Author Topic: CryTek v CIG/RSI  (Read 298976 times)

Kyrt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #210 on: April 19, 2018, 04:19:36 AM »
There WAS a scheduling filing. Says so RIGHT THERE on Pacer.

What that page says is...

As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time. The motion for stay, therefore, is moot and denied on that basis. IT IS SO ORDERED.

It seems CIG got only a delay, but of there is no scheduling order in place, they don't have to allow discovery and they can probably refile for a Protective Order  once there is.

They probably won't get anywhere and they'll only annoy the judge bit of they just want a delay they got it. I am not sure how this will ultimately benefit them though because a simple delay won't cause the case to go away or for evidence to disappear....assuming they took steps to preserve evidence. About the only advantage it seems to provide is to give CIG a head start on finalising the conversion to LumberYard...if what you say is correct...so they don't lose everything but that activity right now would be a sign of guilt. It could also cause other problems....part of the functionality CE3 provided was via third party programs that are no longer available.

the_wolfmann

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #211 on: April 19, 2018, 04:47:21 AM »
If what my sources are telling me is true, that they are frantically trying to complete the Lumberyard port - which they claimed was done during 2016 - it would make sense why they would be pulling all kinds of tricks to delay the inevitable.

Whoa... then they surely must also be putting effort into tampering their source code commits to look as if all that was done in 2016. Otherwise it will be moot during discovery when they have to divulge their code base. I wonder what kind of mayhem that would be causing to their branch system. GIT rebasing is not for the feint of heart, I'm pretty sure they'll slip up if they went this path. Only their backers will end up paying for this with even shittier releases while they struggle getting this done in time.

P.S. I'm not sure they're using GIT but if they have JIRA it's more or less required to use Stash/GIT nowadays. I think Atlassian dropped official SVN support a while ago.

Backer42

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Refundian
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #212 on: April 19, 2018, 07:27:28 AM »
If what my sources are telling me is true, that they are frantically trying to complete the Lumberyard port
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.

N0mad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #213 on: April 19, 2018, 07:49:56 AM »
Whoa... then they surely must also be putting effort into tampering their source code commits to look as if all that was done in 2016. Otherwise it will be moot during discovery when they have to divulge their code base. I wonder what kind of mayhem that would be causing to their branch system. GIT rebasing is not for the feint of heart, I'm pretty sure they'll slip up if they went this path. Only their backers will end up paying for this with even shittier releases while they struggle getting this done in time.

I know very little about source code repositories, but isn't trying to change the logs going to produce all sorts of errors? Besides, wouldn't Crytek simply want read only access to the servers as part of the discovery process - that would make it pretty hard to hide things. Any tampering with the evidence would be illegal - I'm sure even CIG wouldn't be that stupid.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 07:52:45 AM by N0mad »

Backer42

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Refundian
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #214 on: April 19, 2018, 08:02:10 AM »
I'm sure even CIG wouldn't be that stupid.
That's a pretty naive assumption. :grin:

Kyrt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #215 on: April 19, 2018, 08:23:33 AM »
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.

It depends.

That contract will very likely be terminated after all this.

What does CryTek really want? It wants money...it wants the code it is due...and it wants its IP protected.

It needs discovery so it can accurately determine how much it can ask for via compensation and damages. One reason why it was premature and a sign of desperation for CIG to initiate settlement talks now; it means they likely think the cost if settlement can only go up after discovery - and were possibly hoping CryTek wasn't as confident in its vase as it appears to be.

CIG, in short, are giving every sign they strung CryTek along believing they either could not or would not sue and were caught flatfooted when CryTek showed them wrong.

Should CryTek win, there is a good chance the GLA will be nullified. Its a bad relationship and CIG will have shown themselves  untrustworthy.

In that case, CIG might....MIGHT... be free to switch to another engine. Of course, there is that clause forbidding development for two years but that may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

It may also be the case that switching to LumberYard is next to impossible. Whether CIG likes it or not, LY is a CE spin off. The terms of any settlement might be restrictive enough to affect LY.

I believe there was at least one case where massive changes had to be made because a developer had to make massive changes to its code to remove links to even the concepts behind a licensed product.

Say CIG was placed under similar restrictions, either directly or indirectly. It would not be able to switch over to any flavour of CE. More, because its engine team has been working on its engine it would likely have to reallocate every member of that team to work on something other than the game engine. And it would have to stay away from LumberYard.

In short, it would have to take steps to ensure it wasn't using not just CryTeks code, but CryTeks concepts and techniques. Unfortunately...that would entail a de facto restart of the entire project.

Fortunately, such an outcome is unlikely and it is more plausible CIG would be allowed to move to LY and keep its existing teams in place.

But this is the type of non monetary remedy that CryTek could potentially seek. Which is partly why the focus on the clause restricting monetary damages is so short sighted....CIG can always hold another sale or two if the issue was just money.

However, by working to translate the code now...if that is what they are doing...CIG get a headstart for later. That activity wouldn't be problem free as they would have to replace certain third party aspects, some of which can no longer be licensed, and it would delay work on 3.x as developers are pulled to do work that should have been done 3 years ago, but it would also allow them to play the "we lost, but the impact is minimal. Here's a sale to celebrate" card.

More of a concern....but (hopefully) just for the TFH brigade...is the thought that any such work is being carried out in an attempt to hide any evidence of wrongdoing. That seems unlikely to happen, and less likely to succeed, but I suppose it is possible. I suppose CIG could pull the old  "we accidentally deleted or lost our archive" routine but I don't think CIG employees are loyal enough for CIG to risk that. We already know Derek Smart is getting info leaked to him so someone isn't likely to lie under oath.


the_wolfmann

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #216 on: April 19, 2018, 10:26:32 AM »
I know very little about source code repositories, but isn't trying to change the logs going to produce all sorts of errors? Besides, wouldn't Crytek simply want read only access to the servers as part of the discovery process - that would make it pretty hard to hide things. Any tampering with the evidence would be illegal - I'm sure even CIG wouldn't be that stupid.

Now I won't go into too much detail on how to rewrite source control records as to avoid going offtopic (and to prevent the CIG intern reading this thread from relaying tips to management). In short, it's possible to rewrite the centralized source copy to have different timestamps on the CIG/Crytek critical commits (the individual pieces of code changes that developers made for the LY rewrite). The issues and errors will come when everyone that has a local copy of the source files has to "accept" the rewritten logs. This could end up going sideways with developers losing months of work because of the overwrite (and every developer touching the code would absolutely HAVE to do that in order for the cover-up to be complete). Essentially CIG will lose time and money for (illegal) activities not related to the project they promised which in hindsight is nothing new...

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #217 on: April 19, 2018, 12:44:14 PM »
What that page says is...

As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time. The motion for stay, therefore, is moot and denied on that basis. IT IS SO ORDERED.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the judge's Dec 17th order, which she also cited in this ruling.

Quote
It seems CIG got only a delay, but of there is no scheduling order in place,


There is no such thing. The scheduling is between CIG and Crytek. It's what Crytek started, and which would have been filed once agreed upon. They didn't file it because CIG refused to cooperate, then filed their PO.

Quote
they don't have to allow discovery

That's categorically FALSE. That's not how the legal system works.

Quote
and they can probably refile for a Protective Order  once there is.

That's categorically FALSE. They can't because the judge already ruled that 1) they have to do the scheduling which leads to 2) discovery.

If they file another PO, it will be rejected as moot (again), because the judge already gave her instructions in the latest ruling. And she was pretty clear.
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 #218 on: April 19, 2018, 12:46:55 PM »
Whoa... then they surely must also be putting effort into tampering their source code commits to look as if all that was done in 2016. Otherwise it will be moot during discovery when they have to divulge their code base. I wonder what kind of mayhem that would be causing to their branch system. GIT rebasing is not for the feint of heart, I'm pretty sure they'll slip up if they went this path. Only their backers will end up paying for this with even shittier releases while they struggle getting this done in time.

P.S. I'm not sure they're using GIT but if they have JIRA it's more or less required to use Stash/GIT nowadays. I think Atlassian dropped official SVN support a while ago.

That would explain the delays because there is NO other plausible reason for them to be delaying a lawsuit in which they claim they did nothing wrong.

Unfortunately for them, they're in a lawsuit with the engine developers. Which means that any such tampering, obfuscation etc, will be detected fairly quickly.

Remember also that they have to submit ALL their code changes to Crytek, regardless of GLA conditions/requirement to do so.
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 #219 on: April 19, 2018, 12:49:12 PM »
Would be rather pointless, as Star Citizen is still bound to CE by their contract.

Not really. Remember they are claiming that the GLA didn't prevent them from switching. But if they were still using code that's unique to CE, though they claim to have switched to LY, then they are in serious trouble because they didn't switch. You see the conundrum?

By using the single license for SQ42 - even if they didn’t switch - they skirted having to fork out money for another license. That CryEngine is already free, has no bearing on that. And that’s the hilarious part of that specific issue.

Then they went all out and claimed to have switched to Lumberyard - though they didn’t.

They’re in a Catch-22 screw-up because even if the agreement allowed them to switch, they are still on the hook for the other claims - and they would have to PROVE (we don’t believe that they did, as it would be LOT of work. Because CE3 and LY are derivatives, they didn’t have to do a full 100% swtich) that they switched and no longer are using ANY part of CryEngine. And if they were not allowed to switch - then they did - well, here we are.

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 #220 on: April 19, 2018, 12:59:52 PM »
It may also be the case that switching to LumberYard is next to impossible. Whether CIG likes it or not, LY is a CE spin off. The terms of any settlement might be restrictive enough to affect LY.

They didn't switch back in 2016 when they said they did. They just weren't expecting Crytek to sue them in 2017.  So if they are hinging on the fact that the GLA allowed them to switch, then they will have to PROVE it by showing that there is NO Crytek specific code remaining in their custom code base. That both CE3 and LY are derivatives, is immaterial because Amazon has done do much work on LY, that it's trivial to see if there are any original CE code left in Star Citizen or SQ42. That's the major problem that they are facing. Remember, they DO have a license to SC; but they will be in breach of that because of Crytek's claims (of which there are five).

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.

Kyrt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #221 on: April 19, 2018, 03:56:57 PM »
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the judge's Dec 17th order, which she also cited in this ruling.

I quoted the current order which stated no such schedule was in place and that CIG were asking to delay something that wasn't going to happen until it was.
 
As for there being no such thing...that same quote refers to it.

Quote
That's categorically FALSE. That's not how the legal system works.

That's categorically FALSE. They can't because the judge already ruled that 1) they have to do the scheduling which leads to 2) discovery.


As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time.

The scheduling order you say doesn't exist has not yet been issued therefore CIG are under no current obligation to respond.

Quote
If they file another PO, it will be rejected as moot (again), because the judge already gave her instructions in the latest ruling. And she was pretty clear.

If CIG are seeking to simply delay the process or drag it out, then frankly it doesn't matter what the Judge has already ruled. They'll file for the PO...again...it'll be turned down...again...but CIG would have gotten the delay they want.

Unless there is a legal reason why they cannot refile...and there doesn't seem to be one...there seems to be little reason for them no to do so.

Kyrt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #222 on: April 19, 2018, 04:20:10 PM »
They didn't switch back in 2016 when they said they did. They just weren't expecting Crytek to sue them in 2017.  So if they are hinging on the fact that the GLA allowed them to switch, then they will have to PROVE it by showing that there is NO Crytek specific code remaining in their custom code base

To be honest, the way CIG are acting, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they knew the GLA did prevent switching....after all, why switch from one unsuitable engine to another....but simply didn't think CryTek would be around long enough to care or sue.


dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: CryTek v RSI/CIG
« Reply #223 on: April 19, 2018, 07:41:15 PM »
I quoted the current order which stated no such schedule was in place and that CIG were asking to delay something that wasn't going to happen until it was.
 
As for there being no such thing...that same quote refers to it.

As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time.

The scheduling order you say doesn't exist has not yet been issued therefore CIG are under no current obligation to respond.

If CIG are seeking to simply delay the process or drag it out, then frankly it doesn't matter what the Judge has already ruled. They'll file for the PO...again...it'll be turned down...again...but CIG would have gotten the delay they want.

Unless there is a legal reason why they cannot refile...and there doesn't seem to be one...there seems to be little reason for them no to do so.

Here is the order itself. Please read it in full, and explain to me what exactly it is you are having issues with.

https://www.docdroid.net/tx3rLrT/031127978036.pdf

Quote
Upon further review, the Court notes that Judge Gee issued an Initial Standing Order on December 13, 2017. Paragraph 4.b. of that order addresses
discovery before and after the scheduling conference
. Specifically, the order provides that “it is advisable for counsel to begin to conduct discovery actively before the Scheduling Conference.” Although early discovery is strongly encouraged, Judge Gee’s policy is not to require the parties to participate in discovery until a scheduling order has issued. As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time. The motion for stay, therefore, is moot and denied on that basis.

There is no "scheduling order" in the case.

Scheduling Order:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_16

Discovery Plan:

https://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/filing-a-lawsuit-the-discovery-process.html

BOTH parties already agreed on a discovery plan. It was filed on Feb 27th

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al

The next step would have been the "scheduling conference" (by both parties, similar to the discovery plan), which would then be filed so that the judge can issue a "scheduling order".

CryTek decided to start the discovery process early, no doubt due to the volume of material that would require.

CIG went along with it.

Both parties came up with the discovery plan which they filed on Feb 27th.

From the CryTek filing of Mar 27th, we find out why CIG objected to start discovery. One of those reasons what that instead of complying with discovery - as per the plan - they decided to start settlement talks. That was also premature and out of schedule. So Crytek rejected it - and opted to just move on to discovery.

CIG filed the PO object to discovery; instead opting to wait for the ruling on the MtD.

Because the judge does not require (it's a suggestion) parties to start discovery early|ahead of a scheduling order, the PO was moot as CIG wasn't required to comply with discovery anyway.

That was a 6 week delay - while waiting for the ruling. And that was time that they could have taken to do the scheduling conference and get it done - just like they did the discovery plan. Then submit that so the judge can issue a scheduling order, thus kicking off discovery.

Her ruling doesn't give CIG **any** opportunity to file another PO. Now they have to do the scheduling conference; submit it to the judge for her scheduling order.

Once that's acknowledged, they have to start discovery. With a scheduling order in place, if they attempt to file another PO, it will again get denied because there would already be a discovery plan, a scheduling conference, and a scheduling order from the judge.

There is NO basis in law for the discovery process to stop because a decision on an MtD is pending. If that were the case, the judge would have ruled on the MtD by now, instead of dealing with the bullshit (including oral arguments btw) of this PO. And Crytek's motion opposing it, lays out case law for this. And that didn't come into play because the PO was moot anyway, and the judge didn't even need to get into all that.

Again, all CIG did was buy themselves a 6 week delay. That's their "win" - and they've now used it up. They could have gone ahead with the scheduling conference (which was started, hence the discovery dispute), then file the PO thereafter if the judge hadn't ruled on the MtD by that time. Basically, they could have taken the 6 week delay before or after. Crytek's "win" is that now they get to go to discovery, though later rather than sooner. And CIG can't prevent or delay it now - given this order.

These tactics are all part of frustrating your opposition. And it's all perfectly legal. Until the judge gets pissed for wasting the court's time, while backing up the court dockets as a result.

And the ruling on the MtD is going to be hilarious because I fully expect the judge to deny it. In fact, CIG have got to know that it won't survive that motion or the judge, like how she disregarded Crytek's response to the PO because it was moot, would have also disregarded the PO as moot, while ruling on the MtD and sending everyone on their way. That she opted to toss the PO, while not ruling on the MtD - but telling them to go get their discovery act in gear - is a clear signal that the MtD ruling is coming soon, and that it's not going to end the case.
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 #224 on: April 19, 2018, 07:41:53 PM »
To be honest, the way CIG are acting, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they knew the GLA did prevent switching....after all, why switch from one unsuitable engine to another....but simply didn't think CryTek would be around long enough to care or sue.

Yeah that's basically 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.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk