Author Topic: CryTek v CIG/RSI  (Read 46091 times)

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
    • Smart Speak Blog
CryTek v CIG/RSI
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:15:15 PM »

:emot-siren: LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! LAWSUIT DISASTER WATCH! :emot-siren:
I noticed that discussions on the lawsuit are all over the forum. So I am unlocking this. Please try to keep this thread specifically restricted to discussing the lawsuit only. Any off-topic posts will be deleted without warning.

The Crytek v RSI/CIG lawsuit was filed on Dec 12, 2017. Since then I have been keeping track, while writing up my opinions on it. You can track all the filings either on the standard PACER website, or on Pacer Monitor.

Today, we setup a special Discord channel on my server where all the relevant info is going to be listed so that people can catch up at any time. No discussions are in that channel, so it will never be cluttered with chatter. If you are not yet on my Discord server, the invite code is: https://discord.gg/7nUXA9u



Sept 28th, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS CRYTEK'S SAC

FILING

https://www.docdroid.net/gyyGc4q/031129092131.pdf

Sept 28th, 2018 - FILING OF JOINT RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY REPORT

FILING

https://www.docdroid.net/iucXCm0/031129091565.pdf



Sept 21st, 2018 - CRYTEK RESPONDS TO CIG MOTION TO DISMISS THE SAC

FILING

https://www.docdroid.net/5WYum99/031129038076.pdf

MY COVERAGE

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6639/



Sept 6th, 2018 - CIG FILES MOTION TO DISMISS OVER CRYTEK'S SAC

FILING MEMORANDUM

http://docdro.id/0LxN6Ka

PROPOSED ORDER (used by judge if she grants the MtD)

http://docdro.id/DIPUrHO

JUDGE ORDERS RULE 26 DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (FRCP Rule 26)
NOTE: Scheduled for Oct 12, 2018

http://docdro.id/OGVjIHW

MY COVERAGE

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6615/



Aug 17th, 2018 - CIG FILES RESPONSE & OPPOSITION TO CRYTEK RULE (26f) DISCOVERY

CIG, not waiting for their 20 day period, have immediately filed a response to Crytek. Not sure why they're so afraid of discovery. It's weird. Almost as if they're trying to hide something.  :emot-iiam:

OBJECTIONS to Notice (Other), Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Second Amended Complaint and Suggestion that Rule 16 Conference Be Convened

https://www.docdroid.net/N0hyv2e/031128808931.pdf

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html



Aug 16th, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

BREAKING! Crytek have now filed a second amended complaint that solidifies their claims. They specifically went for what I wrote that they would as per 2.4.

It's funny - and I'm not even a lawyer.

I will have more in a bit.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants

https://www.docdroid.net/Btqzzhy/031128797590.pdf

NOTICE of Filing SECOND Amended Complaint And Suggestion That Rule 16 Conference Be Convened

https://www.docdroid.net/X4V4AC9/031128797710.pdf

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html



Aug 14th, 2018 - JUDGE DENIES 4/6 ITEMS IN MOTION TO DISMISS

The judge denies the MtD. Only the exclusivity claim was granted with leave to re-file by CryTek

Filing : https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo

MY COVERAGE :

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6560/

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1029687504205688832

Also, worth noting that even though the judge dismissed section 2.1.2 (exclusivity), the 2.4 breach is even more harmful to CIG. PLUS - right there on the last page of the filing - the judge invited Crytek to file any amendment if her understanding of their intent (e.g. 2.1.2) was misunderstood. If the judge was certain that 2.1.2 and the punitive damages issue were open and shut, she would NEVER have left that door open for Crytek to file an amended complaint as per the two items she didn't dismiss. She's not stupid.



Apr 17, 2018 - JUDGE DENIES PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION

The judge denied (as moot) the filing.

http://docdro.id/tx3rLrT (ruling)

http://docdro.id/vAoGioC (minutes)

MY COVERAGE:

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/986319843514306561



Apr 4, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/981554668538089472.html

Apr 3, 2018 - CIG FILES FURTHER MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PROTECTIVE ORDER

CIG have filed yet another response to CryTek's filing. This discovery issue really has them spooked. Gee, I wonder why that is.

http://docdro.id/Gqus4SZ



MAR 27, 2018

CryTek have filed their answer to the Mar 9th filing for a protective order by CIG.

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order



MAR 13, 2018 - COURT HEARING MOVED FROM APRIL 13TH TO APRIL 17TH

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al]scheduled for April 13th, moved to 17th



MAR 11, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html



MAR 10, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972488629674283013.html

When you read through what Crytek is requesting, it's easy to see EXACTLY what I said back in Dec and how this lawsuit was going to go.

EVERYTHING is going to come out. And there isn't a DAMN thing that CIG can do about it.

And that's why CIG are panicking and filing this PO.

Pop quiz. See if you can guess why Crytek is also requesting unedited AtV shows. e.g. this one from Dec 2017, as per production request #23. FF to 21:40 where it was clearly spliced where he probably said CryEngine before it was changed to Lumberyard.

Remember back when I said we keep all this shit cuz we're gamers and we're all particularly autistic & have long term memory?



MAR 9, 2018 - CIG FILES A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY

CIG filed a protective order motion with the court.

Quote
A motion for protective order refers to a party's request that the court protect it from potentially abusive action by the other party. Such a request is often made in relation to discovery, as when one party seeks discovery of the other party's trade secrets. In certain instances, the court will craft a protective order for protecting one party's trade secrets by ordering that any secret information exchanged in discovery shall be used for the pending suit only and it shall not in any manner be publicized.

http://docdro.id/sh74oDz (motion)

http://docdro.id/3xk4ojP (memo)

http://docdro.id/0HkRbvA (proposed order)

http://docdro.id/Ofv2K49 (attorney declaration)



MAR 5, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

We know that Crytek created the early tech demos. They said so. Curiously, CIG/RSI didn't make any moves to deny this in their court filings. Gee, I wonder why.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/970714392764518400.html



MAR 1, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

Musings on the ensuing discovery shenanigans

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/969294105225383937.html



FEB 28, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

Musings on the Rule 26(f) discovery filing. Here we also learn that CIG tried to enter into settlement talks with CryTek, but were rebuffed.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html



FEB 27, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES DISCOVERY PLAN UNDER FCRP RULE 26(f)

As per Rule 26 (Discovery), CryTek and CIG attorneys had their conference. It looks like it got heated, hostile etc. So Crytek filed a notice/complaint with the court.

https://www.docdroid.net/uMDHWEY/discovery-plan.pdf



FEB 10, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

So the judge vacated the oral args in the MtD.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/962372778967093249.html



FEB 8, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

As a likely precursor to her tossing the MtD, judge Gee has hilariously canceled the Feb 9th hearing for oral arguments.

Apparently she doesn't want to be subjected to the bullshit that RSI/CIG have injected into their pleadings.

I warned that language would come back to haunt them.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
Quote
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Claims for Relief Therein or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Certain Portions of the First Amended Complaint (FRCP 12(B)(6), 12(E) & 12(f))19 presently scheduled for hearing on February 9, 2018, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

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



FEB 8, 2018 - JUDGE DECIDES NOT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS

Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15 allows her to do so, regardless of whether or not either side requests or agrees.

Oral arguments, especially in Fed court, are not mandatory.

Also, any such request to skip oral arguments from either attorney, would also need to be in the form for a pleading to the court. And such pleading would be part of the court record. There is no pleading preceding the judge's decision. Ergo, the attorneys had nothing to do with her decision.

And this judge does this regularly. Here is one of her cases from 2014

Scroll down to entry # 24 on 08/19/2014

Note that after skipping oral arguments, the case continued as normal. The judge didn't rule on the MtD until 10/28/2014 (see entry #25)

Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee

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



JAN 26, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK

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.

https://www.scribd.com/document/370105345/031127439162



JAN 20, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

My thoughts on the apocalyptic Crytek response to the MtD

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/954724633344913408.html



JAN 19, 2018 - CRYTEK RESPONDS TO CIG MOTION TO DISMISS

OK, the much anticipated Skadden response to the CIG motion to dismiss, is live on Pacer.

https://www.docdroid.net/v7yQ0LL/response-skadden-011918.pdf

As has been reported, it's absolutely catastrophic for RSI/CIG.

I am going over it now and will post my comments shortly. At a glance my first reaction is...



I am predicting that today will be an apocalyptic day of reckoning in Crytek v CIG, with RSI/CIG being on the receiving end.

Oh, I have no doubt in my mind that Ortwin Freyermuth is well on his way to being disbarred after this fiasco is exposed.




JAN 17, 2018 - MY COVERAGE

While we wait for the Skadden response that's coming within the next two weeks, ahead of the Feb 9th Motion To Dismiss ruling, I chime in some additional thoughts. I also touch on Chris Roberts work with Blink Media in Vancouver, the company he was with during 2010 when they were evaluating CryEngine for the game.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/953691070898102272.html



JAN 6, 2018 - CIG FILES A MOTION TO DISMISS

This was a no-brainer that they filed it. Standard procedure to see what sticks

https://www.scribd.com/document/368546512/2-2017cv08937-Crytek-v-CIG-20180105-Notice-of-Errata-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-Exhibit-B

MY COVERAGE:

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



JAN 5, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK LAWSUIT

https://www.scribd.com/document/368545940/2-2017cv08937-Crytek-v-Cig-20180105-Declaration-of-Jeremy-s-Goldman



JAN 4, 2018

But as they never filed, and there is no longer an incentive to keep it under wraps, this is who I am hearing they have hired to respond to the law suit.

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz

MY COVERAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html

ALSO:


Right off the bat @ 0:56, they talk about "two games being built". You know, the same damn thing they're being sued for.

God, seriously, we're not making up. And if we are, it's all on you.

I can't wait for Skadden to add more intentionally inserts in their reply to what we believe is going to be a hilarious response from RSI/CIG.

On 12/13/17, RSI/CIG already PUBLICLY admitted to "switching engines".

At this point, they should just give CryTek a blank check.

We already KNOW they're going to claim they were built with Lumberyard. Which is going to be just as epic a response as any.



Jan 2, 2018 - CRYTEK AMENDS THEIR FILING

https://www.scribd.com/document/368322159/Crytek-GmbH-v-Cloud-Imperium-Games-Corp-Et-Al-Cacdce-17-08937-0018-0

As if the bombshell lawsuit wasn't enough, Crytek amended it, added some scathing language which is no doubt based on new information they received in the interim. In fact, the use of the word intentionally jumps right at you this time around.

Hilariously, all this happened on the day that RSI/CIG were to respond.

As can be seen from the DIFF between the original and amended filing, they removed the part about Ortwin having a conflict of interest in their dealings with Crytek. I had hinted at this before saying that unless there was a waiver, that he had some explaining to do.

https://www.diffchecker.com/GTqP0gvu

They also tightened up the wording and conveyed the message that they felt RSI/CIG clearly intended to do these things. Which to me means that they probably got hold of additional evidence since the original 12/12/17 filing, leading them to believe this.



As I reported in my Twitter thread above, according to sources, Ortwin DID produce such a waiver, which either Crytek didn't originally have a copy of, or that section wasn't updated prior to the original filing.

Following the filing of the amended complaint, I go back in with my thoughts and opinions on what this all means for RSI/CIG in terms of where they are in the Richter scale (1 - 10) for how screwed they are. They are firmly sitting at 11.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html

As things stand, we're waiting to read the RSI/CIG response to the amended complaint. We don't know whether or not they already received the amended complaint ahead of it being filed. That being the case, they would have additional time to respond. And knowing those clowns, they will take full advantage of any such delays, rather than responding in a timely fashion.

So I don't personally expect to see them respond today. And even so, we wouldn't know about it until tomorrow when PACER updates. Instead, we could see other procedural filings instead.

UPDATE:

As I had mentioned before, seeing as RSI/CIG didn't even respond to the lawsuit during the past 21 days, which expires today, it's not likely that they will respond today.

Especially now that they have another 14 days due to the amended complaint. Like literally TWO WEEKS (if you don't get the joke, leave my server please).

So they have to respond between now and Jan 17th.

Quote
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3):

Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.



Dec 18, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

With the Star Citizen Defense Force out there saying all kinds of stupid nonsense (the lawsuit has no merit, Crytek are bankrupt etc), I go back in and do what I do. It drives them nuts.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942753856332685312.html



Dec 17, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

With the anxiety increasing among backers trying to figure out what Skadden was going to do with their JPEGS, I got back in with another hilarious storm

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html

I also decided that I was going to be filing an amicus brief for the case obo of all confirmed backers, trolls, and those Goon bastards

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/942758171545952257



Dec 15, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

I dive deeper into the chasm of hilarity, as I posit just how screwed those clowns at RSI/CIG were

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941688759589986305



Dec 13, 2017 - MY COVERAGE

My Twitter thread detailing the implications of this lawsuit

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457

This is the same day that the registered agents for both companies, accepted service of the lawsuit; thus starting the 21 day countdown. RSI/CIG have until Jan 3rd, 2018 to respond.



DEC 12, 2017 - CRYTEK v RSI/CIG INITIAL FILING

https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG



ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

LEGAL DOCS

Also found on this guy's Google Docs folder:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta

CASE TIMELINE

« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 05:04:13 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: 3635
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2018, 05:41:23 PM »
Saw this posted on SA. It's hilarious.

Quote
I'm not sure why people listen so closely to Leonard J Cr..French. He worked for 9 years as a Software Developer, picked up a Law Degree from a second tier University, did an internship at a Civil Law Clinic before striking out on his own. Which has proven so successful he panhandles for dollars giving out legal opinions on Youtube. I mean he's surely got the legal chops to dismantle the arguments of:

James Pak - Columbia Law, fresh from suing Oculus Rift for $500 million.

Kevin Minnick - UCLA, successfully pursued actions against Wells Fargo and Toyota.

that's not counting the Partners

Anthony Sammi - With his paltry Cornell Law degree and industry awards of being one of the best litigators in the US last year.

Kurt Hemr - Harvard Law, Has successfully litigated against many companies in between doing pro-bono work for refugees.

It's the clearest example of confirmation Bias I think you can see. French agrees with the Acolytes of Roberts, therefore he is right.


I mean being Pro-CIG has almost certainly netted French thousands of dollars so I can respect the position he's taken.
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: 3635
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2018, 11:18:02 AM »
Robert Marks who previously wrote two opinion pieces for CGM, has written a quick take on the latest Crytek filing.

Quote
Hi all!

I'm Robert B. Marks, the author of the two legal analysis articles for CGM (Comics and Games Magazine) about Crytek v. Cloud Imperium (http://www.cgmagonline.com/2017/12/19/crytek-v-star-citizen-closer-look/), (http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/). We will be providing coverage, but we've decided to wait until the motion is heard on February 9th before publishing a longer analysis. Until then, a few comments after reading the response...

1) There isn't anything too surprising here (that said, it is gratifying to see the response hit many of the points that I had outlined/predicted). It should be noted that at this point in the proceedings, Crytek only has to demonstrate that their claims are worth the court's time - they don't have prove anything or land a knockout blow (nor can they at this point in time).

2) For Squadron 42, there are now functionally two "de minimis" ("the law cares not for insignificant things") arguments put forward. CIG is claiming that it does not matter that S42 was defined as a separate game in the preamble and a feature in the exhibits, all that matters is that it was covered by name in the agreement. Crytek is arguing that it does not matter that S42 was mistakenly listed as a separate game in the preamble, all that matters is that the GLA was for a single game, and did not cover two games. This could go either way (the clarification paragraph in the exhibit can back up Crytek's reading, but that's up to the judge, and this may not be decided until the communications during the GLA negotiations are entered into evidence).

3) On a strictly strategic level, Cloud Imperium probably comes out ahead in this engagement, regardless of what the judge rules. Even if the judge rules completely against them, they now have a better look at Crytek's trial strategy, along with at least part of the list of precedents and legislation they will be relying upon. And that helps them better craft their defence.

4) We are very unlikely to see any additional evidence entered as we are still in the Pleadings stage (in fact, we were extremely lucky to be able to see the contract this early).

5) The arguments over the non-compete clause are probably going to get VERY interesting. The question is: does it refer to creating, licensing, and selling a game engine, or just making use of a competing game engine? This is another thing that could go either way, although I have the funny feeling it will be a bit of a hard sell when it comes to Crytek's argument based on the fact that the clause refers to the "business of," instead of just the action itself.

So, that's it for now - like probably a lot of other people here, I (and my editors at CGM) are watching this with bated breath, and can't wait for what's next. That said, I really do want to caution against making predictions or declarations about who is going to win - it is WAY too early for that. We are only in the opening stages of this dispute, and trying to declare a winner at this time is rather like trying to declare the winner of a space battle based on whose laser cannons made the loudest hum when they were turned on.

(And, for disclosure, I'm a legal researcher associated with Bien Law, not a lawyer or paralegal. Also, when I was writing Garwulf's Corner for the Escapist, there was a dispute between Defy Media and CIG that I was not involved in or privy to.)
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 06:08:38 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.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2018, 06:05:29 AM »
Read my comment on the engine switch for more context on this issue.



CIG are not developing Star Engine for third-party licensing. So they're OK there.

In the Crytek case, it's not that they are tempting to do that, in violation of the GLA. It's that they're doing all of 2.4, when they should be doing certain (e.g. promoting) things for CryEngine. It's going to come down to the judge to determine if switching to Lumberyard, which would encompass designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, licensing, is a violation of the GLA. IMO, those who think that 2.4 is just a non-compete clause, are wrong.

As patently hilarious as it sounds, I'm calling it now because a court has ruled a case based on similar findings.

This:

"engage in the business of designing, developing..."

is DIFFERENT from this:

"engage in the business of, designing, developing.."

Read more about this here. As it's now case law precedent, I fully expect to see this nonsense permeate cases for years to come..

Also, as the GLA does NOT have "at will" termination clause, when CIG switched, the GLA didn't terminate at all.



« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 08:00:55 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.

Flashwit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2018, 09:52:12 AM »
And I think the bit about "directly or indirectly" could also help get them on that clause. I'm not going to claim to know how it works legally, but it seems to me that they're "indirectly" promoting Lumberyard by having their logos instead of CryEngine/CryTek's logos on the splash screens.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2018, 10:27:11 AM »
And I think the bit about "directly or indirectly" could also help get them on that clause. I'm not going to claim to know how it works legally, but it seems to me that they're "indirectly" promoting Lumberyard by having their logos instead of CryEngine/CryTek's logos on the splash screens.

Displaying the LY logo falls under "directly". The "indirectly" part is instances whereby they are not doing it directly, but through a third-party (e.g. Turbulent), studio (e.g. F42 which isn't a signatory to the GLA), affiliate (those Shillizen pricks on YouTube) etc.

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: 502
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2018, 05:27:32 PM »
And it is all more stuff that needs to be thrashed out by the legal teams on both sides,  at $xxxx per hour.

Fees that CIG (in other words, SC Backers - sorry "investors") are going to be paying for.

Kyrt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2018, 12:05:23 AM »
And it is all more stuff that needs to be thrashed out by the legal teams on both sides,  at $xxxx per hour.

Fees that CIG (in other words, SC Backers - sorry "investors") are going to be paying for.

As per the GLA, the loser pays the fees.
I would not be so quick to proclaim either CryTek or CIG the winners.

CryTek has a strong case....but it depends heavily on the legal interpretation of key phrases.

Conversely, some parts....such as the need to display CryTeks logos...seem like slamdunks for CryTek but there may be other legal tests; could CIG argue that that obligation to promote CryEngine is unreasonable given that they have switched? Or could CryTek use it to support their assertion that CIG accepted engine exclusivity as a part of the GLA?

Noone here...Derek Smart included...is knowledgeable enough about the law to proclaim either side a victor and it could not be impossible for both sides to win and therefore split costs.

Leonard French and others already got it wrong by proclaim9mg CIG victors with their response by rushing to judgement and not being critical enough. Lets not make the same mistake.

You may not agree with CIGs interpretation, but you don't have to. The judge and jury do.

Bubba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2018, 03:13:37 AM »
Quote
As patently hilarious as it sounds, I'm calling it now because a court has ruled a case based on similar findings.

This:

"engage in the business of designing, developing..."

is DIFFERENT from this:

"engage in the business of, designing, developing.."

Read more about this here. As it's now case law precedent, I fully expect to see this nonsense permeate cases for years to come.

The case in question was rather different. In that case, it was not clear whether the contract used the "Oxford Comma" or not, that is:
A, B, or C

as opposed to

A, B or C

The problem came in when, in this case, we something of the form "A, B or C", but rather it ended "packing for shipment or distribution". The question was whether distribution was a separate item, on the level of "packing for shipment" or another object of "packing for".

In the case here, one does not normally put a comma between a preposition and its object. So by itself, it wouldn't make a difference, especially since grammatically, all those activities are gerunds, while the operative verb phrase is "shall not engage".

The point is rather moot, though, since 2.4 excludes "designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete (sic!) with CryEngine."
Meanwhile, the license is to "develop, support, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine", and to sublicense it under specific conditions. Moreover, there is requirements for promotion.

Now, you can try to drive a fine point on "engage in the business", but let's be honest: the difference is one of scope. If someone from CIG goes to a conference and talks with someone who is building a competing engine, maybe solving a trivial problem, that could be considered designing or developing. It's not engaging in the business of doing so. On the other hand, if CIG enters into an agreement to use LY the same way they used CE, that sure as hell is; in this contract, they exchange a significant amount of money and consideration for the right to develop, support, extend and/or enhance CryEngine, and that is clearly their business. If they tried to argue what they're doing with LY is different, well, they're estopped from doing so by their own contract.

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2018, 06:15:26 AM »
As per the GLA, the loser pays the fees.
I would not be so quick to proclaim either CryTek or CIG the winners.

CryTek has a strong case....but it depends heavily on the legal interpretation of key phrases.

Conversely, some parts....such as the need to display CryTeks logos...seem like slamdunks for CryTek but there may be other legal tests; could CIG argue that that obligation to promote CryEngine is unreasonable given that they have switched? Or could CryTek use it to support their assertion that CIG accepted engine exclusivity as a part of the GLA?

Noone here...Derek Smart included...is knowledgeable enough about the law to proclaim either side a victor and it could not be impossible for both sides to win and therefore split costs.

Leonard French and others already got it wrong by proclaim9mg CIG victors with their response by rushing to judgement and not being critical enough. Lets not make the same mistake.

You may not agree with CIGs interpretation, but you don't have to. The judge and jury do.

It will be a negotiated settlement or a trial and CIG loses IMO.

CIG will be paying the fees in any event.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2018, 02:26:08 PM »
A real attorney over @GuardFreq talks about the latest in Crytek v CIG et al. FF @ 4:00

https://guardfrequency.com/198

Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2018, 03:09:59 PM »
A real attorney over @GuardFreq talks about the latest in Crytek v CIG et al. FF @ 4:00

Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.

I found it interesting about the waiver, since there was not much detail on what the waiver I assumed it meant Crytek was aware of the possible conflict of interest. Per Tony he is saying the waiver was just a doc meant for him to be allowed to sit in.

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2018, 04:33:40 PM »
I found it interesting about the waiver, since there was not much detail on what the waiver I assumed it meant Crytek was aware of the possible conflict of interest. Per Tony he is saying the waiver was just a doc meant for him to be allowed to sit in.

There is a lot more to come on all this.

It is simply incredible that Ortwin was in the positions he was for both sides and that the Crytek sales chap moved over to SC ...if it smells fishy...

Orgetorix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2018, 09:14:16 PM »
Tony echoes everything I had said before, especially and including the fact that Orwin is completely exposed and that cannot be understated.

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...

Orgetorix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2018, 09:41:13 PM »
I found it interesting about the waiver, since there was not much detail on what the waiver I assumed it meant Crytek was aware of the possible conflict of interest. Per Tony he is saying the waiver was just a doc meant for him to be allowed to sit in.

WAIVER Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 4889
waiver (way-v<<schwa>>r), n.1. The voluntary relinquishment or abandonment express
or implied of a legal right or advantage; FORFEITURE <waiver of notice>. The party alleged to have waived a right must have had both knowledge of the existing right and the intention of forgoing it. Cf. ESTOPPEL. [Cases: Estoppel 52.10. C.J.S. Estoppel 6768, 7072, 7576, 79, 159160.]

That's where it gets tricky for Ortwin with his waiver from CryTek. Exactly what rights were CryTek waiving? If they didn't know that Ortwin had a financial interest in CIG/RSI. Then there is no way, by definition, that they could have waived any rights that they had no knowledge of possessing.

You see where this is going?

Ortwin Freyermuth is proper fucked.

Also never forget the name of Carl Jones. There very well could have been collusion on both sides of the table. If SKADDEN can prove that there was. Than that's the real bombshell that will blow this case wide open.   

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk