Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3484508" data-attributes="member: 2525">I am a corporate lawyer. I've been one for over a decade.&nbsp; Corporate lawyers, in all likelyhood, played no part whatsoever in any of this.&nbsp; I doubt they were consulted on any issue other than the contract itself, and some intellectual property issues.&nbsp; &quot;When to make an announcement, and preparation for it&quot; would not be in the venue of a corporate lawyer.WOTC said pretty much what I said by the way.&nbsp; I quoted it.&nbsp; And Paizo has also implied they wanted to announce earlier becuase of their end of things.They did not have to make it this early, which is the issue.I didn't say very last minute.&nbsp; The second to last issue would have been better for WOTC, and wouldn't have been a disaster for Piazo I bet.&nbsp; And if they needed to announce this early, they should have negotiated for that much earlier.&nbsp; If decisions were made between WOTC and Paizo over a year ago, and WOTC is now saying they did not intend to announce now, and it was Paizo's request to annouce early, I think it's a small leap to assume Piazo never asked earlier about the annoucement date being early, and only asked recently, and that was a screw-up on Paizo's part (and WOTCs for agreeing).I don't think this has much to do with IT.&nbsp; It's a matter of content, not process, right now.&nbsp; And content is not set in stone, and often isn't four months in advance.&nbsp; They obviously are still working on the DRM issue, but they didn't say &quot;we have no idea how to do the IT part of this&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3484508, member: 2525"] I am a corporate lawyer. I've been one for over a decade. Corporate lawyers, in all likelyhood, played no part whatsoever in any of this. I doubt they were consulted on any issue other than the contract itself, and some intellectual property issues. "When to make an announcement, and preparation for it" would not be in the venue of a corporate lawyer. WOTC said pretty much what I said by the way. I quoted it. And Paizo has also implied they wanted to announce earlier becuase of their end of things. They did not have to make it this early, which is the issue. I didn't say very last minute. The second to last issue would have been better for WOTC, and wouldn't have been a disaster for Piazo I bet. And if they needed to announce this early, they should have negotiated for that much earlier. If decisions were made between WOTC and Paizo over a year ago, and WOTC is now saying they did not intend to announce now, and it was Paizo's request to annouce early, I think it's a small leap to assume Piazo never asked earlier about the annoucement date being early, and only asked recently, and that was a screw-up on Paizo's part (and WOTCs for agreeing). I don't think this has much to do with IT. It's a matter of content, not process, right now. And content is not set in stone, and often isn't four months in advance. They obviously are still working on the DRM issue, but they didn't say "we have no idea how to do the IT part of this". [/QUOTE]

Verification