3 ms·
> Disney’s argument is that they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract. Unless it says that's allowed in the original contract, tha
by jb775 6y ago
> Disney’s argument is that they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract.
Unless it says that's allowed in the original contract, that's absurd...can't see that holding up in court. Disney is probably banking on using their legal teams to drag it through court and hoping he gives up. Wouldn't be surprised if they're doing this to dozens/hundreds of individuals.
- TuringNYC 6y agoIn this case, as a "debt holder" of sorts, wouldn't the class of writers also need to sign off on the M&A?
- stubish 6y agoEven if Alan Dean Foster gives up, his estate will still be owed. Or he could possibly sell the debt owned to a debt collector brave enough to tackle Disney. The issue isn't going to disappear over time.
- gogopuppygogo 6y agoNeither are the teams of lawyers that Disney keeps on payroll. They’d rather you litigate with them and get a settlement than start honoring their obligations.
- Matticus_Rex 6y agoAh, the mustache-twirling villain theory of corporate law.
- toyg 6y agoThey are likely doing that to tons of people. I wonder if it’s just a case of corporate laziness. Lucasfilm produced tons of Star Wars “extended universe” material from different authors. Maybe some middlemanager just went “eh, paying them all would take too much time. Let’s just pretend they don’t exist. If they complain, we’ll fob them off.” Could also be a reason for chucking out the extended universe at a narrative level.
- Frost1x 6y agoI wouldn't attribute laziness or even negligence to what could be purposeful malfeasance in the case of any corporate entity. From my experience it's usually the latter over the former.