Author Topic: CryTek v CIG/RSI  (Read 299087 times)

jgajek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #420 on: December 08, 2018, 08:00:51 PM »
And yet you can't seem to be able to provide any evidence of that. Instead, you're hurling insults, aggressive innuendo, and baseless arguments.

If you want evidence of your getting basic things wrong, here's one quote from you on August 20th in this thread (bold emphasis is mine):

Quote
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.

The judge just dismissed 2.4 without discovery.  There are many more examples.  I'm not going to spend too much time on getting into pointless arguments about it, because then I'd probably have to charge you a training fee or something.

But just to spell out your basic error:

1. The 2.4 issue hinged mainly on the interpretation of the phrase "engage in the business of" in the contract.

2. The interpretation of a contract is an issue of law, not an issue of fact.  The judge even says so in her order granting the MtD.  The caveat "unless the interpretation turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence" does not apply here, since the judge assumed for the purpose of the legal decision that CryTek's evidence in the SAC was factually true.  She explains that in her order as well.

3. Hence, she does not need discovery or evidence to make the decision.  It's a purely legal matter.

So your claim that "only discovery via the lawsuit will prove that" is clearly false.  The interesting thing here is that CryTek got every benefit of the doubt regarding their claims.  The judge assumed all questions of fact in their favor, as if the factual allegations were all 100% true.  And their complaint still didn't survive the motion to dismiss.  That's how weak it was.

Yet in this Twitter thread commentary (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html) you made bombastic statements about the strength of the 2.4 claim:

Quote
Basically the judge said to both sides (and to all of us in the "exclusive" debate):

"You're all ignorant. Quit wasting my time on this bs; and go look at 2.4 which is what you SHOULD be arguing over"

This was the impetus for her granting (in part) 2.1.2 while POINTING to 2.4
Now that 2.4 is in focus, and we already KNOW that CIG/RSI has NO defense against it, if this was the trial, it would have ended TODAY.

No defense against it, huh?  Trial would have been over?  Wait, what ended up happening with that?  Oh yeah, it didn't even survive the motion to dismiss!  :laugh:

Another doozy:

Quote
The reason that 2.4 is just as destructive as the SQ42 infringement (which the judge allowed to stand) is that there is more than enough evidence that CIG switched to a COMPETING engine: Amazon's Lumberyard.

Wait! It gets worse.
The language in 2.4 not only prevents CIG from using a competing engine, it also prevents them from being in the "business of" doing so.

We all know how that turned out with the "engage in the business of" language.  Something about an Oxford comma?  Brilliant analysis again.  :laugh:

Oh, here's another one:

Quote
This is patently relevant because Star Engine not only violates the ENTIRE Section 2.4, but they also created their own engine based of CryEngine, then used it to compete against CryTek's own engine.

Let me explain just how f-cking serious this is.
CIG has positioned and promoted Star Engine as their own engine which is superior to the base CryEngine.

Even though they could modify the engine as per the GLA, Section 2.4 explicitly prohibited them from "directly or indirectly" doing anything "which compete with CryEngine"

Wow, it violates the ENTIRE section 2.4?  We should put Chris Roberts in jail immediately then!  But wait, what happened with that?  Oh yeah, the judge blew up that theory without even needing to look at any evidence!  It was obvious from the contract that 2.4 was referring to the act of selling a competing engine to third parties, not to using a competing engine in their own product.  Oops.

How did you end up being so spectacularly wrong, Derek?  We're all ears!  :laugh:
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 11:49:39 PM by jgajek »

Slapmeandcallmegurl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #421 on: December 09, 2018, 04:18:18 AM »
Something something hyperbole, trolling, lol something stupid something you're an idiot.

Something like that anyway.

Motto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #422 on: December 09, 2018, 04:42:03 AM »
Stop looking in the mirror Serenstupidity. And now that there is another one, only means that there are 2 of you we can make fun of.

Slapmeandcallmegurl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #423 on: December 09, 2018, 04:48:43 AM »
Warmest pericombobulations of the season to you my Dutch friend.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #424 on: December 09, 2018, 07:51:35 AM »
This is just too good to be true. So, I'll dive in...

I'm not going to spend too much time on getting into pointless arguments about it, because then I'd probably have to charge you a training fee or something.

How utterly convenient. But I can help. Since I publicly broke the news about the lawsuit, every single opinion that I've written about this case is on that page - complete with links to blogs, articles, and even Twitter threads. And they're not even long. I'll be waiting.

Quote
The judge just dismissed 2.4 without discovery.


Yes, she did. So what?

Also, lets review my actual statement in context, shall we?

"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."

Do you know the meaning of the words "opinion" and "envision". Look them up. While you're at it, look up the definitions of "right" and "wrong".

Quote
But just to spell out your basic error:

Not a SINGLE one of those statements has ANYTHING to do with what I've stated. You're trying to inject your flawed opinions into something you believe that I was either saying or thinking.

Quote
So your claim that "only discovery via the lawsuit will prove that" is clearly false.
 

OK you're just trolling us now, because that's the dumbest thing yet. Anyone who has ever been involved in a lawsuit, or even followed one, knows that you CAN in fact amend during or even after discovery begins IF additional material facts are "DISCOVERED" during that period. e.g. if the judge dismisses 2.4, and during discovery depositions or an email thread is discovered to support that the the license was to be exclusive, that would warrant an amendment because it pertains to a MATERIAL FACT (the "exclusivity" is one such thing that's heavily contested) that was dismissed due to lack of context. And if the judge refuses to allow it, that's how cases get appealed to a higher court. Look up Rule 15 of the FRCP.

Quote
Yet in this Twitter thread commentary you made bombastic statements about the strength of the 2.4 claim:

Nice try. Here, let me quote the entire section which you conveniently mashed together statements to add context to suit your laughable narrative:

Quote
As you can see, they have basically abandoned the claims in 2.1.2 in their ENTIRETY, while focusing on the MATERIAL & MORE DAMAGING BREACH in 2.4

It's absolutely mind-blowing that the judge gave them this so early on, rather than waiting for it to come up in discovery & later.

Skadden either set a trap here, or were of the opinion that 2.1.2 was just as damaging as 2.4; but the former would carry more weight than the latter (which would have been dragged into 2.1.2 during trial anyway).

That they hinged on a rather tenuous 2.1.2, rather than the slam dunk that was 2.4, is what's puzzling; and which leads me to believe this had to be some sort of long haul strategy.

Let me explain where I am going with this...

Let's assume for a minute, that 2.1.2 wasn't ambiguous, and that we didn't need a seasoned Federal judge to tell us that we were all ignorant, and then rubbed it in by citing case law proving it.

Let's also ignore the fact that not even the CIG/RSI lawyers made the case for 2.1.2.

They went in a completely different - and hilarious - direction because they claimed that 2.1.2 meant that only CIG/RSI could use CryEngine - and nobody else.

Basically the judge said to both sides (and to all of us in the "exclusive" debate):

"You're all ignorant. Quit wasting my time on this bs; and go look at 2.4 which is what you SHOULD be arguing over"

This was the impetus for her granting (in part) 2.1.2 while POINTING to 2.4

Now that 2.4 is in focus, and we already KNOW that CIG/RSI has NO defense against it, if this was the trial, it would have ended TODAY.


Here's why.

2.1.2 allowed CIG/RSI to use CryEngine. They weren't forced to do because there was no implied (by the GLA) grant of exclusivity even IF that was the understanding by both parties at signing.

Given the declarations in the FAC, I have reason to believe exclusivity WAS the intent.

Even if during discovery (depositions, emails etc) it came out that there was evidence that exclusivity WAS the intent, CryTek could still raise that in a responsive filing and 2.1.2 would be back in play because INTENT can and will overrule contractual language that is ambiguous

Now it won't matter. Any claims in 2.1.2, with or without evidence of intent to an exclusive use, would pale in comparison to the complete and utter destructive force that is the infringement in CryEngine being used in SQ42, and the material breach in 2.4. BOTH are now in play.

The reason that 2.4 is just as destructive as the SQ42 infringement (which the judge allowed to stand) is that there is more than enough evidence that CIG switched to a COMPETING engine: Amazon's Lumberyard.

I also excerpted the last part for you because I am going to excerpt pages 7-8 regarding the judge's ruling on Lumberyard:

Quote
i. Promoting

Similar to Plaintiff’s “promotion” argument regarding Star Engine, Plaintiff alleges Defendants promoted Lumberyard only once in connection with its announcement on December
23, 2016 that it intended to replace CryEngine as its game engine. And just like the single instance of purported promotion pertaining to Star Engine, this solitary act is insufficient to establish that Defendants engaged in the business of promoting Lumberyard.

The Court therefore GRANTS MTD as to their promotion of Lumberyard for the same reasons it granted the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants improperly promoted Star Engine.

The judge is AGREEING with Crytek in that "promotional" aspect of the GLA. However, a single instance (by case law precedent) isn't sufficient grounds for a breach. And THAT is one of the reasons why she gave them the opportunity to again amend their complaint with additional supporting instances as required by law.

Quote
ii. Licensing

The parties’ arguments pertaining to Lumberyard focus on whether Defendant promoted Lumberyard in violation of section 2.4, but the SAC also alleges that section 2.4 prohibits
Defendants from engaging in the business of licensing any game engine that competes with CryEngine. Id. at ¶ 36. It also alleges that Defendants “announced that they had licensed . . . the Amazon Lumberyard video game engine for Star Citizen in place of CryEngine.” Id. at ¶ 37.

Defendants assume that the “licensing” language in section 2.4 only prohibits it from licensing a competing game engine to a third party. See MTD at 11 (“Crytek does not and could not allege that Defendants ever attempted to promote, license, or sell Lumberyard to any third party.”). While certain passages from Plaintiff’s Opposition imply they believe section 2.4 also prohibits Defendants from licensing from a third party, Plaintiff does not squarely address the issue. See Opp. at 5, (“The public record further suggests that they have engaged in conduct consistent with having both (a) entered into a similar agreement directed at a competing game engine, Lumberyard . . .”), 10 (“Defendants announced that they would no longer use CryEngine for Star Citizen and would instead use a competing game engine, Lumberyard.”).

The judge is AGREEING with CIG in that "licensing" aspect of the GLA. But...

Quote
To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated section 2.4 by licensing Lumberyard from Amazon, the Court agrees with Defendants’ interpretation of the GLA. In California, the “whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other. Cal. Civ. Code § 1641 (West); Badie, 67 Cal. App. 4th at 800, 79 (“We ascertain the intent of the parties by considering an agreement as a whole, not by interpreting a provision in isolation.”). When taken in context with the rest of section 2.4, the word “licensing” most appropriately only prevents Defendants from licensing competing game engines to a third party. “Licensing” directly follows “selling,” implying that Plaintiff was concerned with other game engine businesses competing against them by providing game engines to potential Crytek customers. The section does not include “buying,” which makes it less likely that Plaintiff intended this clause to prevent licensees from obtaining the rights to use other game engines from third parties. “Licensing” also fits far better with the words “designing, developing, [and] creating” if the whole section is read to preclude licensees from bringing game engines they designed, developed, or created to market to compete with CryEngine.

The Court therefore determines that “licensing” in section 2.4 prohibited Defendants from licensing a competing game engine to a third-party licensee, but did not preclude Defendants from
licensing Lumberyard from Amazon. The Court GRANTS in the MTD in that respect.

And here comes the fun part:

Quote
Leave to Amend

Should a court dismiss certain claims, it must also decide whether to grant leave to amend. Courts should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” (leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”). Courts should grant leave to amend unless “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.’”. The decision to grant leave to amend a dismissed complaint lies “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Because it is possible that Plaintiff could cure the deficiencies identified in this Order by alleging other or different facts, the Court concludes that a final opportunity to amend is warranted.

Please, go ahead and show me the "slam dunk" in her ruling of 2.4. Note that unlike her previous 2/7 ruling of the first CIG MtD, her rulings were FINAL and CIG did not get the opportunity to amend anything. In that same ruling, she gave Crytek the opportunity to amend their complaint because 2.4 was more relevant to their claim than 2.1.2.

Her ruling, in which she granted the motion because Crytek lawyers failed to provide adequate supporting facts, is in line with precisely what I had predicted would be the seriousness of 2.4. 

Hey, remember my thread (the same one with the Oxford comma statements) on Jan 6, 2018 where - almost 7 MONTHS before the judge brought it up in her Aug 2018 MtD ruling - I stated that 2.4 was going to be a big deal?

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

Quote
Oh, here's another one:

Wow, it violates the ENTIRE section 2.4?  We should put Chris Roberts in jail immediately then!  But wait, what happened with that?  Oh yeah, the judge blew up that theory without even needing to look at any evidence!
 

Scroll up. Then read the judge's ruling. Slowly.

It's obvious that you have no idea how the law works, and you're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. In fact, you're not even concerned about the material facts in the case or in the judge's ruling. Instead, you're focused on trying (and failing) to prove me wrong - as if my opinions carry more weight than the attorneys and the judge in the case.

FYI, there is NO discovery yet, and Crytek doesn't need to provide "evidence" of anything.

And what did the judge "blow up" exactly. It's nice how you guys basically ignore what she's writing, while making up things out of whole cloth. It's quite fascinating actually.

Quote
It was obvious from the contract that 2.4 was referring to the act of selling a competing engine to third parties, not to using a competing engine in their own product.  Oops.

Really? So it was "obvious" to everyone but the judge? :emot-lol:
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 08:05:51 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.

jgajek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #425 on: December 09, 2018, 08:17:32 AM »
A cornered rat will bite the cat, as they say.  So let's take things one at a time.


"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."

Do you know the meaning of the words "opinion" and "envision". Look them up. While you're at it, look up the definitions of "right" and "wrong".

Not a SINGLE one of those statements has ANYTHING to do with what I've stated. You're trying to inject your flawed opinions into something you believe that I was either saying or thinking.

You clearly said that only discovery will resolve the 2.4 issue.  The judge dismissed it without discovery.  Clearly there is a discrepancy there.

And your response to this is:

1.  You don't know the meaning of the words "opinion" and "envision".
2.  You should look up the definitions of "right" and "wrong".
3.  Not a single one of your statements has anything to do with what I said.
4.  You're injecting your flawed opinions into my statements.

Is this the level of quality we should be expecting from your arguments?  You are stating four conclusions with no supporting evidence.  So let's slow down and go through this carefully.  What is your evidence supporting the four conclusions above?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 08:20:28 AM by jgajek »

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #426 on: December 09, 2018, 09:24:40 AM »
Quote
t's obvious that you have no idea how the law works, and you're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. In fact, you're not even concerned about the material facts in the case or in the judge's ruling. Instead, you're focused on trying (and failing) to prove me wrong - as if my opinions carry more weight than the attorneys and the judge in the case.

Absolutely.

The law doesn't boil down to an English comprehension exercise either.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #427 on: December 09, 2018, 09:30:53 AM »
A cornered rat will bite the cat, as they say.  So let's take things one at a time.

Oh I see. Posting rebuttals and clarifications are no longer part of a discussion. See? This is why we don't take you guys seriously.

Quote
You clearly said that only discovery will resolve the 2.4 issue.  The judge dismissed it without discovery.  Clearly there is a discrepancy there.

I stand by that opinion because it has nothing to do with the judge's ruling in the MtD.

"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."

The judge granted a conditional dismissal based purely on 1) her reading of the GLA 2) the deficiency in Crytek failing to provide enough material to support their claim.

If she didn't believe that she may be missing something, or that Crytek may have additional submissions, she wouldn't have granted Crytek leave to amend it. That's how lawsuits work.

And if Crytek decides not (it's a freebie, so why not?) to amend, but later finds during discovery materials that support their claim, they ARE allowed to file supplemental pleadings. And it will NOT matter if she had previously granted an MtD or not. Again, that's why cases get appealed. Judge's miss things. In fact, I spotted a glaring error in a statement that the judge made on p7

Quote
Plaintiff aims the same conclusory allegations described above at Defendants’ purported development, design, or creation of Lumberyard, but those allegations are inadequate for the same reasons. Plaintiff also argues in its Opposition that Defendants impermissibly developed Lumberyard, but the Court will not entertain factual assertions in an opposition to a motion to dismiss that are absent from the SAC. Opp. at 6; see U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (on a motion to dismiss, a court may only consider the face of the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in a complaint, or documents subject to judicial notice). Plaintiff does not allege Defendants sold Lumberyard to any third party.

Crytek never made those allegations because they know that CIG didn't develop Lumberyard. It appears to me that the judge either doesn't "get" that Lumberyard is a separate engine like CryEngine, or she just made an error in the wording.

Quote
And your response to this is:

1.  You don't know the meaning of the words "opinion" and "envision".
2.  You should look up the definitions of "right" and "wrong".
3.  Not a single one of your statements has anything to do with what I said.
4.  You're injecting your flawed opinions into my statements.

You are stating four conclusions with no supporting evidence.  So let's slow down and go through this carefully.  What is your evidence supporting the four conclusions above?

I can do that...

1. https://www.dictionary.com
2. https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction
3. Everything I wrote and which you ignored, then proceeded with strawman arguments
4. See #3
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 09:40:04 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.

jgajek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #428 on: December 09, 2018, 10:12:45 AM »
So you stand by your opinion, but the judge didn't do what you expected.  But you had the SAC in front of you, so you knew what CryTek's supporting materials were.  And yet you still made the statement that discovery would be necessary and the MtD would be denied.  Do you still claim that you were correct in that assessment?

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #429 on: December 09, 2018, 10:25:07 AM »
But you had the SAC in front of you, so you knew what CryTek's supporting materials were.  And yet you still made the statement that discovery would be necessary and the MtD would be denied.

None of the above is true. Nice try.
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.

jgajek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #430 on: December 09, 2018, 11:01:19 AM »
None of the above is true. Nice try.

Fascinating  :laugh:

The SAC was filed on Pacer on August 16th.  On August 20th, you were here on this forum expounding on the merits of 2.4 in the SAC.  But now you appear to be denying that you had the SAC in front of you or knew what was in it.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #431 on: December 09, 2018, 11:19:56 AM »
The SAC was filed on Pacer on August 16th.  On August 20th, you were here on this forum expounding on the merits of 2.4 in the SAC.  But now you appear to be denying that you had the SAC in front of you or knew what was in it.

This is getting old, and I'm already bored.

08/16 - SAC appears on PACER
08/17 - My Twitter thread on it
09/02 - My full article covering the above

Please explain to me how it's possible for me to have opined on the SAC without having seen/read it, though I posted excerpts and screenshots from it?  :emot-allears:
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.

jgajek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #432 on: December 09, 2018, 11:44:50 AM »
Quote
This is getting old, and I'm already bored.

Oh, but I thought we were just getting started?  Internet Warlord and all that?  I think I'm getting my $30 worth of Star Citizen entertainment out of this already.  :laugh:

Quote
Please explain to me how it's possible for me to have opined on the SAC without having seen/read it, though I posted excerpts and screenshots from it?

So now we're back to you WERE in fact familiar with the contents of the SAC when you made the statement that discovery would be necessary?  If we are going to track down any potential deficiencies in your legal opinion on the subject, we need to establish that you had the necessary information available to you.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 11:46:56 AM by jgajek »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #433 on: December 09, 2018, 12:07:57 PM »
Oh, but I thought we were just getting started?  Internet Warlord and all that?  I think I'm getting my $30 worth of Star Citizen entertainment out of this already.  :laugh:

You're not adding anything to the discussion. You are ignoring points which refute your silly arguments, while engaging in strawman arguments, bad faith discussions etc. That's precisely why I have you muted on Twitter so your crap stays in your feed where it belongs. Which explains why you're doing the same* thing here now as well, as a way to get my attention.  :wave:

Quote
So now we're back to you WERE in fact familiar with the contents of the SAC when you made the statement that discovery would be necessary?  If we are going to track down any potential deficiencies in your legal opinion on the subject, we need to establish that you had the necessary information available to you.

I literally have no idea what you're even going on about. I stated that discovery would still be necessary in order to bolster/prove the Crytek claims as per 2.4

That's why I said this:

"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."

You are saying that because the judge ruled on the MtD before discovery even takes place, that somehow makes me "wrong". That's pretty funny.

The judge has ruled by granting those aspects to CIG, while allowing Crytek to provide additional materials in support of their claim. If they fail to do so, or if they do, and the judge doesn't reverse it, they still have discovery which would provide conclusive evidence of their claim.

Those of us who have licensed software, done exclusive deals etc, know an exclusive deal when we see one.  And EVERYTHING in the original Crytek lawsuit filing clearly implies that the GLA was intended to be an exclusive. And for which Crytek did certain things in order to secure that. However, badly written contracts can unravel even the best intentions. And that's how lawsuits happen. This is also primarily the reason that Crytek named Ortwin in the suit, and blamed him for constructing a contract that favored CIG. And the judge ALLOWED it to stand because obviously she sees the merit in that argument. If Lumberyard didn't exist, and CIG had switched to Unity3D, UE4 or whatever, the lawsuit would still be on the same gounds and merit. Nobody signs an agreement knowing that the other side is going to breach it.

*since you registered Dec 2016, you never posted. Then in the span of 24 hrs since this MtD (which the brain-dead are rejoicing over) dropped, you have made 17 (!) new posts
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 01:59:56 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.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v CIG/RSI
« Reply #434 on: December 10, 2018, 06:57:56 AM »
Thread sanitized. Knock it off guys. We don't do that around here. We do it on Reddit.  :tongue:
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.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk