So not only did Activision pay for a large part of the development budget of the game, which they then lost to EA, they now have also provided Double Fine with a TON of free publicity and a great sense ot satisfaction that Activision is likely going to loose the legal battle.
Keep it up Activision, your reputation in the industry is getting worse by the day.

I don't understand the AP's reporting here:
-------
He told attorneys for Activision that he had several reasons why he was leaning against ordering the release of the game delayed, one of them being he wasn't sure they would win.

"I can't say there's a likelihood of success here," he said.

The judge, however, said it didn't appear that either side had an upper hand in the case.

"This is going to be a close call," Karlan said.
-------
So he will probably deny an injunction but figures either side could still win? I'm confused.

So with my extensive legal research (aka wikipedia), I think I figured it out:

----
A preliminary injunction, or an interlocutory injunction, is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial. It is usually necessary to prove the high likelihood of success upon the merits of one's case and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction before such an injunction may be granted; otherwise the party may have to wait for trial to obtain a permanent injunction.
----

So basically the judge isn't seeing a strong enough likelihood of success in the case to grant a preliminary injunction (delaying the game). The case is "too close to call", so Activision has to wait for a full trial. If my interpretation is correct, this kind of means that some of the reporting on this so far (especially the Escapist's) is pretty inaccurate. I suspect there is some bias involved, but admittedly the AP's reporting is a bit confusing here.

Bob, you got it right. Enough so that I am not going to gunk up your explanation with further legal jargon. Good job.

With Activisions great history, I hope they learn from this (and the success of the new Ghostbusters, which they even made the original for the C64 in the 1980's), and really change their business tactics. They have the potential to be a great publisher, but that means not just turning a profit on annual franchises. It means making also a cultural contribution to the industry, encouraging new ideas, and taking risks. They are one of the few publishers who can afford to do so.

Right now they are all for the quick buck, but are really damaging their reputation with their peer group, which is damaging in the long haul.

I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that Rocktober is still on schedule.

Rocktember just doesn't sound right, although Rock-U-ary is kinda neat.