So, in advance of my major expenditures at GDC, I paid down my AmEx Starwood card so that I could use it to pay for my Suite at the Westin for the week. Today I got word from AmEx letting me know that they reduced the credit limit of that card by….yep, you guessed it, the entire credit reserve I had set for the Hotel at GDC! Fuck me running! What absolute crap. Never late, no delinquencies on the credit reports. Yes, I do tend to keep my cards close to the max credit, but I d not see how I can ever change that if every time I pay down a card they lower the credit limit.

Having an AmEx card used to make me feel like I was secure. Not it just makes be feel like a fool!

All I can say is, “Fuck you American Express….you suck dog ass!”

So, I just finished a huge rant about Adam Martin’s decision to quit the IGDA after losing his bid for election to the IGDA Board of Directors…and then inadvertently navigated away for the post page and lost the entire thing…well, maybe that for the best anyway since I pretty much was calling him out as a whiney little bitch who would rather quit after a loss than jump in deeper and continue to work to make the IGDA better. So, I guess I’ll do it again…in a shorter version…

I said that with much more clarity the first time, but I guess the message is the same. I am sad that the IGDA is losing someone as passionate about the IGDA as Adam claims to be…but if he does quit, maybe he is not as passionate as he claims and the org is better off without him. Heck, I don’t know. But as one who has been involved actively in the IGDA for over 8 years, founded and single handedly ran the South Florida Chapter for 5 years, lost his first effort to be elected to the Board but came back and has been elected and then reelected to the Board, was the moving force on the Board for the formation of the IGDA charitable Foundation which I now chair, created and Chair the IGDA ECQC Taskforce, is working with others to relaunch the Seattle Professional IGDA Chapter and moderating several IGDA forums.

So, I say “Cowboy up Adam.” If you don’t like the way the IGDA is, get into it more and do everything you can to make it better. And if you do go forward with your stated intention to quit, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Me, I get so frustrated with the way the IGDA is that I am ready to pop a blood vessel much of the time. But I have more fight in me than quit…and there is still lots to get done around here! Yeeeehhhhaaawww!

Complements of Tom Trow:

Dear World:

We, the United States of America, your top quality supplier of the ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for our 2001-2008 interruption in service.

The technical fault that led to this eight-year service outage has been located, and the software responsible was replaced November 4.

Early tests of the newly installed program indicate that we are now operating correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional on January 20, 2009.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage. We look forward to resuming full service and hope to improve in years to come.

We thank you for your patience and understanding.

Sincerely,

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I guess that there are just some clients that I have to turn down. Here’s a beauty. This fucktard acutally asked me to help him with a site that distributes game hacks. His justification is that hacks are not really cheats and that they help older gamers compete with teen pros. Oh yeah, they also add additional game play to game that have been played out. What unmitigated crap!

Well I am a 60 year old gamer who has never used a hack in over 12 years of gaming. Hacks ruin games. They are not acceptable under any circumstances. Those who use hacks are lower than the slime on a snakes belly…they are without honor. Clearly, this guy came to the wrong church with his bullshit!

Here’s his email and my response…

To: XXXX
From: “Thomas H. Buscaglia”
Subject: Re: Video Game Attorney
Cc:

XXXXX

Thank you for your interest in my services. As an old school hard core gamer, I could not in good conscience assist you in what I believe is a morally bankrupt endeavor. Moreover, in most cases hacks violate the EULA (End User License Agreement) that accompanies the game.

Normally, on a turn down, I wish the potential client that I am declining to represent good luck with their project. But in your case, I sincerely hope that you fail miserably.

Tom B

.At 07:11 PM 12/16/2008, you wrote:

Hey Thomas my name is XXXXXXX.

Here is the long story as short as I can make it. =)

I am an avid gamer and even a developer. I love games but noticed all games and gamers use hacks at times. I tried my first hacks 3 years ago and noticed all the sites who sold hacks tried to steal cdkeys, credit card info, etc. So I decided to put a legit site together that had all PC game exploits, glitches and hacks in one place. We treat everyone on the site with respect and host a ton of info for each game so people who are bored with the games can go back and play again. Also let me say that hacking is not all bad, I actually have letters from people who say it has helped them compete with the teen pros. These are 40+ year olds who are not pros or who have been playing for a long time. We don’t make hacks that rage and ruin a server, just something extra to help a bit and make it more entertaining.

With that said I am looking for a lawyer who can help me make the site 100% legal so that I am not in violation of any intellectual property laws, DMCA, etc.

Regards

PS: Hope that was short enough. =)

Holy smoke!

As you may know, I publish irregular articles on the Gamesutra.com web site entitled “Game Law.” Gamasutra has a 30 day exclusive, but after that I am free to do whatever I like with these little gems. So, I decided I would make a new category on my blog and post them here, in case anyone had any comments or questions about the topics covered. This post is updated any time I add a new Gamasutra or other Article to the list. You are welcome to distribute any of these articles for free, so long as you include include my copyright notice at the end of each article and my firm’s web address. Please include the legend “© 2008, Thomas H. Buscaglia, All rights reserved” and the www.gameattorney.com URL in each article posted or published elsewhere. The sale or any other commercial exploitation of these articles, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.

Here’s a list of, and links to, my Articles and publish dates:

# Gamasutra - Game Law: So, What’s the Dealio? [10.23.08]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Get Your Pigs in a Row! [06.03.08]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Man’s Best Friend Sometimes Bites [03.28.08]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Game Law: 50/50 Deals on Ancillary Revenues and Sublicenses [1.8.08]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Discipline and the Up Sell [10.30.07]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Scrum Deals - Good, Bad or Ugly? [08.28.07]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Competent Counsel [06.27.07]

# Call Of Duty: Finest Hour - The Contract (Linked to Gamasutra site)

# Game Developer Magazine: Hey, That’s not the deal we talked about! [10.06]

# Gamecloud.com: Game Attorney Interview - My Life and Times [09.6.06]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Contract Mumbo Jumbo 101 [07.25.06]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Everybody Conga…Well Maybe not Everybody! [04.28.06]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: The Good News About Digital Distribution [03.01.06]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Prior Restraint of Games - A Rant [01.19.06]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: To Sue or Not to Sue…That is the Question [12.07.05]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: A Case for Flexible Milestone Deliverables [10.27.05]

# Gamasutra - Game Law: Audit Rights - Use Em or Lose Em! [09.19.05]

The proper negotiation of a contract is a process that is too often ignored by developers, especially those eager to get a deal. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that the stereotypical game maker neither likes nor enjoys the process.

The harsh reality is that many, if not most, publishers are so used to developers being passive about the negotiation process that they have become arrogant and unwilling to actually engage in a meaningful negotiation dialog with developers.

Instead, they too often become rigid and inflexible when it comes to their contract negotiations. And I suppose this attitude comes in part from, among others, the following factors:

* An overwhelming financial advantage held by publishers in the relationship

* Publisher risk aversion

* The perception, at least, that there are more developers than deals

* A failure by developers to have or communicate a long term vision for their studio

* A lack of appreciation of the “process” of contract negotiation

* Developer fear, rather than appreciation, of being exploited

These factors are certainly not present in every deal dynamic, nor do they apply to every publisher or developer.

Moreover, with the vast array of innovative approaches to succeeding in the industry, even the traditional developer-publisher model is hardly a standard for the way we do business.

However, there may be some value to just accepting the stereotyping for the moment and proceeding with the discussion to see where it takes us and what we can learn in the process… so, shall we proceed?

Publisher Financial Advantage

Sure, the publisher has the money. And lots of it. And the developer needs the money to make the game and build their studio. What possible leverage can the developer have in a situation like that?

Well if you look at it like that, it may actually make sense to take whatever deal the publisher offers and just “take your beating like a man.” But, I don’t think so.

Step back a little and consider what it is that the publisher sells… games. And what does the developer have that the publisher does not?

A game. And all the money in the world is useless to a publisher if they have no games to sell — unless they want to open up a bank.

Oh yes, they want and need your game. If they didn’t, they would not be talking to you. The old Steve Miller song, “Your Cash Ain’t Nothin’ but Trash” comes to mind.

So, while the developer may desperately need to dollars, the publisher needs the games. I sense the makings of a mutually beneficial business relationship.

Risk Aversion and a Clever Diversion

Publishers, as businesspeople, focus a great deal of attention on risk avoidance. They sometimes even use it as an excuse to convince developers to accept terms in a deal that are, in reality, unnecessary or overreaching.

In a deal with a developer the easiest way for the publisher to minimize risk is to put as much risk as possible on the developer. So, back-end loaded budgets, long payment procedures and the necessity of the publisher owning the IP is standard “policy” for many publishers.

Well, as a professional negotiator, I’ll tell you what I hear when someone says “it’s policy” or “it’s the standard deal in the industry.” I hear nothing.

If the publisher cannot provide a realistic logic-based justification for an adverse contract provision, make them or don’t agree to it. And if the best they can come up with is “reduction of our risk” be extremely skeptical.

I recently ran into a really clever ploy by publishers. In order to overcome the objection to IP assignment for original IP games, instead of demanding the IP ownership in the deal, publishers are now allowing the developers to retain IP ownership until after the game is released.

However, the publisher retains an option to buy out the IP (and in the process the developer’s rights to a back-end royalty in the process) if the game performs above a certain level.

What level, you ask? Well, it is inevitably some time before the advance recoup point when back-end royalties would normally kick in if the game is a hit! You really have to admire their guile.

If the game sucks, the developer can keep the IP. But if the game is a hit, the publisher owns it and the developer gets screwed out of any back-end royalties in the process!

More Developers than Deals

There is certainly a perception that there are more developers and games than there are available deals. There certainly are.

However, that does not apply to the right game at the right time. Each game is in many ways unique and if you are lucky enough to garner the interest of a publisher you can rest assured that they believe that your game will succeed.

It could be unique gameplay, your team’s reputation in the industry or filling the right slot in the publisher’s portfolio strategy. But regardless of why they want your game, once you pass that threshold, you no longer have one of the many games in the marketplace, you have the game that the publisher desires.

And, as I already stated, getting the right games to publish is the whole point of the exercise for the publisher in order to insure their ongoing success.

Long-Term Vision

So, what does having a long-term vision for your studio have to do with your negotiations? Initially, the impression the studio makes on the publisher can make a significant impact on the course of the negotiations.

Conveying a coherent vision can instill a sense of competence in the mind of your contact at the publisher — that the developers are serious-minded about the long term success of their business, not just their current game. This level of respect will usually have a positive impact on the process.

Also, having a long term vision for the studio can impact the sort of deal that will ultimately be acceptable to the studio.

After all, taking a deal that does not provide sufficient revenue for the studio to survive the development process and stay healthy in the post-release period is important, especially if the long term goal is to build a great studio, not just to make a great game — which should be the long-term goal of every studio.

The Negotiation Process

A negotiation for a deal is a process, not an event. Developers too often look at the initial offer as the end, not the beginning, of the process. But think about it. Would you expect the initial offer to be the best deal? Certainly not.

In fact, the initial offer is usually the best deal that the publisher thinks they can get. But it is sure not the best deal the developer can secure. In fact, it is often a bad deal for the studio.

Of course, it is gratifying to get any offer, any offer, to get your game made. And it is usually the result of a long period of effort by the developer to get a deal.

But that alone does not make but it a deal with taking. After all, sometimes the best alternative to a negotiated deal is no deal at all.

Naturally, getting a deal is the point. But some extra time, thought and perseverance can make a significant impact on the result.

And don’t think that you are going to offend the publisher by working them a little. They negotiate deals all the time — much more than developers do. They will generally look at it as an expected course of action.

My initial response to a first offer is to respond with the studio’s best possible deal. After all, the publisher just probably sent the studio the publisher’s dream deal — so a similar response is appropriate.

This is especially true if the publisher’s offer is extremely exploitive of their perceived superior bargaining position. And they may just be in the habit of getting everything that they ask for.

But remember that the initial offer will usually remain there. So, the studio really has nothing to lose by testing the publisher’s resistance in the process and making a counteroffer that includes everything that the developer wants and needs.

And in the process don’t worry too much about what the publisher will ultimately accept. Let them decide how much they are willing to give. That’s their job, not yours.

So if you find yourself holding out on asking for something because you don’t think that the publisher will agree to it, don’t. Let them negotiate their position. You negotiate yours. And if they are in a position to deal, you can rest assure that they are quite good at knowing what they want.

Exploitation

Developers build games and publishers exploit them. That should mean that publishers exploit the games, not that publishers exploit the developers. What every developer should want in a developer-publisher partnership with someone who is really great at exploiting their game.

After all, the commercial exploitation of the game is where the money comes from. And few, if any, developers are really good at exploiting their own work. But then, few, if any publishers are really good at making games. That’s why they keep buying studios.

And it is also may be why so many studios tank after they get purchased by publishers. So long as the negotiation takes this fact into account, it is truly a win-win situation for everyone.

Make a Great Deal for a Great Game

It takes a huge amount of time and effort to make a great game. And it also takes some serious time and effort to make a great deal. And by that I mean a deal where everyone wins, both the publisher and the developer.

So, put the same degree of focus energy and time into the deal they you do into the game and who knows… you may build that great studio in the process.

Til next time, GL & HF!

Tom B

This Video is awesome…especially the Cameo by my old GDC drinking bud, Steve Meretzsky!

Isn’t That Supposed to be Ducks?

Well actually no. Allow me to explain. I often counsel developers on the importance of focusing on building a great game studio to make great games, instead of focusing on making a great game to build a great game studio. The reason for this is that if you build a solid studio your chances of getting to make that opus you yearn to create is much greater. It also allows you to eat, have a home and live in a similar fashion to other folks in society instead of emulating the starving artists of our romantic fantasies. Quite simply, being consumed by passion is wonderful, but it does not pay the rent…and often leads to madness.

I Know, You Still Don’t See Any Animals.

Let’s take a look at the issues that need to be considered in building a sustainable business model for your studio. One thing you need is the ability to have a coherent projection of revenues and operating expenses, commonly referred to as a budget. I personally hate spreadsheets. But spreadsheets are the language of budgets much like musical notes are the language of music. I suspect that many studio heads dislike spreadsheets as much as I do. But the successful ones know how to read and write in that obscure language of the budget.

The simple fact is that without a projected revenue and expense model it is very hard to determine if you are succeeding or even whether your studio is in survival or extinction mode. I am not advocating letting the budget “tail” wag the company business strategy “dog.” But you do need to know when you are succeeding and when you are not. And budgets are a better way to check than that the old reliable, “Can I make payroll?” model. And even a bad budget should deliver the news well in advance of a catastrophe - hopefully in time to adjust.

Still No Animals, But We are Getting Closer.

In everything but the most basic games, a team is required to build the game. And in the more sophisticated games, that team is not of a consistent size throughout the project. I am going to avoid the funding issue for purposes of this example and just look at the development process in isolation. The dev cycle goes through several more or less recognizable stages that we are all pretty familiar with…concept development, prototyping, full design documentation, vertical slice, asset generation, feature lock, testing, GM candidate and final rounds of tuning and debugging, acceptance and release. However, there are significant differences in terms of the studio’s month to month budget associated with this process. Moreover, understanding and planning for these budget fluctuations can be critical to the success or failure of the studio, especially if it is operating as a single project studio.

OK, Bring in the Animals.

First the snake. The snake represents the project leads. Those core team members involved in the initial design and prototyping stages of the project. You probably know who I mean on your team. This is a tight group of highly talented individuals who bring home the meat. (The rest is mostly sizzle.) For purposes of this example, let’s say this is a 5-man team. They will be involved in the project from conception through delivery. And whenever the going gets tough, these will be the “go to” guys. They will probably also be the last members of your team to touch the game before the final GM candidate is accepted. The snake…

Now we introduce the pig. The pig is the vast number of people involved in generating the multitude of assets that comprise the full game. The artists, level designers, animators, scripters, tool programmers and all the others who build the assets that fill out the game and add that all important sizzle. In effect, the pig delivers sustenance to the snake. How? By being eaten of course. And the development process is then revealed to be like that old National Geographic image that haunted so many children’s dreams. That small head and long thin body with the huge lump in the middle. The pig in the snake.

What About Putting Snakes in a Row?

Putting your snakes in a row sure seems a lot simpler. And isn’t simpler often better? Well yes. But unfortunately, putting your snakes in a row will not work. At least not if you intend to have your entire team in house. Sure, outsourcing the pig might do. But aside from the whole team approach and control issues, even the most efficient outsourcing creates a it of internal pigish overhead. And if you don’t outsource, feeding the pig while only the snake is working will drag your budget into hell and your studio with it. I have seen this occur over and over with even the most talented of developers. In fact, aside from issues that arise when trying to grow a studio into a larger organization, this issue may be the most difficult for any studio executive to successfully manage.

The problem is that the same key people needed to finish the game in the final stages are in crunch and in no position to be working on the prototype for the next project. Moreover, they will likely be unfit to do much of anything for a few weeks after crunch is over. The solution is having the foresight to put your pigs in a row, not your snakes. This demands that the snake’s head be redirected at some point in the development process of project A to start thinking about and actually working on project B.

When Pigs are in a Row.

If we assume that it takes between 6-9 months to land a fully contract a deal, then working backwards from there should give you an idea of what point in the current project work needs to be started on the next project so that you will have enough of the next project completed to get it picked up without there being a serious cash crunch in the space between the pigs…err…I mean projects. If it takes 6 months of designing, prototyping and documenting to get to the point to pitch the next game, then you need to get started on it about 12-15 months before the project GM delivery of your current project. Sure, that seems like a lot of time…but think it through and it is really not. Especially if you consider the alternative.

When snakes are in a row.

When your snakes are in a row your studio is only looking at one project at a time. This is great for THAT game. But can spell disaster for the studio. Remember what I said about building a great studio to make great games instead of making a great game to build a great studio? Here’s where that comes to life. And this is not mere conjecture on my part. I have seen this happen time after time. You finish your current game and it is great. So, the team takes a month off to celebrate a job well done and to recover. Then you the start the design and prototyping process and are lucky enough to get a deal a year later…if you are still in business (most are not). Unless that game you delivered has the legs to recoup and deliver revenue within 6 months, you’re DOA. And realistically, that is not going to happen. Even with a hit it takes longer than that to get to first royalty report, and 2 - 3 quarters to recoup. So, unless you have about 18 months of overhead in the bank when you deliver, your dream of having your own studio just died.

The Benefits of Good Pig Management.

Getting those pigs in a row will lead to a long and economically sound life for your studio. The pressures of living on the edge of economic disaster will lessen and, who knows, you may even be able to have some fun, have a life and enjoy making games. After all, that is what this is supposed to be about. Being fortunate enough to make a decent living doing what we love to do. As an added bonus, if you get your pigs in a row, you are on your way to a smooth transition from a single project studio to a multi-project studio in the bargain.

[No animals were harmed in the writing of this article.]

Til next time, GL & HF!

Tom Buscaglia
The Game Attorney © 2008

One of my clients sent me an engine license to review for him. He was considering a few options and asked me to review and revise the contract on one of the engines he was interested in. I took a look and, typical of most middleware licenses, the middleware developer was delivering the license with few, if any warranties. Well as much as I would prefer that my client get some decent level of comfort in the software he was considering licensing, I understood the issues and was pretty much OK with most of the language. I did however have a concern that if the engine code included some open source software inadvertently included, it might compromise the commercial viability of the game. So I added language into the license agreement that warranted that the engine did not contain any open source computer code that would limit or negatively impact the commercial viability of my client’s game. I didn’t expect this additional language would be a problem since the inclusion of any open source of code would significantly impair the commercial viability of their product as well.

The engine developer told my client that they could not agree to the added language though they assured my client that the engine code had already gone through a full open source audit and was clean. This raised the obvious question. If the code was clean, why not agree to the language? When asked this question by my client, the engine developer’s response was, “Our lawyer will not allow us to agree to this language.” So, my client did the only reasonable thing he could under the circumstances, he decided to use a different engine. And, the engine developer lost the deal. Assuming what the engine licensor was saying about the code audit was true, what the heck was he thinking? Obviously he was not thinking. He was just doing what his lawyer told him. I guess you could say that “the tail was waging the dog!”

Bad Dogs

This month’s Game Law column addresses a very touchy subject, especially for us lawyers, the training and care of your lawyer. I am a firm believer that just like a kid and a dog, every game studio should have its pet lawyer to keep it safe and secure. One to be your friend and companion . . . and when appropriate to bark and growl at those who try to do you harm. It is also a sad but true fact that, just like with dogs, not all lawyers are well behaved and, if not properly trained, can at times cause more harm than good. Just like any good dog, they need to be trained, disciplined and under control or they might just bite you!

Sure lawyers get plenty of legal training in law school and in their day to day practice. But too often they don’t know your desires or the games you work on as well as you do. And few understand the subtleties of our industry as much as the developers they represent. They are ingrained with a commitment to vigorously protect their client’s right to the fullest extent possible. In fact, it is a core element of their ethic. Oddly enough, it is this training and commitment that can often result in serious problems for the developers they represent.

Biting Your Team

One of the most common ways this occurs is in the relationship between the studio and its employees. Game development is a creative process based on intellectual capital. It requires the collaborative effort of many creative individuals. It is also in large part grounded in a culture that has non traditional values when compared to most other businesses. And although not everyone in the game industry is “of the gamer culture,” most of those who create the games are. Moreover, experience shows that often enlightened non traditional management models create the best environments for creating great games.

A well-meaning attorney experienced with traditional employment agreements working to protect his client’s studio to the maximum extent possible, will usually come up with an employee agreement that is offensive to both the sensibilities of the most talented developers and contrary to an enlightened management style. If the studio head just asks their lawyer for an employee agreement and does not describe the cultural and management goals of the studio, they will get a contract that will quite likely interfere with their ability to get and retain talent. The inclusion of non-competes and overly broad intellectual property ownership that extends outside of the scope of the studio’s project can often bruise or even break employee relationships and make it difficult or impossible to get top talent. This is especially sad if the studio ends up with a bad result because they just used an employee agreement without going over it with their attorney to make sure that it is consistent with their management style and goals. This is like just letting your dog run free. It’s sure to chew up some of your favorite shoes if you don’t discipline that critter as to what is, and is not, acceptable behavior on your household. Your studio is your house. You, not your pet, need to set the rules.

The Cost of a Good Puppy

Sure enough, lawyers are expensive. And taking the time to review their work to make sure that it comports with your desires and values takes time. And, like most developers, reading contracts can be a bit painful as well. But ultimately, the harm that an overly aggressive and untrained lawyer can do to the potential long term success of your studio makes this a required task and expense. Otherwise your relationships, both internal and external, can suffer. And the more you engage in meaningful discussions with counsel about your business goals and values, the more likely they will be to incorporate your vision into the ongoing work that they do for your company. The more you treat them like an unwanted hassle, the more likely they will be to simply do a quick hack job on your work and what you are spending on them will not get you what you want or need. Rest assured, the extra time and money you spend on your pet will be rewarded.

Care and Feeding

Often lawyers are strong assertive personality types. And frankly, that’s exactly what you want on your side when things get tough. But this can also create a problem if the studio head is less assertive, as is often the case in a creative business like ours. Communicate your vision and your passion for what you are doing to your lawyer. It will give them insight into your business and a way that nothing else will. It will ultimately make them a valuable asset to your management team, not just an unwanted expense. You should consider throwing them a bone every once in a while too. I always let my clients know that in addition to getting paid, I require a boxed copy of any projects that I am involved in and a mention in the credits. Thoughtful perks like that make for a loyal companion and it costs little or nothing to provide these sorts of “bones.”

You are the Master

Remember that your attorney should be your trusted counsel. But ultimately, the decisions are yours to make, not theirs. Take their counsel and value it. But do not just abdicate your decision making to their advice. It may be easier, but, as in the opening example above, it can lead to situations where your lawyer’s best advice may turn out to be bad advice in terms of your business goals and the manner in which you wish to manage your company or working relationships. If you don’t make the final decisions on these business matters, you may end up bruising your internal relationships with staff through an overly oppressive employee agreement or even losing business due to an unreasonable lack of flexibility, like that engine developer did.

A Good Pet is Worth the Effort

I’m not saying that you need to take your lawyer for a walk every day. But a little extra training and thoughtfulness will make for a loyal and long term relationship that will serve you and your studio well. Get them to understand the culture of the industry and your company. In the long run it will be well worth the extra time and money you spend in the process. You will end up with a loyal obedient companion who will not bite you, your employees or your business partners!

Til next time, GL & HF!

Tom Buscaglia
The Game Attorney © 2008