Um, no, it doesn't. Did you even bother to read what I quoted? The judge's statement directly contradicts what you just wrote there.
"In California, '[t]he elements . . . for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; [...]'"
But Blizzard didn't get a judgement for some other flavor of tortious interference. They got a judgement for tortious interfere with contractual relations. So your attempt to pretend the judgement was for something other than what it was for is mere irrelevant blather.I mean, all the text is right there on the wiki. I already posted it once. I'm not 'confusing anything with anything else', you're the one not understanding that it doesn't matter if there is or is not a valid contract is place, because regardless, Blizzard's relationship to their customers is a business relationship. Any third party that gets in the way of that is guilty of tortious interference with or without a contract. With or without a contract. Is it sinking in yet?
I suggest you remember the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.