XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   From: vze3cdrt@verizon.net   
      
   Tamara  wrote in message   
   news:7gyMa.366111$Vi5.9296607@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...   
   > But are they sueing because Trek is not marketed "enough" or "properly"?   
   >   
   > or just to get out of a contract 'cause their games are not selling....   
   >   
   > Can they honestly say that better marketing would change   
   > the popularity of the Trek franchise??   
      
   Maybe.  But it does indeed sound like they have a case.  Licensing   
   agreements are based upon marketability - it is reasonable to assume   
   Activision paid maybe 5 mil or more over the course of the agreement to   
   Viacom to be allowed to use the 'Star Trek' name.  The license cost is   
   structured on the fair market value of the product; that is, how much the   
   Star Trek association *seems* to be of value in the marketplace.  That value   
   is based upon many things, part of which is the proper management and   
   continuation of the Star Trek structure - all of which Viacom / Paramount   
   can be shown, from a certain possible perspective, in being lax at for the   
   last number of years.   
      
   This will be drawn out for years.  But I think the case may have legs.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)