A motion for protective order refers to a party's request that the court protect it from potentially abusive action by the other party. Such a request is often made in relation to discovery, as when one party seeks discovery of the other party's trade secrets. In certain instances, the court will craft a protective order for protecting one party's trade secrets by ordering that any secret information exchanged in discovery shall be used for the pending suit only and it shall not in any manner be publicized.
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Claims for Relief Therein or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Certain Portions of the First Amended Complaint (FRCP 12(B)(6), 12(E) & 12(f))19 presently scheduled for hearing on February 9, 2018, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3):
Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.
I'm not sure why people listen so closely to Leonard J Cr..French. He worked for 9 years as a Software Developer, picked up a Law Degree from a second tier University, did an internship at a Civil Law Clinic before striking out on his own. Which has proven so successful he panhandles for dollars giving out legal opinions on Youtube. I mean he's surely got the legal chops to dismantle the arguments of:
James Pak - Columbia Law, fresh from suing Oculus Rift for $500 million.
Kevin Minnick - UCLA, successfully pursued actions against Wells Fargo and Toyota.
that's not counting the Partners
Anthony Sammi - With his paltry Cornell Law degree and industry awards of being one of the best litigators in the US last year.
Kurt Hemr - Harvard Law, Has successfully litigated against many companies in between doing pro-bono work for refugees.
It's the clearest example of confirmation Bias I think you can see. French agrees with the Acolytes of Roberts, therefore he is right.
I mean being Pro-CIG has almost certainly netted French thousands of dollars so I can respect the position he's taken.
Hi all!
I'm Robert B. Marks, the author of the two legal analysis articles for CGM (Comics and Games Magazine) about Crytek v. Cloud Imperium (http://www.cgmagonline.com/2017/12/19/crytek-v-star-citizen-closer-look/), (http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/). We will be providing coverage, but we've decided to wait until the motion is heard on February 9th before publishing a longer analysis. Until then, a few comments after reading the response...
1) There isn't anything too surprising here (that said, it is gratifying to see the response hit many of the points that I had outlined/predicted). It should be noted that at this point in the proceedings, Crytek only has to demonstrate that their claims are worth the court's time - they don't have prove anything or land a knockout blow (nor can they at this point in time).
2) For Squadron 42, there are now functionally two "de minimis" ("the law cares not for insignificant things") arguments put forward. CIG is claiming that it does not matter that S42 was defined as a separate game in the preamble and a feature in the exhibits, all that matters is that it was covered by name in the agreement. Crytek is arguing that it does not matter that S42 was mistakenly listed as a separate game in the preamble, all that matters is that the GLA was for a single game, and did not cover two games. This could go either way (the clarification paragraph in the exhibit can back up Crytek's reading, but that's up to the judge, and this may not be decided until the communications during the GLA negotiations are entered into evidence).
3) On a strictly strategic level, Cloud Imperium probably comes out ahead in this engagement, regardless of what the judge rules. Even if the judge rules completely against them, they now have a better look at Crytek's trial strategy, along with at least part of the list of precedents and legislation they will be relying upon. And that helps them better craft their defence.
4) We are very unlikely to see any additional evidence entered as we are still in the Pleadings stage (in fact, we were extremely lucky to be able to see the contract this early).
5) The arguments over the non-compete clause are probably going to get VERY interesting. The question is: does it refer to creating, licensing, and selling a game engine, or just making use of a competing game engine? This is another thing that could go either way, although I have the funny feeling it will be a bit of a hard sell when it comes to Crytek's argument based on the fact that the clause refers to the "business of," instead of just the action itself.
So, that's it for now - like probably a lot of other people here, I (and my editors at CGM) are watching this with bated breath, and can't wait for what's next. That said, I really do want to caution against making predictions or declarations about who is going to win - it is WAY too early for that. We are only in the opening stages of this dispute, and trying to declare a winner at this time is rather like trying to declare the winner of a space battle based on whose laser cannons made the loudest hum when they were turned on.
(And, for disclosure, I'm a legal researcher associated with Bien Law, not a lawyer or paralegal. Also, when I was writing Garwulf's Corner for the Escapist, there was a dispute between Defy Media and CIG that I was not involved in or privy to.)
And I think the bit about "directly or indirectly" could also help get them on that clause. I'm not going to claim to know how it works legally, but it seems to me that they're "indirectly" promoting Lumberyard by having their logos instead of CryEngine/CryTek's logos on the splash screens.
And it is all more stuff that needs to be thrashed out by the legal teams on both sides, at $xxxx per hour.
Fees that CIG (in other words, SC Backers - sorry "investors") are going to be paying for.
As patently hilarious as it sounds, I'm calling it now because a court has ruled a case based on similar findings.
This:
"engage in the business of designing, developing..."
is DIFFERENT from this:
"engage in the business of, designing, developing.."
Read more about this here. As it's now case law precedent, I fully expect to see this nonsense permeate cases for years to come.
As per the GLA, the loser pays the fees.
I would not be so quick to proclaim either CryTek or CIG the winners.
CryTek has a strong case....but it depends heavily on the legal interpretation of key phrases.
Conversely, some parts....such as the need to display CryTeks logos...seem like slamdunks for CryTek but there may be other legal tests; could CIG argue that that obligation to promote CryEngine is unreasonable given that they have switched? Or could CryTek use it to support their assertion that CIG accepted engine exclusivity as a part of the GLA?
Noone here...Derek Smart included...is knowledgeable enough about the law to proclaim either side a victor and it could not be impossible for both sides to win and therefore split costs.
Leonard French and others already got it wrong by proclaim9mg CIG victors with their response by rushing to judgement and not being critical enough. Lets not make the same mistake.
You may not agree with CIGs interpretation, but you don't have to. The judge and jury do.
A real attorney over @GuardFreq talks about the latest in Crytek v CIG et al. FF @ 4:00
Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.
I found it interesting about the waiver, since there was not much detail on what the waiver I assumed it meant Crytek was aware of the possible conflict of interest. Per Tony he is saying the waiver was just a doc meant for him to be allowed to sit in.
Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.
I found it interesting about the waiver, since there was not much detail on what the waiver I assumed it meant Crytek was aware of the possible conflict of interest. Per Tony he is saying the waiver was just a doc meant for him to be allowed to sit in.
I don't see CiG settling. Not because they don't want to. (Lord knows how badly they don't want it to go to discovery.) But because CryTek certainly isn't going to settle for anything short of 8 figures long. And, if you've been following CiG's financial adventures, you know full well CiG doesn't have that kind of money to spend on a settlement.
No matter what, CiG is fucked.
What we might get, is a funding drive to get a free space-lawyer to help keep CIG afloat. Maybe a funding drive specially to help them pay their legal fees.
And, if you've been following CiG's financial adventures, you know full well CiG doesn't have that kind of money to spend on a settlement.
uhhh... guys, what do you think that $20k whale-only "dinner with the team" fundraiser was all about?
I don't see how that's going to generate enough money to even pay one month of legal bills.
Besides, speculation is that they are probably going to offer to sell shares to the whales.
Into the courtroom my trial began
Where I was judged by twelve honest men
Yes as the jury started walkin' out
I saw that little judge commence to look about
In about five minutes then walked a man
Holding the verdict in his right hand
The verdict read in the first degree
I shouted Lordy Lordy please have mercy on me
The judge he smiled when he picked up his pen
Ninety-nine years in the San Quentin Penn!
As was to be expected, because Ortwin just can't leave well enough alone and wait for the Feb 9th hearing, they have responded to the Crytek answer. I will dig into it later this weekend.
OP updated.
I just read through the response doc and found it compared to Skadden unprofessional and full of hearsay. To actually call the company you signed with a sinking ship is over the top, and puts CIG in a bad light in my opinion. Why would you waste 2 mill to sign up with a sinking ship.
There are some (down-voted to oblivion) who aren't entirely happy about the tone of the response.
This response is really wild.
If they proceed in that way sooner or later we'll see a judge verbally abusing Ortwin/CIG for their behaviour. So again, i reall hope we'll get all those details later when it enters court.
Someone (with more time on their hands than I have right now) needs to do a quick spoof Leonard French reply YouTube vid...
Just read it out and contradict yourself then tell everyone you are big shot lawyer and not at all biased and talking out of your ARSEHOLE.
It is a simple enough, to camera piece....
It's a snore fest, lot more reading and less opinion. Just go to 37 min mark where he says its really well written. He actually falls back to if I was a judge I wonder facts are provided by crytek and which ones I could ignore.
I have to agree. Looking at his couple of vids on CGI/Crytek, he at least tried to put some effort into the first one, but it really went downhill from there. Now, 95% of the runtime is just reading the PDF aloud (is his target audience mostly illerate?), concluded by a short, highly biased off-the-top-of-his-head opinion in the final minutes. Sorry, I can't take his vids seriously… I can read for myself, and his rambling at the end completely fails to address the real questions in a methodic and professional manner.
What's more, this time he frankly admits that as a "copyright attorney", he understands next to zilch about contract law (what this whole lawsuit is mostly about), but of course that doesn't hinder him from armchair-lawyering on.
Someone (with more time on their hands than I have right now) needs to do a quick spoof Leonard French reply YouTube vid...
Just read it out and contradict yourself then tell everyone you are big shot lawyer and not at all biased and talking out of your ARSEHOLE.
It is a simple enough, to camera piece....
Like Derek, I'm looking forward to the results of CryTek's discovery (if it is ever made public).
Anyway, none of this matters because this pales in comparison to what's currently developing behind the scenes and which I am certain is the actual final nail in the coffin, regardless of how this distracting lawsuit plays out.
And I still maintain that people are either going to jail, or taking plea deals, over this fiasco.
Totally agree.
Ortwin is buck naked in mosquito country. He's not going to be able to slide on this one. I still think that his actions very well might open Croberts & Company to personal liability.
I highly doubt this case will be settled pre-trial. I don't think Croberts has the cash on hand to settle for an amount that will satisfy CryTek.
I hope that this case doesn't settle pre-trial, because the discovery will be the most entertaining part of this sad, sad, scam of a game...
I hope they keep forking out money because it will make the end result that much more hilarious.100 % agree, thats why I hope that Crytek does not win too much of their money...
How much have CIG spent on Legal fees for this action so far ?Impossible to tell. My guess is that FKKS is costing them quite a bit. If Dr. Smart's right about authorship, they're largely being paid to handle court formalities and to revise Ortwin's drafts, removing or changing whatever might get them disbarred. If Dr. Smart's right about how CIG/RSI operates, then it wouldn't be surprising to then find Ortwin billing the company at a higher rate than FKKS is.
Impossible to tell. My guess is that FKKS is costing them quite a bit. If Dr. Smart's right about authorship, they're largely being paid to handle court formalities and to revise Ortwin's drafts, removing or changing whatever might get them disbarred. If Dr. Smart's right about how CIG/RSI operates, then it wouldn't be surprising to then find Ortwin billing the company at a higher rate than FKKS is.
On the other hand, everyone could be doing this pro bono pacis et optime damnato ludo spatiali, because it's certainly the best-damned I've ever seen.
Pro Bono always sounds to me like a pornographic term.
Why? Because, right from the onset, by going after Ortwin's conflict, Skadden set the "reputation + pattern of conduct trap" for Ortwin, ensnared him in it with deadly precision, and set the stage for credibility & reputation to get a front row seat in the proceedings. They're going to want to establish a pattern of conduct that shows that CIG behaved dishonestly etc. And THAT is how things like their personal lives, expenditures, Ortwin's involvement etc are all going to be open season for discovery. If they were dishonest enough to breach the terms of the GLA, discovery is going to be the path to establishing that pattern of conduct which is what is going play before the judge and the jury (if it goes to trial).
I would be greatly over joyed Derek at any details brought out 1, 6, 7, in your points.
My latest. Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/961629006708781056.html
Basically what this means is the judge, aside from not wanting to engage in any stupid arguments as per the RSI/CIG pleadings, probably decided to do further research on one or more of the causes of action in the complaint, before issuing a final ruling (she's going to toss it).
As she stated "is appropriate for decision without oral argument", she has enough information from all the pleadings to make a decision without wasting further time in a hearing with oral arguments.
Clearly she didn't want to rule "out of hand" on a matter that, hyperbole aside, is based on both contract and IP law.
Besides, who wants to be that judge listening to an attorney argue the meaning of the word "exclusive"?
RSI/CIG rebuttals are so beyond belief, that some of us are of the opinion that their arguments, coupled with the tone, look like a deliberate effort by RSI/CIG to get Cryrekt, thus getting an excuse to scuttle the project.
As far-fetched as that sounds, this is Star Citizen
Just a correction. In that case, the MtD session was scheduled for August 22, it was canned August 19 (a Friday, I presume), and the judge ruled on Oct 28, two months later. The summary judgment was in May.
I posted this earlier in this thread, but as a reminder: The standard of judgement for a Motion to Dismiss is to assume everything the plantiff says is true, then, does plaintiff have an argument that can be decided by the court? If so, then the court rules against the MtD so that discovery, then, ultimately, trial, can proceed.
My guess is the judge looked at this and saw: the court has jurisdiction, the complaint is timely, there are questions of fact that can be decided with further information (discovery), there is no bar to the action, there is no "affirmative defense" that would be a slam dunk for CIG, etc. etc. and that these points are so clear right now that there is no need for the court to hear anything at argument, it's obvious: MtD Denied.
Between now and the time that the honorable judge Gee files her decision on the MtD, my guess is that the next disastrous phase of the inbound Star Citizen collapse, currently well underway, will probably be public.
And here you were thinking the Crytek lawsuit was bad.
An ode to my fans on /r/starcitizen
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/962372778967093249.html
If we give you suggestions about what the next big thing might be, couldn't you just say Yes or No?
If my legal action to review the UK video game tax breaks gets the go ahead by the courts next month then we could blow a massive hole in that budget because they will suddenly owe £10 million+ backdated tax break claims, with interest.
That's interesting. One would think that the UK Treasury would want proof that the Tax Credits are going towards the "British" game they are expecting (SQ42), not to assets which are going to be used in a different game (SC).
I did notice a post from Juicy_K_Girl in Sc/refunds (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/7pse0k/cig_foundry_42_limited_has_filed_its_6_month/) a few weeks back:
Has anyone heard anything more about this? (or is anyone a UK lawyer who could find out?)
You know you're big time when your counsel's on call on weekends.
"this [Motion to Dismiss] sounds like a knock-out punch to me"
"I really don't know which way this one's gonna go. If I'm gonna put my money on it...and I'm not...I'm gonna give it odds towards that the motion to dismiss gets denied and the case continues for further adjudication. Whether that be into discovery or what, I expect there to be a denial of the motion to dismiss. I'm not predicting that as a hundred percent though - I'm going 60/40 on that"
Hey! Who remembers when I totally called this one?
:lol:
As an expert on the matter, It's rare that I am wrong on this subject. I can also say with certaintany that flipping a coin is worth more than my opinion. It's as accurate and you also have the coin which is nice.
When are we expecting the next developments in the case ?
The judge is probably also waiting on Derek's next big thing reveal. She is hoping CIG will collapse so she won't have to deal with all the idiots.
Reading through it the judge was harsh towards crytek, but I suppose they really need discovery to help prove its accusations. 5-10 years for the case :(
This had nothing to do with the judge. So what do you mean she was harsh toward Crytek? All of that was about CIG and Crytek. Nothing to do with the judge. It's CIG making those infantile comments.
Now I see what is happening, sorry was up till 2:00 this morning trying to stage the house, totally misread who was saying what.
Update: LOL I was so tired this morning kept thinking the judge really being hard on crytek, after coffee its quite interesting read. I think cig is seeing the writing on the wall and does not want to the case to continue at all.
Oh, I really hope we don't have to wait yet another 16 months. Let's hope the judge throws out the MtD and then clears her calendar to get this shitshow over as quickly as possible.
Crytek will want to go to trial on this one because a jury will need to decide the interpretation of "exclusive", millions of dollars hangs in the balance, so likely we'll have to wait a while. If CIG do settle it will likely be at that pretrial conference 1 month before the trial. That said I'm absolutely not a lawyer but have dealt with many legal issues for my company including copyright law and HR stuff.
The OP has been updated with my latest analysis (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html)
I don't think that CIG will last until next year July and I'm not sure how much of the things we really like to see will be made available by the bankruptcy trustee when CIG goes bust. I'd like to see Crytek get all of the financials out in the open but I'd also like to see CIG go down on their own merits. No excuse for Chris by handwaving "Crytek sued us into backruptcy, sorry".
Yes but there is always an excuse. If it wasn't Crytek, CRoberts will blame something or someone else..
CR already did that by buying the game of himself. :P
I think DS wrote at some point that RSI (Which CR owns and are CEO) bought Star Citizen/S42 from CR "the privat person". :)
And...if I read things correctly...paid himself $3 million for the privilege after what were, no doubt, arduous negotiations between Chris Roberts as CEO of CIG and Chris Roberts, creator of the Star Citizen universe.
Shady, but without doubt, legal.
Crytek will want to go to trial on this one because a jury will need to decide the interpretation of "exclusive", millions of dollars hangs in the balance, so likely we'll have to wait a while. If CIG do settle it will likely be at that pretrial conference 1 month before the trial. That said I'm absolutely not a lawyer but have dealt with many legal issues for my company including copyright law and HR stuff.
I don't think that CIG will last until next year July and I'm not sure how much of the things we really like to see will be made available by the bankruptcy trustee when CIG goes bust. I'd like to see Crytek get all of the financials out in the open but I'd also like to see CIG go down on their own merits. No excuse for Chris by handwaving "Crytek sued us into backruptcy, sorry".
And...if I read things correctly...paid himself $3 million for the privilege after what were, no doubt, arduous negotiations between Chris Roberts as CEO of CIG and Chris Roberts, creator of the Star Citizen universe.
Shady, but without doubt, legal.
Failing to meet yet another new schedule setup end of this month and thus more broken promises will turn more of the the fanboy community. Even on Reddit the sentiment is changing.
Do you guys know how much of the Discovery might be made public?
Because if it turns out CIG are basically insolvent and relying on unpaid loans then the resulting loss of backer confidence could sink the project there and then.
The fanboys are used to excusing and ignoring the broken promises - "I'd rather CIG take their time" is the usual line.
The fanboys are used to excusing and ignoring the broken promises - "I'd rather CIG take their time" is the usual line. A content poor quarterly release won't stop them buying a new ship from a concept sale.
I have to say, CIG don't seem to by trying very hard to sell stuff these days - the Vulcan sale was DULL. It looks terrible and the least they could do is get the art department to make some rendered footage of the craft in action.
From the lastest bugsmashers. :)
OP updated with my latest (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/969294105225383937.html)
If you're implying that they are using CryEngine, then that's just what the Lumberyard directory looks like:
Lumberyard Github (https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/tree/master/dev/Code/CryEngine)
Unless I've missed something :)
If you have a closer look in the "Solution Explorer" window, one might recognize that there are some dirs eclusive to CE which are not included in LY at all:
for instance FlashUI und GameSessions
So, this might indicate that their proclaimed switch of engines might not have been completed until now, if not imposible at all.
This is so hilarious! How can one still post this material of evidence m(
Well, you have to take a closer look at the tooltip of the cursor and the working directory of the file shown:
f:\[...]-LA_DEV\CryEngine\Code\CryEngine\CryAction\EntityEnergyComponent\EntityComponentPowerConnection.h [Read Only]
I confess I don't read Rule 26(f) reports for a living, so I can't tell you how FKKS's behavior here compares to other cases; I would find that rather enlightening.
On the face of it, it is impressive that FKKS chose to repeat the MtD arguments here. It's nugatory, beside the point, and, to my outsider's eyes, dangerous. Alluding to "ulterior motives" and refusing categorically, in a conference to determine the subjects on which discovery will focus, to discuss any subjects, would seem to play into the hands of plaintiff.
Let's assume that the MtD is not granted in its entirety. Then the court has to consider a discovery plan where CryTek has laid out what it wants, when it wants it, and how to go about it; the other has replied by repeating arguments that the court has already dismissed, saying that (as I read it) these invalid arguments are the reason why it refuses to discuss in a substantial way any sort of discovery plan at a Rule 26(f) meeting.
As judge, what would you do?
Of course, it doesn't help FKKS that Skadden filed the document and put on record their replies to all of FKKS' accusations, most notably their specific reply to the relevance-of-crowdfunding charge in IV-B, and, in V-E Crytek's willingness for Alternative Dispute Resolution against CIG/RSI's charge that they "would not state" what method of settlement procedure they preferred.
I also liked the "professional courtesy" that FKKS refused at the end.
Why would FKKS care? Well, the attorneys are responsible for making a good faith attempt to agree on discovery, not the clients. On most of the filings, they can take Ortwin's money, but here, it's their ass on the line, especially if they come to a meeting about discovery and fail to make any agreement, on the grounds that, the GLA, which would be material to any claim, was "concealed by Crytek in its two pleadings".
That's why attorneys who can't control their clients, tend to withdraw from cases. It's about ethics. Since FKKS is also a reputation management firm, it stands to reason that they would allow this sort of nonsense. They are going to regret it because all they're doing is giving Skadden every reason to completely embarrass their client in court filings, without having to resort to playground rhetoric. We've already seen this happen in Skadden's FAC filing, as well as their Rule 26(f) filing where they leaked that CIG had approached them about a settlement, which they turned down. That's not the sort of info CIG would have wanted to be made public. Especially since it destroys their narrative - as well as that of their toxic backer base - that Crytek was after a quick cash pay day.
Could be. Note that if by "their [Skadden's] Rule 26(f) filing" you mean the document posted at the top of this thread, then while Skadden technically filed the document, FKKS had to agree explicitly to the content of the "CIG's position" parts, and, if they have any brains at all, wrote them themselves. So, Skadden didn't leak the "settlement" part; CIG/FKKS said, "Okay, V-E, possibilities for resolution. How much money do you want?" They then wrote down that Skadden/Crytek wouldn't give them a figure, since they had "ulterior motives".
p. 13 “I, (signing Skadden lawyer’s name), attest that the signatories listed above, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing.”
Defendants asked Crytek what it wanted from this case and whether it had a settlement demand. Crytek said it was not prepared to make a settlement demand or tell Defendants what it hoped to achieve from the lawsuit. Defendants asked Crytek what method of settlement procedure Crytek preferred; Crytek would not state.
Crytek disputes Defendants’ description infra of the parties’ discussions during the Rule 26(f) conference as incomplete and inaccurate. (In particular, Crytek’s counsel stated that Crytek was open both to mediation with a neutral from the Court Meditation (sic) Panel or with a private mediator, but declined to respond to Defendants’ insistence that Crytek make a settlement demand during the Rule 26(f) conference.) Crytek will further respond to those allegations at an appropriate time as may be required.
Either I just don't see it, or we mean the same thing. Skadden did not "leak" the settlement discussion.
"Crytek disputes Defendants' description infra of the parties' discussions during the Rule 26(f) conference as incomplete and inaccurate. (In particular, Crytek's counsel stated that Crytek was open both to mediation with a neutral from the Court Meditation Panel or with a private mediator, but declined to respond to Defendants' insistence that Crytek make a settlement demand during the Rule 26(f) conference.) Crytek will further respond to those allegations at an appropriate time as may be required."
In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case;
Considering how unprofessional cig has been in the fillings, I still have to think Ortwin cannot be ignorant of the consequences. I have to think they are working on the worst possible outcome and that would be loss of mtd and then onto discovery. Are they just grandstanding while they continue to milk the backers and work on covering up the whole mess? Would it not be possible to for them to account for everything legal or not with expenses, expenditures, development? It seems to me that with all the companies and movement of money that is what they have been doing all along. Getting ready for the shutdown and having all loose ends accounted for concerning the backers money. As I see companies routinely get away with shafting the US Taxpayers by billions using much smaller own companies to purchase for example FCC licenses. Or am I giving CR/Ortwin to much credit they the are indeed working out all the details for the worst case scenario?
So Crytek did not "leak" the information; CIG did,
Crytek didn't leak anything; CIG shot themselves in the foot,
And that's where the Crytek statement comes in to shine: it underscores that the purpose of CIG was not to outline discovery in view of a quick settlement, but to kill any discovery discussion under the color of making demands for a settlement.
It might be worth pointing out again that the majority of Shitizens dont have a clue what is going down here.
*snip*
As Derek has said, Skadden are going to be looking for a lot of $$ (which he suspects CIG don't have) and plenty is going to come out in Discovery.
usually the most embarrassing and revealing things come from depositions.
I seem to remember someone here posting a clip of a senior CIG dev saying that the decision to transfer to Lumberyard had to go through the lawyers first - I might be mistaken.
I seem to remember someone here posting a clip of a senior CIG dev saying that the decision to transfer to Lumberyard had to go through the lawyers first - I might be mistaken.
If that's true, then presumably their legal advice at the time is going to be revealed in the discovery process?
Get your popcorn ready guys :smiley:
Aha !
Nasty for for CIG ..
Having read up on Wikipedia what "dispositions" are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law))
Almost a pre trial instead of a pre sale !
I wasn't familiar with this as it is a different process than in the UK which is a lot easier on the parties up until trial.
Many cases tend to end during or after discovery or depositions because that's when previously known things tend to come to light. And they tend to weaken or strengthen the merits of a case for either side.
There is a reason that CIG is now starting to not only resist discovery, but also trying to get Crytek to open settlement talks. They know what's coming - and that it's not going to be fun or good for them, regardless of the merits of Crytek's claims.
Yes your arm chair lawyers think the law works according to movies they have seen, a notion of innocent until proven guilty with a large dollop of thinking the standard of proof is especially high in Civil cases.
We are not trying to prove attempted murder here with no witnesses, CCTV or apparent motive.
CIG havent just been stopped on the street at random and in the process of being fitted up by a bent Police Department and a red neck judge.
Well, over on Reddit, our Shitizen friends are even saying that Crytek discovery is akin to corporate espionage (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/81f84p/star_citizen_update_cig_vs_crytek_youtuber_law/dv3le0x/). So. :shrug:
You couldn't make it up !!!
:police:
So is it likely the judge will order the financials are kept out of the public domain ?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html
Great write up and easily explains the lack of character of CR and previous lies. Leaks that expose wrong doing, theft etc I'm fully behind. I would love to see legislation to protect people that do so involving the government from harassment or worse.
Is it just me...or is it actually impossible for CIG to legally uphold the GLA unless it uses CryEngine?
I'm talking about clauses such as promoting CryEngine via a splashscreen. How can CIG do that without committing fraud if it doesn't use CryEngine?
Or granting CryTek the right to free use of Star Citizen to promote CryEngine. Surely they are acting to deprive CryTek of a contractual right without due compensation if they switch?
Or are there implied rights or laws or standards which cover this?
What they should have done is shared the success of SC with Crytek.
What they should have done....and not paid Crytek a penny more than they needed to.
What they should have done is upheld the GLA...and not paid Crytek a penny more than they needed to.
But the question was whether or not CIG could legally fulfil its contractual obligations if it switched to another engine.
For example...the GLA provides CryTek with a right to sue Star Citizen to promote CryEngine. But CIGs move to Lumberard would strip that right away with no compensation. Some might say tough
But the GLA also requires CIG to promote CryEngine via a splashscreen. However, it appears the is clause does not depend on the engine being in use. It simply states CIG has to do something in exchange for the right to use CryEngine. However, if they promote CryEngine as contractually required at a time when they are not using CryEngine, that could possibly be construed as fraud.
In essence, even discounting the question of interpretation over the word "exclusive", do the terms of the GLA ensure that the only way CIG can legally uphold its obligations is to use CryEngine...a de facto exclusivity clause even if there isn't one mentioned specifically?
According to my sources, they spent the better part of 2017 playing the "come at me bro!" game with Crytek. Until Crytek decided they had had enough. All CIG had to do was settle for having switched engines, and also buy a license for SQ42. That would have been the end of it.
What's so hilarious is that even if they had settled with CryTek on switching engines, they'd still be committing fraud, because they never switched engines.
No matter what CIG does, they can't help but commit fraud.
It won't be fraud. That would be copyright infringement.
FRAUD Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 1950
fraud,n.1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to
induce another to act to his or her detriment. • Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. — Also termed intentional fraud. [Cases: Fraud 1, 3, 16.] 2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. [Cases: Fraud 31.] 3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. [Cases: Fraud 13(3).] 4. Unconscionable dealing; esp., in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain. [Cases: Contracts 1. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 2–3, 9, 12.] — fraudulent,adj.
Copyright Infringement is just one of many breaches of the law that CGI/RSI have, in my opinion, committed.
Thus far, there is no evidence that fraud has been committed. And Crytek's lawsuit has no such insinuation. Fraud is a very high bar. It will come into play if/when the Feds or the State|District attorneys take an interest in the case either through referral (from public, attorneys etc) or their own investigations. Lying isn't fraud.
According to my sources, they spent the better part of 2017 playing the "come at me bro!" game with Crytek. Until Crytek decided they had had enough. All CIG had to do was settle for having switched engines, and also buy a license for SQ42. That would have been the end of it.
That would (NOT) have been the end of it.
I mainly wanted to post up the definition of fraud from Black's so that everyone else reading this can come to their own conclusion.
Sure but the law doesn't work that way.
In my opinion that is not true, Crytek's lawsuit has a very specific insinuation of fraud. Ortwin's failure to gain a waiver is clear fraud.
4. Unconscionable dealing; esp., in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain. [Cases: Contracts 1. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 2–3, 9, 12.] — fraudulent,adj.
That's not fraud. You can't "insinuate" a cause of action without clear specifics. None of Crytek's cause of actions in the lawsuit, amount to or insinuate fraud.
Ortwin did have a waiver. He just didn't disclose his in-depth affiliation with CIG/RSI, nor recuse himself from dealings. That's the problem with that. And it's not fraud.
Even during the lawsuit, if fraud were to be uncovered by Crytek, they won't be able to take action. It would be up to the attorneys to refer the matter to the district attorney for further action.
WAIVER Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 4889
waiver (way-v<<schwa>>r), n.1. The voluntary relinquishment or abandonment — express
or implied — of a legal right or advantage; FORFEITURE <waiver of notice>. • The party alleged to have waived a right must have had both knowledge of the existing right and the intention of forgoing it. Cf. ESTOPPEL. [Cases: Estoppel 52.10. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 67–68, 70–72, 75–76, 79, 159–160.]
That's where it gets tricky for Ortwin with his waiver from CryTek. Exactly what rights were CryTek waiving? If they didn't know that Ortwin had a financial interest in CIG/RSI. Then there is no way, by definition, that they could have waived any rights that they had no knowledge of possessing.
You see where this is going?
Ortwin Freyermuth is proper fucked.
Also never forget the name of Carl Jones. There very well could have been collusion on both sides of the table. If SKADDEN can prove that there was. Than that's the real bombshell that will blow this case wide open.
I wanted to digress and come to a stable term of agreement. That my opinion is mine, and your opinion is yours, but you're not allowing a solid meeting of the minds on this issue.
Fraud is not solely a criminal offense. It's mainly a tortious action,
On Ortwin's "waiver",QuoteWAIVER Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 4889
waiver (way-v<<schwa>>r), n.1. The voluntary relinquishment or abandonment — express
or implied — of a legal right or advantage; FORFEITURE <waiver of notice>. • The party alleged to have waived a right must have had both knowledge of the existing right and the intention of forgoing it. Cf. ESTOPPEL. [Cases: Estoppel 52.10. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 67–68, 70–72, 75–76, 79, 159–160.]
That's where it gets tricky for Ortwin with his waiver from CryTek. Exactly what rights were CryTek waiving? If they didn't know that Ortwin had a financial interest in CIG/RSI. Then there is no way, by definition, that they could have waived any rights that they had no knowledge of possessing.
You see where this is going?
Ortwin Freyermuth is proper fucked.
Also never forget the name of Carl Jones. There very well could have been collusion on both sides of the table. If SKADDEN can prove that there was. Than that's the real bombshell that will blow this case wide open.
Well Orgetorix I do not know law in the slightest but the more charges they can be brought the happier I will be. I feel they are probably doing so much shady stuff with the money but just could be my overactive imagination. Sometimes I think maybe he started with honest intentions but the money kept rolling in. But then I look at some of the people he's been with in the past and have worked with him from the start of SC I wonder. I would really like to see them sued to the extent that it affects there personal bank accounts from ill gotten gains from SC.
Surely, before the GLA was signed, Crytek knew that Ortwin was likely involved with Star Citizen, or otherwise in bed with Roberts.
After all they had been partners for a while and wan't it a matter of public record ?
That Crytek decided to go ahead with Ortwin preparing and negotiating the GLA anyway - no doubt thinking that Ortwin would be seeking the best interests of both parties -
CryTek have filed their answer to the Mar 9th filing for a protective order by CIG.
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order (http://docdro.id/oxLxMkt)
Trust me, this one is hilarious. It was only a matter of time before Crytek attorneys started to point out just how hilarious all this is. And boy, some of the things they wrote are going to piss off Ortwin so much.
My analysis will be up later today.
CryTek have filed their answer to the Mar 9th filing for a protective order by CIG.
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order (http://docdro.id/oxLxMkt)
Trust me, this one is hilarious. It was only a matter of time before Crytek attorneys started to point out just how hilarious all this is. And boy, some of the things they wrote are going to piss off Ortwin so much.
My analysis will be up later today.
I thought the references to the judges past cases as case law examples, was interesting.
I'm wondering how Croberts managed to lure fkks into this mess here.
This discovery issue really has them spooked.
BDCISE. (Best Damn Copyright Infringement Suit Ever™).Looks like CIG have very low change (its like SC can run thousands of players on screen at once and have 60fps+ in 4k ;D ) to defeat Skadden's "High fidelity" lawyers in court...
Looks like CIG have very low change (its like SC can run thousands of players on screen at once and have 60fps+ in 4k ;D ) to defeat Skadden's "High fidelity" lawyers in court...
Well the ruling was rather anticlimactic....
What will happen now is that the deluded Backers will read a CIG victory into this ruling.
Straight up draw, if you exclude how many auroras were spent filing unnecessary motions.
Straight up draw, if you exclude how many auroras were spent filing unnecessary motions.
When is the motion to dismiss finally ruled on?
Damn right! If they had nothing to hide they'd have shared their financials as promised way back then or initiated the discovery process early as per the judge's advisory. They're holding for dear life that the MtD will absolve them of this menace so that they can carry on with business/bamboozling as usual. This whole charade makes me sick and I wish for CR & Co. nothing less than complete and total justice - jail! :police:
There WAS a scheduling filing. Says so RIGHT THERE (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al) on Pacer.
If what my sources are telling me is true, that they are frantically trying to complete the Lumberyard port - which they claimed was done during 2016 - it would make sense why they would be pulling all kinds of tricks to delay the inevitable.
If what my sources are telling me is true, that they are frantically trying to complete the Lumberyard portWould be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.
Whoa... then they surely must also be putting effort into tampering their source code commits to look as if all that was done in 2016. Otherwise it will be moot during discovery when they have to divulge their code base. I wonder what kind of mayhem that would be causing to their branch system. GIT rebasing is not for the feint of heart, I'm pretty sure they'll slip up if they went this path. Only their backers will end up paying for this with even shittier releases while they struggle getting this done in time.
I'm sure even CIG wouldn't be that stupid.That's a pretty naive assumption. :grin:
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.
I know very little about source code repositories, but isn't trying to change the logs going to produce all sorts of errors? Besides, wouldn't Crytek simply want read only access to the servers as part of the discovery process - that would make it pretty hard to hide things. Any tampering with the evidence would be illegal - I'm sure even CIG wouldn't be that stupid.
What that page says is...
As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time. The motion for stay, therefore, is moot and denied on that basis. IT IS SO ORDERED.
It seems CIG got only a delay, but of there is no scheduling order in place,
they don't have to allow discovery
and they can probably refile for a Protective Order once there is.
Whoa... then they surely must also be putting effort into tampering their source code commits to look as if all that was done in 2016. Otherwise it will be moot during discovery when they have to divulge their code base. I wonder what kind of mayhem that would be causing to their branch system. GIT rebasing is not for the feint of heart, I'm pretty sure they'll slip up if they went this path. Only their backers will end up paying for this with even shittier releases while they struggle getting this done in time.
P.S. I'm not sure they're using GIT but if they have JIRA it's more or less required to use Stash/GIT nowadays. I think Atlassian dropped official SVN support a while ago.
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.
It may also be the case that switching to LumberYard is next to impossible. Whether CIG likes it or not, LY is a CE spin off. The terms of any settlement might be restrictive enough to affect LY.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the judge's Dec 17th order, which she also cited in this ruling.
That's categorically FALSE. That's not how the legal system works.
That's categorically FALSE. They can't because the judge already ruled that 1) they have to do the scheduling which leads to 2) discovery.
If they file another PO, it will be rejected as moot (again), because the judge already gave her instructions in the latest ruling. And she was pretty clear.
They didn't switch back in 2016 when they said they did (http://dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/). They just weren't expecting Crytek to sue them in 2017. So if they are hinging on the fact that the GLA allowed them to switch, then they will have to PROVE it by showing that there is NO Crytek specific code remaining in their custom code base
I quoted the current order which stated no such schedule was in place and that CIG were asking to delay something that wasn't going to happen until it was.
As for there being no such thing...that same quote refers to it.
As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time.
The scheduling order you say doesn't exist has not yet been issued therefore CIG are under no current obligation to respond.
If CIG are seeking to simply delay the process or drag it out, then frankly it doesn't matter what the Judge has already ruled. They'll file for the PO...again...it'll be turned down...again...but CIG would have gotten the delay they want.
Unless there is a legal reason why they cannot refile...and there doesn't seem to be one...there seems to be little reason for them no to do so.
Upon further review, the Court notes that Judge Gee issued an Initial Standing Order on December 13, 2017. Paragraph 4.b. of that order addresses
discovery before and after the scheduling conference. Specifically, the order provides that “it is advisable for counsel to begin to conduct discovery actively before the Scheduling Conference.” Although early discovery is strongly encouraged, Judge Gee’s policy is not to require the parties to participate in discovery until a scheduling order has issued. As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time. The motion for stay, therefore, is moot and denied on that basis.
To be honest, the way CIG are acting, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they knew the GLA did prevent switching....after all, why switch from one unsuitable engine to another....but simply didn't think CryTek would be around long enough to care or sue.
These tactics are all part of frustrating your opposition. And it's all perfectly legal. Until the judge gets pissed for wasting the court's time, while backing up the court dockets as a result.
it was really smart as this defeat is of no consequence for CIG, the motion was not even relevant and gave them the very thing they are applying for defer discovery until after the motion to dismiss.
Of course, you can't just keep making motions with nugatory arguments like with the PO on the basis of bare legality. At some point, the court is going to prove that you can be both sharp and dull. So, they got their six-week delay, at the cost of a part of the court's finite goodwill.
And CIG doesn't get to just stop the clock and wait for the MtD before cooperating with and completing a scheduling conference as the precursor to discovery. They will get sanctioned. If they could do that, they would have, and not have to waste time and money on a PO in the first place.
So they now have to do the scheduling conference
and get a scheduling order. If by that time the MtD ruling hasn't come down, they have to do discovery or face sanctions by the judge.
OSC (who is a lawyer working in FINCEN) has an excellent post about this, and has a lot more detail.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8d5yzb/cigs_motion_for_protective_order_status_denied/dxop661/
No, they can only file if there has been no verdict on the MtD. I'd like to see them try though, pissing of the judge will really help them :grin:
If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.
If the MtD succeeds
Which essentially states what I have been saying.
If CIG are seeking to simply delay the process or drag it out, then frankly it doesn't matter what the Judge has already ruled. They'll file for the PO...again...it'll be turned down...again...but CIG would have gotten the delay they want.
Unless there is a legal reason why they cannot refile...and there doesn't seem to be one...there seems to be little reason for them no to do so.
Her ruling doesn't give CIG **any** opportunity to file another PO. Now they have to do the scheduling conference; submit it to the judge for her scheduling order.
At this moment in time, parties have to go back to where they were after the Feb discovery plan filing, complete that scheduling process, submit it to the court, then wait for the scheduling order. When that is issued, nothing is stopping CIG from re-filing the PO if the judge doesn't issue a ruling on the MtD by that time. They can do that because the judge didn't deny the PO because of the reasons they stated. She denied it because it was moot. And if they do re-file it, she will deny it because their reasons have no basis or precedence in law.
No, they can only file if there has been no verdict on the MtD. I'd like to see them try though, pissing of the judge will really help them :grin:
If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.
If the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot.
If the MtD fails, even in part, then they can still file something which will delay discovery, though whether or not this be be a simple refiling of the PO or one of the other options available to them, depends on a number of factors such as the ruling.
And so far, they don't seem afraid of burning the judges goodwill.
They seem mote afraid of discovery, which makes me really curious as to what CryTek will find when and if if goes ahead. I suspect CIG will suddenly discover such information should be sealed, however.
They can try.
Wrong. The MtD has no bearing on discovery unless the judge grants EVERYTHING in it; which is so unlikely, there is no point even arguing about it. Unless the judge grants everything, the case moves forward. Which means discovery.
That's not how that works.
They will have to continue with discovery once the scheduling order is in place. There is NOTHING they can file that will avoid or delay discovery any further.
Other than objections to certain discovery requests (which they already did when they blew their load in the ineffective PO) - which will NOT halt discovery once there is a schedule order, as that would be in contempt of court.
As we've said, sure they can try with another PO, but it's doubtful that they will go for that a second time; after causing a 6 week delay the first time around.
IIRC parties cannot just delay discussing /producing a draft Scheduling Order for a judge to consider, then sign. If they could it would allow one party to stop proceedings by simply refusing to discuss scheduling.
So the question is .. how long do CIG and Crytek have to come up with proposed Scheduling now that we have has this latest ruling ?
(2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.
If the other party doesn't cooperate - you file and say the didn't cooperate.. If you both file independently - someone pisses off the judge and the Judge rules on the matter.
In other words, if the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot. Arguing that the MtD is unlikely to succeed is not the same as being wrong.
You just posted a link to a source which states it is possible that CIG can refile the motion once the SO is in place because the judge didn't rule on the merits of CIGs case.
CIG will need to continue to move forward with discovery only when legally required to do so and while the judge may issue certain revommendations, a recommendation isn't a legal requirement.
The judge dismissed their motion because it was moot. Once a SO is in place, CIG can refile the exact same motion and request the judge rule on the merits of their motion and stave off discovery for as long as it takes for that ruling to be made.
CIG could win this? Seriously? You that dumb? I thought Serenstupidity was banned, but now I'm not sure anymore.
Yes.
CryTek might fail to demonstrate intent for example. That's a fairly high bar.
A jury might believe this is a vexatious lawsuit brought by a failing company because it underestimated the amount of money it could get via royalties.
They might find CIG guilty but provide only limited damages.
And so on.
Don't make the mistake of thinking this is a sure thing. That's what many SC backers are doing but none of us knows the law well enough, even some trained lawyers have been "surprised" and CryTek are requesting a jury trial.
The most we can do is state that right now, CryTek appears to have the stronger case and appears likely...in our non professional opinion...to win some sort of judgement but even that isn't certain.
In a later email to Polygon, Roberts again addressed his feelings about Smart. "It's hard not to be irritated when someone who is famous for being very late and then finally releasing a bug ridden game that doesn't do half the things he promised starts criticizing you for taking too long and not delivering on promises.
"The reason why we have chosen not to engage him and tried to take the high road is that he's the kind of person with nothing to lose, that will carry on no matter what facts are put in front of him and has made it his mission to try and tear down Star Citizen."
Roberts scoffs at the notion that the company will run out of money before the final game is delivered. "It's not going to happen. We keep a pretty healthy cash reserve. We managed our expenses based on the revenue we bring in. We have our development timeline and we know what we're doing. We adjust. If I'm not bringing in $3 million or $2 million a month, we aren't going to have as many people working on it.
"When Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are out there, I think the game will speak for itself. The noise we're dealing with now will not be there. The people who were there and backed it along the way will be happy and they'll be proud of helping make something happen that probably could not have happened in any other situation."
"Most of the time developers go dark once their Kickstarter or IndieGoGo campaign has run its course, with the backers getting occasional or sporadic updates," he explains. "But that's nothing like we do; we have more posts than days of the week, at least three video updates, a 50 to 70 page behind the scenes e-magazine and normally at least two patches a month."
Also, it seems that the Pacer activity has an "Order for Date of Proceedings" from Vox Media's (Parent of Polygon) Senior Counsel. I'm gathering that's a procedural issue; maybe someone has more.
where is my lawsuit already, what happened to the right to a speedy trail?
If during Discovery, CIG want their financials filed under seal, do they need to provide a reason to the court for the request to be granted?
Yes. And then it's up to the judge to grant or deny it.
She granted it because they Crytek filing was a bit ambiguous. That's why she left room for them to re-file it.
Also, the exclusivity was that CIG could only use CryEngine for Star Citizen; not that only CIG could use CryEngine.
You cannot prevent a person from making a living, the same applies to companies I would suppose.If CryEngine was too flawed how come the game is not doing better with Lumberyard nearly 2 years later. Your argument doesn't make sense at all. Are you here to troll us?
If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...
You cannot prevent a person from making a living, the same applies to companies I would suppose.
If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...
If CryEngine was too flawed how come the game is not doing better with Lumberyard nearly 2 years later. Your argument doesn't make sense at all. Are you here to troll us?
Please demonstrate 'not doing better' in a court of law...
I think CIG's only out is to demonstrate that the CryEngine is fatally flawed and forced them to jump ship, though I doubt that would work if there is no record of communication between them and Cry telling Cry to fix their engine.
If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...
You cannot prevent a person from making a living, the same applies to companies I would suppose.Irrelevant.
If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...
My thread has concluded
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html
That was, by far, your best write-up in this entire saga. Not a single person can argue against what you wrote.
Well said Derek, So in a nutshell, CIG's last real option which won't go well is:
How and why would they make such a claim? And do you see it in any part of their responses or even the MtD filing?
That makes no sense. Especially since the GLA didn't give them any guarantee of performance. It was up to them to use it or not. That's why the judge even let 2.1.2 slide.
ps: Are you familiar with Epic Games v Silicon Knights? Please read up on that, because they tried - and failed - a similar claim. Epic bankrupted them.
--> " I were in Crytek's shoes, I would just go in, take every f-cking thing, kick them all out, finish the game and extract their losses and damages"
What is this 'finish the game' thing you speak of? Can anyone finish this game?
My thread has concluded
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html
My thread has concluded
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html
The core problem is this: they developed and marketed two games. They didn't do this simply because someone got greedy. They did this for the F42 tax break: SQ42 could be argued British, while SC could not. So they took the tax break; they took loans against the tax break, and they shot a ton of Mocap. Meanwhile, their grand theory was to build one space-engine, and they needed that before they could do most of the design work for SQ42. So they focused on the space-engine, aka SC.
Now, they've got a broken-ass engine, a commitment to the UK government to deliver SQ42 or pay a ton of back taxes, and Crytek comes along with this here lawsuit. It's not disputed that they (pre)sold copies of SC and SQ42 during the period that nobody disputes CryEngine was used. So, even on RSI/CIG/.../'s best-case scenario, they're still on the hook for a few million they don't have.
Throw in discovery, and throw in the towel.
My thread has concluded
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html
--> " I were in Crytek's shoes, I would just go in, take every f-cking thing, kick them all out, finish the game and extract their losses and damages"And then publish it via EA. :grin:
Do we still think someone is going to jail? Or are they going to get away from serving any time?
Does anyone have a source for the two brothers inc in paying refunds, I had accepted it as fact but when asked about I could not find any evidence of it online.
Are the damages really bad that will come from this? There are some on reddit saying a 2 million value.
Are the damages really bad that will come from this? There are some on reddit saying a 2 million value.
The stupidity on Reddit is incredible, the best comment I've come across:
"All Skadden is trying to do with their Opposition is to prevent the Motion to Dismiss from succeeding. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't the trial and Skadden will want to give as little insight as possible into their future course of action."
You don't need evidence, as that would imply getting people to post private emails. It's a fact. A LOT of people paid to and received refunds from it. Go search on Reddit.
This is pure and utter tripe. This is why there are bad and really bad attorneys. You were wrong in ALL of your "legal" arguments regarding this case. Now you're doubling down. I hope the views are worth it. This is a stellar judge with a HISTORY of exceptional rulings across a gamut of low and high profile cases. And here you are disparaging and questioning her ruling on the merits? You're an internet "lawyer". She's a FEDERAL JUDGE! Jeez.
There he goes again.
I left him a comment
Wow, some really toxic replies to your comment. Walked right into the maggot nest there. I don't know why you waste your time typing to those idiots.
My coverage of the latest SAC filing
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html
You said 'FOREVER + 2 days'. You might want to change that.
Question...
I expect that if Crytek has to object to any motion to suppress and|or file under seal anything related to this project, that CIG is going to invoke the ToS.
What does that mean and what result would CIG expect?
Why? You have a hard time recognizing sarcasm?
Just as another thought, in how far would any design work by Crytek during the promotional videos, that CIG still might use, count towards the proclaimed infringement?
My coverage of the latest SAC filing
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html
Seriously, I would have thought CIG would wait as long as possible to delay the inevitable...
This is some funny sh*t. :)
Good write-up. The one thing I disagree with its the alleged purpose of the SQ42 split, which you pin on the Coutts loan. Actually, it's more likely that they did it to qualify for the tax credits. Then they used those tax credits for the loan, but that was a year or more later, unless my timing is way off.
This degenerate depressed shill needs his own day in court.
The sound of his voice makes me want to vomit because every one of his videos it is the same chipper upbeat tone no matter how much bullshit CIG have peddled and how many milestones they miss.
He has no expertise what so fucking ever in law nevermind USA law and here he is reading shit he found on the web to impressionable gamers as though he is an authority.
I know fuck all... but here is my lengthy opinion on the matter anyway .. which you should listen to because.....
It is like doing an academic essay where 10% is the presentation of actual opinion and facts from experts and 90% response and thoughts from the novice writer/student.
He promotes French and that other useless internet lawyer Derek took down a day or so ago, without so much as mentioning how wrong they have both been on the case - for which you require NO legal expertise whatsoever because they made solid predictions that have since been proven wrong.
Oh and at the end this cunt says he is now following Star Citizen because it is "interesting" to follow and thus attempting to distance himself from the fallout as though he has always been an impartial observer and presenter of facts.
Good write-up. The one thing I disagree with its the alleged purpose of the SQ42 split, which you pin on the Coutts loan. Actually, it's more likely that they did it to qualify for the tax credits. Then they used those tax credits for the loan, but that was a year or more later, unless my timing is way off.
ROFL, Montoya moronic is actually being nice. Every time I listen to that idiot I want to reach in and beat his ass.
ROFL, Montoya moronic is actually being nice. Every time I listen to that idiot I want to reach in and beat his ass.
He'll blame it on the greedy, failing Crytek. They wanted to punish CIG and its backers.
My response to the CIG filing
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html
The idiot Montoya says things about the court case:
Apparently it's all fine. Also, back in Jan, apparently Leonard French said is was unlikely the judge would dismiss anything. Just for a reminder, this is what Montoya said in Jan (start at 00.34):
Some might ask why Crytek wouldn't want to settle for anything "reasonable" that CIG can afford because if CIG do go to the wall sooner rather than later, Crytek would get less...wouldn't they ?The most hilarious outcome would be CT grabbing all existing assets without the debt, turn them into a decent game based on the Kickstarter concept and release that exclusively for Xbox One X as "Space Citizen Squadron 409" having Microsoft cover the remainder of the cost.
I note you said in your earlier response that if you were Crytek you might be minded to see CIG go to the wall (rather than make this purely about immediate $$)
The most hilarious outcome would be CT grabbing all existing assets without the debt, turn them into a decent game based on the Kickstarter concept and release that exclusively for Xbox One X as "Space Citizen Squadron 409" having Microsoft cover the remainder of the cost.
the assets are worthless: the motion capture and art assets are specific to SQ42 / SCWho cares? They are already made and can be salvaged.
and the core engine changes are a mess.CT owns a modern engine, which is compatible with the assets, they don't need CIG's outdated pile of shit.
Besides, everyone who was going to buy the game has already done so.Xbox owners? I don't think so.
And there will be so much bad blood between the cultists and Crytek that none of them will touch the game if Crytek release it themselves.I don't think anybody cares about a few Reddit zealots. If Microsoft Xbox division funds it, they are not even going to make a PC version. Cultists are simply left in the cold.
If taking assets from a failed game, and using it to make the same game were that easy, there wouldn't be any game cancelations.Nobody can do what Chris Roberts promised. Because what he promised is impossible. The latter is the reason why he got so much money.
Nobody can do what Chris Roberts promised. Because what he promised is impossible. The latter is the reason why he got so much money.
All told, there might be a million bucks worth of IP!
The only value to come out of this mess will be Star Citizen The Movie about the shit show behind the scenes, directed by Armando Iannucci along the lines of Veep / The Thick of It. It'll feature Sandi firing anyone who questions her marketing qualifications and Chris prowling the office shouting at people for having the wrong coloured pixel.
So do you think that it will be required of Crytek to examine all of the code the CIG is using at any point after the lumberyard switch to find lines of code that are clearly Cryteks source code and definitly not Lumberyards altered code?
Leo is back!
@ 8:37 is where Leser trips up; and is precisely why most of us were regarding 2.1.2 as "exclusive" use. When you look at 2.4, it goes with 2.1.2. The thing is that since the judge has thrown out 2.1.2, it doesn't mean CIG has to continue to promote CryEngine if they're not using it. That's bs. It just means that unless the contract terminates + 2 yrs, they can't do anything listed in 2.4. So guess what? If they had in fact stopped using CE, why didn't they terminate the GLA? Simple. They're still using it. And if so, they're fucked with 2.4.
It would be hilarious if we discovered that Ortwin had a hand in the drafting of this part of the agreement and messed it up so badly that Crytek were able to sue them out of existence.
You cannot prevent a person from making a living, the same applies to companies I would suppose.
If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...
Derek, You mentioned that CIG had replied to the second filing by CE. Any news on that?
He really like to talk..
I couldn't agree more Derek, but a question - what about the counter argument that Cry didn't fulfill their part of the deal with the operational problems they encountered with cash shortflows? (lack of support to CIG/RSI)
Greg
I couldn't agree more Derek, but a question - what about the counter argument that Cry didn't fulfill their part of the deal with the operational problems they encountered with cash shortflows? (lack of support to CIG/RSI)
Greg
Thanks for clearing that up, I was reading posters talking about reverse-liability and wanted to know if there was any truth to it. Apparently its just more b.s. from CIG.
If for some reason CIG did try and make the argument that Crytek was unsuitable for their purpose then why switch to Lumberyard which is a lightly modified version of Crytek? Its not Apples to Oranges, its a Fuji to Honeycrisp switch.
Thanks for clearing that up, I was reading posters talking about reverse-liability and wanted to know if there was any truth to it. Apparently its just more b.s. from CIG.
Greg
There is zero truth to it. You should ask them the same questions I posted above. This is a very damaging case for CIG, and if that argument had any merit, they would have filed a counter-claim against Crytek. They haven't - and they can't. That's why they're on the defensive and basically just answering the lawsuit. They have NO claims against Crytek. They didn't even come up with bs in that regard, even if they knew it would be thrown out by the judge once Crytek filed a motion to dismiss it.
I still don't see the relevance of Oakhurst, mind you. That case clearly revolved around an ambiguous contract (and a lack of an Oxford comma). Here, Ortwin is clearly at least hindered by not being a native English speaker ("any game
.. which competes."), but it's clear that there's no ambiguity in the text. They have no grammatical leg to stand on.
I still don't see the relevance of Oakhurst, mind you. That case clearly revolved around an ambiguous contract (and a lack of an Oxford comma). Here, Ortwin is clearly at least hindered by not being a native English speaker ("any game
.. which competes."), but it's clear that there's no ambiguity in the text. They have no grammatical leg to stand on.
I think Derek is suggesting that because of Oakhurst, 2.4 needs to be read as...
I Am Not A Lawyer, but... Like the rest of the contract, section 2.4 is really badly worded.
Yes, that's basically their argument.
They're stating that, for example, since they're not in the "business of developing any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine" that they haven't breached 2.4. They're saying that their "business" isn't related to that, and that it relates to making a game. This despite the fact that they've actually done 6 of the 8 items listed.
I seem to remember you said CIG were trying to sell / licence their "StarEngine" to other studios - if so, that's another little detail which could come out in Discovery.
Of course, if you argue the comma means only the term designing is linked with the "in the business of" clause, you could argue CIG are guilty of engaging in the other activities but I don't know how likely such an argument is likely to succeed
They’re now saying they haven’t done any of those things because the language in “engage in the business of” protects them because they’re not doing those things as a “business“. I have to admit, it’s a pretty solid & bold argument. But here’s the problem. In their filing, I didn’t see any arg that supports how they could get around the issue that they’re not, for example “in the business of” doing those six things. To wit, what does “in the business of designing” mean? Obviously they did all of those six things above for not only their custom engine, Star Marine, but also for a competing engine, Lumberyard, which they switched to. It gets better.
What about “in the business of licensing (directly or indirectly) any engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine”?
It’s public knowledge that they did that with Lumberyard. Arguably, by their own promotions, Star Engine, which like Lumberyard, is built with CryEngine, also qualifies as a competing engine.
They’re stating that, for example, since they’re not in the “business of developing any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine” that they haven’t breached 2.4. This despite the fact that they have done precisely that in their promotion of Star Engine. The same could apply to Lumberyard if you read it as “business of promoting any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine“. And the “supporting” and “maintaining” qualifiers would also apply not only to their own engine, but also to Lumberyard.
Indeed, in Oakhurst, there was a genuinely ambiguous construction, caused by a series of gerunds, a phrase composed of a gerund, preposition, noun, 'or', noun. You could read it two ways.
Here, if you try to separate "engage in the business of" from the list of gerunds that follows, or pretend that it only refers to designing, you'd still need to explain what all those other gerunds are doing in the sentence.
It's clear, as Derek has pointed out, that they have been doing 6 of the 8, and doomed is their weak -ass attempt to use the precedent Websters v. My Third-Grade Report to explain that to promoting a competing product to their customers is not competing.
But here's the fun: their MtD does two things: one overtly, and one half-hidden. Overtly, they claim that Skadden doesn't mention in their analysis "engage in the business of", because those words would make their case weaker. It doesn't, of course. We had this discussion already. "In the business of" excludes incidental cases, such as if CIG were to point out a vulnerability in Unity.
The sneaky part is that they change the GLA's "which compete" to "that compete" and imply that the SAC reads it as "which compete". I don't think the SAC reads it this way, but the MtD doesn't want to spell out the literal reading of the passage:
"which compete" is plural. That means that it refers to a plural subject; "any game or middleware" is singular, and, if you wanted to refer to it, you'd probably want to use the restrictive pronoun ' that'. So the subject of "compete" is the list of eight activities, and ' which ' should be non -restrictive, meaning that 2.4 forbids CIG from designing, developing etc. any engjne or middleware, since those activities compete with CryEngine.
That's absurd. Skadden/CryTek aren't claiming that. FKKS/CIG are saying that they are, and, the funny part is that the contract actually says what FKKS/CIG falsely claim CryTek says it does. This makes Oakhurst a walk in the park.
De minimis. 'which compete' was meant to refer to 'game engine or middleware', and it doesn't make a bit of difference: however you cut it, CiG loses.
I have posted the new filing (https://www.docdroid.net/Jv5BRif/031129522308.pdf) which I am reviewing it now for a later post.
Based on all the lawyer comments in this thread the ELE has started for Crytek, they had a good run in the past and that's how I will remember them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/a40qo6/crytek_vs_cig_judge_grants_cigs_mtd_savagely_rips/
Yeah, those chuckleheads are so obtuse and stupid, it beggars belief.
It's pure procedural fodder that doesn't have anything to do with the previous motions which she threw out. This is purely related to the SAC. Whatever Crytek responds with, is going to determine if the ruling stays or if she amends it. Remember, discovery is on the way anyway, so none of this is material to the case due to the other claims having already survived the previous MtD. So even if she's not satisfied with the Crytek response and her ruling stands, it won't have any material effect on the case.
It's pure procedural fodder that doesn't have anything to do with the previous motions which she threw out. This is purely related to the SAC. Whatever Crytek responds with, is going to determine if the ruling stays or if she amends it. Remember, discovery is on the way anyway, so none of this is material to the case due to the other claims having already survived the previous MtD. So even if she's not satisfied with the Crytek response and her ruling stands, it won't have any material effect on the case.
You can't be serious. CryTek's central claim just got dismissed. The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing. And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition. Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.
You can't be serious. CryTek's central claim just got dismissed. The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing. And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition. Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.
You can't be serious. CryTek's central claim just got dismissed. The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing. And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition. Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.
It is one of several causes of action. How did you determine that the surviving claims are just "nuisance" and that this one is CryTek's "central claim" ?
How do you think Discovery is going to play out ?
You can't be serious. CryTek's central claim just got dismissed. The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing. And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition. Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.Hotdogs! Hotdogs! Get your hotdogs over here! Popcorn too! Care for a beer or some soda? Get it here! We got another one! Hotdogs!
I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind. You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.Oh, this is why we love you guys so much. Pure and utter gold. How much are you in for, commando?
Oh, this is why we love you guys so much. Pure and utter gold. How much are you in for, commando?
The idiots at Reddit are so convinced that this is in favor of CIG for the whole of the Crytek lawsuit rather than just one aspect of it, that one of them just couldn't resist and actually came here for a discussion with Derek. Oh dear God almighty, with what kind of flowers should we bury him after Derk is done with him?
I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind. You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.
You can't be serious. CryTek's central claim just got dismissed. The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing. And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition. Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.
I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind. You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.
I predicted that the judge would be likely to throw out CryTek's complaint by looking at the facts and applying basic logic.
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1053395856081055744
Sorry to burst that bubble, but that is NOT a prediction. That's a statement. You said:
"If the judge were planning to deny CIG's motion to dismiss, then why would she vacate the schedule hearing (presumably on discovery)? Seems more likely to me that she's about to throw out Crytek's complaint."
She didn't throw out the complaint (the case). She denied, via a MtD, the SAC (as per 2.4) the amendment (2.1.2), but gave them the chance (again) to correct is as-needed.
And this is my Tweet in that thread:
"The last time the judge vacated a hearing on a CIG motion, when she did rule, she smacked them so hard that I think CIG are still stunned from that one."
In this regard, the judge was heavy (IMO rightfully so) on Crytek because they neglected to provide additional supporting material. But still STILL (again) allowed them to amend their SAC just in case it was more about omission than about neglect.
I don't think the Crytek attorneys realized that they would get caught in a "single use" sort of discussion. This means that the judge is PAYING ATTENTION.
When she issues that previous DEVASTATING (to CIG) MtD, she did NOT give CIG the opportunity to even amend their responses. And this is the SECOND time that she is giving Crytek that opportunity because these types of cases are very complex and are serious enough to take down entire companies in one shot.
The motion to dismiss was on the legal merits of the claims, which is a really low bar. And several of CryTek's core claims couldn't even meet that. That the judge refused to dismiss everything just means that the other claims are questions of fact, and evidence needs to be presented before the judge can rule. It doesn't mean they have merit or that CIG won't be able to dispose of them easily.
In any case, your legal opinions have no credibility, especially after you have shown your inability to think objectively about it and separate your personal interests from the facts. I'm not asking anyone to believe my opinions either. The documents are there for anyone who cares to read them, and for any legal questions one should ask a real lawyer.
Right, you will keep reinterpreting your previous opinions and coming up with excuses for why you were wrong. It would be much easier for people to just read the documents for themselves.
:emot-lol: wot? My comments and posts are in the first post in this thread, with links to my analysis with each filing. And though IANAL, my track record in this case are been better than all those YT lawyers with their law degrees. It's still hilarious to me how all you guys were claiming the case was frivolous, that it would be dismissed etc. Then BOOM!
And how am I wrong? I just posted our EXACT exchange in the Twitter thread that YOU posted. :emot-lol:
You set up a strawman by choosing to interpret my reference to CryTek's CLAIM meant the entire CASE. Clearly I was referring to the claim that was the subject of the MtD.
This is exactly why you are consistently wrong about things. You are always twisting your interpretation to suit your personal agenda. Doesn't bother me, but it means you won't come up with the correct conclusion.
Wait! It gets worse.
The language in 2.4 not only prevents CIG from using a competing engine, it also prevents them from being in the "business of" doing so.
I bring this up for a reason. First, read this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html
The 1st part of 2.4 is explicit: "in the business of designing,"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dkz-CuoXgAgCO_z.jpg)
Some of our Internet "lawyers" were claiming that 2.4 pertained to CIG developing their own engine based on CryEngine, and trying to do all those things.
I said it was FALSE back in Jan.
Neither of you know how this is going to turn out, so how about we wait and see.
Never mind all the MTDs, that's all a distraction and delaying tactic to try and prevent the inevitable Discovery phase, which is where (in my opinion) all the danger lies for CIG. For instance it MIGHT show:
- That CIG is effectively bust, has no cash in the bank and is scraping together just enough to pay people month by month.
- That when CIG went from Crytek to Lumberyard they just changed all the copyright descriptions in the code headers, rather than starting with a fresh version of Lumberyard and copy pasting all their custom code.
- That Chris Roberts, his wife, and all his friends, have siphoned off a lot of money over the years. It will be entirely legal to do so, but might not impress the Whales.
The interesting thing will be how much will be made public, how much is hidden, and whether CIG try to settle this out of court!
It's true that we can't predict with absolute certainty. But Derek is making basic errors in his analysis. Just wanted to point that out.
I am on record with some statements that I think are more likely than the doom & gloom that Derek is spreading.
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1030848639005020161
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1039246275542171648
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1039242795331010560
But you are of course free to believe whatever you want. And none of this means that Star Citizen will be a playable game anytime soon.
You said prior you were done with SC which I infer you believe to have become a scam? Is you only real issue with Derek's take on the lawsuit? Do you have any prior or current legal training that helps you to believe or understand differently?
I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain,
You have shit for brains because you think this qualifies you to ignore the arguments of people with far more legal experience and expertise than you.
But Derek is making basic errors in his analysis. Just wanted to point that out.
Except that none of the things you listed are relevant to CryTek's surviving claims, so who cares (as far as the outcome of the lawsuit is concerned).
Scam is a strong word that I'm not sure I would be prepared to use without more evidence. But it's on the table as far as I'm concerned. The development process is definitely out of control and the promised features do not appear to be attainable.
I do not have legal training. My opinions are based on reading the documents, and
listening to contract lawyers on the subject.
And yet you can't seem to be able to provide any evidence of that. Instead, you're hurling insults, aggressive innuendo, and baseless arguments.
Even if CIG responds to the SAC and files a motion to dismiss 2.4, as it's an issue that's material to the contract, only discovery via the lawsuit will prove that. So I don't envision the judge granting it. Heck, she was the one who actually pointed it out in her own ruling. And NEITHER side had raised 2.4 before she did. Guess why that is? Because neither side disagrees that the GLA is still in full force and effect. Had it been terminated properly as per the contract, there would be NO lawsuit.
Basically the judge said to both sides (and to all of us in the "exclusive" debate):
"You're all ignorant. Quit wasting my time on this bs; and go look at 2.4 which is what you SHOULD be arguing over"
This was the impetus for her granting (in part) 2.1.2 while POINTING to 2.4
Now that 2.4 is in focus, and we already KNOW that CIG/RSI has NO defense against it, if this was the trial, it would have ended TODAY.
The reason that 2.4 is just as destructive as the SQ42 infringement (which the judge allowed to stand) is that there is more than enough evidence that CIG switched to a COMPETING engine: Amazon's Lumberyard.
Wait! It gets worse.
The language in 2.4 not only prevents CIG from using a competing engine, it also prevents them from being in the "business of" doing so.
This is patently relevant because Star Engine not only violates the ENTIRE Section 2.4, but they also created their own engine based of CryEngine, then used it to compete against CryTek's own engine.
Let me explain just how f-cking serious this is.
CIG has positioned and promoted Star Engine as their own engine which is superior to the base CryEngine.
Even though they could modify the engine as per the GLA, Section 2.4 explicitly prohibited them from "directly or indirectly" doing anything "which compete with CryEngine"
I'm not going to spend too much time on getting into pointless arguments about it, because then I'd probably have to charge you a training fee or something.
The judge just dismissed 2.4 without discovery.
But just to spell out your basic error:
So your claim that "only discovery via the lawsuit will prove that" is clearly false.
Yet in this Twitter thread commentary you made bombastic statements about the strength of the 2.4 claim:
As you can see, they have basically abandoned the claims in 2.1.2 in their ENTIRETY, while focusing on the MATERIAL & MORE DAMAGING BREACH in 2.4
It's absolutely mind-blowing that the judge gave them this so early on, rather than waiting for it to come up in discovery & later.
Skadden either set a trap here, or were of the opinion that 2.1.2 was just as damaging as 2.4; but the former would carry more weight than the latter (which would have been dragged into 2.1.2 during trial anyway).
That they hinged on a rather tenuous 2.1.2, rather than the slam dunk that was 2.4, is what's puzzling; and which leads me to believe this had to be some sort of long haul strategy.
Let me explain where I am going with this...
Let's assume for a minute, that 2.1.2 wasn't ambiguous, and that we didn't need a seasoned Federal judge to tell us that we were all ignorant, and then rubbed it in by citing case law proving it.
Let's also ignore the fact that not even the CIG/RSI lawyers made the case for 2.1.2.
They went in a completely different - and hilarious - direction because they claimed that 2.1.2 meant that only CIG/RSI could use CryEngine - and nobody else.
Basically the judge said to both sides (and to all of us in the "exclusive" debate):
"You're all ignorant. Quit wasting my time on this bs; and go look at 2.4 which is what you SHOULD be arguing over"
This was the impetus for her granting (in part) 2.1.2 while POINTING to 2.4
Now that 2.4 is in focus, and we already KNOW that CIG/RSI has NO defense against it, if this was the trial, it would have ended TODAY.
Here's why.
2.1.2 allowed CIG/RSI to use CryEngine. They weren't forced to do because there was no implied (by the GLA) grant of exclusivity even IF that was the understanding by both parties at signing.
Given the declarations in the FAC, I have reason to believe exclusivity WAS the intent.
Even if during discovery (depositions, emails etc) it came out that there was evidence that exclusivity WAS the intent, CryTek could still raise that in a responsive filing and 2.1.2 would be back in play because INTENT can and will overrule contractual language that is ambiguous
Now it won't matter. Any claims in 2.1.2, with or without evidence of intent to an exclusive use, would pale in comparison to the complete and utter destructive force that is the infringement in CryEngine being used in SQ42, and the material breach in 2.4. BOTH are now in play.
The reason that 2.4 is just as destructive as the SQ42 infringement (which the judge allowed to stand) is that there is more than enough evidence that CIG switched to a COMPETING engine: Amazon's Lumberyard.
i. Promoting
Similar to Plaintiff’s “promotion” argument regarding Star Engine, Plaintiff alleges Defendants promoted Lumberyard only once in connection with its announcement on December
23, 2016 that it intended to replace CryEngine as its game engine. And just like the single instance of purported promotion pertaining to Star Engine, this solitary act is insufficient to establish that Defendants engaged in the business of promoting Lumberyard.
The Court therefore GRANTS MTD as to their promotion of Lumberyard for the same reasons it granted the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants improperly promoted Star Engine.
ii. Licensing
The parties’ arguments pertaining to Lumberyard focus on whether Defendant promoted Lumberyard in violation of section 2.4, but the SAC also alleges that section 2.4 prohibits
Defendants from engaging in the business of licensing any game engine that competes with CryEngine. Id. at ¶ 36. It also alleges that Defendants “announced that they had licensed . . . the Amazon Lumberyard video game engine for Star Citizen in place of CryEngine.” Id. at ¶ 37.
Defendants assume that the “licensing” language in section 2.4 only prohibits it from licensing a competing game engine to a third party. See MTD at 11 (“Crytek does not and could not allege that Defendants ever attempted to promote, license, or sell Lumberyard to any third party.”). While certain passages from Plaintiff’s Opposition imply they believe section 2.4 also prohibits Defendants from licensing from a third party, Plaintiff does not squarely address the issue. See Opp. at 5, (“The public record further suggests that they have engaged in conduct consistent with having both (a) entered into a similar agreement directed at a competing game engine, Lumberyard . . .”), 10 (“Defendants announced that they would no longer use CryEngine for Star Citizen and would instead use a competing game engine, Lumberyard.”).
To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated section 2.4 by licensing Lumberyard from Amazon, the Court agrees with Defendants’ interpretation of the GLA. In California, the “whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other. Cal. Civ. Code § 1641 (West); Badie, 67 Cal. App. 4th at 800, 79 (“We ascertain the intent of the parties by considering an agreement as a whole, not by interpreting a provision in isolation.”). When taken in context with the rest of section 2.4, the word “licensing” most appropriately only prevents Defendants from licensing competing game engines to a third party. “Licensing” directly follows “selling,” implying that Plaintiff was concerned with other game engine businesses competing against them by providing game engines to potential Crytek customers. The section does not include “buying,” which makes it less likely that Plaintiff intended this clause to prevent licensees from obtaining the rights to use other game engines from third parties. “Licensing” also fits far better with the words “designing, developing, [and] creating” if the whole section is read to preclude licensees from bringing game engines they designed, developed, or created to market to compete with CryEngine.
The Court therefore determines that “licensing” in section 2.4 prohibited Defendants from licensing a competing game engine to a third-party licensee, but did not preclude Defendants from
licensing Lumberyard from Amazon. The Court GRANTS in the MTD in that respect.
Leave to Amend
Should a court dismiss certain claims, it must also decide whether to grant leave to amend. Courts should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” (leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”). Courts should grant leave to amend unless “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.’”. The decision to grant leave to amend a dismissed complaint lies “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Because it is possible that Plaintiff could cure the deficiencies identified in this Order by alleging other or different facts, the Court concludes that a final opportunity to amend is warranted.
Oh, here's another one:
Wow, it violates the ENTIRE section 2.4? We should put Chris Roberts in jail immediately then! But wait, what happened with that? Oh yeah, the judge blew up that theory without even needing to look at any evidence!
It was obvious from the contract that 2.4 was referring to the act of selling a competing engine to third parties, not to using a competing engine in their own product. Oops.
"Even if CIG responds to the SAC and files a motion to dismiss 2.4, as it's an issue that's material to the contract, only discovery via the lawsuit will prove that. So I don't envision the judge granting it. Heck, she was the one who actually pointed it out in her own ruling. And NEITHER side had raised 2.4 before she did. Guess why that is? Because neither side disagrees that the GLA is still in full force and effect. Had it been terminated properly as per the contract, there would be NO lawsuit."
Do you know the meaning of the words "opinion" and "envision". Look them up. While you're at it, look up the definitions of "right" and "wrong".
Not a SINGLE one of those statements has ANYTHING to do with what I've stated. You're trying to inject your flawed opinions into something you believe that I was either saying or thinking.
t's obvious that you have no idea how the law works, and you're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. In fact, you're not even concerned about the material facts in the case or in the judge's ruling. Instead, you're focused on trying (and failing) to prove me wrong - as if my opinions carry more weight than the attorneys and the judge in the case.
A cornered rat will bite the cat, as they say. So let's take things one at a time.
You clearly said that only discovery will resolve the 2.4 issue. The judge dismissed it without discovery. Clearly there is a discrepancy there.
Plaintiff aims the same conclusory allegations described above at Defendants’ purported development, design, or creation of Lumberyard, but those allegations are inadequate for the same reasons. Plaintiff also argues in its Opposition that Defendants impermissibly developed Lumberyard, but the Court will not entertain factual assertions in an opposition to a motion to dismiss that are absent from the SAC. Opp. at 6; see U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (on a motion to dismiss, a court may only consider the face of the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in a complaint, or documents subject to judicial notice). Plaintiff does not allege Defendants sold Lumberyard to any third party.
And your response to this is:
1. You don't know the meaning of the words "opinion" and "envision".
2. You should look up the definitions of "right" and "wrong".
3. Not a single one of your statements has anything to do with what I said.
4. You're injecting your flawed opinions into my statements.
You are stating four conclusions with no supporting evidence. So let's slow down and go through this carefully. What is your evidence supporting the four conclusions above?
But you had the SAC in front of you, so you knew what CryTek's supporting materials were. And yet you still made the statement that discovery would be necessary and the MtD would be denied.
None of the above is true. Nice try.
The SAC was filed on Pacer on August 16th. On August 20th, you were here on this forum expounding on the merits of 2.4 in the SAC. But now you appear to be denying that you had the SAC in front of you or knew what was in it.
This is getting old, and I'm already bored.
Please explain to me how it's possible for me to have opined on the SAC without having seen/read it, though I posted excerpts and screenshots from it?
Oh, but I thought we were just getting started? Internet Warlord and all that? I think I'm getting my $30 worth of Star Citizen entertainment out of this already. :laugh:
So now we're back to you WERE in fact familiar with the contents of the SAC when you made the statement that discovery would be necessary? If we are going to track down any potential deficiencies in your legal opinion on the subject, we need to establish that you had the necessary information available to you.
Regarding the 'promotion of a competing game engine' component of the lawsuit, and the judge granting this aspect of the MTD, isn't the Lumberyard splash screen a form of promotion? Otherwise, why would an engine''s developer insist on it as part of the licence?
Yes, but the judge ruled that a single promotion doesn't qualify. That's why Crytek can file a third amendment to show other instances. I suspect that's when they will try to make the argument about the logo.
This is also the bs that those "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.
Lior's been pretty credible so far. I'm sure he'll clarify why he seemed to overlook the surviving claims in his video.
This is all just a sideshow anyway. The important point is that the surviving claims are just a nuisance for CIG at this point.
Lior's been pretty credible so far. I'm sure he'll clarify why he seemed to overlook the surviving claims in his video.
Trying to answer a frequent question:
The previous dismissal is from the First Amended Complaint. Crytek filed a Second Amended Complaint. It doesn't "add to" the previous complaints; it replaces it. The 2nd Amended Complaint is now dismissed with Leave to Amend and file a third amended complaint.
The issues are getting whittled down to the main meritorious issues. But this latest dismissal was a bit final, with the judge saying that they aren't sure how Crytek could overcome, but still granting leave to amend in case.
They would have to have facts to overcome the issues highlighted in the latest dismissal.
If they had said facts in their favor, they would have alleged them. The judge is being "polite" in the procedural sense.
The important point is that the surviving claims are just a nuisance for CIG at this point
No and no I'm afraid: Lawyers are paid to pay attention to this sort of detail. Having covered the case previously, they'd be pretty incompetent if they were to forget about previous documents. Much more likely that they're both pandering to the SC Cult (hence of course preventing Derek from making comments).
The surviving claims, as I understand it, could still result in all sorts of trouble for CIG. But much more likely Discovery is going to cause the next big headache for CIG. I can't wait for the Zealot surprise when that gets announced - assuming they make it public.
But doesn’t Leonard claim there that FAC is no more since SAC replaced it?
Also, for those of you wondering what those guys are going on about, they went to Google, found the first link (https://www.ammlaw.com/blog/to-amend-or-not-to-amend-the-third-circuit-answers-the-question.html) about amendments, then post it as proof that the MtD ruling on the SAC, somehow supersedes the MtD ruling on the FAC, thus those claims are gone <--- yeah hilarious.
"The Court found that an amended pleading supersedes an original pleading, and parties are free to correct inaccuracies in pleadings by amendment. The Court noted that the original pleading is of no effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the original pleading. In this way, the amended pleading results in “withdrawal by amendment” of the judicial admission."
The above is why the MtD ruling on the SAC has zero impact on the MtD ruling of the FAC.
This is also the bs that those "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.
#1 (12/12/2017) - original complaint
#2 (01/02/2018) - FAC = First Amended Complaint. This one contained EVERYTHING from the original complaint except they cleaned up the Ortwin issue related to his waiver. So THIS one did supersede the original complaint
#3 (08/16/2018) - SAC = Second Amended Complaint. This one was ONLY about 2.4 which the judge gave them leave to amend in her ruling on the FAC. As a result of this smaller filing, that's why the judge had this at the TOP of her MtD ruling over 2.4 "On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss ("MTD"), now before the Court, seeking dismissal of Crytek's claim for breach of contract based on Section 2.4 of the GLA"
The End
Also, I just checked his latest video. Nope, no change or correction.
It's hilarious that you think breach of contact and copyright infringement claims are a "nuisance". You should try telling that to all the companies and individuals who have been sued into the ground over one or both of those.
What's hilarious about it? Squadron 42 is not a product that's been delivered to customers. Showing a snippet of code in Bugsmashers doesn't damage Crytek in any way. There's nothing here worth litigating anymore.
Ah, I see you've now switched gears and now parroting the new bs from Lior's walkback video. :emot-lol:
Perhaps you can move your trolling and stupidity to another forum?
Crytek asks for additional time to file a response to the latest MtD
Is this a delaying tactic to try and delay discovery perhaps?Every good show ends the season on a cliffhanger. It keeps the tension up.
Was wondering when they do discovery if CryTek will be able to look at all of their personal bank accounts and go after any money in those accounts?
Was wondering when they do discovery if CryTek will be able to look at all of their personal bank accounts and go after any money in those accounts?
So the case is definitely still going to discovery then? No doubt? Fo' sho'?
Those that think the amended complaints don't cancel out previous elements don't know much about the American law system. If it's not listed in the newest complaint, then it's no longer a part of the lawsuit.
Saw this and was wondering. I know nothing about law in any country. Just watching and waiting. Apathy is great for the blood pressure.
I'm confused. Where did you read that, and what was your point?
I read that on the fountain of all knowledge, Spectrum, in a, now closed, thread about the lawsuit and the point is that there are people on both sides claiming what the others believe is nonsense. They're sure you're wrong. You're sure they're wrong. I'm just always wrong.
I don't know who is right.
https://guardfrequency.com/241/
Starts at 25.30
Let me help you there: Derek is.
So no big pay out, next move will show us what they really wanted.
Why should I believe him over other sources?
Ahh, blindly following your cult leader is fine Smartie, (you got your forum badge yet?), but not for me. I'd rather not assume someone is right because I believe them to have been right on the past. Maybe that's just me though.
Now there is where you are wrong. I don't believe Derek is right. I look at all the facts, the data, things happening etc. etc. and then form my own opinion about it. My opinion about it is the same as Derek's. So I don't believe he is right; I know he is right. Not everybody agreeing with Derek is therefore a blindly following culty by default. If you are educated and know how to use your brain, there is only one correct conclusion and that is that Chris Roberts has turned his Kickstarter into a scam. This game cannot be made. Everyday Chris is continuing to pretend that it can, and selling stuff to make that happen, he is scamming people. Plain and simple.
Now, I know my wise words of wisdom are wasted on you. It's just pearls before swines... But keep on trolling, Serenstupidity. Just keep on trolling...
Is that the game that is being played by a lot of people, right now?
Arguing the merits of what constitutes a "game" is not for this thread gents.
Well of course it doesn't matter but this is a thread to discuss the CIG Vs Crytek court case is it not? That's what I was attempting to do.
Surely you all have a clear idea of what's going to happen, seeing as you like to rubbish one version of the potential outcome so much?
Lior and Leonard haven't a clue right? So let me know what you think will happen.
Wouldn't help. This game can't be made, it's that plain and simple.
Ahh, blindly following your cult leader is fine Smartie, (you got your forum badge yet?), but not for me. I'd rather not assume someone is right because I believe them to have been right on the past.
Maybe that's just me though.
Let's review those other sources shall we: Spectrum / Reddit / Lior Lesser and Leonard French. All those sources have proven to be unreliable. Lior and French have been pandering to the Star Citizen crowd from the get-go, repeatedly calling it for CIG and repeatedly being wrong. And the first two ARE the Star Citizen crowd.
Now, you don't need to believe Derek either. But he's got a better track record than all the above.
No internet lawyers screaming yet that CIG basically now has won? Strange :wink:
I think they've learned from the last time. :emot-lol:Whow, lets not be hasty in our assumptions, give them some time! lol
No internet lawyers screaming yet that CIG basically now has won? Strange :wink:
We may need to poke the bear.
You could try learning more about game development?
I hear that Lumberyard is the bomb now that Cloud Imperium Games has improved that engine
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Since everything else about the trial is still going forward, are you mocking that idiot or thinking he was right?
OP updated
The judge has firmed up the dates for the conclusion of discovery and the trial. 2020 is going to be very interesting, especially since SQ42 is totally coming out around that same time. :emot-lol:
They're also going to take one more stab at a settlement (which CIG tried before, but Crytek wasn't interested).
Next big hope, is they simply run out on money anyway...probably at year 2021, but it depends on:
1) is investor ready to throw more money at SC
2) success or failure of SQ42...
Slapmeandcallmegirl
According to some, they've been running out of money for over three years, I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon. They'll be able to get investment if required, as easily as they managed it last time.
I dont't think it was easy the first time and I doubt it'll be easy the second time. After a 46 million dollar investment from an investor in the Cayman Islands and almost a 1/4 of the company sold off with no products released and bad publicity regarding it's development you've gotta have a real gold tongue to get more investors or investment into this company.
They have dried off their loan option with the Coutts already, they have dried off their option with the dark investors.
Wait, there is still the swedish mafia right?! :police:
Crytek are changing their attorneys. Skadden weren't good enough? Either they've done all the heavy lifting and are too expensive to continue and Crytek just wants a smaller lawfirm to carry the case to the end, or they're just shit.
Real kick in the teeth to the world's third most prestigious law firm.
Crytek are changing their attorneys. Skadden weren't good enough? Either they've done all the heavy lifting and are too expensive to continue and Crytek just wants a smaller lawfirm to carry the case to the end, or they're just shit.
Real kick in the teeth to the world's third most prestigious law firm.
OP updated with latest filings.
My coverage
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1136312413433806848
That is a little disheartening to read.
Just gotta wait and see what happens. I'm more interested in CIG being discovered doing crimes such as money laundering, false marketing, tax evasion or fraud should such activities be discovered.
I'm waiting for some Godot guy, sure he'll be along very soon...
Who's the Godot guy? Is that something to do with that Godot engine?
OP updated with latest filings.
My coverage
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1137397385389367296.html
OP updated with latest filings.
My coverage
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1137397385389367296.html
I'm sorry, you musn't have heard. I have it from reputable Reddit lawyer sources that CryTek are going to have to pay substantial damages to CIG, and also have to do the washing up for a year.
This gets better and better.
Try Googling on sarcasm :cool:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/btep1x/possible_end_to_the_crytek_v_cloud_imperium/
Link to source?
(http://www.harrysauce.com/images/home_01.jpg)
Link to source?
I'm sorry, you musn't have heard. I have it from reputable Reddit lawyer sources that CryTek are going to have to pay substantial damages to CIG, and also have to do the washing up for a year.
This gets better and better.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/btep1x/possible_end_to_the_crytek_v_cloud_imperium/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/bue2gr/cig_v_crytek_defendants_opposition_to_plaintiffs/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/buohpl/crytek_gmbhs_application_for_an_extension_denied/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/byfbnu/cryteks_response_to_cigs_motion_for_bond/
About when are these deadlines due anyway?
That shit is never not funny.
No, but our resident troll seems to think that it all has merit. Talking about sad things, that's one for sure.
Spleen venting. Like the Gadot guy, I'm also writing that down for future reference.
Gadot was Wonder Woman. Godot is the guy who never turns up. Hopefully this friendly correction saves you from future embarrassment.
You're welcome.
I did say "Gadot guy" not Gal Gadot. The Gadot guy is from a russian play about the man named Gadot who doesn't show up. It's used as a metaphor. JudgeDollyOG linked me the wikipedia page in the thread.
And writing down spleen venting and the Gadot guy for future reference I intend to use these reference in arguments in other forums because I haven't heard of these before.
CIG replied to Crytek's bond motion. I have updated the OP
Where is the link?
As always, it's in the OP.
I can't find it. Your last update was in threaderapp. There is no update listed.
So the trial looms larger...And discovery looms even larger still...
And discovery looms even larger still...
IMHO, CiG cares less about the trial and more about delaying discovery as much as possible.
Looks like contrary to the Shitizens analysis, Crytek have enough funds to pay the bond, and are proceeding.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/cn2y0m/crytek_vs_cig_stipulation_for_protective_order/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Looks like contrary to the Shitizens analysis, Crytek have enough funds to pay the bond, and are proceeding.
Lets face it, ATM Crytek must be being sued by Skadden for unpaid legal fees (and they are too skint to pay up)
Random internet-goer here. Just wanted to say thanks for this collection of links and commentary.
I recall being interested in SC when it was announced back in kickstarter. Fast forward over a decade and I run across a mention of it in youtube comments and started looking into why it wasn't out yet.
Thus began a long dive into articles, youtube series, and blog posts. For some reason, I couldn't stop reading/watching about the foibles of the Star Citizen project - it was like viewing a slow-motion train wreck. And when it came to information about the timeline and arguments used in the Crytek lawsuit, this site has been the most comprehensive and useful resource I've run into so far.
Thumbs up.
Random internet-goer here. Just wanted to say thanks for this collection of links and commentary.
I recall being interested in SC when it was announced back in kickstarter. Fast forward over a decade and I run across a mention of it in youtube comments and started looking into why it wasn't out yet.
Thus began a long dive into articles, youtube series, and blog posts. For some reason, I couldn't stop reading/watching about the foibles of the Star Citizen project - it was like viewing a slow-motion train wreck. And when it came to information about the timeline and arguments used in the Crytek lawsuit, this site has been the most comprehensive and useful resource I've run into so far.
Thumbs up.
Random internet-goer here. Just wanted to say thanks for this collection of links and commentary.
I recall being interested in SC when it was announced back in kickstarter. Fast forward over a decade and I run across a mention of it in youtube comments and started looking into why it wasn't out yet.
Thus began a long dive into articles, youtube series, and blog posts. For some reason, I couldn't stop reading/watching about the foibles of the Star Citizen project - it was like viewing a slow-motion train wreck. And when it came to information about the timeline and arguments used in the Crytek lawsuit, this site has been the most comprehensive and useful resource I've run into so far.
Thumbs up.
Welcome! Those of us who have been around since the beginning, continue to express shocked amazement that a bunch of dweebs are still - consciously - funding an on-going train wreck. The end is just around the corner - and it's gonna be amazing.
OP updated as per settlement.
As I had stated since the very beginning, this was bound to be settled out of court - and my guess is that Crytek got a nice payday.
OP updated as per settlement.
As I had stated since the very beginning, this was bound to be settled out of court - and my guess is that Crytek got a nice payday.
So much for discovery... Unless someone leaks the intel anyway.
OP updated as per settlement.
As I had stated since the very beginning, this was bound to be settled out of court - and my guess is that Crytek got a nice payday.
That's brave. It's a bit premature to assume the settlement won't have any effect on SC / SQ42.
I'm assuming you don't know the terms of the settlement any more than any of us.
Nothing brave about it, I'm just quoting Derek's words as examples showing a lot of his statements were hyperbolic, exaggerated or complete bullshit.
He has a very selective memory when bigging himself up. Difficult when you've obsessed over something for so long to keep track of all the muck you've thrown I suppose.
Being upset with Derek still does not change that SC is train wreck of development with massive list of management failures by Roberts.
1) Project can't be completed as it's impossible
This is still in mind a big question, and from development its appears true
2) Running out of money
Took 46m and went back on another promise.
3) Lawsuit will bankrupt them
The lawsuit may have spurred Chris to seek out more funds, who knows
what they need more funds if the sales figures are true.
4) Lawsuit will hand everything over to Crytek
Never know since they settled.
5) Refund cascade
It was enough refunds to cause them to change the TOS 6 times, which to me
was egregious based on on the delays and complete move away from the original KS.
6)Running out of money again
Still possible given how much dev the game requires.
7) Staff exodus
Turn over seems high to me considering how much a high profile project would look great on a resume.
8)The classic, unknown reason, but stay tuned for more!
I'm sure information is hard to come by.
9)Running out of money for realsies this time...honest
Not sure on this one, but I'm sure Chris can find a way to keep the trust fund growth.
So...the lawyers got rich on this one?
Nothing brave about it, I'm just quoting Derek's words as examples showing a lot of his statements were hyperbolic, exaggerated or complete bullshit.
He has a very selective memory when bigging himself up. Difficult when you've obsessed over something for so long to keep track of all the muck you've thrown I suppose.
In a December 2018 podcast with Guard Frequency Derek did make the suggestion that Crytek accept any payout regardless of how small it is and settle due to Crytek's first attorney's (Skadden) legal bills being very high.