Reversal of fortunes! HardOCP takes Infinium to Court
It’s like the movie Ransom, only about games and whatnot.
In some of the most excellent news of all time, HardOCP has decided to take Infinium Labs to court, seeking a Declaratory Judgement. This is a request for the court to make a finding without necessarily requiring either party to do anything. The effect of this finding can be to protect from liability those who rely upon the court's interpretation.
As you will know, HardOCP published perhaps one of the most interesting reads in recent online games journalism, entitled Behind The Infinium Phantom Console, an article which took a closer look at the activities of Infinium and its colourful founder and CEO Tim Roberts.
The article painted a less than rosy picture of Infinium Labs, Roberts and the viability and credibility of the Phantom console, resulting in a variety of legal threats from the Infinium.
However, in a bizarre twist, HardOCP has decided to call Infinium's bluff, issuing the following press release last Friday:
"HardOCP.com filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Infinium Labs to establish its position that there was nothing improper, untruthful or defamatory about its September 17, 2003 article Behind The Infinium Phantom Console. The lawsuit was filed by this firm in the name of KB Networks, Inc. the owner of HardOCP.com. The lawsuit was filed to clear the air and terminate the flurry of demands, allegations, and defamatory Internet posts directed against HardOCP.com, by Infinium Labs and law firms representing Infinium Labs and its CEO, Tim Roberts. The lawsuit was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which permits a person or entity being threatened with lawsuits from another party to force the issue to be decided, rather than having to operate under a cloud of uncertainty and intimidation. HardOCP.com stands by its article, and we believe that the Federal Court will conclude, as HardOCP.com believes, that all relevant facts in the article are true."
This means that the issue will be forced and duly addressed by the courts, a bold move and one that has the general support of the gaming community, traditionally sceptical of newcomers and especially those who appear to unsettle the recently stilled waters of credibility surrounding our little island. HardOCP concludes, "We look forward to a decisive vindication by the Federal Court of HardOCP.com's credibility, integrity, and right to free speech."
As regular readers will be aware, we raised some serious questions about the viability of the Phantom ourselves, and were called by Infinium CEO Tim Roberts' assistant who informed us that Mr Roberts would like to chat about the project and lay the whole thing to rest. And to our surprise, he did call. We put it to him that, at this moment in time, the Phantom seemed to us little more than vapourware, underpinned by an unworkably ambitious business model riddled with a loss-lead factor that would prove unrecoverable. Roberts said, "I’m in the car at the moment going to Miami. I’ll call you back."
He never did call.
We’ll bring you updates from this case as it unfolds.
As you will know, HardOCP published perhaps one of the most interesting reads in recent online games journalism, entitled Behind The Infinium Phantom Console, an article which took a closer look at the activities of Infinium and its colourful founder and CEO Tim Roberts.
The article painted a less than rosy picture of Infinium Labs, Roberts and the viability and credibility of the Phantom console, resulting in a variety of legal threats from the Infinium.
However, in a bizarre twist, HardOCP has decided to call Infinium's bluff, issuing the following press release last Friday:
"HardOCP.com filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Infinium Labs to establish its position that there was nothing improper, untruthful or defamatory about its September 17, 2003 article Behind The Infinium Phantom Console. The lawsuit was filed by this firm in the name of KB Networks, Inc. the owner of HardOCP.com. The lawsuit was filed to clear the air and terminate the flurry of demands, allegations, and defamatory Internet posts directed against HardOCP.com, by Infinium Labs and law firms representing Infinium Labs and its CEO, Tim Roberts. The lawsuit was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which permits a person or entity being threatened with lawsuits from another party to force the issue to be decided, rather than having to operate under a cloud of uncertainty and intimidation. HardOCP.com stands by its article, and we believe that the Federal Court will conclude, as HardOCP.com believes, that all relevant facts in the article are true."
This means that the issue will be forced and duly addressed by the courts, a bold move and one that has the general support of the gaming community, traditionally sceptical of newcomers and especially those who appear to unsettle the recently stilled waters of credibility surrounding our little island. HardOCP concludes, "We look forward to a decisive vindication by the Federal Court of HardOCP.com's credibility, integrity, and right to free speech."
As regular readers will be aware, we raised some serious questions about the viability of the Phantom ourselves, and were called by Infinium CEO Tim Roberts' assistant who informed us that Mr Roberts would like to chat about the project and lay the whole thing to rest. And to our surprise, he did call. We put it to him that, at this moment in time, the Phantom seemed to us little more than vapourware, underpinned by an unworkably ambitious business model riddled with a loss-lead factor that would prove unrecoverable. Roberts said, "I’m in the car at the moment going to Miami. I’ll call you back."
He never did call.
We’ll bring you updates from this case as it unfolds.
Read More Like This
Comments
micta 29 Mar 2004 11:53
1/8
Ransom was on telly last nite. I didn't watch it, but Roxer did. He said it was pretty good. I watched Man on the Moon - 'thankyou very much'.
SPInGSPOnG 29 Mar 2004 12:35
2/8
micta wrote:
>Ransom was on telly last nite. I didn't watch it,
>but Roxer did. He said it was pretty good. I
>watched Man on the Moon - 'thankyou very much'.
I'm pretty sure that Ransom only got a mention because it was on TV last night.
I haven't watched it, because I can't stand Mel Gibson who, let's face it, has 5ucked big time since MadMad 2. But as I understand it, Ransom has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with law suits and counter-litigation.
Surely "Kramer versus Kramer" would have been a better cinematic allusion. But your writer was probably about one year old when it came out, and prolly has the good sense never to watch anything Meryl Streep was in - she too has sucked since Mad Max 2.
>Ransom was on telly last nite. I didn't watch it,
>but Roxer did. He said it was pretty good. I
>watched Man on the Moon - 'thankyou very much'.
I'm pretty sure that Ransom only got a mention because it was on TV last night.
I haven't watched it, because I can't stand Mel Gibson who, let's face it, has 5ucked big time since MadMad 2. But as I understand it, Ransom has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with law suits and counter-litigation.
Surely "Kramer versus Kramer" would have been a better cinematic allusion. But your writer was probably about one year old when it came out, and prolly has the good sense never to watch anything Meryl Streep was in - she too has sucked since Mad Max 2.
more comments below our sponsor's message
nickeedoo 29 Mar 2004 13:47
3/8
I would just like to say "good for you" and "good luck" HardOCP.
config 29 Mar 2004 17:20
4/8
Rod Todd wrote:
>Surely "Kramer versus Kramer" would have been a
>better cinematic allusion. But your writer was
>probably about one year old when it came out, and
>prolly has the good sense never to watch anything
>Meryl Streep was in - she too has sucked since
>Mad Max 2.
I read somewhere that Meryl Streep is a real method actor - learning to ride out rapids for that film about, erm, riding rapids, having her neck broken for that really bad Bruce Willis movie. Yeah, I know, all Bruce Willis movies are, apparently, bad - except for Die Hards 1 & 3
To suck that bad, she must have handed out a whole lot of blow jobs.
Clearly I haven't the good sense to avoid anything with Meryl Streep in it.
Doesn't she have an investment bank named after her?
>Surely "Kramer versus Kramer" would have been a
>better cinematic allusion. But your writer was
>probably about one year old when it came out, and
>prolly has the good sense never to watch anything
>Meryl Streep was in - she too has sucked since
>Mad Max 2.
I read somewhere that Meryl Streep is a real method actor - learning to ride out rapids for that film about, erm, riding rapids, having her neck broken for that really bad Bruce Willis movie. Yeah, I know, all Bruce Willis movies are, apparently, bad - except for Die Hards 1 & 3
To suck that bad, she must have handed out a whole lot of blow jobs.
Clearly I haven't the good sense to avoid anything with Meryl Streep in it.
Doesn't she have an investment bank named after her?
SPInGSPOnG 29 Mar 2004 17:27
5/8
config wrote:
>Doesn't she have an investment bank named after
>her?
Are you sure you're not thinking of Kelly Lynch.
Or Winona Chase-Manhattan?
>Doesn't she have an investment bank named after
>her?
Are you sure you're not thinking of Kelly Lynch.
Or Winona Chase-Manhattan?
almondVanHelsing 29 Mar 2004 17:36
6/8
But if they sue Infinium, we'll never see what is under the sheet!
I place a bet on it being an X-Box with a blue light taped to the front.
I place a bet on it being an X-Box with a blue light taped to the front.
Joji 29 Mar 2004 18:39
7/8
Introducing the worlds first Knight Rider console......ta.da. Does that blue light move from left to right, with a woo-woo noise by any chance?
SPInGSPOnG 30 Mar 2004 07:45
8/8
Joji wrote:
>Introducing the worlds first Knight Rider
>console......ta.da. Does that blue light move
>from left to right, with a woo-woo noise by any
>chance?
"Open the pod bay doors, Phantom"
"I'm afraid I can't do that Michael"
"Please I want to insert a CD"
"I'm afraid I can't do that Michael"
"OK then, a DVD"
"I'm afraid I can't do that Michael"
"Why not"
"Well Michael, depending on which reports you believe I have a $3.99 Radio Shack LED taped over my DVD drive tray, or worse still, I don't actually exist at all"
>Introducing the worlds first Knight Rider
>console......ta.da. Does that blue light move
>from left to right, with a woo-woo noise by any
>chance?
"Open the pod bay doors, Phantom"
"I'm afraid I can't do that Michael"
"Please I want to insert a CD"
"I'm afraid I can't do that Michael"
"OK then, a DVD"
"I'm afraid I can't do that Michael"
"Why not"
"Well Michael, depending on which reports you believe I have a $3.99 Radio Shack LED taped over my DVD drive tray, or worse still, I don't actually exist at all"