At this stage, we have reached peak drama. I think it best to let the courts resolve it.
And no, their settlement offer is not what we had proposed. I said their Summary was similar.
Case in point:
I think it's pretty clear that they want to kill Star Control: Origins. Star Control: Origins is a Star Control game and plays as such.
The music composer from Star Control II is also the music composer on Star Control: Origins. Paul and Fred, if they had their way, would strip out his work from the new game despite having no legal right to do so. Paul was the one who hooked us up with Riku in the first place btw.
The only reason you even know there is a dispute in the first place is because Paul and Fred decided to litigate in the court of public opinion with carefully selected and often misleading representations of facts (their summary vs. their actual settlement offer being a case in point).
I am no legal expert, and I know that I don't post here that often, but I have been keeping tabs on this and following the discussions both on your side of things and P&F's side of things. When I heard that Stardock acquired Star Control and was going to be making a new game I was giddy with excitement because I viewed your company as one of the best qualified to make the game due to having loved many of their outstanding space games in the past.
Having said that...right now and in this very post I'm now quoting from, it at least comes across to me that you're doing the exact same thing that you are accusing them of doing. Maybe that is not the case, but that is how it comes across to me personally.
You yourself said that the two proposed settlements are "similar" to what Stardock originally wanted. Which, as was pointed out, is a good thing. It means that you've managed to pull them substantially closer to what Stardock originally wanted in the first place. Not 100% over as you pointed out by highlighting some things in the counter settlement proposal that Stardock is unhappy with, but pretty close.
To me, that would mean that the correct course of action would not to be to proclaim that P&F are going to wish they had a time machine so they could go back in time to accept the original offer because they won't get anything close to that anymore while calling them out for being "petty and vindictive", it would be to talk through the remaining small points of disagreement between the two "Similar" proposals.
Instead you're now insisting that you're going to get more from them than you originally wanted and asked for. How does that make Stardock look like the reasonable side in the discussion?
For what it's worth, I read through the email discussions that took place between P&F and GoG after their games were taken off of GoG, and neither side came across as unreasonable. They reached an amicable agreement that both sides ended up being able to be happy about and live with. This makes it hard for me to accept the vision of them as being unreasonable tyrants in this instance.
Something similar should be the goal here if both sides want to help the brand and come out looking good in these discussions, not maximizing what you can win in court by insisting that the originally proposed Stardock settlement is now something that P&F won't ever get offered again.
As I said, I'm no lawyer so I'm not even going to try and decide which side of this dispute has a stronger case in court. I'm speaking purely from the standpoint of Stardock taking the original proposal off the table comes across as being...well, petty and vindictive.