Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

1131416181953

Comments

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    edited January 2018
    Considering the lawyer involved in this assessment has a vlog, I would be wary of putting all eggs into a basket of his interpretation.  The only likely reason he even commented was to attach his name to a hot topic.

    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.
    frostymug said:
    Still can't really say no bias considering he also talks about how he has unsuccessfully tried to log in to the game all weekend and currently has a support ticket open with them. He has a dog in the fight.

    It did seem like a pretty strong response by CIG. We'll see where it goes now.
    He's a backer as well, his channel is one popular channel on this sort of stuff, he just did the same with CIG/Crytek case as with many before.

    It's about time now, I wasn't expecting him to say the motion CIG presented to be likely to pass but that's his job so he can evaluate how strong a case is better than our perspective of the hyperbole that surrounds this stuff that is also what a judge reviewing the motion will get to decide upon...

    End of the day it's about seeing what will happen, the case doesn't show to be as strong as some around been savagely defending with those arguments about the "amazing reputation of Skadden that wouldn't take a case they could lose" and so on; the GLA alone shows how some of their points fall on a literal dispute over a word and its meaning, like the one about Crytek stating the GLA said they could not change the game engine.

    The thing on Crytek interpretation of the exclusivity clause seems too stupid to be true... then that clause that barrens accountability from both parts, just crazy.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Vrika said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Vrika said:


    Erillion said:

    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
    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.
    The Faceware Technology stuff is an (optional) app that populates whichever data set is storing the graphics for the characters head with alternative data - namely the users facial data. This was an easy call for CiG since they are using mocap software which populates a graphical data set.

    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.
    The question is not what Faceware Technology does, it's a question of whether RSI has given Crytek's intellectual property to Faceware Technology without authorization.
    As you say question is "if they have been given Crytek's IP". 

    Think about what the Faceware app does though. The app reads the users face and sends the data  to a dataset. Keyword: data. This "re-populates" a dataset within SC - not the Crytek engine. Which is also why SC does not need Faceware to run. It will have an inbuilt dataset; Faceware is not needed.

    This is the same principle as a keyboard or mouse driver sending data to populate a database with "co-ordinate data" that a program then uses. Could be a Corsair driver or a Razo driver or an MS driver. None of them will "access" the Crytek engine. Or any other engine.

    Input and outputs between one "program" and another "program" are fundamental to computer operation. "Program" in quotes because every driver on our computers is a program. Which work together via inputs and outputs.

    There is no more reason for Faceware Technologies to have access to Crytek than Corsair, or Razor or a Voice Chat program.  

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    hmmm as I understand this case, if any of the accusations crytek is having against CIG is true then the GLA stuff is obsolete and CIG has to pay full licensing fees (what is it ... 20%?) to crytech up to the date they changed to LY where all code except netcode in the game is based and developed on Crytech not on LY (basically the modules in LY are the same). Except there is a salvatorian clause somewhere, which I don't know in this case only the damages of the invalid paragraph has to be compensated (i.e. pay license fees for SQ42)

    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MinscMinsc Member UncommonPosts: 1,353
    hmmm as I understand this case, if any of the accusations crytek is having against CIG is true then the GLA stuff is obsolete and CIG has to pay full licensing fees (what is it ... 20%?) to crytech up to the date they changed to LY where all code except netcode in the game is based and developed on Crytech not on LY (basically the modules in LY are the same). Except there is a salvatorian clause somewhere, which I don't know in this case only the damages of the invalid paragraph has to be compensated (i.e. pay license fees for SQ42)

    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.
    Squadron 42 is not really marketed separately, and another part of that is that it must be launched separately from SC which it is not. You will still have to launch SC to get to Squadron 42.
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    gervaise1 said:
    Vrika said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Vrika said:


    Erillion said:

    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
    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.
    The Faceware Technology stuff is an (optional) app that populates whichever data set is storing the graphics for the characters head with alternative data - namely the users facial data. This was an easy call for CiG since they are using mocap software which populates a graphical data set.

    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.
    The question is not what Faceware Technology does, it's a question of whether RSI has given Crytek's intellectual property to Faceware Technology without authorization.
    As you say question is "if they have been given Crytek's IP". 

    Think about what the Faceware app does though. The app reads the users face and sends the data  to a dataset. Keyword: data. This "re-populates" a dataset within SC - not the Crytek engine. Which is also why SC does not need Faceware to run. It will have an inbuilt dataset; Faceware is not needed.

    This is the same principle as a keyboard or mouse driver sending data to populate a database with "co-ordinate data" that a program then uses. Could be a Corsair driver or a Razo driver or an MS driver. None of them will "access" the Crytek engine. Or any other engine.

    Input and outputs between one "program" and another "program" are fundamental to computer operation. "Program" in quotes because every driver on our computers is a program. Which work together via inputs and outputs.

    There is no more reason for Faceware Technologies to have access to Crytek than Corsair, or Razor or a Voice Chat program.  

    Faceware is modifying the Blendshapes therefore it needs access to the renderer which is part of the engine.

    You can see Blendshapes as muscles who are mesh dependent in opposite of bones who are skeleton dependant. Facestuff is usually done by Blendshapes (mostly including the yaw where the yawbone is deactivated), eyes are usually controlled by bones. In the case of faceware I would assume that they are using blendshape eye control which leads to some problems and is not a good idea but possible, but I don't know if faceware is controlling the eyes as well.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    edited January 2018
    Good thing with faceware is that it is very easy to implement in any engine*, they have an API for everything and their dogs... well not for their dogs - dogs like to have their own face animation ... it is using different ports and has its own traffic it sends and spreads just face animation, include API, set up your models (which should have the proper blendshapes anyway if modelled in MAYA) and you yre good to go. EQ2 (may you rest in peace old friend) did it in 2007.

    Edit:
    * The engine has to support Blendshapes otherwise it is a puppet without strings.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Minsc said:
    hmmm as I understand this case, if any of the accusations crytek is having against CIG is true then the GLA stuff is obsolete and CIG has to pay full licensing fees (what is it ... 20%?) to crytech up to the date they changed to LY where all code except netcode in the game is based and developed on Crytech not on LY (basically the modules in LY are the same). Except there is a salvatorian clause somewhere, which I don't know in this case only the damages of the invalid paragraph has to be compensated (i.e. pay license fees for SQ42)

    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.
    Squadron 42 is not really marketed separately, and another part of that is that it must be launched separately from SC which it is not. You will still have to launch SC to get to Squadron 42.
    If the game is being offered as a stand-alone title, I'm not sure using a similar launcher would afford protections.  Of course, the fact that neither products are actually being offered as a released product certainly muddies things a bit.

    image
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Minsc said:
    hmmm as I understand this case, if any of the accusations crytek is having against CIG is true then the GLA stuff is obsolete and CIG has to pay full licensing fees (what is it ... 20%?) to crytech up to the date they changed to LY where all code except netcode in the game is based and developed on Crytech not on LY (basically the modules in LY are the same). Except there is a salvatorian clause somewhere, which I don't know in this case only the damages of the invalid paragraph has to be compensated (i.e. pay license fees for SQ42)

    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.
    Squadron 42 is not really marketed separately, and another part of that is that it must be launched separately from SC which it is not. You will still have to launch SC to get to Squadron 42.
    If the game is being offered as a stand-alone title, I'm not sure using a similar launcher would afford protections.  Of course, the fact that neither products are actually being offered as a released product certainly muddies things a bit.
    Not sure it matters that it’s not finished but that they are receiving money for the products
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    edited January 2018
    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.
    lol proven? The word of Crytek is not what stands in law, what stands in law is what was in the contract, and that GLA defines "the game" as both "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'", with a passage allowing for name changes (Space Citizen > Star Citizen). Additionally, this term does not apply to any games made without CryEngine, and CryEngine is no longer used.

    That literal "and its related space fighter game" when referring to SQ42 as to what is covered by the license in the contract. They could only hold that argument if they could hold the argument CIG could not change engines, and that argument is falling on their understanding of a single word in the GLA, not proven, at max debatable.


    If the game is being offered as a stand-alone title, I'm not sure using a similar launcher would afford protections.  Of course, the fact that neither products are actually being offered as a released product certainly muddies things a bit.
    They could sell SQ42 standalone as some sort of DLC, still needing to start Star Citizen to play it, as one option on the menu, or even on the launcher.

    The same way I think originally they gave people the ability to buy Arena Commander access to be able to play AC standalone. 

    I think that standalone SQ42 pledge also comes with SC install, AC and SM are included with it attm.


  • Jamar870Jamar870 Member UncommonPosts: 573
    Btw, is this a/going to be a jury trial?

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    MaxBacon said:
    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.
    lol proven? The word of Crytek is not what stands in law, what stands in law is what was in the contract, and that GLA defines "the game" as both "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'", with a passage allowing for name changes (Space Citizen > Star Citizen). Additionally, this term does not apply to any games made without CryEngine, and CryEngine is no longer used.

    That literal "and its related space fighter game" when referring to SQ42 as to what is covered by the license in the contract. They could only hold that argument if they could hold the argument CIG could not change engines, and that argument is falling on their understanding of a single word in the GLA, not proven, at max debatable.
    [...]

    They advertised and sold SQ42 as a seperate product @jan2016 or am I missing something here?

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    edited January 2018
    well basically for me SQ42 and SC are the same, in programming terms they use the same assets, logic, libraries, engine one is online multiplayer, the other online single player. Where the multiplayer has a switch to change to single player :)
    So its easy to make it just a game mode.
    This is what was advertised in the kickstarter as a feature (or the other way round but sold as one universe)

    In the contract with cryengine it stated they may produce game modes as long as they want but not sell it seperately as long as its not an add on.

    Now in Jan 2016 they decide to sell SQ42 (which is not an add on - TESO Morrowind or EQ2 (may you rest in piece old friend) Ruins of Kunark are add ons) seperately from SC.
    It was a game mode now its a seperate sold game the fact that it shares the same launcher with SC doesn't change this ... noone would argue if StarCraft2 and Warcraft3 are different games.
    And this is in direct violation with the contract.

    So either...
    a) they broke Crytech GLA with selling a second game and have to pay the royalities tus the game has been developed on Cryengine for years (before the switch to LY which is mainly the AWS code which is irrelevant for sq42)
    ... or ...
    b) it is not a seperate product then they are not eligible for the UK tax rebate (around 4-5mil p.A.) which would be tax fraud.

    Option c) SQ42 has not been developed in cryengine before Dec2016 (live switch to LY/removal of Cry Logos) would be a blatant lie.

    In the end the jury will decide but in this case it will be a loose/loose for CIG regardless of the outcome.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    The point where they say that SQ42 may not be advertised and sold as a seperate game seems to be quite bulletproven.
    lol proven? The word of Crytek is not what stands in law, what stands in law is what was in the contract, and that GLA defines "the game" as both "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'", with a passage allowing for name changes (Space Citizen > Star Citizen). Additionally, this term does not apply to any games made without CryEngine, and CryEngine is no longer used.

    That literal "and its related space fighter game" when referring to SQ42 as to what is covered by the license in the contract. They could only hold that argument if they could hold the argument CIG could not change engines, and that argument is falling on their understanding of a single word in the GLA, not proven, at max debatable.
    [...]

    They advertised and sold SQ42 as a seperate product @jan2016 or am I missing something here?
    There is a standalone Squadron 42 pledge available right now.

    The page literally calls it "Squadron 42 Standalone Pledge":

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Squadron-42-Standalone-Pledge

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    edited January 2018
    They advertised and sold SQ42 as a seperate product @jan2016 or am I missing something here?
    They sold an SQ42 standalone pledge, yes, the defense claims the contract they made englobes squadron, and that as I quoted that the contract defines "the game" by both Star Citizen and SQ42. The debatable part is what does selling standalone mean, even if SQ42 must just end up as something part of the SC install you can buy standalone.

    This is the same perception this copyright lawyer had on it, and had an argument fight with Derek Smart himself at the end dismissing the legality of the points that describe what was licensed.

    Here's a peak at how that went:


  • OrinoriOrinori Member RarePosts: 751
    MaxBacon said:

    They could sell SQ42 standalone as some sort of DLC, still needing to start Star Citizen to play it, as one option on the menu, or even on the launcher.

    The same way I think originally they gave people the ability to buy Arena Commander access to be able to play AC standalone. 

    I think that standalone SQ42 pledge also comes with SC install, AC and SM are included with it attm.


    I would love to know where it states any of that as being needed. Anything I have read here so far clearly states SQ42 is it's own thing and people badly interpreting an avoidance of doubt clause as standard of proof is hurting my eyes! 
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    MaxBacon said:
    They advertised and sold SQ42 as a seperate product @jan2016 or am I missing something here?
    They sold an SQ42 standalone pledge, yes, the defense claims the contract they made englobes squadron, and that as I quoted that the contract defines "the game" by both Star Citizen and SQ42. The debatable part is what does selling standalone mean, even if SQ42 must just end up as something part of the SC install you can buy standalone.

    This is the same perception this copyright lawyer had on it, and had an argument fight with Derek Smart himself at the end dismissing the legality of the points that describe what was licensed.
    A for-profit company is selling a pledge? How does this work out?!?

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    edited January 2018
    A for-profit company is selling a pledge? How does this work out?!?
    You can ask that lawyer, this stuff is his job after all. He explained several bits through his review of the defense vs the complaint. Most of CIGs defense lies in quoting the GLA contract itself.

    But again, the GLA is there and it states not only both SC/SQ42, it separates both by one "AND", so yeah CIG selling SQ42 standalone but still as part/connected to SC is not a proven breach at all, I think it's quite debatable and that shall lie on the court's perception of that contract as well.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    A for-profit company is selling a pledge? How does this work out?!?
    You can ask that lawyer, this stuff is his job after all. He explained several bits through his review of the defense vs the complaint. Most of CIGs defense lies in quoting the GLA contract itself.

    But again, the GLA is there and it states not only both SC/SQ42, it separates both by one "AND", so yeah CIG selling SQ42 standalone but still as part/connected to SC is not a proven breach at all, I think it's quite debatable and that shall lie on the court's perception of that contract as well.

    You know you didn't answer what you quoted right? I think the correct answer would be ask an accountant
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    MaxBacon said:
    A for-profit company is selling a pledge? How does this work out?!?
    You can ask that lawyer, this stuff is his job after all. He explained several bits through his review of the defense vs the complaint. Most of CIGs defense lies in quoting the GLA contract itself.

    But again, the GLA is there and it states not only both SC/SQ42, it separates both by one "AND", so yeah CIG selling SQ42 standalone but still as part of SC is not a proven breach at all, I think it's quite debatable and that shall lie on the court's perception of that contract as well.
    As I said before, if it plays out in favour of CIG they would have problems with the UK Tax rebate.
    It is not longer a standalone UK game it would be part of an american game project.
    Best outcome then would be that they have to pay the tax rebate back for 2016.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    edited January 2018
    Kefo said:
    You know you didn't answer what you quoted right? I think the correct answer would be ask an accountant
    Not really, I think it is more of a contractual matter than anything else, I think it does not matter to the fact SQ42 was being sold individually, as a pledge, or a pre-order, or even a fully released game.


    As I said before, if it plays out in favour of CIG they would have problems with the UK Tax rebate.
    It is not longer a standalone UK game it would be part of an american game project.
    Best outcome then would be that they have to pay the tax rebate back for 2016.
    If it plays out in favor of CIG then the claim that they had the right to sell SQ42 standalone because the GLA mentions both in what they were allowed to use CE for stands, still making SQ42 its own thing. The ties back to SC are something that as talked about before but it's stuff for when the game is actually released.
  • OrinoriOrinori Member RarePosts: 751
    edited January 2018
    Vrika said:
    Based on GLA, I'd say that Crytek has good change of winning their complaint about Squadron 42:

    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.

    That's not how what you have shown should be interpreted in the slightest.

    This is how I presume any Judge will interpret those clauses in layman terms (and seems to be how Mr. French interpreted it):

    'CryTek gives licence to CIG to create a Star Citizen game (1st game) and related SQ42 game (2nd game) using CryEngine.

    we do not allow CIG to profit from or use content of Sq42 game or closely related Star Citizen game built with CryEngine, in any other non related SQ42 or Star Citizen games.'


    The only thing that seemed slightly contentious is the possible need for a single client to access SQ42 and Star citizen due to it being poorly written (perhaps intentionally who knows) as it states "and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client" which due to 'Game' makes this read as 'and not being accessed through the Star Citizen (and Star Citizen game and SQ42 game) client' which is a little ambiguous at best but being as this seems to be conditioned with other 'ands', one of which being 'separately' to 'Game', which SQ42 or Star Citizen clearly can not be separate from themselves and the other being 'accessed' which SQ42 is currently not being accessed makes the whole thing even more ambiguous or currently not applicable and probably does not prevent SQ42 game from providing its own client as well as Star Citizen its own client in the future due to the extremely loose wording (should it even be desired).  

    Then it moves on to try and present a typical example (none exhaustive) which seems to show the clause isn't intended for prevention or restriction of anything closely related to the Star Citizen game (which earlier on in the contract has already been established that SQ42 is closely related to Star Citizen). So while there are individual contentious areas the overall intention seems clear as written above near the start of this post.

    Some seem to get confused where it states "together hereafter the "Game"", Game does not = singular game. It could just have easily said "together hereafter the "Tomato""

    Now Tomato = "game currently entitled "Space Citizen" (1st entity / game) and its related space fighter game "Squadron 42" (2nd entity / game)". The words 'Game' and 'game' have very different meanings where written in the contract.
    Post edited by Orinori on
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Looks like the CIG response to the lawsuit is significant, after watching Leonard French's youtube video, he is a copywrite lawyer so i figure he probably knows what he is talking about, he goes through the response. The CIG response to me seems like the equivalent of them turning round to Crytek and giving them a swift kick in the nuts, thats my interpretation not Leonard French's btw though i think he might agree? But one thing is for certain, CIG response to Cryteks Lawsuit seems to be definitive, its hard to see how Crytek can come back from that one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti4R8JsJa9A&t
  • tawesstawess Member EpicPosts: 4,227
    Well, no matter what you think about CiG as game developers... Their legal retainers seem to be keen and on point. Unlike Crytechs. Because that was a right murder
    PhryBabuinix

    This have been a good conversation

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    tawess said:
    Well, no matter what you think about CiG as game developers... Their legal retainers seem to be keen and on point. Unlike Crytechs. Because that was a right murder
    Well, not only did CIG tear Crytech a new one, but after watching the youtube video, my impression was that Crytech was playing fast and loose with the truth. Crytechs response should be interesting, assuming they are able to, honestly CIG's response was damning imo, though hats off to Leonard French, working his way through that document section by section and explaining things was impressive. :)
    barasawa
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    Phry said:
    Well, not only did CIG tear Crytech a new one, but after watching the youtube video, my impression was that Crytech was playing fast and loose with the truth. Crytechs response should be interesting, assuming they are able to, honestly CIG's response was damning imo, though hats off to Leonard French, working his way through that document section by section and explaining things was impressive. :)
    What I think this clearly shows is that Crytek was slinging mud at the wall seeing if anything would stick, that's why when the GLA is brought to light we can see how superficial most of their claims are on things that based on the complaint you would expect were implicit on the contract.

    As he explains Crytek to do one of 2 things
    - Amend the complaint again
    - Counter the motion by presenting their list of arguments as to why the case shouldn't be dismissed

    Even Leonard was WTF'ing, especially at the "no damages mutual agreement in a 1.8million euro contract", asking for other lawyers to confirm he was not crazy.
    Phrygervaise1
This discussion has been closed.