Originally Posted by
Unregistered
Because they two of the 3 items I listed (lack of front page exposure and lack of Norland) started happening a month ago and were steps that would be taken had they known to cut their losses, even if they had made it public. One or the other I could understand as coincidence, but both? Not credible in these circumstances. Cutting their losses was a decision made by upper management by end of September at the latest.
As for 'near universal' clauses to prevent surprises in contracts, the key word is universal. "Near" was referring to the odd case where circumstances would be out of the scope of ordinary business transactions, the property in question is valuable enough to risk it, or one of the companies doesn't have competent legal assistance. Partnering to bring IP from Japan to the US has been around since the 80s and this part of the contract would have been boilerplate. Aigis was valuable to us players, but not that valuable in financial terms.
So that leaves either Nutaku knew well before today or does not utilize competent legal assistance in the legally thorny area of Intellectual Property. Take your pick as to which you consider worse for a company you would do business with.
Reply With Quote