Author Topic: CryTek v CIG/RSI  (Read 252750 times)

N0mad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #60 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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:05:42 AM by N0mad »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2018, 12:54:16 PM »
OP updated with info about the judge deciding not to hear oral arguments
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 #62 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.

David-2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #63 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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 03:41:42 PM by David-2 »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #64 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.
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 #65 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.
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #66 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:

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #67 on: February 10, 2018, 11:56:27 AM »
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.

Motto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #68 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?

jwh1701

  • Guest
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #69 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.


Kyrt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #70 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.

Motto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #71 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.

N0mad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #72 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.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 04:06:11 AM by N0mad »

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #73 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 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.

N0mad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #74 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 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?)


 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk