You need to be aware of 'invested legal support' - some investment houses would look at supporting a smaller complainant against a bigger foe if they are seen to be in a strong position to win a settlement. This would be best illustrated by the final outcome of the Atari Vs. Nintendo legal battle over Tetris (BulletProof and others receiving funding to stay the course and win a settlement).
https://vrawards.aixr.org/
"The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
You hit the nail on the head @Warbloke - the situation is that whatever the outcome (barring a humiliating defeat for ZeniMax), if there is a glimmer of recognition of their claims of damage, the parties will draw this out into a retrial and then Federal Court ruling. This could take at least seven years and would also see counter claims added to the deposition.
Warbloke said:
...After this Zinimax Vs Oculus thing gets decided... can they just appeal to a high court or will it actually apply ?
From the OVR executive perspective, this is a nightmare that looks to grow in magnitude as more and more claims are added to the original ruling. In recognising some fault in their statements the situation has changed from defending a frivolous money-grab to defending their reputation and retain ownership. If the ruling from the jury is as has been suggested, their decision to ignore an Out-of-Court settlement will be seen as the pinnacle of an overall failed strategy.
As was stated back in 2014 - the only winners will be the lawyers, and there is a danger that all the vast wealth accumulated by certain execs may be extinguished in fighting these legal battles over the next few years! (Remembering that there are two other filed suits in the wings).
Now that it has been seen that OVR in the early days of its creation broke a NDA, I wonder if we will see a number of other companies attempt to get their day in court - targeting the individuals rather than the company?
