Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
What Crytek was painting was black and white that CIG could not change engines, is not, and is very heavily to the understanding the court will make the "exclusivity" wording in the context it was put.
The other core point to the whole lawsuit, SQ42 being sold as its own game, in the definition of the game in the GLA: page 18 of exhibit C: STAR CITIZEN (the "game")
Features:
Squadron 42: Single Player - Offline or online (Drop in/Drop out co-op play)
Star Citizen: Persistent universe (hosted by CIG)
Mod-able Multiplayer (hosted by player)
One could argue they were given a license to develop SQ42, SC and the Moddable MP as it is implicit on the quoted GLA but can be open to interpretation on how does it play out with the bundled split. On a reality that CIG bought out Cryengine for the now revealed 1.8million.
Oh this gets interesting, can't wait for that professional copyright lawyer to get to review this and give his take on the case with both sides now presented.
Ortwin Freyermuth has a written conflict waiver signed by CryTek.
So that is at least one allegation (lawyer conflict of interest and using inside information) that was verifyably wrong - and forced CryTek to amend.
Thank you for the link above. Highly interesting to read the full GLA. And all the points that CryTek did NOT mention in their complaint. That sub-contracting was allowed, that Modding tools are mentioned in the contract, the definition of the "game", that the CryTek logos should be displayed 8 weeks before the final version launches (rendering moot the complaint that the Alpha version does not display CryTek logos) etc.
The price of 1.85 million Euro for a full buyout sounds like a good deal for CIG. Especially as the contract mentions that CryTek has no rights for further royalties from the game and this is fully covered through the buyout fee.
It should be noted that the contract in the part about deliverables does not mention any Kickstarter demo videos made by CryTek and to be used by CIG. Which renders moot some claims that the videos where not made by CIG but exclusively by CryTek.
The CIG lawyers use exaggeration to the same extend as the CryTek lawyers : "The GLA eliminates virtually every claim and remedy CryTek seeks"
I forsee a bitter fight about the meaning of the word "exclusively" in a legal context.
And the icing on the cake ... CryTek is raising a complaint against not only CIG but also RSI. And RSI is not even a party in the GLA. How can RSI be in breach of contract then?
I wonder what is in Part 3 that BOTH CryTek and CIG deleted.
The answer from CIG lists as lot of previous USA court cases and rulings to strengthen their argument.
Have fun
The fact alone that Crytek did not show the GLA at all when this is the logical thing for the complainant to do says a lot.
I presume Crytek shares the same mindset with you. The GLA is forged by a CIG white knight.
Sorry, your post is almost as ridiculous as CiG's. I can't even figure out what your point in the first paragraph here is, or the relevance of any of it.
Well, I already said that CiG's language is clearly the same as yours, so I guess it makes sense that you'd see the drivel as reasonable and logical (which it isn't)... apparently just because CiG was so altruistic and nice as to show the GLA. Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Feel free to keep directing bile at me instead of the actual legal documents (because apparently your best defense of CiG's legal documents is "They included the GLA, unlike Crytek! That's gotta mean something!". I will continue to point out various aspects of CiG's argument anyways, even while you and other CiG lovers continue to believe it actually constitutes a well-written legal defense. Good day!
Anyways, here's a fun one.
"Contrary to Crytek’s sham interpretation, and consistent with well-established jurisprudence on exclusive licenses, the GLA uses the word “exclusively” in § 2.1.2 to signify Crytek’s promise not to permit anyone other than CIG to “embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game.”"
CiG's response in several places reads like it was written by a five-year old.
That may be your impression.
Not shared by everyone.
Well ... one ... but we know the Dottore and his rhetorical style ;-) ....
Have fun
Crytek specifically mentioned that sub-contracting is allowed. Their complaint was that CIG did not follow the due process of informing Crytek of their contract with Faceware Technologies and have Faceware Technologies sign the required NDA with Crytek.
Live in 25 minutes from this post! A professional copyright lawyer will give his take on the whole thing, balancing out both the Crytek complaint and the CIG defense.
For people interested in information from people can give a proper professional opinion on this initial stage of this case.
I can't take this twit seriously with a young child's hat on.
I'll wait for the summary here.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
Might as well suggest that Corsair haven't signed an NDA for their mouse, keyboard and headset drivers?
Suffice to say, imo, this looks flimsy.
From GLA page 2:
"Whereas Licensee desires to use, and Crytek desires to grant the license to use, the "CryEngine" for the game currently entitled "Space Citizen" and its related space fighter game "Squadron 42", together hereafter the "Game""
From GLA page 18:
"For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client, e.g. a fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game (as opposed to an add-on / DLC to the Game)."
1. "Space Citizen" and "Squadron 42" are referred together as the Game in the agreement.
2. On page 18 RSI agreed that "the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately"
3. After package split of 15th of February 2016 RSI was in breach of the agreement when they started selling Star Citizen and Squadron 42 separately
4. Until 23rd of December 2016 buyers of Squadron 42 though that they were pre-purchasing a game that would use modified CryEngine. Even if RSI later changed SQ 42 to Lumberyard, they were using CryEngine's name to sell the game packages for nearly a year
But based on GLA, I'd say that RSI will win the complain about exclusivity: It looks like it was meant to give RSI rights, not to prevent RSI from using other game engines if they wish.
Leonard French programmer, and professional copyright lawyer referring to CIG's response to Crytek's frivolous lawsuit -
"sounds like a knock out punch to me"
The actual implication I intended was that Chris (the biggest Star Citizen white knight in existence) or someone close to him either wrote it and forced the lawyer to include it, or that they were breathing down the lawyer's neck and making him write various things (which is things many CEOs do to lawyers according to anecdotes that lawyer friends of mine told me). However, even that wasn't meant to be about taking it seriously so much as me basically stating "This legal reply is very poorly written."
If you think I was saying you shouldn't take it seriously because it's poorly written, that's your prerogative. I was only saying that it was poorly written. If saying "It was poorly written" doesn't meet your criteria for a meaningful contribution to this thread, that's okay. I don't care what you consider to be a meaningful contribution to this thread.
We shall see.
Weak enough he thinks the motion CIG presented might pass and the case will be dismissed.
Of course, details can change this whole thing, and that is about time, but good to have the input of people who know what they speak of without merging the bias factor in the argument.
"now that we see the game licencing agreement and such it does look compelling to me"
"I'm betting the Judge will rule in favor of Cloud Imperium, rule in favor of the motion to dismiss"
Question from audience: What would change your interpretation?
"If Crytek comes back and has some piece of evidence that CIG and RSI are now hiding from the court and not revealing here, which...why would they have that and not have revealed it in their first amended complaint or initial complaint so I really don't think so, I really don't think so."
"maybe Crytek will realize that they are up shit creek without a paddle and maybe they just err...phone this one in."
He's a defense lawyer for file-sharing defendants, traditionally, which also makes his assessment unsurprising.
It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
It did seem like a pretty strong response by CIG. We'll see where it goes now.
(although the GLA was poorly written too. That's more due to Ortwin being an incompetent lawyer in writing it many years ago than about SOMEONE or someoneS *shifty glance* at CiG clearly taking things personal when they wrote the reply to Crytek's legal complaint. ...that someone probably includes Ortwin too, though)
So... that's pretty much the opposite of biased if true. I suppose I could go around digging further to find if he said that but I'd rather not waste my time since it's not like his opinion on the subject, even if not biased, matters in the end, so if someone else is interested, they can try to do it. *shrug*