I'm not sure I understand how your headline matches the quote from the rules. First, the text states "which may include some or all of the following" -- so none of those possibilities is a certainty. Second, in interviews, Activision's Laird Malamed has stated that the IP doesn't change hands unless a) they win and b) the game is something they would want to publish. I'm quoting: "If we do a publishing deal, then IP ownership is discussed [...] For anything else that is submitted or doesn?t win, they keep their IP." You can read that interview here: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/activision-talks-independent-games-competition/2/ I think your allegation that Activision is stealing ideas is irresponsible journalism at best and libel at worst.

I agree with your point. But still the clause gives Activision the possibility to have a good look at the entries and create something similar without having to pay for the IP. Even if this isn't the case, it opens a window for future lawsuits.

"so none of those possibilities is a certainty" --- Yeh, as in "I may not steal your content, but I have every right to if it is going to provide profits"... A company of this stature could easily give away 1% of their profits as compensation for use of an idea and the dev would be happy. Also, the title was a question to invoke response, not a statement of fact.

[quote][b]Speed:[/b] I agree with your point. But still the clause gives Activision the possibility to have a good look at the entries and create something similar without having to pay for the IP. Even if this isn't the case, it opens a window for future lawsuits.[/quote] Actually, this is also not a cause for concern, as it was further explained in an audio interview -- the judging is done by independent judges and is blind, meaning Activision does not see the entries until the judges have selected the finalists. As it was explained, they won't have access to all those entries for exactly the reason you cite, so nobody will accuse them of ripping them off. I see your point, though. Just like an indie dev would want to protect itself from Activision ripping off its idea, Activision also seeks protection in the rules to suggest that, you know, that small team working in a garage did not invent the first-person shooter and can't turn around and say "we submitted a shooting game and now you're bringing out a shooting game." Your ideas can't invalidate theirs, and vice versa. Meanwhile, fellow anonymous, If the title was intended to evoke a response, you did -- it made someone question your journalistic integrity.

[quote]Meanwhile, fellow anonymous, If the title was intended to evoke a response, you did -- it made someone question your journalistic integrity[/quote] I find you're a bit harsh here. The source of the post is the official contest and based on that the editor made a post that may be a bit too provocative but it's his right to question official information. Questioning journalistic integrity: ouch, way over the top! His journalistic integrity could be questioned IF he had read the interview and still knowingly questioned the content of the contest. Did he do that? No he didn't. So if you want to accuse him of something, it's that he didn't check up on info enough before making the post. That I can agree with :)