Atari Asks To Keep Control Of Ch. 11 Case For Extra 60 Days

FredSRichardson

Some Atari news for anyone else who wants to track it (unfortunately I can't get the full article):

http://www.law360.com/articles/463221/atari-asks-to-keep-control-of-ch-11-case-for-extra-60-days

Law360, New York (August 07, 2013, 3:34 PM ET) -- Atari Inc. on Tuesday asked a New York bankruptcy judge to give the company another 60 days to keep control of its Chapter 11 case, saying it won’t be able to meet a fast-approaching deadline to file a reorganization or liquidation plan.

The U.S. branch of French holding firm Atari SA recently obtained court approval of its bid to sell off its assets piece by piece, which Atari said represented the best opportunity to maximize asset value for the benefit of all stakeholders. In its motion...

blackchimes

You speak words but they mean nothing. Can I get this in simple english?

Durenas

Atari is asking for more time to liquidate their assets and pay off creditors before the courts start carving the roast.

Durenas

Basically if Atari doesn't get their extension, and haven't filed a proper liquidation plan by the deadline, the courts can take control of the company and break it up. At that point, it really does turn into a lowest bidder auction. In this case, what would be bad for Atari might well be good for Beamdog, if they can get the rights to BG:EE for a low low amount.

blackchimes

Cool, thanks.

FredSRichardson

@Amberion - I suspect that it's more likely that the court will grant an extension.

Durenas

Oh, yeah, that's the most likely scenario, unless someone can come forward to provide a reason why it should not be granted. Of course, Atari can't just get unlimited extensions; that would just piss off the Judge.

If someone could argue that the legal limbo is causing financial harm to another company or companies, and that it should be resolved quickly, that might be a good argument against an extension. But I'm not a lawyer.

Troodon80

I'm able to get the full article via the Google cache. This should do the trick. It doesn't really tell us anything new, though.

reedmilfam

So, it looks like we'll have at least an extra two months of delay while they try to resolve this.

IchigoRXC

< sarcasm > ...hooray? < /sarcasm >

edited for clarity

Illydth

Not Hooray. Not by a longshot. From the research I've done (no lawyer, no expert, but have done a significant amount of research), Atari Inc. (Atari US) does NOT hold the distribution right to BG:EE / Electronic D&D Games. Atari SA (Atari France, the parent company) does.

The Rights to sell the game are NOT up for sale as far as I can tell. They're NOT listed in Atari's declaration of assets (except as "being held for another company") and the rights are NOT on the auction block as per any of the court documentation that's been published.

All the 60 days becomes is an additional 60 day delay before anything definitive can happen. It's 60 days longer before any contractual agreements can be re-negotiated and 60 days longer before anything comes of any of this.

No one can do anything with Atari or it's holdings till the Bankruptcy is done...and this is a 60 day delay in getting the Bankruptcy done.

FredSRichardson

@Illydth - this seems somewhat inconsistent with something Cerevant said on a different thread:

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/20149/baldur-s-gate-rights

(the context here is Atari losing the rights to sell D&D games to Hasbro in August 2011)

Cerevant said:

One clarification:

"Atari will still be able to sell and develop a selection of games under the license"

The selection includes Baldur's Gate, IWD and I believe Planescape:Torment

Durenas

Atari no longer has the right to distribute electronic games using the D&D systems, with the exception of certain games they already distribute(and no, I don't have a complete list, but it includes the Baldur's Gate series(and BG:EE, I would assume). The distinction is, if someone were to make a totally new game using the Forgotten Realms or perhaps an entirely new IP utilizing dungeons and dragons licensed gaming rules, Atari would not have a voice in it. If someone wanted to make a new game in the Baldur's Gate series, with the Baldur's Gate name and trademark associated with it, Atari WOULD have a voice, since they have the rights to distribute games with that IP.

leeho730

I believe rights can be bought and sold. For eg Hasbro bought some rights from Infogrames in 2005 for $65 million (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/hasbro-buys-back-digital-rights-from-infogrames).

I don't know whether Atari will completely lose rights to all D&D titles after June 2015 or be able to hold for some titles like BG, IWD and PST after 2015 for an unspecified period. I certainly hope not but I guess those guys need all the money they can get, they're in pretty bad shape.

Cerevant

Amberion said:

The distinction is, if someone were to make a totally new game using the Forgotten Realms or perhaps an entirely new IP utilizing dungeons and dragons licensed gaming rules, Atari would not have a voice in it..

e.g. Neverwinter

qwert_44643

man I wish I never bought this piece of shit....I had no idea this bullshit was gonna happen...TOTALLY unhappy customer.

Wiggles

@qwert_44643

I knew this was going to happen, but I just didn't want to tell anyone. It's one of those big secrets that's too good to let thousands of people know. It also because I could never figure out how to use those spoiler tags. If I did, then I would've let you know.

ScarsUnseen

qwert_44643 said:

man I wish I never bought this piece of shit....I had no idea this bullshit was gonna happen...TOTALLY unhappy customer.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, person of indeterminate age and gender.

Shin

Why can't shit like this ever be fast and easy? Like Beamdog calling Atari and asking to buy the BG license - Atari says sure dudes, here's our account number. The next day the transfer clears, and the day after that production of BG2EE resumes.

Seemingly about as likely as Commander Shepard picking up a new team member without having to help them out with some stuff they need done. "Sure. Let's go. Right now. No strings attached."

Morte50

Shin said:

Why can't shit like this ever be fast and easy? Like Beamdog calling Atari and asking to buy the BG license - Atari says sure dudes, here's our account number. The next day the transfer clears, and the day after that production of BG2EE resumes.

Actually, it can be fast and easy. In fact, it often is. But when it is fast and easy, most people don't even know it happened in the first place. It's the times that it *is* messy and protracted and frustrating that you actually take note of and remember.

Durenas

And often, when it's fast and easy, someone else complains that the shareholders didn't get 'proper value' and that the board failed in their 'fiduciary duties', nixing the sale.

Illydth

leeho730 said:

I believe rights can be bought and sold. For eg Hasbro bought some rights from Infogrames in 2005 for $65 million (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/hasbro-buys-back-digital-rights-from-infogrames).

I don't know whether Atari will completely lose rights to all D&D titles after June 2015 or be able to hold for some titles like BG, IWD and PST after 2015 for an unspecified period. I certainly hope not but I guess those guys need all the money they can get, they're in pretty bad shape.

So rights can be bought and sold, you're absolutely right. You will find the rights to D&D Games Atari obtained were obtained through a "purchase" (it was a forgiveness of debt but that's as much a sale as anything else)...and yes, Hasbro got the rights through a sale of Infogrames (the LOL about this is that Infogrames is the parent company to Atari Inc. - Atari SA. in other words, Atari SA had the rights, sold them to Hasbro, who licensed them to someone else (forget who), then got then bought them back again).

In this case, however, the rights are not for sale. Atari Inc. doesn't have them, thus is not selling them as part of their Bankruptcy. The rights are held by Atari SA...not the company that's going through bankruptcy, the parent of that company.

As to the loss of rights: Hasbro and Atari entered into an agreement back around 2000 to 2001 (I have a thread out entitled something like "The unoffical offical "Who owns what and from whom"" which has all the proper details) which gave Atari the right to produce D&D based electronic games through 2015 with an additional 5 years possible based upon performance.

We could be looking at somewhere around 2015 or even 2020 before Hasbro even has the ability to re-contract the rights for electronic D&D based games to someone else.

Edit: Here's the thread with the research I did on where the license is and how it got there.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/20105/the-unofficial-what-the-heck-who-owns-what-bg-related-and-when-thread

Autequi

Shin said:

Seemingly about as likely as Commander Shepard picking up a new team member without having to help them out with some stuff they need done. "Sure. Let's go. Right now. No strings attached."

I now have a mental image of Trent & party running all over Edmonton--fetching and carrying antidotes, killing giant poisonous spiders, hunting down crazy people--to try to get Atari to come to an agreement.

FredSRichardson

If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), Atari owns the intellectual property that is the game itself (i.e. BG1, BG2, IWD1, IWD2, ToEE or PS:T), and Atari has an agreement with Hasbro/WoTC to publish and develop a limited set of D&D games including those mentioned. So Atari can sell the intellectual property that is the game, but they may not be able to transfer the permission to publish that particular game from Hasbro/WoTC. I suspect Hasbro/WoTC gets some cut of all D&D branded games that are sold and they probably like to have some say on what products can carry the D&D (TM) name.

I doubt Hasbro/WoTC can prevent the sale of the IP to another party, but they probably can block the ability of the buyer to publish the IP.

smeagolheart

FredSRichardson said:

If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), Atari owns the intellectual property that is the game itself (i.e. BG1, BG2, IWD1, IWD2, ToEE or PS:T), and Atari has an agreement with Hasbro/WoTC to publish and develop a limited set of D&D games including those mentioned. So Atari can sell the intellectual property that is the game, but they may not be able to transfer the permission to publish that particular game from Hasbro/WoTC. I suspect Hasbro/WoTC gets some cut of all D&D branded games that are sold and they probably like to have some say on what products can carry the D&D (TM) name.

I doubt Hasbro/WoTC can prevent the sale of the IP to another party, but they probably can block the ability of the buyer to publish the IP.

Atari owns the intellectual property on a D&D property that they didn't develop, produce or make or have any hand in doing anything with other than after it had already been on the market for a few years.

Sounds about right.

reedmilfam

What a mess. It shows why so many old games don't get a re-vamp, however. For instance, Sid Meier would love to revisit Alpha Centauri, but can't (EA owns the rights to his creation)... It also shows why Firaxis was formed. Others can distribute Firaxis games, but he owns his intellectual property (or I think it works that way - if it's not the case, I would prefer that lawyers [and the ever present non-lawyers who know a friend who happens to be dating a lawyer...] avoid the compulsion to go into deep details on such things because *yawn*).

Anyway, hoping for a relatively quick resolution, as (I suspect) are many others.

FredSRichardson

smeagolheart said:

Atari owns the intellectual property on a D&D property that they didn't develop, produce or make or have any hand in doing anything with other than after it had already been on the market for a few years.

Sounds about right.

Right, the only good news is that they can turn around and sell it again. In this case that could be to Overhaul/Beamdog which is what some of us are hoping. I suspect the next hitch after that would be getting permission from Hasbro/WoTC.

Illydth

Quick corrections:

FredSRichardson said:

If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), Atari owns the intellectual property that is the game itself (i.e. BG1, BG2, IWD1, IWD2, ToEE or PS:T)

Probably. The IP came in from several different sources (See my the link above) but I believe you're correct in that Atari SA (Otherwise Known as Infogrames - Parent company to Atari US which is going through bankruptcy right now) owns the whole IP. Bioware's IP and License to publish these games gets sold to Infogrames in 2001, the same year as Infogrames buys "Atari" from Hasbro.

FredSRichardson said:

and Atari has an agreement with Hasbro/WoTC to publish and develop a limited set of D&D games including those mentioned.

Again, correct. When Hasbro sells Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames, they write up a long term contract (something like a 15 year agreement with an additional 5 years based upon performance) allowing Infogrames to publish D&D Based electronic games.

FredSRichardson said:

So Atari can sell the intellectual property that is the game, but they may not be able to transfer the permission to publish that particular game from Hasbro/WoTC.

Here's where the confusion starts. Infogrames (Using this in place of Atari because everyone links Atari with Atari US. There are multiple Atari companies) COULD sell the Intellectual property that is the game...but they have no incentive to do so...Infogrames is NOT hurting for cash...they are NOT the entity going through bankruptcy.

As to being able to transfer permission to publish the game, I suspect they do have that right...as they had to have given Atari US (and I assume BeamDog) the rights to publish the game. I don't believe Hasbro/WotC has any ability to say otherwise...they're under contract till somewhere around 2015 (or beyond) to allow Infogrames to continue publishing these games...they (Hasbro) can't break that contract.

FredSRichardson said:

I suspect Hasbro/WoTC gets some cut of all D&D branded games that are sold and they probably like to have some say on what products can carry the D&D (TM) name.

You would be absolutely right here. Hasbro would get a cut of sales, along with the following parties: BeamDog/OverHaul (as the developer), The Distribution Channel (Steam or again BeamDog depending on where you download the game), Atari US (and through them Atari SA/Infogrames).

FredSRichardson said:

I doubt Hasbro/WoTC can prevent the sale of the IP to another party, but they probably can block the ability of the buyer to publish the IP.

The whole contention here is that people think the IP is up for sale. It doesn't seem to be. It's not owned by Atari US and thus is not on the chopping block with the Bankruptcy. The IP is owned either by Hasbro or Atari SA/Infogrames, neither of which are hurting for money and neither of which would be affected by this bankruptcy.

FredSRichardson

@Illydth - Right, I think I now get that there is the parent company Infogrames on the one hand and Atari Interactive/Atari US on the other. Atari interactive was definitely marketing (publishing?) the classic D&D games (BG1/2, IWD1/2, ToEE) and I did purchase the collection about a year ago from them. I don't see that collection on their web site anymore, but they do have BGEE on there now.

Did Atari Interactive/Atari US hold the rights to publish and develop a few specific D&D titles, or were these held by Infogrames? How are you sure that Atari Interactive/Atari US doesn't own the IP for the classic games?
EDIT: Never mind, it's clear that Infogrames/Atari S.A. owns the IP for these classic D&D titles.

Durenas

I think the distinction needs to be made between IP(intellectual property) and distribution rights.

Intellectual property is where a company says 'I own this idea, no one else can use it without my permission.'

Distribution rights is more along the lines of a publishing contract. 'I have a contract with the IP holder to publish the IP in this medium(for example, electronic distribution), and no one else can publish in this medium without my permission'

Bioware(EA) owns the IP for the games, BG1 and BG2. Hasbro(WoTC) owns the IP for the Forgotten Realms Setting. Atari owns the distribution rights for electronic publishing.

ScarsUnseen

Amberion said:

I think the distinction needs to be made between IP(intellectual property) and distribution rights.

Intellectual property is where a company says 'I own this idea, no one else can use it without my permission.'

Distribution rights is more along the lines of a publishing contract. 'I have a contract with the IP holder to publish the IP in this medium(for example, electronic distribution), and no one else can publish in this medium without my permission'

Bioware(EA) owns the IP for the games, BG1 and BG2. Hasbro(WoTC) owns the IP for the Forgotten Realms Setting. Atari owns the distribution rights for electronic publishing.

I'm not even sure it's as simple as that. I wouldn't be so sure that Bioware owns the BG series' IP any more than the varying Forgotten Realms novel authors own the IP to the books they wrote.

Although I'm not certain and haven't done the homework, I'd say that most likely TSR(now WotC) retained IP ownership of the actual series, Black Isle or Interplay(and now Atari, but soon someone else) owned the distribution rights, and Bioware kept ownership of the actual Infinity Engine.