Author Topic: CryTek v RSI/CIG  (Read 26804 times)

jwh1701

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #30 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.

DemonInvestor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #31 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.

StanTheMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #32 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....
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 12:04:46 PM by StanTheMan »

jwh1701

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #33 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.

nightfire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #34 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.

helimoth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #35 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 ;)

David-2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #36 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:

  • Courts must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party [that would be Crytek] and view the facts alleged in the complaint as true.
  • Any ambiguities concerning the sufficiency of the claims must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party.
  • A motion to dismiss should be granted as a practical matter only in the unusual case in which the plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief [which does not include being broke].
  • A pleading must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

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?

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.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 08:29:56 AM by David-2 »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #37 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.


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.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #38 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.

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.

jwh1701

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #39 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. 

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3033
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #40 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.
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 #41 on: January 29, 2018, 04:32:47 PM »
How much have CIG spent on Legal fees for this action so far ?

Penny579

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #42 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. 



GaryII

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #43 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... 

Penny579

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #44 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? 

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk