Smart Community

Games => Star Citizen => Topic started by: dsmart on January 03, 2018, 04:15:15 PM

Title: CryTek v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on January 03, 2018, 04:15:15 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5ubaFac.jpg)

:emot-siren: LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! :emot-siren:

I noticed that discussions on the lawsuit are all over the forum. So I am unlocking this. Please try to keep this thread specifically restricted to discussing the lawsuit only. Any off-topic posts will be deleted without warning.

The Crytek v RSI/CIG lawsuit was filed on Dec 12, 2017. Since then I have been keeping track, while writing up my opinions on it. You can track all the filings either on the standard PACER website, or on Pacer Monitor (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al).

Today, we setup a special Discord channel on my server where all the relevant info is going to be listed so that people can catch up at any time. No discussions are in that channel, so it will never be cluttered with chatter. If you are not yet on my Discord server, the invite code is: https://discord.gg/7nUXA9u



Sept 28th, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS CRYTEK'S SAC

FILING

https://www.docdroid.net/gyyGc4q/031129092131.pdf

Sept 28th, 2018 - FILING OF JOINT RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY REPORT

FILING

https://www.docdroid.net/iucXCm0/031129091565.pdf



Sept 21st, 2018 - CRYTEK RESPONDS TO CIG MOTION TO DISMISS THE SAC

FILING

https://www.docdroid.net/5WYum99/031129038076.pdf

MY COVERAGE

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6639/



Sept 6th, 2018 - CIG FILES MOTION TO DISMISS OVER CRYTEK'S SAC

FILING MEMORANDUM

http://docdro.id/0LxN6Ka

PROPOSED ORDER (used by judge if she grants the MtD)

http://docdro.id/DIPUrHO

JUDGE ORDERS RULE 26 DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (FRCP Rule 26 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26))
NOTE: Scheduled for Oct 12, 2018

http://docdro.id/OGVjIHW

MY COVERAGE

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6615/



Aug 17th, 2018 - CIG FILES RESPONSE & OPPOSITION TO CRYTEK RULE (26f) DISCOVERY

CIG, not waiting for their 20 day period, have immediately filed a response to Crytek. Not sure why they're so afraid of discovery. It's weird. Almost as if they're trying to hide something.  :emot-iiam:

OBJECTIONS to Notice (Other), Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Second Amended Complaint and Suggestion that Rule 16 Conference Be Convened

https://www.docdroid.net/N0hyv2e/031128808931.pdf

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html



Aug 16th, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

BREAKING! Crytek have now filed a second amended complaint that solidifies their claims. They specifically went for what I wrote that they would as per 2.4.

It's funny - and I'm not even a lawyer.

I will have more in a bit.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants

https://www.docdroid.net/Btqzzhy/031128797590.pdf

NOTICE of Filing SECOND Amended Complaint And Suggestion That Rule 16 Conference Be Convened

https://www.docdroid.net/X4V4AC9/031128797710.pdf

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html



Aug 14th, 2018 - JUDGE DENIES 4/6 ITEMS IN MOTION TO DISMISS

The judge denies the MtD. Only the exclusivity claim was granted with leave to re-file by CryTek

Filing : https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo

MY COVERAGE :

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6560/

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1029687504205688832

Also, worth noting that even though the judge dismissed section 2.1.2 (exclusivity), the 2.4 breach is even more harmful to CIG. PLUS - right there on the last page of the filing - the judge invited Crytek to file any amendment if her understanding of their intent (e.g. 2.1.2) was misunderstood. If the judge was certain that 2.1.2 and the punitive damages issue were open and shut, she would NEVER have left that door open for Crytek to file an amended complaint as per the two items she didn't dismiss. She's not stupid.



Apr 17, 2018 - JUDGE DENIES PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION

The judge denied (as moot) the filing.

http://docdro.id/tx3rLrT (ruling)

http://docdro.id/vAoGioC (minutes)

MY COVERAGE:

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/986319843514306561



Apr 4, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/981554668538089472.html

Apr 3, 2018 - CIG FILES FURTHER MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PROTECTIVE ORDER

CIG have filed yet another response to CryTek's filing. This discovery issue really has them spooked. Gee, I wonder why that is.

http://docdro.id/Gqus4SZ



MAR 27, 2018

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)



MAR 13, 2018 - COURT HEARING MOVED FROM APRIL 13TH TO APRIL 17TH

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al]scheduled for April 13th, moved to 17th



MAR 11, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html



MAR 10, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972488629674283013.html

When you read through what Crytek is requesting, it's easy to see EXACTLY what I said back in Dec and how this lawsuit was going to go.

EVERYTHING is going to come out. And there isn't a DAMN thing that CIG can do about it.

And that's why CIG are panicking and filing this PO.

Pop quiz. See if you can guess why Crytek is also requesting unedited AtV shows. e.g. this one from Dec 2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Piy-ibiq1M), as per production request #23. FF to 21:40 where it was clearly spliced where he probably said CryEngine before it was changed to Lumberyard.

Remember back when I said we keep all this shit cuz we're gamers and we're all particularly autistic & have long term memory?



MAR 9, 2018 - CIG FILES A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY

CIG filed a protective order motion (https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/motion-for-protective-order/) with the court.

Quote
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.

http://docdro.id/sh74oDz (motion)

http://docdro.id/3xk4ojP (memo)

http://docdro.id/0HkRbvA (proposed order)

http://docdro.id/Ofv2K49 (attorney declaration)



MAR 5, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

We know that Crytek created the early tech demos. They said so. Curiously, CIG/RSI didn't make any moves to deny this in their court filings. Gee, I wonder why.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/970714392764518400.html



MAR 1, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

Musings on the ensuing discovery shenanigans

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/969294105225383937.html



FEB 28, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

Musings on the Rule 26(f) discovery filing. Here we also learn that CIG tried to enter into settlement talks with CryTek, but were rebuffed.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html



FEB 27, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES DISCOVERY PLAN UNDER FCRP RULE 26(f)

As per Rule 26 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26) (Discovery), CryTek and CIG attorneys had their conference. It looks like it got heated, hostile etc. So Crytek filed a notice/complaint with the court.

https://www.docdroid.net/uMDHWEY/discovery-plan.pdf



FEB 10, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

So the judge vacated the oral args in the MtD.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/962372778967093249.html



FEB 8, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

As a likely precursor to her tossing the MtD, judge Gee has hilariously canceled the Feb 9th hearing for oral arguments.

Apparently she doesn't want to be subjected to the bullshit that RSI/CIG have injected into their pleadings.

I warned that language would come back to haunt them.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
Quote
(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

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



FEB 8, 2018 - JUDGE DECIDES NOT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS

Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15 allows her to do so, regardless of whether or not either side requests or agrees.

Oral arguments, especially in Fed court, are not mandatory.

Also, any such request to skip oral arguments from either attorney, would also need to be in the form for a pleading to the court. And such pleading would be part of the court record. There is no pleading preceding the judge's decision. Ergo, the attorneys had nothing to do with her decision.

And this judge does this regularly. Here is one of her cases (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--14-cv-03840/Justin_Maghen_v._Quicken_Loans_Inc./#q=78) from 2014

Scroll down to entry # 24 on 08/19/2014

Note that after skipping oral arguments, the case continued as normal. The judge didn't rule on the MtD until 10/28/2014 (see entry #25)

Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/961629006708781056.html



JAN 26, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK

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.

https://www.scribd.com/document/370105345/031127439162



JAN 20, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

My thoughts on the apocalyptic Crytek response to the MtD

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/954724633344913408.html



JAN 19, 2018 - CRYTEK RESPONDS TO CIG MOTION TO DISMISS

OK, the much anticipated Skadden response to the CIG motion to dismiss, is live on Pacer.

https://www.docdroid.net/v7yQ0LL/response-skadden-011918.pdf

As has been reported, it's absolutely catastrophic for RSI/CIG.

I am going over it now and will post my comments shortly. At a glance my first reaction is...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT7Im8XXUAA6tjY.jpg)

I am predicting that today will be an apocalyptic day of reckoning in Crytek v CIG, with RSI/CIG being on the receiving end.

Oh, I have no doubt in my mind that Ortwin Freyermuth is well on his way to being disbarred after this fiasco is exposed.




JAN 17, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

While we wait for the Skadden response that's coming within the next two weeks, ahead of the Feb 9th Motion To Dismiss ruling, I chime in some additional thoughts. I also touch on Chris Roberts work with Blink Media in Vancouver, the company he was with during 2010 when they were evaluating CryEngine for the game.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/953691070898102272.html



JAN 6, 2018 - CIG FILES A MOTION TO DISMISS

This was a no-brainer that they filed it. Standard procedure to see what sticks

https://www.scribd.com/document/368546512/2-2017cv08937-Crytek-v-CIG-20180105-Notice-of-Errata-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-Exhibit-B

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html



JAN 5, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK LAWSUIT

https://www.scribd.com/document/368545940/2-2017cv08937-Crytek-v-Cig-20180105-Declaration-of-Jeremy-s-Goldman



JAN 4, 2018

But as they never filed, and there is no longer an incentive to keep it under wraps, this is who I am hearing they have hired to respond to the law suit.

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz (http://fkks.com/)

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html

ALSO:


Right off the bat @ 0:56, they talk about "two games being built". You know, the same damn thing they're being sued for.

God, seriously, we're not making up. And if we are, it's all on you.

I can't wait for Skadden to add more intentionally inserts in their reply to what we believe is going to be a hilarious response from RSI/CIG.

On 12/13/17, RSI/CIG already PUBLICLY admitted to "switching engines".

At this point, they should just give CryTek a blank check.

We already KNOW they're going to claim they were built with Lumberyard. Which is going to be just as epic a response as any.



Jan 2, 2018 - CRYTEK AMENDS THEIR FILING

https://www.scribd.com/document/368322159/Crytek-GmbH-v-Cloud-Imperium-Games-Corp-Et-Al-Cacdce-17-08937-0018-0

As if the bombshell lawsuit wasn't enough, Crytek amended it, added some scathing language which is no doubt based on new information they received in the interim. In fact, the use of the word intentionally jumps right at you this time around.

Hilariously, all this happened on the day that RSI/CIG were to respond.

As can be seen from the DIFF between the original and amended filing, they removed the part about Ortwin having a conflict of interest in their dealings with Crytek. I had hinted at this before saying that unless there was a waiver, that he had some explaining to do.

https://www.diffchecker.com/GTqP0gvu

They also tightened up the wording and conveyed the message that they felt RSI/CIG clearly intended to do these things. Which to me means that they probably got hold of additional evidence since the original 12/12/17 filing, leading them to believe this.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DStblH1WAAAwa5I.jpg)

As I reported in my Twitter thread above, according to sources, Ortwin DID produce such a waiver, which either Crytek didn't originally have a copy of, or that section wasn't updated prior to the original filing.

Following the filing of the amended complaint, I go back in with my thoughts and opinions on what this all means for RSI/CIG in terms of where they are in the Richter scale (1 - 10) for how screwed they are. They are firmly sitting at 11.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html

As things stand, we're waiting to read the RSI/CIG response to the amended complaint. We don't know whether or not they already received the amended complaint ahead of it being filed. That being the case, they would have additional time to respond. And knowing those clowns, they will take full advantage of any such delays, rather than responding in a timely fashion.

So I don't personally expect to see them respond today. And even so, we wouldn't know about it until tomorrow when PACER updates. Instead, we could see other procedural filings instead.

UPDATE:

As I had mentioned before, seeing as RSI/CIG didn't even respond to the lawsuit during the past 21 days, which expires today, it's not likely that they will respond today.

Especially now that they have another 14 days due to the amended complaint. Like literally TWO WEEKS (if you don't get the joke, leave my server please).

So they have to respond between now and Jan 17th.

Quote
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.



Dec 18, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

With the Star Citizen Defense Force out there saying all kinds of stupid nonsense (the lawsuit has no merit, Crytek are bankrupt etc), I go back in and do what I do. It drives them nuts.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942753856332685312.html



Dec 17, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

With the anxiety increasing among backers trying to figure out what Skadden was going to do with their JPEGS, I got back in with another hilarious storm

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html

I also decided that I was going to be filing an amicus brief for the case obo of all confirmed backers, trolls, and those Goon bastards

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/942758171545952257



Dec 15, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

I dive deeper into the chasm of hilarity, as I posit just how screwed those clowns at RSI/CIG were

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941688759589986305



Dec 13, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

My Twitter thread detailing the implications of this lawsuit

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457

This is the same day that the registered agents for both companies, accepted service of the lawsuit; thus starting the 21 day countdown. RSI/CIG have until Jan 3rd, 2018 to respond.



DEC 12, 2017 - CRYTEK v RSI/CIG INITIAL FILING

https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG



ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

LEGAL DOCS

Also found on this guy's Google Docs folder:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta

CASE TIMELINE

(http://img.beyondreality.se/SpaceCourtDates.png)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 15, 2018, 05:41:23 PM
Saw this posted on SA. It's hilarious.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2018, 11:18:02 AM
Robert Marks who previously wrote two opinion pieces for CGM, has written a quick take on the latest Crytek filing. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7robv8/some_brief_comments_on_cryteks_response_to_star/)

Quote
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.)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 22, 2018, 06:05:29 AM
Read my comment (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg7280#msg7280) on the engine switch for more context on this issue.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTDv5KtWAAAf6mS.jpg)

CIG are not developing Star Engine for third-party licensing. So they're OK there.

In the Crytek case, it's not that they are tempting to do that, in violation of the GLA. It's that they're doing all of 2.4, when they should be doing certain (e.g. promoting) things for CryEngine. It's going to come down to the judge to determine if switching to Lumberyard, which would encompass designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, licensing, is a violation of the GLA. IMO, those who think that 2.4 is just a non-compete clause, are wrong.

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 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oxford-comma-court-case-ruling-overtime_us_58cad41ae4b0ec9d29d9dd28). As it's now case law precedent, I fully expect to see this nonsense permeate cases for years to come..

Also, as the GLA does NOT have "at will" termination clause, when CIG switched, the GLA didn't terminate at all.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS5gpENW0AEmaZF.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS5hyGYWkAAqkNR.jpg)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Flashwit on January 22, 2018, 09:52:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 22, 2018, 10:27:11 AM
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.

Displaying the LY logo falls under "directly". The "indirectly" part is instances whereby they are not doing it directly, but through a third-party (e.g. Turbulent), studio (e.g. F42 which isn't a signatory to the GLA), affiliate (those Shillizen pricks on YouTube) etc.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 22, 2018, 05:27:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on January 23, 2018, 12:05:23 AM
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 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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on January 23, 2018, 03:13:37 AM
Quote
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.

The case in question was rather different. In that case, it was not clear whether the contract used the "Oxford Comma" or not, that is:
A, B, or C

as opposed to

A, B or C

The problem came in when, in this case, we something of the form "A, B or C", but rather it ended "packing for shipment or distribution". The question was whether distribution was a separate item, on the level of "packing for shipment" or another object of "packing for".

In the case here, one does not normally put a comma between a preposition and its object. So by itself, it wouldn't make a difference, especially since grammatically, all those activities are gerunds, while the operative verb phrase is "shall not engage".

The point is rather moot, though, since 2.4 excludes "designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete (sic!) with CryEngine."
Meanwhile, the license is to "develop, support, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine", and to sublicense it under specific conditions. Moreover, there is requirements for promotion.

Now, you can try to drive a fine point on "engage in the business", but let's be honest: the difference is one of scope. If someone from CIG goes to a conference and talks with someone who is building a competing engine, maybe solving a trivial problem, that could be considered designing or developing. It's not engaging in the business of doing so. On the other hand, if CIG enters into an agreement to use LY the same way they used CE, that sure as hell is; in this contract, they exchange a significant amount of money and consideration for the right to develop, support, extend and/or enhance CryEngine, and that is clearly their business. If they tried to argue what they're doing with LY is different, well, they're estopped from doing so by their own contract.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 23, 2018, 06:15:26 AM
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.

It will be a negotiated settlement or a trial and CIG loses IMO.

CIG will be paying the fees in any event.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 23, 2018, 02:26:08 PM
A real attorney over @GuardFreq talks about the latest in Crytek v CIG et al. FF @ 4:00

https://guardfrequency.com/198

Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on January 23, 2018, 03:09:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 23, 2018, 04:33:40 PM
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.

There is a lot more to come on all this.

It is simply incredible that Ortwin was in the positions he was for both sides and that the Crytek sales chap moved over to SC ...if it smells fishy...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on January 23, 2018, 09:14:16 PM
Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.

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...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on January 23, 2018, 09:41:13 PM
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.

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.   
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 24, 2018, 12:58:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 24, 2018, 09:08:34 AM
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.


Once Skadden have earnt enough fees then they will press Crytek to settle if there is a reasonable sum of lolly on the table.

CIGs lawyers will go through the same process.

So the Shitizens can jump up and down with glea at every twist or turn that could be construed as a positive, but they are almost certainly paying for it or Crytek are paying for it.

We impartial observers are not paying for it.

Even the popcorn is free.

Of course there are plenty of twists and turns ahead and they could include CIG getting a bounce in funding if they are able to rally Backers to the cause or the PR produces more JPEG sales to the extent that the legal fees and fines etc are paid for.....

They are still not getting a game though

On them not wanting it to go to discovery.   

They have let it get this far...

I can't imagine Crytek wouldnt have been reasonable about a sum of $ to resolve issues.   Croberts appears to have ignored them for months on end, leading to years of bad blood.

Sometimes in legal battles, your opponent appears to be fighting a lost cause,  and yet they carry on and make things worse. 

You'd think they would know better, but CRoberts and Ortwin don't know better as we've already seen.


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: FredBloggs on January 25, 2018, 06:28:22 AM
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.

It's not beyond what the lowlives-CIG will do.

And I expect, their cult will actually support them.

And yes, they still will not get a game, even at the end of it, whilst shell-company evasion continues and CRoberts walks free...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 25, 2018, 08:50:54 AM
Nah, they won't do anything like that. Instead, they will just continue selling JPEGs and dreams.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on January 25, 2018, 10:11:34 AM
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.

What they need to do is rename Lorville on Hurston to LAWville - and set landing fees to $1000 per hour.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on January 25, 2018, 11:27:27 AM
uhhh... guys, what do you think that $20k whale-only "dinner with the team" fundraiser was all about?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: GaryII on January 26, 2018, 03:29:52 AM
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.

 They will put out huge sale (all rare ships on sale!) for whales and problem solved ;)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 26, 2018, 07:17:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on January 26, 2018, 10:58:49 PM
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.

They can offer to sell shares, hell Croberts can offer up framed pieces of the skidmarks off his Wonder Woman Underoos.

There is only one way this can end. As so succinctly expressed by the immortal words of Johnny Cash,

Quote
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!


 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 27, 2018, 05:29:28 AM
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.

Remember when I took one look at the first CIG response and immediately said that Ortwin probably wrote it, then gave it to FKKS to review and file? This latest infantile response is even more damning proof of that. This is all Ortwin. Every single email or legal exchange we have had with him, has this same hostile/confrontation tone. He's playing to the toxic backer, and investor base, not the courts.

OP updated.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 27, 2018, 05:42:33 AM
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.

Christmas has come early...


IMO

in the UK ....notwithstanding anything else...

Pleadings can be amended during the course of legal action and they are not required to go into all the detail of a case.

then we get on to other matters..


If you can make any case for an interpretation of the word "exclusively" it can't be absurd if it rests on a common use or interpretation of that word.  If you were using  the interpretation of the word "bananas" in your argument and substituting that for "exclusively" that would be an absurdity.

What breaches fall under Tort and Contract law would be a matter for the trial not at this stage.

The Negligence case they cite is very poor to try and dismiss the issues around this case as it pertains to a landlord doing renovations to property and a business owner claiming such damaged their ability to trade.

Faceware didnt have access to Cryengine code... pull the other one....thats like saying the electrician you hired to fix your house electrics didnt have access to the walls  and ceilings of your property. Isn't it ?

And the which bugsmashers video showed Crytek code and it could be for "teaching" reasons ... lol

Did CIG know what they agreed to in the GLA when they decided to announce and sell SQ42 as a "standalone" or did they not ?   Either way they invited trouble given what is in the GLA and the court should investigate those issues not dismiss at this stage.  CIG could have easily avoided this issue by acting differently and more sensitively on what is absolutely a key reason d'etre for a GLA between an engine company and a developer...You would also expect it to have been thrashed out between the parties as indeed you would expect them to have done over a switch to Lumberyard (bring on the Discovery phase), as it is obvious it is going to have wide ranging ramifications for the contract between them.   CIG looks like the one trying to pull a fast one here not CryTek - and that will matter at this stage because a dismissal now is a high hurdle.

....

and the list goes on.

Aside from the fact they feel the need to file again, which in and of itself suggests that the issues under contention here are a little more complex than they would need to be for a judge to dismiss at this stage...

(https://localtvwreg.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/160119200350-judge-judy-a-supreme-moos-dnt-erin-00015613-exlarge-tease.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=400&h=225&crop=1)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on January 27, 2018, 09:06:06 AM
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. Then telling the judge to "straighten this mess out" using this language is very odd to me.

Wow - forget using facts and go for opinion.
"unmanageable, incoherent mess unworthy of proceeding beyond the pleading stage and all of the attendant time and expense thereafter. The Court should straighten that mess by granting the motion"

The whole doc reads terribly and smacks of desperation on CIG's side.

Reddit is very happy lol, but CIG has failed to address how they terminated the contract or how it no longer applies.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 27, 2018, 09:25:48 AM
There are some (down-voted to oblivion (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7tccxu/cig_responds_to_cryteks_response_to_the_mtd/dtbij8y/)) who aren't entirely happy about the tone of the response.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 27, 2018, 09:29:48 AM
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.

Yes and they could say part of the reason they are not in as good a shape as they can be is because of CIG...Discovery will expose the rationale behind both party's actions.. dont dismiss.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on January 27, 2018, 09:29:56 AM
Very cute. I guess sometimes strong words help dismiss suits.
I'm not quite sure that disputing facts is gonna get you a dismissal: "But we didn't do it"
They did, however, agree that Ortwin is a founding member and dismissed the waiver discussion by saying: "Well, they didn't bring it up; we did; therefore, they can't say anything about it", and then cited case law where, apparently a guy's marijuana usage was deemed irrelevant to a civil case. Well, to make that argument, you've gotta be smoking something.
I also enjoyed their argument that, since California law excludes tort from contractual non-penalty clauses, this non-penalty clause had to apply only to tort. The contract itself has no mechanism for enforcement.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on January 27, 2018, 09:30:35 AM
There are some (down-voted to oblivion) who aren't entirely happy about the tone of the response.

Same for my comments and I had pics removed from r/pics/ as well.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: DemonInvestor on January 27, 2018, 01:31:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 28, 2018, 11:43:24 AM
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....
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on January 28, 2018, 07:17:48 PM
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.

39:18 He still questions why Crytek is doing the lawsuit saying they are trying to call attention to themselves.

39:38 asked by guy in background what he thinks of the lawsuit. Says Cig as made a more compelling argument "but"

41:50 See the donations list scrolling by.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: nightfire on January 29, 2018, 07:51:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: helimoth on January 29, 2018, 08:10:19 AM
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.

i kinda can't blame him. hes realized there is money to be made here from SC fans (when isn't there money to be made off SC fans). one cannot fault him too heavily for his lack of morals and purely just seeking out those sweet, sweet dollaronies - he's an attorney after all ;)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: David-2 on January 29, 2018, 08:13:54 AM
IANAL but I read a hell of a lot of law blogs (oh yeah? well, you guys are gamers, so don't judge how I waste my time...).

One thing I haven't seen mentioned w.r.t. a motion to dismiss is that:


You can find statements exactly like this in any number of official court memorandums responding to motions to dismiss.  It's boilerplate - and completely settled.  (I found the wording above by googling for "motion to dismiss assume claims favorable" and copying from the first link.)

And this procedure is quite clear:  There is a strong bias in the courts for letting cases continue.  Cases are only dismissed if they're exceptionally faulty (e.g., completely and obviously frivolous).

So why isn't it a total slam dunk for anybody - lawyer, youtube lawyer, or (like me) law procedure groupie - to claim, proclaim, and acclaim (*) that this motion to dismiss is going to be thrown out of court so far it oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't ya think? (https://youtu.be/TBUS3vQtDCA?t=83)

Like Derek, I'm looking forward to the results of CryTek's discovery (if it is ever made public).

(*) Standard lawyer-speak - three active verbs in a horizontal list.  Don't know why they do that.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 29, 2018, 08:23:48 AM
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....

I think that, right off the bat in his first video, Leonard already made it clear that he was just pandering to Shitizens in order to ride the wave to that sweet, sweet money. In his latest, he finally admits that's not a contract lawyer - but that didn't stop him from continuing to make the same wild claims as a lawyer.

In 10 days, assuming the ruling comes out on Feb 9th, we'll see just how far off these YouTube "lawyers" were.


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 29, 2018, 08:33:09 AM
Like Derek, I'm looking forward to the results of CryTek's discovery (if it is ever made public).

It's all pure arrogance and hubris. Those have been the guiding principles of this shit-show for as long as anyone can recall. And as been proven time and time again, it's going to continue being their undoing.

After the judge shreds and blends the MtD, then feeds it to Ortwin through a funnel, they have to setup a schedule for discovery, depositions etc. During that time, they can still be talking settlement, though as I've written, I don't expect that to be on any friendly terms, given the very public arrogance, hostility, and unprofessional conduct exhibited by the Ortwin-led CIG onslaught.

But attorneys who are in the middle, even with problematic clients, tend to have calmer heads during settlement negotiations because nobody wants to go to trial. And regardless of what Ortwin writes, I have to believe that FKKS should have already seen some the writing on the wall by now that their client stands absolutely no chance of prevailing on any of the accusations. Also, once the MtD fails spectacularly, that's when FKKS is going to have a "Come To Jesus" discussion with their clients, briefing them about the fucking minefield they're about to step into, asking them if there is anything they need to know beforehand etc. Since clients lie to their attorneys all the time, it stands to reason that Ortwin will lie to their attorneys, concealing the more egregious things likely to expose them. Then it shows up in discovery, and all hell breaks loose.

The biggest problem they have, and which Ortwin has to know by now, is that this lawsuit has immense scope and there is no way they are going to be able to stifle things from depositions or discovery, without running afoul of the court. I'm sure we're going to be seeing lots of filings from CIG disputing certain discovery requests, all of which will ultimately fail. 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).

They have to settle. There is no other way out of this for them. But given the amount of money involved, even with whatever the liability insurance ends up agreeing to pay - if anything - they're going to find a way to raise that money because my guess is that Crytek isn't going to risk any long term promises, knowing that CIG is run by a pack of lying, thieving, scumbag scam artists.

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.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on January 29, 2018, 11:21:21 AM
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.



This really piques my interest and hope whatever is happening that this statement alludes to comes to light. I can only fathom the depths of fraud and mismanagement that has taken place.

Crazy people are sending money to Leonard just because he's telling them what the want to hear not what the reality is. And of course forgot to add they keep on calling everyone Derek on the latest Leonard video instead of providing a sound counter argument. Like when I make a small grammatical mistake and they jump all over it to discount you whole statement is another really big pet peeve. 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 29, 2018, 12:31:47 PM
I hope they keep forking out money because it will make the end result that much more hilarious.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 29, 2018, 04:32:47 PM
How much have CIG spent on Legal fees for this action so far ?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on January 30, 2018, 01:05:56 AM
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 think the most likely outcome will be a settlement, and that doesn't have to be cash on hand it can be it can be X% of all future income or 'pledges'.  while milk is still flowing from the cow no one will kill it, Chris will manage to hang on and milk it, even if crytek and his legal team now have teat.

Think CIG won't want the bad press, the distraction, the possibility of losing, a lengthy legal battle would be just as devastating to cash flow even if CIG won out in the end.  If Crytek then folds there might not be a party around to recover those legal fees from.

But there is my fantasy case where CIG completely fold and Crytek end up with star citizen kick out CR and actually produce something other than armour rework 11. 


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: GaryII on January 30, 2018, 01:36:49 AM
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...
 I hope that SC lives at least for few more years, because its very good drama and just lols all the time... 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on January 30, 2018, 02:07:09 AM
Just reading CIG's support in its motion to dismiss ...

Am I the only one that finds it's just really hard reading? 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on January 30, 2018, 02:22:41 AM
i also find it funny how they are banging on about "THE IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS" in crytek claims

they even wheel out the definitions

'Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded'

'Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.'

but in the same document include this

"even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship"
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on January 30, 2018, 02:23:14 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 30, 2018, 08:45:57 AM
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. 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: helimoth on January 30, 2018, 08:54:43 AM
Pro Bono always sounds to me like a pornographic term.

we could ask sandi to be sure :sandance:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on January 30, 2018, 09:05:59 AM

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).


Absolutely.

This is one aspect of how the law works that a lot of people that havent had much exposure to law do not understand or embrace.

Your integrity is everything and it will carry you through and follow you around in a legal case.  It will often work quietly in the background whilst case law, opinions and the facts of a matter are being presented.   Judges (and especially Jury's) have a lot of scope within the law and it is in this area of "what do I/we think actually happened here" that cases at trial turn on.   

"You cant' prove I did it/didn't do it" - innocent until PROVEN guilty are ingrained in the peoples belief about the law.   

There is a higher burden of proof on Criminal Cases versus Civil case such that Civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities.

So on the balance of probabilities, if a jury gets to hear of all of CIG and Cryteks doings with Star Citizen - do we think that they are going to find CIG the wronged party here or Crytek ?

There is no way that Ortwin and CRoberts behaviours will be ignored when it comes to making up minds and Skadden will be attempting to show they are the crooks that they are.

I am sure there are some psychology experts out there that know the theory behind the fact that we know that if people discover things for themselves as opposed to being told, that those findings carry much more weight in the persons mind.   

Good lawyers lead the judge and Jury to the conclusion they want them to make on certain topics as opposed to shoving the facts in their faces and demanding a particular outcome.

It stand to reason once a Judge or Jury has decided someone is a liar etc it requires a lot of work the other way for them to change their mind.   

The moment "we" learn  Ortwin had previously represented Crytek in contract negotiations and that he then went on to represent CIG (nevermind it was a lot more than that) on the other side of the table,
Ortwin becomes a snake in the grass.   

We have evolved to hate those.

(http://positivemed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/enemy.jpg)


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 30, 2018, 02:39:13 PM
A law Goon put this together (https://pastebin.com/4vXX6Utz).



With goons expecting a huge feast of hilarity from discovery (and some already warning that we're going to be disappointed), I think it's worth pumping the brakes a little and realistically considering what we might see in the disclosure process. Due credit to Latin Pheonix for her assistance proofreading all this.

For a start, here's (https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/Lists/Rules/Attachments/85/Battaglia%20-%20Disclosure%20and%20Discovery%20Under%20the%20Federal%20Rules%20of%20Civil%20Procedure.pdf) the current US Federal court Disclosure and Discovery rules. As stated before, I am NOT going to give specific opinions on this because I'm not that specific kind of lawgoon. Smart lawyers (not naming any names) know when to refer a matter to people who know what they're doing. But I do have experience of discovery processes and I know what litigators look for and ask for.

So that all said, here's what we might get. Bearing in mind that as noted by kw0134, this stuff won't be uploaded the way the court documents have been and will instead be exchanged between the parties. We'll see the bits that get specifically cited.

1. CIG Financials

Let's tackle the thread's holy grail head on. We're not going to see a line-item for "Mr Roberts' cocaine dealer". That's as much a dream as a fully-functional Javelin. Even a more realistic comedy extravagance like a personal masseuse or executive barista can quietly be shuffled into a "facilities" budget alongside the $14K coffeemaker. The great joy of this lawsuit is that Crytek are certain to want accounts to assess damages, and are very likely indeed to cite points from the accounts that will require attaching them to court documents, but us seeing the complete set is by no means guaranteed. If we're really lucky perhaps Derek's sources might quietly do us a solid here, BUT those sources are risking contempt charges so let's not get our hopes up.

Also, any accounts will be prepared by cynical professional accountants, who are more than familiar with how to keep embarassing financial information quietly buried in a 10-page statement of travel costs. Anything really damaging will be several pages deep behind a phalanx of polite accounting euphemisms. If accounts do appear, expect them to be bland at first sight with the really delightful secrets in the terms and definitions. Areas to keep an eye on:

- Office furniture. Bear in mind this will be high for any technology company; entertainment value will come from just what was purchased for whom.
- A massive executive travel budget (NOT broken down into tickets, just a big number)
- Executive salaries and bonuses (again, unlikely to be listed individually)
- Details of inter-office money and rights shuffles. Any double-dipping? Which company holds what, and when was it transferred? Who's being paid by multiple companies at once?
- Other licensing and IP points. What was paid to Illfonic to break their contract? Who else has Experienced The Chris? What licenses have CIG themselves taken out?
- Who's pulled the ripcord on their golden parachutes.
- MOCAP and expenses associated with the film shoots. In particular, check to see if Director Chris and #actress Sandi were paid seperate salaries to the CEO of Cloud Imperium and the Head of Marketing.
- Debt and who holds it.
- Details of investors.
- Genuine refund amounts.
- Genuine funding figures (this will be plenty embarassing enough if they don't match the funding tracker).

If something shows up big and obvious here, expect the media to pick it up in a frustratingly simplified form ("Star Citizen accounts show Chris spending $X,xxx,xxx,xxx.xx on flights to Monaco!"). Likewise, don't expect the shitizenry to be too shocked; anything requiring reading more than a single layer is too easy to dismiss.

2. CIG/Crytek correspondence.

Whatever communications were exchanged between CIG and Crytek execs, and CIG and Crytek staff, and especially CIG and Crytek staff who went on to become CIG staff, are going to be utterly crucial to both sides. No question about it, this WILL be dug over again and again. Comedy here will be of the "I'm a big tough executive with no self-awareness whatsoever" kind. The chances of a good old CIG unforced error will be at their highest. If we're lucky, someone will express their contempt for the backers. If we're really really lucky, we'll see someone discussing how he's totally going to screw Crytek.

But now I've whetted everyone's appetite I have to deliver the bad news. This area is the most likely to be heavily locked down by ALL sides. Crytek themselves may have a few embarassing skeletons in their closet, or just not want their negotiating strategies discussed in public, and the judge isn't going to want to wade through page after page of chest-thumping. Expect a lot of cut material and tantalising hints of other documents; entire sheaves of AMD Letters that we'll sadly never see without a leak. The real hilarity in the Ion Storm meltdown came from leaked internal emails, but they were leaked rather than disclosed.

The most likely outcome: Both sides seize on one or two email chains apiece that shore up their case and rely heavily on those. The thread curses as we are teased with references to "the X settlement" or "the unfortunate events at Y's offices" that remain forever sealed.

3. Pre-action correspondence.

The most likely source of thread entertainment. Whatever correspondence was exchanged before Crytek filed their lawsuit will probably show up in the trial bundle, and could contain some entertaining examples of how Chris & co treat servants peons contractors. Crytek will probably posture just as much as CIG here. Expect chest-thumping roars and much flinging of excrement right up until Crytek hire Skadden whereupon the quality of discourse will probably shoot up.

Not likely to be anything shocking here unless one party did something provocative to the other in the run-up. Probably a lot of CIG delaying tactics, hoping to reach the next big sale or that Crytek will just go bankrupt and stop bothering them.

4. Insights into CIG's internal power dynamics

Keep an eye on what CIG say isn't relevant. What are they insisting is nothing to do with Cloud Imperium as a company? Which servers are they trying to refuse access to? What's suddenly been declared to be sold to Ris Choberts? This is where CIG will gas up their internal firewalls and I expect Skadden to have to file motions to compel access.

Likewise, watch the email trails. Who holds which company offices? How does a message move around inside CIG? Does everything go to the Head of Marketing who in turn forwards it on the Chairman? Does Chris actually have any control over his underlings? Does he rage directly or passive-aggressively? Whose opinions are consulted, and for what? Who doesn't CC the Chairman on their emails?

5. Details of who CIG's been courting

Who pops up unexpectedly in the emails? What's suddenly redacted? Any institutional investor will have done due dilligence including checks on pending legal action. If this has been pending for a year or more, some entertaining organisations might have stuck their heads around the door during that time (and then Noped out).  Does Chris threaten anyone with his big scary new friends? For that matter, who threatens Chris?

6. The Dates and Times of CIG's largest payments, in and out

This is like signal analysis of encrypted traffic. We won't be able to see, e.g. how much was paid to Gary Oldman. But we might be able to infer it from sudden lump-sum payments, especially given the rumours of executives demanding their royalties with the release of 2.6. I'll be very very curious to see how much left their accounts (and which accounts) on 2.6 and 3.0's release dates.

Was there a large lump sum payment about the time Ben stopped appearing on ATV? To Lando about the time he was rumoured to be leaving? Were there payments to a certain film studio responsible for internationally famous horror epic American Satan - and what else has been paid out of that budget? Who paid what for the rumoured private detective agencies involved in the leak hunt after the AEGIS Potato incident?

I'll also be interested to look into when CIG leased various properties, and which shell company owns those properties. Most commercial leases terminate in the event of bankruptcy or receivership, so what are Chris & co preparing to sacrifice? Also, comparing the dates of any inward investment or tax credit with the funding tracker may provide considerable comedy dividends. Were any large payments made around the times that, say, Coutts might expect a loan repayment?

and lastly...

7. A Spectacular Unforced Error That Makes Us All Collapse Laughing.

Hey, it is CIG we're talking about. For that matter it's Crytek we're talking about. There's going to be something totally off the wall that we've never ever imagined in a million years, count on it. It might be an unexpected asset (holding a lease on a house somewhere, or a yacht, or a private train car), a hilarious euphemism for payment structures ("enhanced performance dividend"), or something even sillier. But it's gonna be there. CIG can't help themselves.

My personal bid is "evidence of an attempt to sue American Satan's producers using backer money". I'm sure the thread can think up other possibilities. The reality is probably going to be exponentially more insane than anything we can think up.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on January 30, 2018, 04:02:36 PM
I would be greatly over joyed Derek at any details brought out 1, 6, 7, in your points.
I love space and now that vive pro is on the way this is a great motivation to dust off the flight sticks and boot EH.
Hope one day someone competent will build something with VR support similar to the original CR kickstarter goal.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on January 30, 2018, 04:27:31 PM
I would be greatly over joyed Derek at any details brought out 1, 6, 7, in your points.

Rest assured, whatever leaks from this shit-show, I'm going to make it public, because backers have the right to know what happened to their project and their money.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on February 07, 2018, 08:16:07 AM
So is it tomorrow that the case reaches another stage ?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 07, 2018, 11:46:13 AM
No, the MtD hearing is on Fri Feb 9th, but we most likely won't know the judge's decision until next week when it hits PACER.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 08, 2018, 10:49:06 AM
My latest. Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/961629006708781056.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on February 08, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
I'm sure Ortwin and Sandi have a press release ready to go the moment the judge grants the MtD. So, yeah, probity won't hear about it till next week.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 08, 2018, 04:47:35 PM
Judge Gee has canceled tomorrow's hearing. OP has been updated.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 08, 2018, 04:55:17 PM
My latest. Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/961629006708781056.html

Great write, I laughed several times at your commentary.
Thank you
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on February 09, 2018, 02:15:26 AM
Quote
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

Deeming oral arguments unnecessary is quite common: something like 75% of appellate court decisions are dealt with that way. Certainly, it figures into a judge's discretion whether she thinks oral arguments have a chance to add anything of use, or will just waste everyone's time repeating pleadings and making the same unwarranted allegations. But it can also be that the written pleadings make a decision so obvious, the judge is convinced that, even if counsel for one side was Marcus Tullius Cicero, and the other William Jennings Bryant, nothing of use would be added.

So, you can declare victory and the internet "lawyers" for CIG can declare victory. But don't expect the judge to spend more than two pages to make her decision.

Intriguing theory: they give in to the lawsuit, give CryTek the settlement they're looking for, go bankrupt and blame the judge and CryTek. Crowdfunding as The Producers for the 2010s. [Springtime for Kelos and UEE?]
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on February 09, 2018, 10:03:42 AM
The armchair lawyers are out in force on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7w92iw/crytek_vs_cig_judge_says_no_oral_arguments_needed/

It ranges from the sensible & realistic "could go either way" to the hilariously deluded "Gut is saying CIG wins."

I so hope the judge denies the MtD for the sole reason of how funny it will be to watch the zealots have a collective breakdown on reddit.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 09, 2018, 12:54:16 PM
OP updated with info about the judge deciding not to hear oral arguments
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on February 09, 2018, 03:27:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: David-2 on February 09, 2018, 03:40:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 09, 2018, 03:50:21 PM
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.

Yeah, I wrote the dates wrong. I have since corrected it.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 09, 2018, 03:51:27 PM
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.

Yeah, pretty much all that.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on February 10, 2018, 11:04:40 AM
Quote
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.

Loving the Twitter threads by the way. But you've been hinting at something else going on in the background for weeks - please give us just a little clue. PLEASE  :supaburn:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 10, 2018, 11:56:27 AM
An ode to my fans on /r/starcitizen

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/962372778967093249.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on February 10, 2018, 01:25:38 PM
If we give you suggestions about what the next big thing might be, couldn't you just say Yes or No?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 10, 2018, 02:38:25 PM
An ode to my fans on /r/starcitizen

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/962372778967093249.html

Great write up just browsed over the comments a few are not drinking the CR koolaid but most are still lost in space. Happened to see Montoya's comment one of a couple concerning his video.

(https://s26.postimg.org/h86f5nx49/the_judge_is_wrong_star_citizen.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hxp7i0xnp/)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on February 11, 2018, 12:51:22 AM
If we give you suggestions about what the next big thing might be, couldn't you just say Yes or No?

Well, the only thing I can think of is CIG being sued by Amazon itself for breaching its license....such as by creating a hybrid engine.

Or being sued by its own employees, past or present, which could throw some light on its finances and working practises.

Or by Coutts who might be ticked off if CIG didn't mention certain risk factors when out took put its loan.

Mass layoffs, studio closures or an employee walkout? Neither seem likely but I suppose it's possible. A backer revolt? Not going to happen.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on February 11, 2018, 02:34:36 AM
I'm guessing things way worse than that. EU/AUS/USA government wanting the collected taxes to be actually handed over to them. Coutts already trying to sell the assets. The UK government wanting all the tax benefits back. A major lawsuit against Chris and CIG because of fraudulent actions. Something that will tip CIG right over.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on February 11, 2018, 04:01:44 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we expect them to have paid back the Coutts loan by now? If not - is that going to effectively sink the UK operations?

Alternatively, the UK tax credits were only available for game projects which pass a cultural test (which I've just googled: http://www.bfi.org.uk/film-industry/british-certification-tax-relief/cultural-test-video-games/summary-points-cultural-test-video-games) - I'm not sure SC qualifies.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on February 11, 2018, 09:05:22 AM
Well, it all depends on how you break down the points.
If you were to argue that Squadron 42 is a separate game, and that Foundry 42 is the lead design studio, then, you might curate an IMDB page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5194726/fullcredits) where the overwhelming majority of actors are British. You could then fund Foundry 42 to create shared assets for Star Citizen and take the tax break.

Of course, if, for some reason, an audit revealed that those tax-credited development expenses were demonstrably NOT for S42, that might cause problems.
Likewise, if someone were to argue in court  that S42 were merely "a game mode" of SC, then things would be murkier. I can imagine this being one reason why CIG/RSI won't claim in the case at hand that S42 is merely a game mode; even though this might help their case with CryTek, it might mean sacrificing their tax credits.

Of course, if over 50% of their crowdfunding income is going to the UK, and if they're not overspending (they are), then they might be able to claim that all of SC is a sufficiently British endeavour.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on February 11, 2018, 10:03:06 AM
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:

Quote
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.

Has anyone heard anything more about this? (or is anyone a UK lawyer who could find out?)

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 11, 2018, 10:11:36 AM
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?)

It's rubbish. Just ignore it. That Juicy_K_Girl person is a total flake who thus far hasn't posted anything of relevance or consequence.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on February 11, 2018, 03:08:52 PM
Intriguing, what was not said. Or maybe what was said and then unsaid. Or maybe what should have been said, but wasn't. You know you're big time when your counsel's on call on weekends.

But seriously folks, don't take Juicy seriously. #1 rule in legal actions is the rule of Tuco: "If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
Or just the rule from when I was younger: there are two groups: those who talk about getting laid and those who don't. Guess which one is getting laid?

If they're talking, they've got no knowledge of any upcoming legal actions. If you are talking and do, shut up and don't hit the post button.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: nightfire on February 12, 2018, 12:27:47 PM
You know you're big time when your counsel's on call on weekends.

Haha, not necessarily. My counsel's on call on weekends because that's the only time they have to deal with my stuff. During the week, they work on important cases  :10bux:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 12, 2018, 12:39:30 PM
Hey! Who remembers when I totally called this one?

Remember our pandering pal, Leonard French?

Jan 7th, 2018 @ 38:28


Quote
"this [Motion to Dismiss] sounds like a knock-out punch to me"

Feb 12, 2018 @ 01:31


Quote
"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"

I did say that despite being entitled to his opinions, it seems like he was just pandering to the Cognitive Dissonance of the backer base who have been parroting that nonsense since Dec when he started chiming in on the case.

He is at 60/40.  I remain 100% ALL IN that the MtD is going to get DENIED out of hand. What remains to be seen is how much - if any - of it survives at all.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 12, 2018, 05:33:54 PM
Hey! Who remembers when I totally called this one?

Definitely called it and not withstanding asking for money a like CR, and now hes backtracking like CR.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on February 12, 2018, 05:40:04 PM
The "knock out punch" turned out to be a cock out Hot Lunch for French, as he left himself exposed, and was forced to eat someone elses shit.

As for his 60/40...and without reading up on this judge as Derek says he has done, you would give any randomly selected case being brought by legal professionals,  a 90:10 of failing a MTD.

60:40 is a kin long way from a hundred percent and it is close enough to 50:50 to make Frenchies opinion exceptionally cowardly.

(http://www.easyfrench.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/french-Stereotype-small.jpg)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on February 14, 2018, 03:37:27 AM
 :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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 14, 2018, 04:40:19 PM
: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.

imo, you should take the Bar exam, please clearly you will do a better job than French  :vince:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on February 22, 2018, 05:24:47 PM
When are we expecting the next  developments in the case ?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 22, 2018, 06:13:18 PM
When are we expecting the next  developments in the case ?

Until the judge rules on the MtD, nothing is going to happen. That could be weeks or months.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on February 23, 2018, 10:12:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 24, 2018, 07:29:21 AM
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.

 :emot-laffo: :emot-laffo:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 28, 2018, 05:55:14 AM
OP updated with latest Crytek filing. My analysis coming later today.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on February 28, 2018, 06:13:16 AM
Better not make a hodgepodge out of it  :police:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 28, 2018, 08:00:01 AM
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 :(

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 28, 2018, 08:54:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 28, 2018, 09:12:12 AM
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. 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 28, 2018, 10:08:29 AM
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.

Yeah, they are basically doing the same shit they did in previous filings. Flinging shit, completely unprofessional conduct etc.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on February 28, 2018, 12:01:28 PM
The OP has been updated with my latest analysis (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on February 28, 2018, 12:10:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on February 28, 2018, 01:34:41 PM
Ma Ma Pee Pee.



Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: premiumnugz on February 28, 2018, 02:03:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on February 28, 2018, 02:13:35 PM
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.

Sounds about right. CIG's only chance is to kick this into the long grass so that the backers forget about it and concentrate on giving them more money before they have to hand it all over to Crytek.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on February 28, 2018, 02:24:17 PM
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".
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 28, 2018, 04:05:45 PM
The OP has been updated with my latest analysis (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html)

Great write up, the response is just so strange to me as to the continue with the unprofessional legalese.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on February 28, 2018, 04:27:50 PM
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..
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on February 28, 2018, 04:38:33 PM
Yes but there is always an excuse.  If it wasn't Crytek, CRoberts will blame something or someone else..

No doubt about it, I've read so many postd from CR cool-aid drinkers talking about how MS shafted him.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Spunky Munkee on March 01, 2018, 04:04:52 AM
Personally I think Robbers and company are doing their very best to spend every dime, pay themselves as much as possible so that there isn nothing left to award Crytek. I could be wrong but if you are going to fail, and fail in a most spectacular way you might as well reward yourself handsomly while attempting to convince the morons who supported this farce that you did your darndest to give them what was promised. It's a shame those horrible Crytek people bankrupted us and stole your game. Shucks we were so close.

Ive got to retire to Monaco now.

Believe that?
I got a Bridge in Brooklyn, great location, real cheap.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Noztra on March 01, 2018, 04:59:24 AM
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". :)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on March 01, 2018, 05:12:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Noztra on March 01, 2018, 05:22:09 AM
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.

Yeah you are right. :)

So much for all backer money going directly to fund the development off the game...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on March 01, 2018, 06:25:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 01, 2018, 07:23:58 AM
I dont think any of it would have to made public in the UK.

IME of a simple Civil case in the UK,  there is a lot of shit that can go down over discovery, with one side or the other not disclosing stuff and you having to decide if it is worth going to the court to get a decision on those matters.  EXample .. you don't think you got all their accounts or emails etc.

As Derek points out CIG are already playing silly games so .....

One assumes the law firm acting for CIG (even with Scrotumsin Liarmouth's intervention), are acting within some kind of professional boundaries.    Thus they know what they are risking by taking the approach they are taking..
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on March 01, 2018, 07:25:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 07:43:17 AM
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.

Crytek have no problems going to trail or they would have started settlement talks as per the CIG request.

I don't believe that the case will settle because CIG simply don't have the money that it would take. And if it goes to trial - and they lose - Crytek has more to gain as they can then claim ALL their assets, up to the award amount; thus killing all the companies and the project. There is a reason why CIG are so pissed that the parent company, RSI, was named in the lawsuit. They can't just jettison CIG and the other companies at will.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 07:44:07 AM
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".

Bankruptcy filings are public. So if/when it goes there, all of it will be made public.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 07:45:55 AM
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.

Now you understand why the list of discovery demands looks the way it does.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJECyzXcAo38Kt.jpg:large)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on March 01, 2018, 07:48:25 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 07:49:18 AM
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.

It depends on to what extent Crytek wants to embarrass CIG. They can always petition the judge to allow certain items which they feel should be in the public domain. Then it's up to the judge to allow it. Which is precisely why I am going to be filing an Amicus curae in the case shortly after the judge rules on the MtD. In it, I am going to make the court aware of the many intricacies what CIG has done to backers etc. Key point being that they promised that the financials would be public, then then rescinded that etc.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: David-2 on March 01, 2018, 08:04:30 AM
The fanboys are used to excusing and ignoring the broken promises - "I'd rather CIG take their time" is the usual line.

Well, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.  Check out this current reddit thread "3.0 is boring now" (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/80ycxr/30_is_boring_now/) and see if you can find someone saying "I'd rather CIG take their time".

The current argument seems to be "you're literally paying CIG so that you can find their bugs" vs. "no you're not".  And nearly everyone else is like "X sucks" for X in ( flight model, FPS, gameplay loop, bugs, CR ).

So I'm kind of wondering why the fanboys are avoiding this thread which is otherwise right up their alley? Hmmm.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 08:37:31 AM
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.

Well the Vulcan is a dud. And it goes to April 2nd, which is about 40 days for a concept ship sale, as opposed to the standard 10 days.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/188332576459587584/418771384945344544/unknown.png)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Noztra on March 01, 2018, 11:20:08 AM
From the lastest bugsmashers. :)

(https://imgur.com/UNv97Fd.png)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on March 01, 2018, 11:57:36 AM
From the lastest bugsmashers. :)

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 :)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 01:47:17 PM
OP updated with my latest (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/969294105225383937.html)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on March 01, 2018, 08:21:57 PM
OP updated with my latest (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/969294105225383937.html)

Looking back over the old agreement and I had forgotten about that accounting part should have sent the funding tracker down the drain.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: mtn355 on March 02, 2018, 01:43:36 AM
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 :)

damnit, my last post got lost in oblivion, eaten by JS  errors, grr.

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]

This must be one of their Customizations to CE, since the dir "EntityEnergyComponent" is not found either in CE, nor in LY:
https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/tree/release/Code/CryEngine/CryAction
https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/tree/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryAction

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(
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on March 02, 2018, 02:44:57 AM
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(

That would explain CIG's love of refactoring code - take the original CryEngine files, rename all the variables and methods, rearrange it all a bit then add Copyright StarEngine to the top and hope the lawyers don't notice.

I'm guessing that will form part of the argument in trial - did CIG untangle all their custom code from CryEngine then add it to a fresh build of Lumberyard, or did they just add all the Lumberyard extras to their existing custom build of CryEngine? I'd be willing to bet it's the latter. If they were stupid enough to do all this using version control with an online repository (eg Github) then they're screwed - although, since this is CIG and reinventing the wheel is what they do, then they'll have a custom server with all the incriminating version history that they can just wipe, but again, if they don't remove all reference to it in the software then it could get discovered. Who's willing to bet that Skadden have a team of software engineers who do exactly these sorts of checks?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on March 02, 2018, 03:06:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on March 02, 2018, 03:47:02 AM
Why would they care at FKKS at this point? They are getting paid by the hour. If the idiot Ortwin insists on dictating how they should respond and they can make extra money by cleaning up his moronic statements, why would they? It's his money. And when the time is there that Ortwin just doesn't cut it anymore, they either walk away with the monies earned, or they take the whole shitshow over and then even extra monies are popping in. So it's just mo monies mo monies for FKKS.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: GaryII on March 02, 2018, 04:09:01 AM
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]

 Changing directory names probably would broke a lot of references - project is huge after all...
 Probably only few people are capable to sort out that mess anyway...so they are lazy here to save the time..

 Anyway this project is turning into Best Damn Kickstarter Lawsuit Ever (BDKLE)  ;)     
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on March 02, 2018, 05:14:03 AM
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".
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 02, 2018, 05:34:41 AM
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.

FKKS argued the merits of the case in a MtD filing; something that's not par for the course either. So them incorrectly regurgitating the same nonsense in a Rule 26(f) filing, isn't much difference.

The attorneys have no incentive to reign in their client. It's not a criminal case; it's a civil case. If Ortwin wants to look bad in the eyes of the court, while playing to the toxic backer base, that's on him. I hope he continues.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 02, 2018, 05:40:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 02, 2018, 06:35:48 AM
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.

CIG can reasonably predict that sufficient numbers of Backers will accept any excuse (for a settlement) along the lines of "although the case against us was baseless, we have decided to negotiate.. yadda yadda yadda ... for the good of the game, Backers etc etc" and presumably the details of the settlement would be kept quiet.   

However that was also the case weeks ago.

It does seem a weak position for CIG to have made an offer to settle at this stage in proceedings because you would have thought any sensible experienced business people would have sat down and thrashed out this sort of shit at the point that Skadden filed the original complaint.

If they can't afford to settle this would surely have been part of those hypothetical discussions with Skadden and might include an offer to pay from future Backer generated sales, in which case it wouldn't be in Cryteks interest to bring them crashing down if they wanted a pay day, would it ?

As it stands now, it looks like CIG have been lying to their attorneys as well as everyone else.

They are all over the place with their defence just as they are all over the place with their development of SC.

Perhaps they have just told FKKS they can't afford much and thats why they have made an offer to settle now..
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on March 02, 2018, 07:59:24 AM
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".
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 02, 2018, 08:23:42 AM
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".

That's not how it works. Anything discussed in the Rule 26(f) can go into the filing. CIG probably objected at the inclusion of what they said, but Crytek probably refused and added it. Parties don't get to pick and choose what goes into a joint filing. If that were the case, Crytek wouldn't have allowed half the irrelevant bullshit that CIG stated in it, and which have no place in a Rule 26(f) filing.

However, I have to believe that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and are using these sort of abusive tactics to delay the inevitable and frustrate the plaintiffs.

From this Rule 26(f) filing, I fully expect that Skadden will file a motion to the judge, asking her to compel them to comply with FCRP. I can't wait to read it - and the CIG rebuttal.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ortwin is behind the wording and context of these filings. I have similar responses from him as proof.

I don't think CIG cares about the case, as they are probably thinking that it's going to settle anyway. Which means that Crytek's rejection of their request for a settlement offer, probably came as a surprise. Which also explains why they're making pointless arguments in a Rule 26(f), like they did in the MtD where they tried to argue the merits of the case, thus all but guaranteeing its failure once the judge sees that there is something worth arguing about - at trial.

The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to buy into that other conspiracy theory: That they want to fuck this up so badly, that the lawsuit destroys them, forces them into BK - then they get to blame Crytek while walking away.

It also explains why they ended up with the likes of FKKS, going up against a powerhouse like Skadden. Fucking hell, they threatened me and The Escapist with powerhouse lawyers (Cooley LLP). That was back in 2015. What happened since then?

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on March 02, 2018, 10:00:49 AM
Either I just don't see it, or we mean the same thing. Skadden did not "leak" the settlement discussion.
First, take page 13:

Quote
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.”

That is, both FKKS and Skadden had to sign off on the content. Hence it's a joint statement.

Now, about the settlement demand, here's what FKKS/Ortwin wrote on page 8, in "their version" of the events:

Quote
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.

Skadden/Crytek, on page 7, gave two paragraphs, the first one their own position, the second a reaction to the above, namely:
Quote
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.

Translation: "no, that account is factually false. We did express an openness to mediation, but, in a conference on discovery, they kept asking us how much we wanted."
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 03, 2018, 09:13:04 AM
Either I just don't see it, or we mean the same thing. Skadden did not "leak" the settlement discussion.

You don't see it - or don't understand it.

The point I was making is that Rule 26(f) discussions are not recorded word-for-word. Both sides have to also agree to that filing. Which means that CIG saw what Crytek was planning on submitting for their end, and what they were submitting from CIG's end.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJJ03JX4AEsGdH.jpg)

Quote
"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."

Crytek didn't have to mention the "settlement demand" by CIG. But they did so "in passing" (that's why it's in parenthesis) in order to put it in the public court record.

It had no relevance to the Rule 26(f) filing because that's not the filing for that. But since CIG - already resisting discovery - wanted to use the Rule 26(f) conference to argue the merits of the case, as they did in the MtD filing, they screwed up this one too by asking for a settlement. Then Crytek rejected it.

Since CIG themselves have said in several filings - including their Rule 26(f) conference - that Crytek was after money by filing a bullshit lawsuit, and some backers making the same claims, it makes CIG look stupid for them to be the one asking for a settlement, and not the other way around. So this mention of it by Crytek is a way to show that this has nothing to do with quick money or anything of the sort.

That's how "leaks" work. Look it up.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 03, 2018, 03:23:19 PM
This Wesh man may be able to explain how leeks work.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/St_David%27s_Day_Celebration_Dathlu_Dydd_G%C5%B5yl_Dewi_2009.jpg/398px-St_David%27s_Day_Celebration_Dathlu_Dydd_G%C5%B5yl_Dewi_2009.jpg)


"During Elizabethan times, Shakespeare refers to the custom of wearing a leek as an “ancient tradition”, and his character Henry V tells Fluellen that he is wearing a leek “for I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.”"
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on March 03, 2018, 03:33:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on March 04, 2018, 01:16:10 AM
You're right on everything, but one critical detail: the document was not written top-to-bottom.

In particular, the parts where CIG and Crytek disagree, Crytek and CIG both prepared statements, and Crytek then added to their statements paragraphs referring to and refuting CIG's statements infra (look it up). Any paragraph beginning with a reference to "Defendant's description infra" is written after the description to which it refers. And it is in that description that the defendant itself confessed it demanded that Crytek make a settlement offer.

So Crytek did not "leak" the information; CIG did, in a typically left-footed attempt to win the public's favor by portraying Crytek as a big, evil, jealous, financially troubled corporation that is trying to hoodwink a judge (e.g., "concealing the GLA").

Crytek didn't leak anything; CIG shot themselves in the foot, again, and that makes it hilarious. This is a small detail, but if you can't get the details right, someone might think you have an ax to grind with CIG.

As to whether CIG's insistence on a settlement is "off-base" for 26(f) conference, there's, from the link you posted, 26(f)(2)

Quote
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;

Obviously, this means that the discovery plan should pertain only to the parts of the lives and businesses of the parties that are covered by the claims and defenses (and not involve "fishing expeditions"), and that discovery should be timed for a quick resolution. But CIG are the same idiots who think that a definition moved by a single party in a recital will overrule the one used in the "definitions" section of the body of a contract, so they could claim some sort of relevance.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 04, 2018, 10:35:34 AM
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?

I certainly think that they are planning for the worst possible outcome. No way they are stupid enough to even consider that the judge would toss the MtD in its entirety.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 04, 2018, 10:44:45 AM
So Crytek did not "leak" the information; CIG did,

Crytek didn't leak anything; CIG shot themselves in the foot,

The "leak" itself came from the fact that Crytek opted to put it in their Rule 26(f) filing. They didn't need to - especially as they had already rejected it.

This happens in cases all the time, whereby one side "slips" in something in an attempt to either compromise or taint the case of the opposition - especially if it's something they want the jury to be aware of. That's why such arguments exist in court where a judge gets to rule what remains and what doesn't. e.g. a judge could tell the judge to "disregard" what the attorney just said; then ask the court steno to strike it from the record.

I don't believe that there is any way that CIG would have wanted for the public to know that they were the ones who initiated a settlement discussion. I also believe that Crytek knew this, so they slipped/leaked it in their filing for that same reason. And of course since it happened, there is no way that CIG could have objected to its removal in the Crytek filing.

And CIG are to blame for this, due to their unprofessional conduct in filings. This is why I said that Crytek are going to continue embarrassing CIG, while remaining professional. Which is where insisting that the financials come into PUBLIC discovery, will play a big part.

Quote
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.

Yes, that's why I mentioned it. As long as they are in settlement talks, they have to notify the court via a filing. And that tends to put any/all other procedural actions - including discovery - on hold.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 04, 2018, 05:27:44 PM
It might be worth pointing out again that the majority of Shitizens dont have a clue what is going down here.

Shitizens seem to have no appreciation that even if this was just a largely baseless money grab from Crytek, as long as it remains a live case, it is going to go to trial or be settled by the parties.

CIG will (probably) lose either way.  Backers will need to pay up more and/or CRoberts etc are going to walk away from SC and blame the case etc.

Being in the grip a an Anvil Crucible's repair arms is nothing compared to where Skadden have CIG right now.

Most of these types of case dont get to a trial because the parties settle.

The process sets the Defendants and the Plaintiff off on a predetermined path to trial, specifically designed to encourage settlement,  whilst at the same time proceeding at some pace towards a trial.

By the time you get close to a trial date, the lawyers on both sides have earnt most of the fees they are going to earn which further increases the pressure to settle.

You can't escape Discovery and it is during the process of Discovery that either side gets a good look at the strength of the others case and gets to build their own position or climb down from it.

When shit comes to shove and the trial is imminent, it is the strength of the respective cases in law, not histrionics and other emotions and behaviours, that determine what each sides lawyers advise

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.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 06:39:12 AM
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.

Some of them are smart enough to know what's going. But like the defense of politics, religion, race wars, FlatEarthers, gun control etc, once you take a position, most devout supporters of that position, will never - ever - admit to backing the wrong position. And with anonymity, they have no reason to do so. So that's what is going on in some of their heads. And it will continue to be so until the last minute - and even then, they will find a way to rationalize it all away. Recently, we've seen some of the most ridiculous statements since the latest filing. They range from someone claiming that I probably put Crytek up to the lawsuit, to me trying to inject myself into the lawsuit. Yes, they're that fucking stupid.

As to discovery, CIG can't get around it. And is no settlement or trial without going through that - and making things like email communications, financials etc available to Crytek - including depositions of all the key people involved in the project. And though people are now focused on the discovery part, usually the most embarrassing and revealing things come from depositions.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on March 05, 2018, 06:51:37 AM
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:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 05, 2018, 08:22:34 AM
usually the most embarrassing and revealing things come from depositions.

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.

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 they did, then those lawyers almost certainly told them to get permission from Crytek because the issues are sufficiently complicated and the consequences of getting it wrong are significant.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 09:12:10 AM
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:

That was me who reported. It's in one of my articles. If true, then that "legal" directive would have come from Ortwin. I am 100% certain that discussions about when and why the decision made, and by whom, will come up in discovery and/or depositions. It's critical to the case.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 09:15:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 05, 2018, 09:22:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 09:44:46 AM
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:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 05, 2018, 10:14:11 AM
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:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 10:18:42 AM
You couldn't make it up !!!

 :police:

That's the thing. Some of this shit is so crazy, that we now have to keep producing evidence that we're not kidding. It's amazing how obtuse these chucklefucks are. Completely.

In that same thread, this nutcase (his Twitter feed is cringilitous) said that I probably put Crytek up to this lawsuit (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/81f84p/star_citizen_update_cig_vs_crytek_youtuber_law/dv2yi4r/).
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 11:10:24 AM
MAR 5, 2018 - MY LATEST

We know that Crytek created the early tech demos. They said so. Curiously, CIG/RSI didn't make any moves to deny this in their court filings. Gee, I wonder why.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/970714392764518400.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 10, 2018, 09:14:24 AM
OP updated
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 10, 2018, 06:00:35 PM
So is it likely the judge will order the financials are kept out of the public domain ?

And I like this

http://docdro.id/3xk4ojP (http://docdro.id/3xk4ojP)

cig .. five and a half years ... developing .. a game of unprecedented scale ...

Lying bastards ...

But this document is the best ...for many of the reasons Derek has been talking about... :grin:

https://www.docdroid.net/Ofv2K49/att2-declaration-of-jeremy-goldman-in-support-of-motion-for-protective-order.pdf (https://www.docdroid.net/Ofv2K49/att2-declaration-of-jeremy-goldman-in-support-of-motion-for-protective-order.pdf)

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 11, 2018, 07:39:40 AM
So is it likely the judge will order the financials are kept out of the public domain ?

As I said in my write-up, there is no way of knowing that. It's up to the judge.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 11, 2018, 10:31:53 AM
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on March 11, 2018, 12:24:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 12, 2018, 06:41:36 AM
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.

CIG knows everything is likely to leak. That's why they are delaying discovery which allows them to also do some shenanigans in the meantime.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 13, 2018, 11:40:46 AM
hearing moved from 13th to 17th. OP updated.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on March 13, 2018, 06:26:09 PM
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?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 14, 2018, 06:18:57 AM
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.

A win win is good for business.

A Contract can't possibly adequately define the comprehensive relationship between two parties which is why the law allows for interpretation wider than the definition of words.

They appear to have been given every opportunity to engage with Crytek and thrown it all back in their face- because they are C^%ts !

Whether Amazon are happy to be dragged in to this is another factor.

So as Derek has said many times Skadden are going to do a thoroughly professional job of getting as much mileage from this legal process as they can.

You can bet that on moral grounds, Skadden and Crytek will have an eye for the money Croberts and his cronies have been getting on false pretenses from gamers.   
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on March 14, 2018, 10:44:17 AM
What they should have done is shared the success of SC with Crytek.

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?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 14, 2018, 01:39:38 PM
What they should have done....and not paid Crytek a penny more than they needed to.



Not wise.

Goodwill goes a long way and as Derek says... it is a small industry.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 14, 2018, 06:58:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 14, 2018, 08:10:23 PM
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. 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 15, 2018, 04:06:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 15, 2018, 07:15:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 16, 2018, 04:52:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 17, 2018, 03:53:31 AM
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.

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.

I digress though. I was just pointing out a hypothetical, that if CIG had settled with Crytek as you previously stated,

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.

Had CIG modified their agreement with CryTek in such a manner. While still using the core functionalities of CryEngine that aren't present in LumberYard. They would have certainty, in that situation, been operating in fraud, and

That would (NOT) have been the end of it.

There is no need for contention between us. 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.

Keep to the high road Derek, you're doing good work.  :police:




Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 17, 2018, 09:05:03 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 17, 2018, 09:50:27 PM
Sure but the law doesn't work that way.

In the end, winning a case in the "Court of Public Opinion". Is just as important if not more so, then winning the case in a "Court of Law".
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 17, 2018, 11:04:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 17, 2018, 11:47:08 PM
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.

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,

TORTIOUS Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 4647

tortious (tor-sh<<schwa>>s), adj.1. Constituting a tort; wrongful <tortious conduct>. [Cases:
Torts 1. C.J.S. Torts §§ 2–7.] 2. In the nature of a tort <tortious cause of action>.

TORT Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page(s) 4644-45

tort (tort).1. A civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another. [Cases: Torts 1. C.J.S. Torts §§ 2–7.] 2. (pl.) The branch of law dealing with such wrongs.

“To ask concerning any occurrence ‘Is this a crime or is it a tort?’ is — to borrow Sir James Stephen's apt illustration — no wiser than it would be to ask concerning a man ‘Is he a father or a son?’ For he may well be both.” J.W. Cecil Turner, Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law 543 (16th ed. 1952).

“We may ... define a tort as a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common-law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.” R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts 13 (17th ed. 1977).

“It might be possible to define a tort by enumerating the things that it is not. It is not crime, it is not breach of contract, it is not necessarily concerned with property rights or problems of government, but is the occupant of a large residuary field remaining if these are taken out of the law. But this again is illusory, and the conception of a sort of legal garbage-can to hold what can be put nowhere else is of no help. In the first place, tort is a field which pervades the entire law, and is so interlocked at every point with property, contract and other accepted classifications that, as the student of law soon discovers, the categories are quite arbitrary. In the second, there is a central theme, or basis or idea, running through the cases of what are called torts, which, although difficult to put into words, does distinguish them in greater or less degree from other types of cases.” W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts§ 1, at 2–3 (5th ed. 1984).


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.]

I don't know how to more plainly illustrate my point???
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 18, 2018, 12:11:04 AM
This is what I've been saying since the beginning of Crytek's actionable case against CGI,

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg6441#msg6441

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg6443#msg6443

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg6446#msg6446

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg6448#msg6448

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=127.msg7312#msg7312

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=127.msg7313#msg7313

If I'm off base, prove me wrong, with references, because I love to be proven wrong. It's makes me think and reevaluate what I think I know is the truth.

All I'm ever looking for is the truth... 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Orgetorix on March 18, 2018, 12:32:58 AM
On Ortwin's "waiver",

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.   
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on March 18, 2018, 09:34:15 PM
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 their personal bank accounts from ill gotten gains from SC.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 19, 2018, 08:31:00 AM
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,

None of that matters. Crytek isn't suing for fraud. There isn't a SINGLE thing in their filing whereby they even hint at that, let alone make it a "cause of action" (claim).

Public opinion on whether CIG committed fraud (of any kind) or not, is irrelevant to the lawsuit (which is what we're discussing).

I have written several blogs (just use my website search for 'fraud' or 'fraudulent') in the past where I made the case for tortuous type claims of fraud - which is what you're describing.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 19, 2018, 08:40:51 AM
On Ortwin's "waiver",

Quote
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.   

Crytek never made Ortwin's waiver an issue of the lawsuit, nor is it a cause of action in the case.

They mentioned it in order to "conflict him out" as well as make him not only a witness to the case, but also so that he can't claim attorney-client privilege in a matter that he handled.

The fact that he handled the negotiation of the GLA for BOTH parties, is material to the fact that he OUGHT to have known about the intent and the deficiencies within. And they claim that he breached it anyway.

Whether he had a waiver or not, won't have changed any of the above.

- Not having it would have been a procedural issue for him which would lead to a Bar complaint. Which is why he was pissed (as per the response).

- Having it, while being inadequate in its representation, is still an issue that he has to deal with; but it has no consequence to the lawsuit itself in terms of the claims they are bringing.

Skadden aren't idiots, and they are not likely to make procedural, let alone mistakes material to a multi-million Dollar case.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 19, 2018, 08:45:27 AM
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.

The Star Citizen project is completely immaterial at this point. The money is going to be their undoing. Not to mention all the other things they have to produce during discovery and which would probably make things even worse. That's why they are being resistant to discovery, thus risking a complaint by Crytek to the court. As we now know, that complaint was forthcoming, which is why CIG pre-empted it by filing a protective order buying them some time until the MtD ruling. So now that's all delayed to the April 17 hearing.

So if the MtD ruling (which they will lose) comes before April 17, they have to comply with discovery. If the MtD ruling doesn't come before 04/17, then the judge will then have to decide (at the 04/17 hearing) whether or not to grant them a stay on discovery until the MtD ruling.

It's a chess game - and I envision CIG losing all the way to the end.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 19, 2018, 05:58:11 PM
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 ?



Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 20, 2018, 09:14:45 AM
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's the thing; Crytek would have known. However, the onus is on Ortwin - the attorney - to weigh the conflicts and recuse himself, regardless. It's like in divorce and similar cases where most attorneys won't represent both parties because if a dispute arises down the road, it could come back to haunt the attorney. In fact, as I read, complaints like this are the most made to the Bar against attorneys.

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 - is the crux of the matter and the reason they even mentioned it in the complaint I think. Ortwin is well aware that he should have recused himself. And that's why he was so pissed - as evidenced by the response. Even after he provided a waiver, the Skadden attorneys know that's not the crux of that issue because such a waiver still does not absolve Ortwin of his ethical responsibilities. All it does is say that Crytek permitted Ortwin to act obo both parties.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 21, 2018, 06:30:41 PM


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 -

Because ......being based on CryEngine any success Star Citizen might achieve was so inextricably tied up with Cryteks ongoing input and success that that they were essentially partners in the same enterprise ? 



Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 28, 2018, 04:46:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 28, 2018, 09:11:18 AM
Not a valid %s URL
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.

Oh yes !

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on March 28, 2018, 12:44:53 PM
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.

Looking forward to it, really hope the most open development of any AAA developer gets shutdown on its request to conceal everything.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on March 29, 2018, 12:42:21 AM
This sums up the whole document

"Crytek respectfully submits that Defendants’ barrage of ad hoc criticisms does not present the Court with any manageable method of resolving any genuine disputes that Defendants might purport to have with Crytek’s discovery requests, and it should be disregarded"

and made me giggle
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on March 29, 2018, 08:50:19 AM
I thought the references to the judges past cases as case law examples,  was interesting.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on March 29, 2018, 02:48:10 PM
I thought the references to the judges past cases as case law examples,  was interesting.

It's hilarious to the point that I have to believe that CIG attorneys probably didn't think Skadden would read the case law. Then they did. Only to find that the same judge had denied both motions. I was dying with laughter.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Lir on March 31, 2018, 02:49:18 PM
I'm wondering how Croberts managed to lure fkks into this mess here.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 01, 2018, 12:42:22 PM
I'm wondering how Croberts managed to lure fkks into this mess here.

They are attorneys. They don't get lured into anything. If there's money involved, they will likely take the case.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 04, 2018, 05:54:59 AM
OP updated

CIG have filed yet another response to CryTek's filing. This discovery issue really has them spooked. Gee, I wonder why that is.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: David-2 on April 04, 2018, 08:05:07 AM
Though I'm a software engineer by trade (40+years) I'm a law buff by hobby.  I read a lot of law blogs and a lot of legal briefs.  For fun.  (Yeah I know.  And your mother too.) I've never read a brief that starts off like this.  (Stopped reading after page 3.)

This discovery issue really has them spooked.

What struck me immediately is how many times in just the first two pages (of argument, after the boilerplate title page) CIG insists that this case is unique.  This case is different.   In the entire history of the court system - going back to England and James I and so on ... this case is sui generisThis case is so unique and different and special the court just has to treat is specially ... oh, and BTW, Crytek is full of shit.  Just blowing smoke.  There's no there there.  What a waste of time.  Their claims are so bogus we can't even get started until the court is convinced there are no claims at all.  And then of course there's no need to get started.

And here I go, I'm going to spew 10 pages of scurrilous attacks because ... well, because the page limit in the Court's rules allow me to spew for 10 pages, so I can.



CIG is clearly following the time-honored legal aphorism: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."  Except in this case it's more like they're lying on the floor on their back, clenched fists waving in the air, kicking their feet against the floor while tossing their whole body from side to side. And wailing. Lots of wailing.

(Oh and by the way, Crytek "hid the contract".  Whatever that's supposed to mean, given the quotes from the contract in the original filing.)

BDCISE.  (Best Damn Copyright Infringement Suit Ever™).


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 04, 2018, 08:59:21 AM
I agree, it's ridiculous isn't it?

My take

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/981554668538089472.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: GaryII on April 06, 2018, 04:22:04 AM
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...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on April 06, 2018, 06:07:02 AM
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...

Trouble is Judges have a wide remit with plenty of discresion so you can never be sure.

Both sets of lawyers would urge their Clients to settle.

Skadden want the discovery process to be as full and wide ranging as can be to help establish what to settle for

If CIG have no money to settle then they are just stalling for time and their only hope is to get this thrown out or rally backers to cough up more.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on April 11, 2018, 06:07:11 PM
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/christmas?iso=20180417T00&p0=137&msg=Judgement+Cometh+And+That+Right+Soon&font=serif&csz=1 (https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/christmas?iso=20180417T00&p0=137&msg=Judgement+Cometh+And+That+Right+Soon&font=serif&csz=1)

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on April 16, 2018, 01:31:16 AM
This is exciting, its like knowing your about to be told a really funny joke but i'll have to wait another 22 hours for the punch line
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 16, 2018, 04:32:57 AM
The hearing for the protective order is tomorrow, though the judge may not even rule on it. It would have been great for him to rule on the MtD first, which would make the PO motion/hearing moot, but judges are weird. We'll see how it goes tomorrow.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on April 16, 2018, 06:07:30 PM
oh I thought it was ruling on the motion to be protected from evil and unreasonably invasive discovery by those tricksters down at crytek

surely the Judge dread gee has heard enough whining for one motion already?

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 17, 2018, 10:28:07 AM
Yeah, in their amazing word salad, they were also asking for all those things.

The hearing is today 9AM PST / 1PM EST
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Meowz on April 17, 2018, 01:28:30 PM
Can't wait to find out the ruling. The suspense is too much! lol
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 17, 2018, 04:36:32 PM
I heard that the judge is going to be issuing her ruling on the PO within the next 48hrs and may also rule on the MtD at the same time.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on April 17, 2018, 04:52:14 PM
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/773/333/add.gif)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Meowz on April 18, 2018, 09:48:04 AM
Well the ruling was rather anticlimactic....
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 18, 2018, 10:10:56 AM
OP updated with commentary from the PO ruling by the judge.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/986319843514306561
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 18, 2018, 10:14:15 AM
Well the ruling was rather anticlimactic....

Not sure what you were expecting. As I said, it was a bullshit motion to begin with - and the judge would have denied (as per her Dec 2017 guidance) it anyway, even if the scheduling was already done. This was a win for Crytek.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on April 18, 2018, 04:56:12 PM
What will happen now is that the deluded Backers will read a CIG victory into this ruling.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 18, 2018, 05:25:53 PM
What will happen now is that the deluded Backers will read a CIG victory into this ruling.

Some (the morons) already did. Go see Reddit if you think I'm kidding. Basically - get this - they're saying that CryTek jumped the gun on discovery. I shit you not.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on April 18, 2018, 09:27:01 PM
Straight up draw, if you exclude how many auroras were spent filing unnecessary motions.

When is the motion to dismiss finally ruled on? 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on April 19, 2018, 01:36:45 AM
Straight up draw, if you exclude how many auroras were spent filing unnecessary motions.

Hardly, it's shown the judges just how awkward and difficult CIG are prepared to be during the entire process.

By doing so they're painting a big red flashing neon sign above their heads that they have something to hide.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: the_wolfmann on April 19, 2018, 02:00:39 AM
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:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 02:37:30 AM
Straight up draw, if you exclude how many auroras were spent filing unnecessary motions.

It's not quite a draw - at all. In fact, without being biased, I would say that it's a win for Crytek (they wanted to start discovery - now the judge has cleared the way) on one hand, and a sort of win for CIG (they didn't want to start discovery - so they got a 6 week delay while waiting for the judge) .

But to understand what happened, and why, you have to know how the legal system works. Let me explain (part of this is already in my Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/986319843514306561)).

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.

On Feb 27th the plan was in the works; and Crytek were in conference with CIG to get the scheduling for that sorted out.

CIG didn't cooperate; and instead - figuring that Crytek was going to object in a court filing - filed for a PO on Mar 9th

We didn't know this until Apr 3rd when Crytek filed their answer to the PO and explained what was going on in the background - which CIG didn't disclose in their filings. Including that CIG wanted to initiate settlement (which Crytek declined to do, opting to go to discovery instead) talks instead of scheduling discovery.

The scheduling notice was filed with the court on Mar 20; 8 days after the PO filing by CIG on Mar 12.

With their bullshit PO filing, the only thing CIG achieved was 6 weeks delay while the clock stopped.

Now they have to go back to where they were in early Mar, ahead of their PO filing.

Now they have boxed themselves in. They have go back to what Crytek started in late Feb to early Mar, that prompted their bullshit PO. And they can't do that again because they now have no choice but to start discovery, regardless of the ruling on the MtD (which is probably coming soon)

Quote
When is the motion to dismiss finally ruled on?

No clue. But I plan to take the day off when it happens :emot-lol:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 02:41:08 AM
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:

Yeah, for a company that has filed motions claiming they don't know why they're being sued, they didn't do anything wrong etc, it makes you think.

While I can understand why they would not want to enter discovery, as that would prematurely force them to hand over critical info/data to Crytek, they have to know that no way in hell that their MtD swould ucceed.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 19, 2018, 04:19:36 AM
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.

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.

They probably won't get anywhere and they'll only annoy the judge bit of they just want a delay they got it. I am not sure how this will ultimately benefit them though because a simple delay won't cause the case to go away or for evidence to disappear....assuming they took steps to preserve evidence. About the only advantage it seems to provide is to give CIG a head start on finalising the conversion to LumberYard...if what you say is correct...so they don't lose everything but that activity right now would be a sign of guilt. It could also cause other problems....part of the functionality CE3 provided was via third party programs that are no longer available.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: the_wolfmann on April 19, 2018, 04:47:21 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Backer42 on April 19, 2018, 07:27:28 AM
If what my sources are telling me is true, that they are frantically trying to complete the Lumberyard port
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on April 19, 2018, 07:49:56 AM
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 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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Backer42 on April 19, 2018, 08:02:10 AM
I'm sure even CIG wouldn't be that stupid.
That's a pretty naive assumption. :grin:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 19, 2018, 08:23:33 AM
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.

It depends.

That contract will very likely be terminated after all this.

What does CryTek really want? It wants money...it wants the code it is due...and it wants its IP protected.

It needs discovery so it can accurately determine how much it can ask for via compensation and damages. One reason why it was premature and a sign of desperation for CIG to initiate settlement talks now; it means they likely think the cost if settlement can only go up after discovery - and were possibly hoping CryTek wasn't as confident in its vase as it appears to be.

CIG, in short, are giving every sign they strung CryTek along believing they either could not or would not sue and were caught flatfooted when CryTek showed them wrong.

Should CryTek win, there is a good chance the GLA will be nullified. Its a bad relationship and CIG will have shown themselves  untrustworthy.

In that case, CIG might....MIGHT... be free to switch to another engine. Of course, there is that clause forbidding development for two years but that may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

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.

I believe there was at least one case where massive changes had to be made because a developer had to make massive changes to its code to remove links to even the concepts behind a licensed product.

Say CIG was placed under similar restrictions, either directly or indirectly. It would not be able to switch over to any flavour of CE. More, because its engine team has been working on its engine it would likely have to reallocate every member of that team to work on something other than the game engine. And it would have to stay away from LumberYard.

In short, it would have to take steps to ensure it wasn't using not just CryTeks code, but CryTeks concepts and techniques. Unfortunately...that would entail a de facto restart of the entire project.

Fortunately, such an outcome is unlikely and it is more plausible CIG would be allowed to move to LY and keep its existing teams in place.

But this is the type of non monetary remedy that CryTek could potentially seek. Which is partly why the focus on the clause restricting monetary damages is so short sighted....CIG can always hold another sale or two if the issue was just money.

However, by working to translate the code now...if that is what they are doing...CIG get a headstart for later. That activity wouldn't be problem free as they would have to replace certain third party aspects, some of which can no longer be licensed, and it would delay work on 3.x as developers are pulled to do work that should have been done 3 years ago, but it would also allow them to play the "we lost, but the impact is minimal. Here's a sale to celebrate" card.

More of a concern....but (hopefully) just for the TFH brigade...is the thought that any such work is being carried out in an attempt to hide any evidence of wrongdoing. That seems unlikely to happen, and less likely to succeed, but I suppose it is possible. I suppose CIG could pull the old  "we accidentally deleted or lost our archive" routine but I don't think CIG employees are loyal enough for CIG to risk that. We already know Derek Smart is getting info leaked to him so someone isn't likely to lie under oath.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: the_wolfmann on April 19, 2018, 10:26:32 AM
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.

Now I won't go into too much detail on how to rewrite source control records as to avoid going offtopic (and to prevent the CIG intern reading this thread from relaying tips to management). In short, it's possible to rewrite the centralized source copy to have different timestamps on the CIG/Crytek critical commits (the individual pieces of code changes that developers made for the LY rewrite). The issues and errors will come when everyone that has a local copy of the source files has to "accept" the rewritten logs. This could end up going sideways with developers losing months of work because of the overwrite (and every developer touching the code would absolutely HAVE to do that in order for the cover-up to be complete). Essentially CIG will lose time and money for (illegal) activities not related to the project they promised which in hindsight is nothing new...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 12:44:14 PM
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.

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.

Quote
It seems CIG got only a delay, but of there is no scheduling order in place,


There is no such thing. The scheduling is between CIG and Crytek. It's what Crytek started, and which would have been filed once agreed upon. They didn't file it because CIG refused to cooperate, then filed their PO.

Quote
they don't have to allow discovery

That's categorically FALSE. That's not how the legal system works.

Quote
and they can probably refile for a Protective Order  once there is.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 12:46:55 PM
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.

That would explain the delays because there is NO other plausible reason for them to be delaying a lawsuit in which they claim they did nothing wrong.

Unfortunately for them, they're in a lawsuit with the engine developers. Which means that any such tampering, obfuscation etc, will be detected fairly quickly.

Remember also that they have to submit ALL their code changes to Crytek, regardless of GLA conditions/requirement to do so.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 12:49:12 PM
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.

Not really. Remember they are claiming that the GLA didn't prevent them from switching. But if they were still using code that's unique to CE, though they claim to have switched to LY, then they are in serious trouble because they didn't switch. You see the conundrum?

By using the single license for SQ42 - even if they didn’t switch - they skirted having to fork out money for another license. That CryEngine is already free, has no bearing on that. And that’s the hilarious part of that specific issue.

Then they went all out and claimed to have switched to Lumberyard - though they didn’t.

They’re in a Catch-22 screw-up because even if the agreement allowed them to switch, they are still on the hook for the other claims - and they would have to PROVE (we don’t believe that they did, as it would be LOT of work. Because CE3 and LY are derivatives, they didn’t have to do a full 100% swtich) that they switched and no longer are using ANY part of CryEngine. And if they were not allowed to switch - then they did - well, here we are.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 12:59:52 PM
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.

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. That both CE3 and LY are derivatives, is immaterial because Amazon has done do much work on LY, that it's trivial to see if there are any original CE code left in Star Citizen or SQ42. That's the major problem that they are facing. Remember, they DO have a license to SC; but they will be in breach of that because of Crytek's claims (of which there are five).

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DStblH1WAAAwa5I.jpg)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 19, 2018, 03:56:57 PM
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.

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.

Quote
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.


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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 19, 2018, 04:20:10 PM
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

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.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 07:41:15 PM
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.

Here is the order itself. Please read it in full, and explain to me what exactly it is you are having issues with.

https://www.docdroid.net/tx3rLrT/031127978036.pdf

Quote
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.

There is no "scheduling order" in the case.

Scheduling Order:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_16

Discovery Plan:

https://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/filing-a-lawsuit-the-discovery-process.html

BOTH parties already agreed on a discovery plan. It was filed on Feb 27th

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al

The next step would have been the "scheduling conference" (by both parties, similar to the discovery plan), which would then be filed so that the judge can issue a "scheduling order".

CryTek decided to start the discovery process early, no doubt due to the volume of material that would require.

CIG went along with it.

Both parties came up with the discovery plan which they filed on Feb 27th.

From the CryTek filing of Mar 27th, we find out why CIG objected to start discovery. One of those reasons what that instead of complying with discovery - as per the plan - they decided to start settlement talks. That was also premature and out of schedule. So Crytek rejected it - and opted to just move on to discovery.

CIG filed the PO object to discovery; instead opting to wait for the ruling on the MtD.

Because the judge does not require (it's a suggestion) parties to start discovery early|ahead of a scheduling order, the PO was moot as CIG wasn't required to comply with discovery anyway.

That was a 6 week delay - while waiting for the ruling. And that was time that they could have taken to do the scheduling conference and get it done - just like they did the discovery plan. Then submit that so the judge can issue a scheduling order, thus kicking off discovery.

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.

Once that's acknowledged, they have to start discovery. With a scheduling order in place, if they attempt to file another PO, it will again get denied because there would already be a discovery plan, a scheduling conference, and a scheduling order from the judge.

There is NO basis in law for the discovery process to stop because a decision on an MtD is pending. If that were the case, the judge would have ruled on the MtD by now, instead of dealing with the bullshit (including oral arguments btw) of this PO. And Crytek's motion opposing it, lays out case law for this. And that didn't come into play because the PO was moot anyway, and the judge didn't even need to get into all that.

Again, all CIG did was buy themselves a 6 week delay. That's their "win" - and they've now used it up. They could have gone ahead with the scheduling conference (which was started, hence the discovery dispute), then file the PO thereafter if the judge hadn't ruled on the MtD by that time. Basically, they could have taken the 6 week delay before or after. Crytek's "win" is that now they get to go to discovery, though later rather than sooner. And CIG can't prevent or delay it now - given this order.

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.

And the ruling on the MtD is going to be hilarious because I fully expect the judge to deny it. In fact, CIG have got to know that it won't survive that motion or the judge, like how she disregarded Crytek's response to the PO because it was moot, would have also disregarded the PO as moot, while ruling on the MtD and sending everyone on their way. That she opted to toss the PO, while not ruling on the MtD - but telling them to go get their discovery act in gear - is a clear signal that the MtD ruling is coming soon, and that it's not going to end the case.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
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.

Yeah that's basically it.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on April 19, 2018, 10:52:29 PM
So it is not a draw,

it was a resounding defeat in legal terms for CIG, their comedy of a motion was thrown right out the window.  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. 

While a legal victory for crytek its a battle they did not want to fight, they got nothing out winning a fight of no consequence but a bill for legal fees, starting discovery has now been delayed and the scope of discovery now risks being reduced if elements of the MtD pass muster,  really this changes nothing for them.

The backers keep up there losing streak, stumping the bill for three motions and a day in court.

Lawyers are winning because they are getting a protracted legal battle, with bulk fees.
 
I'm surprised they have not tried to monetise yet.  I mean id totally subscribe to watch episodes of "Around the Law" with CIG. 
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on April 20, 2018, 02:29:00 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 21, 2018, 05:08:45 AM
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

It did no such thing. The judge's ruling had no basis on the MtD. And there is no reason to believe that the MtD is going to be ruled on before they get the scheduling order.

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/
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 21, 2018, 05:09:34 AM
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.

That, and they spent legal bills on a non-issue. All they gained was a 6 week delay of the inevitable.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 21, 2018, 10:12:08 AM
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

A conference that is now taking place 6 weeks or more after it would have of they hadn't filed for the order.

Quote
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.

There still seems to be no reason why CIG cannot again refile for a PO once scheduling order is complete. They might annoy the judge but is there anything legal actually stopping such a refiling and another 6-8 weeks of delay?

Quote
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/

Which essentially states what I have been saying.

If CIG are seeking...for whatever reason...a simple delay, they won and can refile for the PO later on and gain another 4-8 weeks of delay.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on April 21, 2018, 11:09:52 AM
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:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 21, 2018, 12:14:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Motto on April 21, 2018, 12:16:55 PM
If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.

Yes, that's what I said

If the MtD succeeds

LOL. It won't. Period.

After the MtD has been denied, they can try other stalling tactics. But not a PO.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 21, 2018, 03:12:22 PM
Which essentially states what I have been saying.

Yes, but context matters.

You (previous page):

Quote
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.

Me (previous page):

Quote
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.

This is what OSC is saying:

Quote
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.

They created a 6 week delay and shot themselves in the foot if they were expecting the judge to rule on the PO in their favor, thus staying discovery until the MtD ruling - which may be months away (already been 3 months since they filed it). Instead, the ruling has now forced them to continue the discovery process which, as per Crytek's filing - they were already resisting (hence the PO). Even though they do not have to comply with discovery right now, they're now compelled to complete the scheduling which is going to automatically trigger discovery - regardless of the MtD ruling - once the judge reviews and gives the scheduling order.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 21, 2018, 03:16:27 PM
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:

Yeah, I too would like to see them try that again. I don't believe that they will. They already used up that card, regardless of the fact that the judge didn't even rule on their PO. Which is hilarious to me. She basically just ignored it. That's the thing with judges; they are familiar with all the tricks in the rule book.

Also, the judge doesn't have to issue a ruling on the scheduling order. It's just her reviewing it, and saying OK - go ahead, since you all have agreed. Just like the discovery plan. So once they complete the scheduling conference and notify the judge, we will see a scheduling order almost right away. And that signals discovery which Crytek can go back and ram down their throats again. And if the MtD hasn't been ruled on by the time, I'd like to see what they come up with next.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 21, 2018, 03:23:41 PM
If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.

They can try.

Quote
If the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
And so far, they don't seem afraid of burning the judges goodwill.

I don't believe they care.

Quote
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 have to be because all the lies they have been telling. And even if there is a single evidence of any of the Crytek allegations, they are 100% screwed. Unfortunately for them, the biggest thing they want to keep secret - the finances - is the primary key in Crytek's claims.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on April 21, 2018, 07:04:10 PM
Highlights the issue or novices, reading legal notices etc , intelligently applying English comprehension to it and thinking that this reflects legal practice because it makes sense to them.

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 ?  In UK IIRC you are told that you have to send in stuff by a specific date decided by the Judge in accordance with proceedings rules.

Do X by Date Y

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on April 21, 2018, 10:13:46 PM
They can try.

Certainly.

Just like they TRIED this time.

That got them a 6 week delay. If they refile, will their motion be fast tracked so it is ruled on in a couple of hours, or will it delay the entire process aga8n for 6 or 8 weeks?

The motion does not have to be successful or even prudent. If all CIG are looking for is a delay, then refiling the motion will get them that delay. The motion doesn't have to succeed to give CIG what it wants...so simply trying might be enough.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Further, even when legally obligated to move forward, CIG only needs to progress to the point that a SO exists...at which point it van refile.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

That depends on what CIG want. If all they want is a delay, why would they not refile?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 22, 2018, 07:41:48 AM
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.

Precisely. And if they could even do that, there would be no need to spend time and money on a PO, when they can just ignore Crytek indefinitely until the MtD ruling comes.

Quote
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 ?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_16

Quote
(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.

As CIG responded to the lawsuit on Jan 5th, she had until Apr 5th to issue it. That's the time period that both parties had to do the scheduling conference, leading to the scheduling order. This is why CIG filed the PO because they were resisting discovery, then got jammed up by fast approaching date. So they filed it on Mar 12th; ahead of the April 5th court deadline.

Now that they bought themselves 6 weeks delay, and the PO is denied, they have to complete the scheduling conference they were previously fighting (which led to the PO) with Crytek over. Which means that they now have to do file the agreed upon scheduling asap as it's past the Apr 5th deadline.

Quote
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.

That's precisely where they were. And instead of waiting for Crytek to file a motion with the judge complaining about it, they filed a PO instead because they knew they were already hitting the deadline and that the minute they filed the scheduling (from the conference), they would get an order, thus forcing them into discovery.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 22, 2018, 08:52:31 AM
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.

CIG were the ones who are trying to stay discovery, under the pretext that the MtD is likely to be ruled - in its entirety - in their favor. Yes, I know, it's hilarious. And they didn't make a legal argument for it - at all.

Quote
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.

Yeah, so? Nothing is stopping them from trying it again; even though there would be no [legal] merit to doing so - aside from the fact that it would fail because there is NO legal precedent that supports their PO motion.

Quote
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.

How is this new?

You are being annoying because you keep going round and round in circles, while not making ANY new arguments. We had a fellow around here who used to do that - a lot. His handle was Serendipity. Eventually we got tired, and banned him - and all his alts. Now I'm beginning to sense a pattern. We don't have time for that shit around here. Go to Reddit. This forum is clean, clear, and naked so that information (not circular and|strawman arguments clogging it up) is readily at hand. If you're not going to argue in good faith, just leave - or don't post. I know that sounds harsh, but come on, man. NONE of us here are lawyers, but some of us HAVE been involved in legal cases, so we have a good idea of hot it works. Also, attorneys could predict the future, there would be no cases lost|won.

Quote
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.

As I've stated before, that opinion has no merit, nor basis in law. If such merit existed, many court cases will never got to discovery within the allotted (60-90 days) period. That you think there is some procedural merit to skirting Federal law, is just you being ignorant.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on April 23, 2018, 02:59:40 PM
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.

OK, I'm becoming more and more convinced that you're another Serendipity alt just trolling us. He's the only stupid person to ever come to these forums and stuck around long enough for EVERYONE to stop taking him seriously.

ps: CryTek doesn't have to prove intent. And the only way CIG will "win" is if 1) the judge accepts their entire MtD and tosses the case 2) they prevail on ALL the FIVE causes of actions in the lawsuit.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DStblH1WAAAwa5I.jpg)

pps: This is not the forum thread for that nonsense. Keep this crap in the other thread as we don't like threads going off topic. Next time, your posts will be deleted. For now, I've moved it.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on May 23, 2018, 08:57:06 AM
Okay, so Winston's post was a lot of fun. Indeed, using https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ it seems that, on Pi-day, RSI Corp. ceased operations in the state of California. Naturally, this doesn't get them out of liability for their actions prior to that date. Still, it will be interesting to see how this one gets explained.

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.

In the meantime, let's enjoy a passage from a Polygon article published in that simpler time, August 2015, What the Hell is Going on with Star Citizen  (https://www.polygon.com/features/2015/8/31/9211969/what-the-hell-is-going-on-with-star-citizen):
Quote
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."


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on May 23, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
and from the same Polygon article

Quote
"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."

Yes Chris because they are actually developing the game they sold and not making silly videos...or buying 15k coffee machines etc ...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on May 23, 2018, 02:57:28 PM
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.

Looks like Vox media is doing an article. That's why their legal person would be the one requesting court transcripts.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on June 06, 2018, 03:04:37 PM
So it is the scheduling order we are waiting on plus the MTd ?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on June 06, 2018, 04:28:13 PM
Just the MtD now, which I hear should be coming around the end of this month. The discovery scheduling will follow that.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on July 10, 2018, 03:22:19 AM
where is my lawsuit already,  what happened to the right to a speedy trail?

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on July 10, 2018, 05:31:58 AM
The wheels of justice turn slowly.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on July 10, 2018, 06:25:07 AM
where is my lawsuit already,  what happened to the right to a speedy trail?

Yeah, that's what I was wondering to. In fact...

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1016520859660570626
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 10, 2018, 05:47:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 11, 2018, 06:01:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on August 12, 2018, 06:29:15 PM
Yes. And then it's up to the judge to grant or deny it.

Your honour this needs to be kept under seal or there will be blood bath fueled by nerd rage! space nerds openly rioting in the streets.    It will cause a great schism amongst the faithful followers of the church of Roberts! whales will be harpooned! priceless jpegs burned!  The truth must be withheld!
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 13, 2018, 01:32:07 PM
Yes, pretty much. See how they freaked out over Crytek trying to do discovery ahead of the MtD ruling.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 04:15:56 AM
BREAKING NEWS!! As I had predicted back in Jan this year, the judge has DENIED the MtD in the CryTek v CIG case.

More soon.

BREAKING NEWS!! As I had predicted back in Jan this year, the judge has DENIED the MtD in the CryTek v CIG case.

I can't WAIT to read what all those Star Citizen YT lawyers have to say now. Anything that doesn't amount to the usual "Derek Smart Was Right", should be disregarded out of hand.

More soon.

The filing is in my OP.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 15, 2018, 04:51:48 AM
Just a reminder about what the Chief Shill had to say about the Motion to Dismiss back in Jan:

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 15, 2018, 04:53:02 AM
I'm surprised the judge granted the 'exclusive' aspect of the MtD.

It seems common sense that when Crytek agreed to create the SC demo for CIG/RSI, part of the contract would be to ensure that CryEngine (and only CryEngine) would be used for the game, thereby rewarding Crytek by providing valuable publicity.

What game-engine company would agree to only allow one company to use their engine? It doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 05:03:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 15, 2018, 05:30:13 AM
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.

Thanks. That clarifies things.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 15, 2018, 06:57:49 AM
Just following your Tweets. Section 2.4 was originally dismissed by all the SC supporters as a non-compete clause, ie. CIG mustn't be in the business of selling or supporting a competing Game Engine - which most took to mean that CIG themselves couldn't create a competitor to CryEngine within a 2 year period after the GLA terminates (it hasn't). But there's enough ambiguity to argue - as many of us did - that it effectively prevents CIG from using another Game Engine if they didn't want to use CryEngine.

In may ways all this is just the starting gun for the real fun: Discovery. Either their current financials or their code repository (showing that they just did a "Replace All" on the Copyright headers on all their files to swap Crytek to Amazon Lumberyard) are going to get them into real trouble.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 15, 2018, 07:12:55 AM
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...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StarBallz on August 15, 2018, 07:23:46 AM
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?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 15, 2018, 07:41:57 AM
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...

According to Derek, CryEngine was capable of producing the original game (as per KS ).

It was only when the scope ballooned and additional promises made that SC became impossible to achieve using CE (and possibly any other engine).

So the question is - 'Why was the scope allowed to balloon beyond the capabilities of CE?' Who authorised this?

You can't prohibit someone from making a living. That is true. But you can prohibit HOW someone makes a living, especially when that restriction forms part of a contract.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on August 15, 2018, 07:42:43 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/97gxfn/cloud_imperium_games_vs_crytek_court_rules_on/

https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp-et-al-cacdce-17-08937-00380.pdf#page=6
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 15, 2018, 08:13:46 AM
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.


Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 15, 2018, 08:27:15 AM
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.

It's good to have some arguments on this forum - it's become too much of an echo chamber of late - but you're wrong.

You've just said that CIG should make the case that they switched to the Lumberyard branch of CryEngine because the Crytek branch of CryEngine is fatally flawed. They are the same engine, and when CIG changed and Lumberyard was still new, there was very little difference between the 2 branches.

The only fatal flaw is in that line of reasoning I'm afraid.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 15, 2018, 08:40:09 AM
@Nomad, Good point, Lumberyard is a fork of Cry Engine and inherits its characteristics.  So much for my new job as defense attorney.  The legalese of the filings are way to complicated for my simple brain to digest.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 09:25:22 AM
My thread has concluded

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 09:31:20 AM
If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Padrepapp on August 15, 2018, 09:58:49 AM
Hey Derek!

As I can see the SC reddit is celebrating.
Their 2 claims are:
- exclusivity motd granted
- punitive damages motd granted

I think I get your argument why the first doesn't really matter, but could you elaborate on the 2nd? They claim that with this they wont have to pay a lot for Crytek.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Aya Reiko on August 15, 2018, 10:19:52 AM
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...
Irrelevant.

CiG signed the deal to only use the CryEngine.  It's their fault they are stuck with something that can't handle the ever increasing scope.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Greggy_D on August 15, 2018, 10:48:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 10:54:45 AM
That was, by far, your best write-up in this entire saga.  Not a single person can argue against what you wrote.

Oh trust me, they will try.

This basically encapsulates the whole thing

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 15, 2018, 10:59:27 AM
Well said Derek, So in a nutshell, CIG's last real option which won't go well is:

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
Well said Derek, So in a nutshell, CIG's last real option which won't go well is:

They have to settle this - if they can afford it. If they fail to do that, they're completely destroyed if the lawsuit goes to trial.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 15, 2018, 11:13:11 AM
Wow Silicon Knights really paid the price for going up against Epic.  Did Epic withhold technology from Silicon Knights while developing a competing product (Gears of War) or were they just better at game development?

I was just taking a stab at what CIG could do as a counter claim, but that got squashed pretty fast, like I said, the whole legal contest is way above me.

Talk about dancing with the devil, why did CIG agree to something so binding?  I would never have, especially with all that money flowing in on a Tsunami

--> " 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?

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 11:52:47 AM
--> " 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?

It depends. The PU is a mess, so that's out. We don't know the actual status of SQ42, so that's probably out too. But if Crytek or any company does a proper evaluation, they can determine whether or not there is anything there to salvage. If it were me, I would take what's there in the PU, and make SQ42 out of it; while leaving the session based multiplayer alone.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 12:39:33 PM
My thread has concluded

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html

Also, worth noting that even though the judge dismissed section 2.1.2 (exclusivity), the 2.4 breach is even more harmful to CIG. PLUS - right there on the last page of the filing - the judge invited Crytek to file any amendment if her understanding of their intent (e.g. 2.1.2) was misunderstood. If the judge was certain that 2.1.2 and the punitive damages issue were open and shut, she would NEVER have left that door open for Crytek to file an amended complaint as per the two items she didn't dismiss. She's not stupid.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on August 15, 2018, 02:23:19 PM
It's a fun read, and it's good to see that common-sense legal notions that I've been holding (along with many others around here), like "there's no way in Hell a disposition can take precedence over a definition in the body") are also shared by the judge. And, yeah, Derek, you get the honor of "calling this one" on 2.4. In the footnote, the good judge notes that the plaintiffs brought up 2.4, but states that she can't enter into the matter because the plaintiffs did not move on 2.4 in the complaint. That's what will be in the next amended complaint, and should defendants move to dismiss that amendment, then I don't think we'll wait 8 months for a reply.

The punitive damages don't really matter here.
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on August 15, 2018, 02:53:22 PM
My thread has concluded

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html


Great overview of what has occurred in the ruling, my one real interest is to see open discovery.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: DemonInvestor on August 15, 2018, 03:05:10 PM
Interesting read (both the decision and the thread), can't wait for what's going to happen now. I still hope we'll get better informations about what they we're doing with all the shell companies. Though that's most likely a pipe dream - though one could hope some journalists might actually give depth analysis when all's gone down.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 03:38:35 PM
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.

So what you're saying is they're fucked? :emot-lol:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: BigM on August 15, 2018, 04:17:32 PM
Do we still think someone is going to jail? Or are they going to get away from serving any time?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: krylite on August 15, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
My thread has concluded

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html

Good summary Derek. And it is a burning soon-to-be-abandoned wreck ready to roll off the cliff, lol. I'm ready to watch the future "American Greed"  coverage episode's expose of all the dirty details (incl. the 'remorseful' & 'shocked' interview snippets of former backers). It'll be one of my top favorites of the show. Can't wait to hear Stacy Keach narrate how CR turned to the dark ponzi side right after the initial kick$tarter.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Backer42 on August 15, 2018, 04:50:25 PM
Quote
--> " 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:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 15, 2018, 05:06:48 PM
Do we still think someone is going to jail? Or are they going to get away from serving any time?

The only way any of the execs goes to prison, is if the Feds or State authorities get involved, and they discover fraudulent activity during their investigation. Other than that, no - I don't think so.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on August 15, 2018, 06:20:15 PM
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.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 16, 2018, 03:40:36 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: G8623 on August 16, 2018, 05:07:29 AM
Are the damages really bad that will come from this? There are some on reddit saying a 2 million value.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 16, 2018, 05:35:55 AM
Are the damages really bad that will come from this? There are some on reddit saying a 2 million value.

This would be the same people on Reddit who have convinced themselves that this was still a win for CIG.

They're all idiots.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 16, 2018, 06:27:29 AM
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."

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 16, 2018, 07:13:20 AM
Are the damages really bad that will come from this? There are some on reddit saying a 2 million value.

If it was $2M, CIG would have settled this back in 2016-2017. It's not like they didn't have the money to do so.

No, it's not $2M. It's going to be way higher than that. Plus, if Crytek re-file (as the judge suggested) to re-word their complaint as per 2.1.2 (granted in the MtD) and 2.4, while explaining why they are due punitive damages (granted in the MtD), we're talking much, much higher awards.

For comparison (and this was years ago, and their are higher awards now per precedent), this is what a court awarded Epic Games in their suit against Silicon Knights for basically the same issue.

https://www.engadget.com/2012/11/09/silicon-knights-v-epic-games-judgment/

The long and short of this is that CIG/RSI are facing a very serious issue that could have long-term ramifications. That they could even hope to settle this for less than $20M, is a pipe-dream; unless of course CryTek are desperate and willing to take whatever they can, plus attorney fees. Even with the punitive damages temporarily off the table – assuming they don’t re-file as per the judge’s suggestion (bottom of last page in the filing) – the breach in Section 2.4 alone is already a major slam dunk. Combining that with copyright infringement as it pertains to SQ42 being a separate game, the damages go through the roof. For context and comparison (and that was back in 2012), Epic Games won massive damages (later doubled!) against Silicon Knights, and bankrupted the company in the end. And they took advantage of the injunctive relief, forcing SK – via court order – to remove and destroy all their products from market. That’s how bad this is. That we’re in 2018, where new precedent for damages have been set and won, well you can guess the rest.

ps: Those clowns on Reddit are clueless. Best not to pay attention to them as they have zero incentive to be forthcoming even if they knew wtf they were talking about. Those were the same guys saying Crytek had no case. The judge just proved that not to be the case, and even pointed Crytek to an ever bigger claim (section 2.4) which Crytek wasn't even going for.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 16, 2018, 07:20:33 AM
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."

Yes - it really is incredible. They're all attorneys. It's Reddit. So.  :shrug:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 16, 2018, 06:18:31 PM
Well done Derek.

What do you know about the games industry again ?

(https://i.imgur.com/ywQcgvA.jpg)
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on August 16, 2018, 06:23:36 PM
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.

I did this before I asked here, and on google no joy.   I could have sworn I remember saw a someone posting a picture with a cheque from two brothers inc. but it seems to have disappeared, I did not think much of it at the time but actually, I think its pretty big deal if its true.

but when I searched all I can find is one of the mods of the refund sub stating it as a known fact, and your own assertions here.

maybe I just cant internet.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 04:46:48 AM
BREAKING! Crytek have now filed a second amended complaint that solidifies their claims. Filing in the OP

They specifically went for what I wrote that they would as per 2.4.

It's funny - and I'm not even a lawyer.

I will have more in a bit.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 05:54:21 AM
There he goes again.


I left him a comment

Quote
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.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Meowz on August 17, 2018, 08:21:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 17, 2018, 09:05:13 AM
lol great comment and sarcasm:

Hello, 6K+ Whale here.  I would just like to confirm that it is definitely the decorated federal judges faulty reasoning and we should in no way ever entertain the possibility that CIG is on the hook for any of this. Also please remember that we are all responsible for keeping this lawsuit funded and Chris and Ortwin happy during this trying time.  Reach deep citizens. This will be a long battle but it will be worth it in the end, just think 3 years ago we never would have imagined we'd be able to aimlessly wander between three barren planetoids before crashing to desktop. See you in the verse...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 17, 2018, 10:31:23 AM
Assuming that the financials are filed under seal, if, during Discovery, Crytek come across something that they suspect is criminal, how likely are they to bring this to the attention of the Federal authorities? Would they be required by law to do so?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 11:42:10 AM
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.

You mean besides winding them up? :D
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 11:42:40 AM
My coverage of the latest SAC filing

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 17, 2018, 12:02:34 PM
My coverage of the latest SAC filing

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html

You said 'FOREVER + 2 days'. You might want to change that.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Greggy_D on August 17, 2018, 01:17:24 PM
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?

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 01:43:26 PM
You said 'FOREVER + 2 days'. You might want to change that.

Why? You have a hard time recognizing sarcasm?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 01:45:56 PM
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?

I meant to say that Crytek was going to invoke the ToS. Specifically the parts where CIG had claimed publicly that they would make the financial accounting available to backers.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 17, 2018, 02:04:33 PM
Why? You have a hard time recognizing sarcasm?

Apparently I do.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 17, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: DemonInvestor on August 17, 2018, 04:29:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 17, 2018, 04:52:14 PM
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?

None. They pre-date the GLA (a legal contract).

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on August 17, 2018, 04:54:10 PM
My coverage of the latest SAC filing

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html


That was a ton of leg work you did going over the filings, based on everything you showed it seems
Costner getting the last laugh now. I really hope we get open discovery, or at least what Chris promised
which was an "audited accounting".
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 05:19:43 AM
CIG, not waiting for their 20 day period, have immediately filed a response to Crytek.

Not sure why they're so afraid of discovery. It's weird. Almost as if they're trying to hide something.  :emot-iiam:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 18, 2018, 05:22:51 AM
Seriously, I would have thought CIG would wait as long as possible to delay the inevitable...
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 05:28:14 AM
Seriously, I would have thought CIG would wait as long as possible to delay the inevitable...

They filed this response pretty quickly because seeing as the Rule 26(f) issue is still pending (since April when they filed a protective order to hold it off until the MtD), they didn't want to risk the judge ruling on that, while they're pissing around with their 20 day period to file a response to Crytek's latest. It's almost as if something has them spooked.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 18, 2018, 05:41:43 AM
I find it interesting that you mentioned that the Coutts loan could be in immediate default.  That could put a bee in their bonnet.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Noztra on August 18, 2018, 05:44:11 AM
This is some funny sh*t. :)

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 18, 2018, 06:01:06 AM
This is some funny sh*t. :)


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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on August 18, 2018, 06:34:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 18, 2018, 06:46:05 AM
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.

Personally I think there could be several other major reasons for the split.

Not least that it allowed them to switch attention away from slow progress on the MMO.

Without being party to the discussions, it is obviously difficult to know what the chain of events where.   

Not that that is going to stop the toxic Backers screaming that Derek's, analysis and predictions are largely false and have been inaccurate !

Such is the level of incompetence in this whole project over many disciplines and over such a long period of time, anything that happens could be as result of well thought out deliberate acts of dishonesty for self gain whilst in possession of a good grasp of the long term consequences, or just another simple fuck up in an attempt to fight fires,  or something imbetween.

I find it difficult to believe Croberts and Scrotumsin Liarmouth didn't know what they were doing on this.

They know they have been screwing over Backers, Employees and everyone else for years. 

They are not worried about the consequences or risks to the project because it is their modus operandi and they are thoroughly dishonest.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 07:05:24 AM
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.

Tell us how you really feel :emot-lol:

tbh, I still can't decide between him and Montoya, who is the most moronic. We already know that when the final collapse comes, these are the guys who are going to be all like "Well, at least they tried"
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 07:06:57 AM
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.

I don't think so. They would have still qualified for the tax credits using Star Citizen (which actually exists in some form).
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: BigM on August 18, 2018, 07:31:24 AM
ROFL, Montoya moronic is actually being nice. Every time I listen to that idiot I want to reach in and beat his ass.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 07:38:38 AM
ROFL, Montoya moronic is actually being nice. Every time I listen to that idiot I want to reach in and beat his ass.

:emot-lol:
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Spunky Munkee on August 18, 2018, 08:45:13 AM
Yeah, I'd love to hear Montoya's broadcasts when this thing turns into a pile of ashes. It will be his best shows ever. Perhaps the backers will host one final citizencon as a funeral.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 18, 2018, 09:17:30 AM
ROFL, Montoya moronic is actually being nice. Every time I listen to that idiot I want to reach in and beat his ass.

Montoya has always struck me as an arrogant bully who's only interested in his own opinions (because those are the only ones that matter).
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Greggy_D on August 18, 2018, 09:22:10 AM
He'll blame it on the greedy, failing Crytek.  They wanted to punish CIG and its backers.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 18, 2018, 09:35:19 AM
He'll blame it on the greedy, failing Crytek.  They wanted to punish CIG and its backers.

Yup, since Derek isn't actually doing things to make the project fail - just writing blogs and being right - the zealots could never really blame him for the project's failure (they would, but they wouldn't be taken seriously).

In fact, as Derek has said, the Crytek case gives Chris Roberts an excuse. He can now allow the project to fail (whilst extracting as much money and IP as possible) and blame it all on Crytek. This way he'll hope to emerge with his reputation intact (at least amongst the whales), probably so he can try and extract more money from them another day.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 09:59:53 AM
My response to the CIG filing

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 18, 2018, 10:04:03 AM
Roberts isn't squeezing his was out of this one, blame who he wants but it isn't going to work.  His dishonesty has come full circle.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 18, 2018, 11:15:02 AM
The idiot Montoya says things about the court case:


Apparently it's all fine. Also, back in Jan, apparently Leonard French said it was unlikely the judge would dismiss anything. Just for a reminder, this is what Montoya said in Jan (start at 00.34):

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 18, 2018, 04:19:29 PM
My response to the CIG filing

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html

Yep...

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 ?   

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 $$)

Another consideration regarding a negotiated settlement is that although we are definitely not there yet by the time a case gets to final/jury hearing a huge percent of the total legal costs have already been incurred and this acts as a reason not to settle at a late stage because you might as well pay a little bit more to see it out.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 18, 2018, 07:06:43 PM
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):

He's a moron. Both French and Lessor said the same thing. They were wrong. I was right. And IANAL.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Backer42 on August 19, 2018, 03:32:40 AM
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 ?   

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.

And three years later when any Croberts cultist still talks about "Star Citizen saving PC gaming" nobody remembers anything except "You mean that Xbox game?"
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 19, 2018, 04:56:29 AM
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.

It would be hilarious, but I'm of the opinion that the assets are worthless: the motion capture and art assets are specific to SQ42 / SC and the core engine changes are a mess. Besides, everyone who was going to buy the game has already done 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.

Crytek are out to recover the money they feel is owed and I suspect they don't care if it bankrupts CIG in the process.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Backer42 on August 19, 2018, 06:33:04 AM
the assets are worthless: the motion capture and art assets are specific to SQ42 / SC
Who cares? They are already made and can be salvaged.

Quote
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.

Quote
Besides, everyone who was going to buy the game has already done so.
Xbox owners? I don't think so.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 19, 2018, 06:57:25 AM
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.

The fact is that Star Citizen has reached the point whereby it will cost more to refocus and retool than it would to finish it. Even if all the required assets were already created - and they are not - you still have the tech issues to deal with. For one thing, what game are you going to make, when in fact the world envisioned for the game isn't even completed yet. How are you going to make, for example, SQ42, when in fact currently only one small space area and some barren moons exist.

Crytek or any company getting the assets at bankruptcy would be stuck with the IP (Star Citizen, Squadron 42) and marketing assets only. Sure, you could use some of the created assets to make something, but that wouldn't be Star Citizen, Squadron 42, or the game pitched in 2012.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Backer42 on August 19, 2018, 07:07:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 19, 2018, 10:20:57 AM
Nobody can do what Chris Roberts promised. Because what he promised is impossible. The latter is the reason why he got so much money.

Precisely. He made money on lofty promises once he figured out how to monetize scope creep.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on August 19, 2018, 09:56:50 PM
Should it come down to a fire sale, I see two bits of IP that could be worth something.
1. Believe it or not, Squadron 42. They basically had a slew of B-listers plus Oldman agree to have their name and likeness used,  then spent a bunch of time doing mocap and recording. Plus -- and this is a plus -- the story is hackneyed garbage. You could reçut this schlock for a straight-to-Netflix cashgrab, or if the contracts Ortwin prepared don't allow that,  at least make a crappy bejeweled -in-space with fancy cutscenes. Or threaten to, and get the actors to pay you to bury the project.

2. All that footage they've shot of themselves. The scope of their development onanism shouldn't be underestimated, as wwe will find out in discovery. Remember, part of their project was a documentary. That team is probably long gone,   but combined with all the other features that exist to pad the IMDB pages of the ruling elite, and you've got enough for a two -hour piece. I can hear Werner Herzog's voice already.

All told, there might be a million bucks worth of IP!
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 20, 2018, 12:26:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 20, 2018, 05:54:20 AM
lol can't wait... 'on this episode of Dirty Money we delve into the world of epic high fidelity computer gaming fraud'.


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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 20, 2018, 12:42:53 PM
Leo is back!


@8:37 is where you trip 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, that's where they are screwed with 2.4. As a dev, I explained this in detail. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html where I also show how their use and promotion of Star Engine, long before they switched to Lumberyard, also violates 2.4.

Crytek obviously believes that CIG didn't fully (if at all) switch to Lumberyard. That's what discovery is for.

Why didn't CIG terminate the GLA if they switched and were no longer using CE3? The GLA doesn't have an automatic termination clause. There is no legal standing to say "Yeah, we're no longer using it, so we don't need to terminate it". Contracts don't work like that. Especially in contracts which have a material level of performance.

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.

As to the tech, the GLA already REQUIRED CIG to provide any/all changes to CE. And even CIG admitted to and agreed to this in their lawsuit filings. There's no argument there. So whatever improvements CIG made to CE3, Crytek is entitled. Things like OCS have to be implemented at engine level; so there is no way that's restricted to the Star Engine.

Fans attack Crytek and us because they have come to the sudden realization that not only is the project dead, but it's now in a very damaging lawsuit. But the fact is, if Crytek didn't have a case, the judge wouldn't have DENIED 4/6 items in the CIG MtD filing. And one of those items (monetary punitive damages) isn't even an issue because statutory damages in the other claims (e.g. SQ42) will completely eclipse that. The other item (exclusivity) is immaterial because it carries less weight than all the other claims, especially where 2.4 is concerned.

This case is going to trial unless CIG can write Crytek a check with a lot of zeros (From case precedent, I would estimate around $50M or more, due to the number of claims) in it. And I don't personally believe that, with all the bad blood between these two companies, Crytek settles before discovery starts or ends. Heck, it was CIG that started settlement talks back in April as we learned in a court filing. If Crytek were interested in money, they would have initiated or at least entertained settlement back then. But they didn't. And they indicated why in their April filing.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on August 20, 2018, 01:26:42 PM
Yes, it's pretty funny. It's like these guys don't get the basics of contract law.

Here's a similar case. An athlete signs a contract with a shoe company. The shoe company agrees to supply the shoes for free (or for a discount, or with additional consideration. It doesn't matter). The athlete agrees to wear the shoes in competition and the company's cap during gameday interviews.

Now, the athlete switches shoe brands and doesn't wear the cap. The shoe company sues, and the athlete replies "but I stopped wearing the shoes!" Not that he gave the shoes back to the company, or made any effort to terminate the contract.

This is a simple case. Both sides agree to do something in exchange for consideration. One side stops doing something (using CryEngine), stops giving consideration (Promoting CryEngine, Sharing improvements made), and keeps the consideration the other side gave: CryEngine at a discount, support, trailers, all of which have contributed value to the team -- hell, their developers wouldn't have had such an easy time of switching to Lumberyard if they hadn't the CryEngine experience; Chris Roberts himself said so.

So, why do these guys keep deluding themselves that this is a weird contract in parts where it isn't? I mean, with Ortwin involved on both sides of the table, you're going to expect weirdness.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 20, 2018, 01:38:18 PM
Yes, that's a perfect example of the spirit of the GLA between these two parties.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Spunky Munkee on August 20, 2018, 02:31:34 PM
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?

How much unalterated Crytak code must remain to satisfy the judge as proof that CIG faied to comply and still uses Crytek code? Granted, you are not a lawyer but you probably discussed this with your lawyers at some point. You masy already know as you have alluded to a source of information on the inside many times so that person was aware of how Robbers played it fast and loose and faked the switchover.
Will it just be a few dozen lines of code or will it take whole sections that regulate a given function in game to satisfy the judge?

I dont know how this stuff works. I only took a basic course in Machine language long ago using 80 bit IBM data cards long ago.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 20, 2018, 02:37:45 PM
Leser seems to be doubling down. Fact is that all those internet lawyers dismissed 2.4 originally as a non-compete clause, we didn't, we were right.

Now, I suspect 2.4 is meant to be a non-compete clause, but it's written so badly that it can be interpreted in other ways.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on August 20, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
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?

It's easier than that. All Crytek have to do is get access to CIG's version control software and look at how they did the swap: did they (a) start with a fresh Lumberyard build and cut and paste their own code into it (which would have taken weeks) or (b) do a replaceAll to change the copyright headers on each file from Crytek to Lumberyard (which takes seconds, there will be a few extra Lumberyard specific files to copy aswell). We're betting it's (b), and their version control system will prove it. Even if the logs weren't available, all Crytek have to do is get hold of the engineers who did the swap and force them to testify. In fact, it's likely that those engineers were ex-Crytek employees. It makes you wonder whether Crytek might have been in touch with some of their ex-employees and already know what they're going to find in Discovery - just a theory.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: jwh1701 on August 20, 2018, 03:51:46 PM
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.



I still found it him biased, I would have thought Chris would of had them work day and night to switch over. But
judging by so many of his other actions he may not have done so. I still wonder about Ortwin, did he ever warn Chris of his actions and the consequences?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 20, 2018, 05:06:48 PM
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.

Ortwin drafted the whole GLA. It's mentioned in the original Crytek lawsuit.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 21, 2018, 07:19:49 AM
Derek,  You mentioned that CIG had replied to the second filing by CE.  Any news on that?
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on August 21, 2018, 01:08:18 PM
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...

At which point, CIG should have terminated their existing GLA with CT or sought to amend it.

As it is, "Too flawed" would be misdirection since they appear to have had the right to amend the engine to make it suitable.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 21, 2018, 02:35:24 PM
Derek,  You mentioned that CIG had replied to the second filing by CE.  Any news on that?

Yeah, it's in the OP
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Noztra on August 23, 2018, 01:21:31 PM
He really like to talk..


9.40 into the video:

"I am no lawyer myself, but i am able to research and read when it comes to legal matters. It is worth listening to the views of and expert with that in mind i do recommend watching the two most recent videos by youtuberlaw, on the matter where he goes over the MTD and the second amendment complaint and actually talks about where he thought the judge went wrong on the MTD."

Later he says:


"There is alot of Cryteks case that does rely on reading the GLA out of context."
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 24, 2018, 02:14:42 AM
As long as people keep watching his vids he is golden.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 25, 2018, 04:36:05 AM
He really like to talk..

He's a moron. They've all benefited in some way from this scam. So they're all going to continue spewing bs right to the very end. Just wait and see how this ends.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 25, 2018, 06:05:56 AM
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
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on August 25, 2018, 06:23:27 AM
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

Unless I am missing something, the only thing the GLA obligated CryTek to do was supply the engine. Anything else was at best, "best endeavours" or "kindness of heart".

One could of course argue that CE was not and is not suited for the game being developed, but CT delivered an engine that WAS suitable for the game CIG were originally going to make before they expanded the scope. CryTek aren't responsible for CIGs change in genre or lack of design....I assume CR had a list of criteria for whatever engine he licensed needed to fulfil and so long as CE met ***THAT*** list, I can't see this argument having much legal weight

CR could use this argument to excuse his switch to LY - but LY is, of course,  a flavour of CryEngine with many of the same problems.

Further, CT gave CIG the right to modify the engine and so allow them to compensate for any shortfall in capability. CE might not been ideal for an MMO, but as Aion shows, it can be done.

With good planning, design and management.

Personally, I can see CIG keeping up with this  line of attack....but unless they have emails where specific promises were made and not kept, I don't see it having much impact.  Even if such promises were made, CIGs proper course of action would still have been to terminate the GLA first

IANAL, but I personally don't see much room for maneuver here on CIGs part.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 25, 2018, 04:23:07 PM
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

How exactly is that relevant to the case? And where in the GLA did you see any guarantee of performance, let alone any business dealings that would have made Crytek liable for anything related to that? Also, did you see any such allegations in CIG's answer, let alone a counter lawsuit (like what Epic Games did when Silicon Knights sued them).

These software contracts don't come with any guarantee of performance. Also, CIG was supposed to renew and pay for on-going support after a certain period of time. They opted to stop paying for it, thus ending Crytek's obligation to provide on-going support. It's actually in the GLA.

e.g. when I licensed Havok Vision Engine for LOD, I had 6 months free support. Then it was about $14K a year after that.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Spunky Munkee on August 25, 2018, 05:48:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dexatron on August 25, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
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
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: DemonInvestor on August 26, 2018, 03:47:20 AM
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.

They're basically blaming Crytek for failures of CIG and thinking a court is actually about 'justice' and not about laws.
Crytek sold more or less software as seen, meaning no major additional services included - so this liability isn't there. And if CIG didn't understand what the engine can do, it's also most likely their fault, as i don't think they didn't get a documentation about the engine beforehand.
They also happily try to blame CryTek for CIG entering obligations which might ruin them, with their given business model. Again the contract has a termination clause and paragraphs about obligations and both parties could read them. Thinking there are nessecarily cop-outs from obligations financially ruining a side, like they seemingly do, is wild. CryTek and CIG both entered the contract in good faith, saddly neither realized there was going to be such a problem beforehand - so putting the blame again solely on CryTek is also wild.
And again with another business model, that doesn't require constant sales and being in the public eye, might have helped with a way to change the engine Crytek neither would have said anything against, nor could have made a case out of.
Hell CryTek isn't even that evil, seeing how CIG afaik often blamed CryEngine for problems they had with the development pace, which i found unprofessional and unfair against CryTek.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 26, 2018, 05:31:03 AM
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.

Yup. Aside from that, not even CIG would dare to bring that up because it's a whole different can of worms for them. It's those Shitizens as usual making shit up out of whole cloth. In fact, it was the entire basis of the Epic Games v Silicon Knights lawsuit which SK lost based on case precedent and the fact that EG counter-claims were far more damaging. They ended up bankrupting SK.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on August 26, 2018, 05:33:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: StanTheMan on August 28, 2018, 06:27:42 AM
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.

Indeed. 

Considering the other sides conduct and a counter claim is one of the first things you do when legal shit lands in your mailbox.

It is a huge part of any potential defence and provides a basis for reducing your liabilities.

I am thinking about taking a company to court when I get back from my holidays and  I have to consider any counter claim they may have against me.  If I get it wrong it could cost me a lot of $$$.  As the little guy it is even more important.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on September 06, 2018, 05:47:57 PM
I see CIG got its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Crytek failed to state a claim in which relief could be granted  - 2.4 is non start.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Penny579 on September 06, 2018, 07:27:57 PM
Wait ima retard i read the proposed order like it was the official response.... that ain't Judge Gee smashing out justice at all.

there i was thinking as this motion contains the least amount of desk pounding outrage vomit and was just plainly written the judge just got on with it ... explains the lack of activity on the matter in the forums.   
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on September 07, 2018, 07:29:06 AM
With a new MtD I assume CIG will simply resist discovery once more until this new motion gets thrown out.

In fact, the more they can drag this out, the less concerned the zealots will be and the more ships they can sell to fund the inevitable settlement / fine.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 07, 2018, 09:40:36 AM
OP updated with latest hilarity.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Spunky Munkee on September 07, 2018, 12:06:52 PM
So essentially the Judge says that Crytek left one good aspect of the lawsuit out as she sees it. So Crytek ammends their complaint to add this to the case. Now CIG tries to get in knocked down even though the judge sees it as a legitimate complaint in this case. Hmm I know it's sort of reflexive on CIGs part but it makes CIG seem stupid, arguing against the judges opinions.
Just how I see it but I could be wrong, hell Star Citizen could come out tomorrow and sell a Hundred Million copies and be the start or world harmony and a great space initiative creating the planetary colonization of our own solar system and onwards.

What the fuck am I smoking, It's Star Citizen and Clit Robbers we are talking about there. He cazzzzzzzzznt z
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on September 07, 2018, 03:00:41 PM
Yes, their argument about "engaging in the business of" is lamentable... Well, no it's actually laughable. They cite Webster's on "competition" and then claim that "to be in the business of" means to be directly dealing with third parties. Yet we have tons of instances of entire businesses dedicated to promoting someone else's product. We call them ad agencies. So yeah, showing that Amazon Beaver, that counts as promotion.

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.

Finally,  from what I saw of the posting,  the honorable judge put the rule 26 order up 45 minutes after cig, or 5 pm on day 20.

Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 08, 2018, 05:49:32 AM
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.

That's because you don't understand it. You should read my comments from yesterday where I explained it clearly. If you understand the comma in Oakhurst, then you should understand the comma that follows "in the business of" - because that's what normalizes the entire sentence.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on September 08, 2018, 08:26:07 AM
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...

....Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly
-engage in the business of designing
-developing
-creating
-supporting
-maintaining
-promoting
-selling or licensing (directly or indirectly)

...any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine

If so, I think I would disagree.

CIGs problem with this clause is that they ARE in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining and promoting and have made money by doing so. They make a fair bruhaha about the work they do on the engine and use that to promote sales. The problem is they are doing so with competitors to CryEngine.

StarEngine and LumberYard.



Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on September 08, 2018, 09:16:35 AM
I Am Not A Lawyer, but...  Like the rest of the contract, section 2.4 is really badly worded. Nor does it help that CIG seem to misread / misinterpret their own contract when arguing their side,

The pro CIG guys (even the YT lawyers) argue that it's just a standard non-compete clause, that because CIG have access to the CryEngine source, they then cannot then start peddling their own engine that they've created now that they've become game engine experts. But that isn't what 2.4 says, it makes no reference as to whose game engine they can or cannot do all those things with, just that it cannot be an engine which competes with CryEngine.

Lumberyard does compete with CryEngine and CIG have been doing many of those things.

So they might end up arguing over what exactly is meant by "engaging in the business of", since CIG would argue that they are in the business of scamming whales making games rather than making or selling a game engine.

Somehow I don't think this is going to end well for them though.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 08, 2018, 09:31:58 AM
I think Derek is suggesting that because of Oakhurst, 2.4 needs to be read as...

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 08, 2018, 09:34:04 AM
I Am Not A Lawyer, but...  Like the rest of the contract, section 2.4 is really badly worded.

Yes it is. However, the judge herself pointed it out. That section was never before in dispute by either side, despite the claims in 2.1.2 which she tossed.

This is why it's going to be interesting to see how the judge rules on this. She started it.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: N0mad on September 08, 2018, 09:47:36 AM
I kinda like your theory along the lines that Crytek knew section 2.4 supported their case but wanted to see how CIG would respond to everything else before throwing it in. We raised 2.4 as an issue when the GLA was first made public, so I'm pretty sure Skadden noticed it too. As it happens the judge pointed it out first.

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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Kyrt on September 08, 2018, 09:57:08 AM
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 think that's the point.

They have done 6 of those actions. They can't deny that. One can even argue they have engaged in licensing a competing game engine. By agreeing to use LumberYard. And let's not forget what can be done with what they did with Star Engine.

The question is whether such activities count as "being in the business of"

On the one hand, it sounds like a simple non-compete clause.

On the other, game development, by its nature, often encompasses those proscribed activities simply by virtue of what it is. More, they are arguably making money of such proscribed activities because, by promoting LumberYard and StarEngine and their modifications, they are helping to drive sales of their core game.

But is all that enough to argue that they are in the business of doing these activities? For all that they perform these activities, for all that they are proscribed, for all that it is important to development, engine development is not the main goal or purpose of CIG. That will obviously be CIGs defence and I'm not certain the clause simply prohibits the actions.

Could it be argued to be the main goal of F42 Frankfurt? Possibly. That is supposedly what the studio is for. And as an affiliate, that might be enough for CryTek to score a win.

For the rest...it depends on how "in the business of" is interpreted. Which may or may not go CryTeks way.

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
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: Bubba on September 08, 2018, 10:07:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 09, 2018, 06:59:33 AM
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.

No, I never claimed that. You probably read it from those clowns on Reddit. CIG have been promoting their custom engine as Star Engine, and I have written about it in various articles. I have no knowledge of them ever trying to license it to a third-party.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 09, 2018, 07:02:58 AM
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

From my article (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6615/), here are examples of how the comma changes the context.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 09, 2018, 07:13:33 AM
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.

This is why it's going to be very interesting to see the judge's ruling on this; seeing as she obviously pointed it out. She wouldn't have done that if she didn't have reason to believe that there is ambiguity that needs to be clarified. She has now forced both parties to outline their reading of that section in order for her to clarify it and remove any/all arguments about it down the road. It's also the strongest evidence yet as to why she granted the dismissal of 2.1.2 which dealt with the "exclusive" clause. You can still have an exclusive to use a product, while still having a non-compete.

I have seen quite a few people claiming that 2.4 is a non-compete clause. I don't read it as that because most contracts will specifically have a section highlighted as NON-COMPETE clause in the heading. Who knows? Maybe the judge will read it as that. But neither party is claiming that it is in fact that.

I still believe that 2.1.2 ties into 2.4, and that's the problem that the judge is now trying to resolve. That she ignored the CIG objection about discovery, also means that she doesn't think that she has to wait for that ruling before discovery can proceed. Especially since the other surviving claims already warrant discovery to begin and 2.4 wouldn't change the scope in any manner.
Title: Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
Post by: dsmart on September 09, 2018, 07:14:43 AM
Guys, I have had to remove several posts this morning due to profanity filter alerting me. Please refrain from doing that here. Thanks.
Title: Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on September 23, 2018, 04:33:58 AM
New filing is up. Check the OP. I will post my article later today or tomorrow.