> It seems exhaustive enough though, and so far I’m inclined to think they aren’t distorting facts If you read the appeal court judgement summary, you will see

> It seems exhaustive enough though, and so far I’m inclined to think they aren’t distorting facts If you read the appeal court judgement summary, you will see that they are actually heavily distorting facts. You are notably missing these parts: - the publisher asked them for GM copies in order to publish, don't seem to contest that the IP is owned by Frogwares and the part about the other studio seems to be mostly paranoid non sense; - Frogwares is unhappy about the amount of royalties they are paid, thinks the costs of distribution are inflated by Nacon but didn't properly trigger the contract audit close; - Frogwares is extremely unhappy about the Epic store launch and seems to think they should have got more money despite actually failing to deliver on the contractualy agreed date; - Frogwares went over their publisher to have the game delisted from distribution plateformes in a total breach of contract; - Frogwares terminated the contract for a spurious motif (failure to justify costs of distribution in a month) which was never part of said contracts - publisher never claimed that French COVID regulations precluded the contract termination, only that the contract termination was illegal which it was shown to be. The whole thing is far from one sided.