Author Topic: CryTek v CIG/RSI  (Read 238112 times)

Penny579

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #45 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"

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #46 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.

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #47 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. 

helimoth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #48 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:

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #49 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.




« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 09:22:44 AM by StanTheMan »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2018, 02:39:13 PM »
A law Goon put this together.



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 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 02:50:10 PM 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.

jwh1701

  • Guest
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #51 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.


dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #52 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.
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2018, 08:16:07 AM »
So is it tomorrow that the case reaches another stage ?

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #54 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.
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: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2018, 10:49:06 AM »
My latest. Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee

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

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #56 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.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2018, 04:47:35 PM »
Judge Gee has canceled tomorrow's hearing. OP has been updated.
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

  • Guest
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #58 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

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #59 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?]

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk