of Dismissal.
- 1. The Parties agree that this Order shall not constitute a concession by Masthead of this Court’s jurisdiction over Masthead, or a concession by Bethesda that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Masthead;
- 2. The Parties agree that this Order shall not constitute an admission of liability by either party;
- 3. Masthead represents that, to its knowledge, it has not infringed on any of Bethesda’s Fallout-related copyrights or other Fallout-related intellectual property that are the subject of this litigation (the “Fallout Intellectual Property”);
- 4. To the extent that it is later determined that Masthead possesses any materials that infringe the Fallout Intellectual Property, Masthead agrees to make no use of such materials, to destroy such materials promptly after discovery and to certify such destruction to Bethesda in writing. Such a determination must first be agreed upon by Bethesda or judicially determined;
- 5. Masthead agrees not to infringe the Fallout Intellectual Property in any MMOG or other work that Masthead develops for Interplay Entertainment Corp. or otherwise by itself or through any third party;
- 6. No provision contained herein is intended to create any greater rights than Bethesda may already have under the United States Copyright Act and/or other relevant United States laws; and
- 7. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs in this litigation.
Court Documents[]
- Bethesda's complaint
- Response to Court's question on jurisdiction
- Masthead's response to complaint and request for default judgement