Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

MadFrenchie

kikoodutroa8 said:

Guys, look at the name, the avatar...
MadFrenchie is obviously fugly-hat law dude from youtube!!!

If I were a lawyer, the last thing I would be spending my time doing is reviewing case files I'm not getting paid to review!

Scolioz

yoop

kikoodutroa8

MadFrenchie said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Guys, look at the name, the avatar...
MadFrenchie is obviously fugly-hat law dude from youtube!!!

If I were a lawyer, the last thing I would be spending my time doing is reviewing case files I'm not getting paid to review!

Doesn't he have a patreon or something so that people can tip him dough in exchange for his reassuring words though? I think that's his bizness model.

Phry

MadFrenchie said:

Phry said:

MaxBacon said:

Erillion said:

It was my understanding that there is a possibility (although with a small probability) that the judge follows CIGs arguments and can dismiss the case outright.

So would it not be risky to withhold some document that supports CryTek's claims ?


Have fun

It can't be dismissed if there are questions to be answered, the fact CIG didn't address 2 of the complaints on the motion already sets that standard.

Questions to be asked, at the moment the only question on peoples minds is likely what are crytek smoking, i think it highly probable that CIG's 'response' to this latest Crytek response is likely to be the slam dunk, unless of course there is some document as yet unseen that suddenly makes everything clearer, which yes, it is extremely bizarre to risk the case not even getting to court without showing what is likely the most crucial piece of evidence necessary to back up your entire case, because based on current evidence shown, i don't think crytek has a hope in hell.
Personally i think this is just Crytek trying to string things along in the hope that CIG will give them money to go away, i also personally hope that CIG don't do that and that instead they nail Cryteks hide to a tree somewhere for public display, because, popcorn

It, from my understanding, doesn't quite work that way.  I highly doubt the judge would dismiss the case without seeing the part of the document Skadden cited to support their lawsuit, specifically when, as Bacon mentioned, CIG's response didn't address the complaint in full.

Again, I won't presume to know the final outcome of any hearing, but based on the information I've read, I feel like a judge would be remiss to neglect the chance to request those documents be presented for review before any judgement or motion to dismiss be issued.

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

Tiamat64

Phry said:

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

This case isn't some dinky forum war.  Crytek is under no obligation whatsoever to pander to the forum peanut gallery. The qualifications for a legal case to be dismissed are much higher and harder to get than the qualifications for a case to go to court.

This isn't even Round One of the battle. This is just the determination of whether or not there will be a battle, and it does not take that much for THAT.  As stated by Bacon, the case already meets the qualifications to go to Court.  There is no reason for Crytek to further respond to reasons why the case should be dismissed when the case already should not be dismissed.

Octagon7711

Like someone else said you don't get a top law firm to represent your interests if you've got nothing to stand on.  There seems to be enough in the contract to leave it up to the interpretation by the court.  Will be interesting to see what happens.  

Erillion

MadFrenchie said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Guys, look at the name, the avatar...
MadFrenchie is obviously fugly-hat law dude from youtube!!!

If I were a lawyer, the last thing I would be spending my time doing is reviewing case files I'm not getting paid to review!

Well, as he thanks one of his donators for a gift of 1000 $, its seems this is also a business model, although an unusual one.


Have fun

Phry

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

This case isn't some dinky forum war.  Crytek is under no obligation whatsoever to pander to the forum peanut gallery. The qualifications for a legal case to be dismissed are much higher and harder to get than the qualifications for a case to go to court.

This isn't even Round One of the battle. This is just the determination of whether or not there will be a battle, and it does not take that much for THAT.  As stated by Bacon, the case already meets the qualifications to go to Court.  There is no reason for Crytek to further respond to reasons why the case should be dismissed when the case already should not be dismissed.

This is what happens when things are in the public domain however, it highlights everything warts and all and in this case Crytek is looking none too pretty, i have no doubt that Crytek would rather not have to produce further evidence to back up their case, particularly if it doesn't actually exist, that they were unable to counter CIG's move to dismiss with any degree of confidence would lead me to suspect that its because they  are also very much aware that their foundations are shaky, very very shaky, so i'll be looking on with interest in how CIG once again deals with this, because on evidence produced so far, getting the case dismissed is practically a foregone conclusion. Crytek have not to my mind managed to produce any credible argument to back up their claims that wasn't also contradictory in nature. To me Crytek just look like they are stalling for time, trying to cast enough doubt on the outcome that CIG will decide to settle out of court and give them a few million $$, they need the cash, fairly desperately by the looks of things and this may well be an all or nothing deal for Crytek.

Tiamat64

Phry said:

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

This case isn't some dinky forum war.  Crytek is under no obligation whatsoever to pander to the forum peanut gallery. The qualifications for a legal case to be dismissed are much higher and harder to get than the qualifications for a case to go to court.

This isn't even Round One of the battle. This is just the determination of whether or not there will be a battle, and it does not take that much for THAT.  As stated by Bacon, the case already meets the qualifications to go to Court.  There is no reason for Crytek to further respond to reasons why the case should be dismissed when the case already should not be dismissed.

This is what happens when things are in the public domain however, it highlights everything warts and all and in this case Crytek is looking none too pretty, i have no doubt that Crytek would rather not have to produce further evidence to back up their case, particularly if it doesn't actually exist, that they were unable to counter CIG's move to dismiss with any degree of confidence would lead me to suspect that its because they  are also very much aware that their foundations are shaky, very very shaky, so i'll be looking on with interest in how CIG once again deals with this, because on evidence produced so far, getting the case dismissed is practically a foregone conclusion. Crytek have not to my mind managed to produce any credible argument to back up their claims that wasn't also contradictory in nature. To me Crytek just look like they are stalling for time, trying to cast enough doubt on the outcome that CIG will decide to settle out of court and give them a few million $$, they need the cash, fairly desperately by the looks of things and this may well be an all or nothing deal for Crytek.

That's... nice.

None of your feelings about Crytek and their desperation or reputation are relevant to the court case, though.  You keep treating this as if it's some sort of forum war where popularity and feelings and emotions of random people like you actually matter.  It's not.  This is a legal case, and the law is a much more serious matter.

Phry

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

This case isn't some dinky forum war.  Crytek is under no obligation whatsoever to pander to the forum peanut gallery. The qualifications for a legal case to be dismissed are much higher and harder to get than the qualifications for a case to go to court.

This isn't even Round One of the battle. This is just the determination of whether or not there will be a battle, and it does not take that much for THAT.  As stated by Bacon, the case already meets the qualifications to go to Court.  There is no reason for Crytek to further respond to reasons why the case should be dismissed when the case already should not be dismissed.

This is what happens when things are in the public domain however, it highlights everything warts and all and in this case Crytek is looking none too pretty, i have no doubt that Crytek would rather not have to produce further evidence to back up their case, particularly if it doesn't actually exist, that they were unable to counter CIG's move to dismiss with any degree of confidence would lead me to suspect that its because they  are also very much aware that their foundations are shaky, very very shaky, so i'll be looking on with interest in how CIG once again deals with this, because on evidence produced so far, getting the case dismissed is practically a foregone conclusion. Crytek have not to my mind managed to produce any credible argument to back up their claims that wasn't also contradictory in nature. To me Crytek just look like they are stalling for time, trying to cast enough doubt on the outcome that CIG will decide to settle out of court and give them a few million $$, they need the cash, fairly desperately by the looks of things and this may well be an all or nothing deal for Crytek.

That's... nice.

None of your feelings about Crytek and their desperation or reputation are relevant to the court case, though.  You keep treating this as if it's some sort of forum war where popularity and feelings and emotions of random people like you actually matter.  It's not.  This is a legal case, and the law is a much more serious matter.

My feelings? i don't even have a horse in this race. Though if i was a betting man i'd probably put 50 down on CIG, to win of course, when betting on a horse race i think its best to choose the horse with all four legs

frostymug

Phry said:

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

This case isn't some dinky forum war.  Crytek is under no obligation whatsoever to pander to the forum peanut gallery. The qualifications for a legal case to be dismissed are much higher and harder to get than the qualifications for a case to go to court.

This isn't even Round One of the battle. This is just the determination of whether or not there will be a battle, and it does not take that much for THAT.  As stated by Bacon, the case already meets the qualifications to go to Court.  There is no reason for Crytek to further respond to reasons why the case should be dismissed when the case already should not be dismissed.

This is what happens when things are in the public domain however, it highlights everything warts and all and in this case Crytek is looking none too pretty, i have no doubt that Crytek would rather not have to produce further evidence to back up their case, particularly if it doesn't actually exist, that they were unable to counter CIG's move to dismiss with any degree of confidence would lead me to suspect that its because they  are also very much aware that their foundations are shaky, very very shaky, so i'll be looking on with interest in how CIG once again deals with this, because on evidence produced so far, getting the case dismissed is practically a foregone conclusion. Crytek have not to my mind managed to produce any credible argument to back up their claims that wasn't also contradictory in nature. To me Crytek just look like they are stalling for time, trying to cast enough doubt on the outcome that CIG will decide to settle out of court and give them a few million $$, they need the cash, fairly desperately by the looks of things and this may well be an all or nothing deal for Crytek.

That's... nice.

None of your feelings about Crytek and their desperation or reputation are relevant to the court case, though.  You keep treating this as if it's some sort of forum war where popularity and feelings and emotions of random people like you actually matter.  It's not.  This is a legal case, and the law is a much more serious matter.

My feelings? i don't even have a horse in this race. Though if i was a betting man i'd probably put 50 down on CIG, to win of course, when betting on a horse race i think its best to choose the horse with all four legs

I'll take your bet

MadFrenchie

frostymug said:

Phry said:

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Tiamat64 said:

Phry said:

Cryteks response by the same token didn't address most of the reasons why the case should be dismissed either, so without that 'document' the existence of which is entirely questionable, its hard to see how dismissing the case out of hand is not the most likely outcome, the judge after all isn't interested in what might be, but what is, and given facts presented so far, i don't really fancy Cryteks chances, Crytek is fast becoming a laughing stock tbh that hole they are in is only getting deeper.

This case isn't some dinky forum war.  Crytek is under no obligation whatsoever to pander to the forum peanut gallery. The qualifications for a legal case to be dismissed are much higher and harder to get than the qualifications for a case to go to court.

This isn't even Round One of the battle. This is just the determination of whether or not there will be a battle, and it does not take that much for THAT.  As stated by Bacon, the case already meets the qualifications to go to Court.  There is no reason for Crytek to further respond to reasons why the case should be dismissed when the case already should not be dismissed.

This is what happens when things are in the public domain however, it highlights everything warts and all and in this case Crytek is looking none too pretty, i have no doubt that Crytek would rather not have to produce further evidence to back up their case, particularly if it doesn't actually exist, that they were unable to counter CIG's move to dismiss with any degree of confidence would lead me to suspect that its because they  are also very much aware that their foundations are shaky, very very shaky, so i'll be looking on with interest in how CIG once again deals with this, because on evidence produced so far, getting the case dismissed is practically a foregone conclusion. Crytek have not to my mind managed to produce any credible argument to back up their claims that wasn't also contradictory in nature. To me Crytek just look like they are stalling for time, trying to cast enough doubt on the outcome that CIG will decide to settle out of court and give them a few million $$, they need the cash, fairly desperately by the looks of things and this may well be an all or nothing deal for Crytek.

That's... nice.

None of your feelings about Crytek and their desperation or reputation are relevant to the court case, though.  You keep treating this as if it's some sort of forum war where popularity and feelings and emotions of random people like you actually matter.  It's not.  This is a legal case, and the law is a much more serious matter.

My feelings? i don't even have a horse in this race. Though if i was a betting man i'd probably put 50 down on CIG, to win of course, when betting on a horse race i think its best to choose the horse with all four legs

I'll take your bet

Forum shake on it!

Arglebargle

Most racehorse owners don't get a top flight jockey if their horse is lame.

Erillion

Arglebargle said:

Most racehorse owners don't get a top flight jockey if their horse is lame.

Who needs jockeys ;-) these days ?




Have fun

Arglebargle

Erillion said:

Arglebargle said:

Most racehorse owners don't get a top flight jockey if their horse is lame.

Who needs jockeys ;-) these days ?




Have fun

Funny there!   Be wary though, they'll announce this going into SC next week!      

Tiamat64

Arglebargle said:

Erillion said:

Arglebargle said:

Most racehorse owners don't get a top flight jockey if their horse is lame.

Who needs jockeys ;-) these days ?




Have fun

Funny there!   Be wary though, they'll announce this going into SC next week!      

You'll need your sand camel to escape all those pesky sandworms*.  This is all yours for only $90, but you can buy the special multi-hump camel pack for $900 for all you true humpers.



*sandworms and camels not to be finished being added to the game until the year 2029.

Babuinix

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

hfztt

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

Yeah, Goons will have a field day harassing whales post launch by stealing all their stuff.

The tears will be real on this one.

Then CIG will nerf it to shit making it impossible. Cannot loose those whales...

Babuinix

hfztt said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

Yeah, Goons will have a field day harassing whales post launch by stealing all their stuff.

The tears will be real on this one.

Then CIG will nerf it to shit making it impossible. Cannot loose those whales...

Let's pray to that. I'm sure the advocacy and insurance companies will love it.

kikoodutroa8

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

Babuinix

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

I think it will mostly resolve around big groups of people playing a video game together, and some giant worms, gotta have worms. 

Erillion

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

Arglebargle

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

More interesting looking than sand worms, or evil bears, ah, sand people....

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

Looks like somethng archered from HL2

kikoodutroa8

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

Dude that's a loving jpeg. I mean did you seriously have to post that? Why not post the space whale jpeg while you're at it?