Update to UBSOFT vs. OEM

Earlier today I received a copy of the complaint and was hoping this could answer some questions as nobody at Ubisoft returned my requests for comment. The complaint lists a few things but doesn’t answer the question I was most interested in asking – how did you track the leak down to an employees house.

 
The complaint lists three issues:

1) Ubisoft claims that OEM willfully copied, reproduced, and distributed the game. Because of this loss Ubisoft claims they have lost “millions” and will continue to loose money.

2) Ubisoft claims that OEM breached the Confidentiality Agreement, a “shall not disclose” obligation it had, and did not follow any “special” security requirements it had in place to protect Ubisoft’s copyright. As a result Ubisoft claims they have lost “millions of dollars”

3) Claim of Negligence, Ubisoft claims that OEM had the legal duty to exercise ordinary care to protect the game in question. Ubisoft believes that OEM acted with “gross negligence” when it failed to maintain the minimal acceptable standards in security which could have protected its copyright. As a result Ubisoft has lost “millions” of dollars in sales revenues.

For the first claim ubisoft is seeking an undisclosed amount of money, for the next two they are seeking 10Million for each claim.

The complaint lists many issues with OEM, all of which were, according to Ubisoft, admitted to by OEM in a May 7th meeting with Ubisoft.

In this meeting a few issues were addressed, and OEM admitted to the following:

1) That the OEM employee in charge of overseeing the replication of the game did not do that.
2) That their  Material Pass Policy, Front Door Policy (which would insure anybody leaving the manufacturing facility would pass through a metal detector), and Exit Search Policy
3) Any employee could easily forge a material pass, and thus leave the company with, for example, a test copy of Assassins Creed.
4) Security wasn’t checking material passes with items.
5) Loss Prevention team were not searching personal. But was in fact on buddy system were friends would check each other – with no supervision.
6) Metal Detectors were on a buddy system: if somebody beeped, they would claim it was from a belt and security guards would let them through.

You can view the full complaint here: