Author Topic: CryTek v RSI/CIG  (Read 26807 times)

Aya Reiko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #15 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.


StanTheMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #16 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.


« Last Edit: January 24, 2018, 11:25:25 AM by StanTheMan »

FredBloggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #17 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...

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #18 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.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

N0mad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #19 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.

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #20 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?

GaryII

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #21 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 ;)

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #22 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.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

Orgetorix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #23 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!


 

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #24 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.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 05:48:09 AM by dsmart »
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

StanTheMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #25 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...

« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 06:43:23 AM by StanTheMan »

jwh1701

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #26 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.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 09:28:39 AM by jwh1701 »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2018, 09:25:48 AM »
There are some (down-voted to oblivion) who aren't entirely happy about the tone of the response.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 10:04:47 AM by dsmart »
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

StanTheMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 09:41:28 AM by StanTheMan »

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #29 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.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk