Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

FlyByKnight

*40 PAGES! CONGRATULATIONS!!!*

MadFrenchie

FlyByKnight said:

*40 PAGES! CONGRATULATIONS!!!*

@Orinori, get in here and insult me, we got another 20 in us, at least!

Orinori

@MadFrenchie - I don't think so, Insulting French people for the heck of it is just really unnecessary and I could do without PETA on my back.

Octagon7711

Anyone know the current status of this?  Just wondering...

Phaserlight

Octagon7711 said:

Anyone know the current status of this?  Just wondering...

To my understanding, Judge Gee must rule on CIG's motion to dismiss.  If it carries, the case is over.  If it's denied then the case goes to discovery which will be illuminating to say the least:

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

rpmcmurphy

Judges ruling has been issued http://docdro.id/K7ugdJo

Copy/Pasted, originally written by Agony Aunt

---

An interesting part:

The GLA defines the parties to the agreement as CIG and Crytek, but RSI signed Exhibit 4 to the GLA, which presents the terms and conditions of the GLA

I wonder how intentional that was by CIG/RSI (considering they are effectively the same entity, if not the same legal entity) and what impact this has both on the case and how the judge views the case. Will the judge be thinking "Not binding then" or "these guys are shifty as hell"

Its noted that SQ42 was advertised as being sold as a separate game... interesting.

Oh, there is a nice bit later on where we get into the whole business about Lumberyard as well where its described as being a different engine.

Ah ha, here we go, page 6 - defendants request for dismissal: Defendants advance the theory that RSI is not a party to the GLA... but RSI signed it....

And the next page we have it, the court finds that RSI is a party to the contract due to the signature. Therefore no other arguments relating to this part need to be considered.

1:0 to Crytek

Looks like the cultists got it right on the exclusivity part though. The court interprets it as CIG are not forced to use CryEngine and are not excluded from using other engines. Therefore, in this case, exclusivity means they have the right to use it, not obliged.

Ok, so we are at 1:1 here.

Quick part on the display of logo, this one goes to Crytek, MTD denied on this point.

2:1 to Crytek.

Not clear to the court yet whether CryEngine was used in SQ42 (of course it was) but it determines that SQ42 is a separate entity, therefore MTD denied on this point.

3:1 to Crytek.

Claims for damages as part of the MTD..... and after a long discussion about the law and precendent, MTD on this point is denied.

4:1 to Crytek.

Copyright infringement - MTD, denied.

5:1 to Crytek

Prayer for relief, which comes in part. Monetary damages, denied; injunctive relief, denied; statutory damages and attorney fees, denied; punative damages, Granted! That's plus 3 for Crytek, plus 1 for CIG. Arguably though, that last one is a biggie.

Anyway the scores on the doors:

9:2 to Crytek

Request to Strike by CIG, denied.

10:2 to Crytek.

Crytek can now file an amendment that addresses the deficiencies in the claim OR alert the defendents they will go with this as it stands. They have 21 days to do this.

EDIT: Anyone want to go back and check out that lawyer dudes on youtube and their analysis and see how it matches up (or doesn't)....

---


CryRekt?

Kefo

rpmcmurphy said:

Judges ruling has been issued http://docdro.id/K7ugdJo

Copy/Pasted, originally written by Agony Aunt

---

An interesting part:

The GLA defines the parties to the agreement as CIG and Crytek, but RSI signed Exhibit 4 to the GLA, which presents the terms and conditions of the GLA

I wonder how intentional that was by CIG/RSI (considering they are effectively the same entity, if not the same legal entity) and what impact this has both on the case and how the judge views the case. Will the judge be thinking "Not binding then" or "these guys are shifty as hell"

Its noted that SQ42 was advertised as being sold as a separate game... interesting.

Oh, there is a nice bit later on where we get into the whole business about Lumberyard as well where its described as being a different engine.

Ah ha, here we go, page 6 - defendants request for dismissal: Defendants advance the theory that RSI is not a party to the GLA... but RSI signed it....

And the next page we have it, the court finds that RSI is a party to the contract due to the signature. Therefore no other arguments relating to this part need to be considered.

1:0 to Crytek

Looks like the cultists got it right on the exclusivity part though. The court interprets it as CIG are not forced to use CryEngine and are not excluded from using other engines. Therefore, in this case, exclusivity means they have the right to use it, not obliged.

Ok, so we are at 1:1 here.

Quick part on the display of logo, this one goes to Crytek, MTD denied on this point.

2:1 to Crytek.

Not clear to the court yet whether CryEngine was used in SQ42 (of course it was) but it determines that SQ42 is a separate entity, therefore MTD denied on this point.

3:1 to Crytek.

Claims for damages as part of the MTD..... and after a long discussion about the law and precendent, MTD on this point is denied.

4:1 to Crytek.

Copyright infringement - MTD, denied.

5:1 to Crytek

Prayer for relief, which comes in part. Monetary damages, denied; injunctive relief, denied; statutory damages and attorney fees, denied; punative damages, Granted! That's plus 3 for Crytek, plus 1 for CIG. Arguably though, that last one is a biggie.

Anyway the scores on the doors:

9:2 to Crytek

Request to Strike by CIG, denied.

10:2 to Crytek.

Crytek can now file an amendment that addresses the deficiencies in the claim OR alert the defendents they will go with this as it stands. They have 21 days to do this.

EDIT: Anyone want to go back and check out that lawyer dudes on youtube and their analysis and see how it matches up (or doesn't)....

---


CryRekt?

Does this mean they can start with discovery now? I know the judge ruled that CIG didn’t have to provide any documents until a decision has been made.

Kefo

Nm read a bit more of the document and it looks like discovery can begin assuming CIG plays ball.

will be rather interesting if an injunction is filed and crytek wins it.

MaxBacon

At the pace this goes, this will likely only get sorted around 2020. Like posted...

• "CIG could use other engine than CryEngine for SC (unless Crytek provides more relevant stuff to court, which is unlikely)
• removal of Crytek logo was possibly a breach of terms
• usage of CryEngine in SQ42 was possibly a breach of terms
• Crytek can try to claim some damage in form of monetary damage
• Crytek can try to claim copyright infringement as well

All possibilities are as in "You can sue them, court will decide".
As for the solution (again solved in court):

• Crytek can ask for monetary compensation
• Crytek can ask for injunctive relief (i.e. asking CIG to stop using any CryEngine part (maybe in SQ42 only?) - even if it's inside Lumberyard, I assume, but court would have to decide, of course)
• Crytek can ask for statutory fees
• Crytek cannot ask for punitive damages (unless Crytek provides more relevant stuff to court, which is again unlikely)"

When it comes to money, without punitive damages seems we would not be talking about any large sums of money, so I wonder how they'll play it as if the case drags both parties would be at a loss of money in legal costs.

azarhal

Crytek was probably hoping for an out of court settlement...

Kyleran

MaxBacon said:

At the pace this goes, this will likely only get sorted around 2020. Like posted...

• "CIG could use other engine than CryEngine for SC (unless Crytek provides more relevant stuff to court, which is unlikely)
• removal of Crytek logo was possibly a breach of terms
• usage of CryEngine in SQ42 was possibly a breach of terms
• Crytek can try to claim some damage in form of monetary damage
• Crytek can try to claim copyright infringement as well

All possibilities are as in "You can sue them, court will decide".
As for the solution (again solved in court):

• Crytek can ask for monetary compensation
• Crytek can ask for injunctive relief (i.e. asking CIG to stop using any CryEngine part (maybe in SQ42 only?) - even if it's inside Lumberyard, I assume, but court would have to decide, of course)
• Crytek can ask for statutory fees
• Crytek cannot ask for punitive damages (unless Crytek provides more relevant stuff to court, which is again unlikely)"

When it comes to money, without punitive damages seems we would not be talking about any large sums of money, so I wonder how they'll play it as if the case drags both parties would be at a loss of money in legal costs.

If comes down a protracted legal battle RI wins hands down, after all, they are paying their lawyers with "your" money, no problem. 

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

At the pace this goes, this will likely only get sorted around 2020. Like posted...

• "CIG could use other engine than CryEngine for SC (unless Crytek provides more relevant stuff to court, which is unlikely)
• removal of Crytek logo was possibly a breach of terms
• usage of CryEngine in SQ42 was possibly a breach of terms
• Crytek can try to claim some damage in form of monetary damage
• Crytek can try to claim copyright infringement as well

All possibilities are as in "You can sue them, court will decide".
As for the solution (again solved in court):

• Crytek can ask for monetary compensation
• Crytek can ask for injunctive relief (i.e. asking CIG to stop using any CryEngine part (maybe in SQ42 only?) - even if it's inside Lumberyard, I assume, but court would have to decide, of course)
• Crytek can ask for statutory fees
• Crytek cannot ask for punitive damages (unless Crytek provides more relevant stuff to court, which is again unlikely)"

When it comes to money, without punitive damages seems we would not be talking about any large sums of money, so I wonder how they'll play it as if the case drags both parties would be at a loss of money in legal costs.

I would say without punitive damages on the table the worst result for CIG would be a court ruling that allows Crytek to pull all engine licensing from CIG.  Depending upon how they look at Lumberyard, that would be disastrous.  Otherwise, it will likely just mean some of the backer money goes to defending the lawsuit instead of development and not much more.

The items that are being examined certainly seemed avoidable.  Things like taking CryEngine logo out is just boneheaded if it does violate the contract.  It's such an easy thing to include in their videos; I would feel foolish if such a thing resulted in a monetary damage to my company.

Tiamat64

The judge actually stated in her notes that in regards to exclusitivity, even if she was granting the motion to dismiss Crytek's claims for 2.1, 2.4 still stands.  2.1 is the one that used "exclusively" all over the place but  2.4 is the non-compete clause.

So it appears the judge herself is pointing out that even though CiG can ignore 2.1 with all its "exclusively" ramblings, they're still probably on the hook for that anyways due to the noncompete clause in 2.4.


source:  

Bottom of page 11, footnote 6.

"Even if the court were to construe Section 2.1.2 to permit Defendants to abandon CryEngine in favor of another engine... that same abandonment and concomitant development of that other engine constitutes breaches of 2.4."

(2.1.2 is the exclusitive blabbering. 2.4 is the non-compete clause)

It really doesn't get much more plain-language than that. The judge didn't even bother using lawyer legalese speak to point it out.

Arglebargle

Yay!  Discovery.   CIG shouldn't have any trouble if they're not inefficient and wasteful.  Or doing naughty tricks with those 20+ shell corporations. 

ScotchUp

My only question, could anyone go to jail in a worse case scenario?

Vrika

ScotchUp said:

My only question, could anyone go to jail in a worse case scenario?

No.

When investigating there's always a possibility that something new turns up, but current charges can't result in anyone going to jail.

Balmong

I wouldn't be surprised if CIG moves for a protective order on the discovery, since they are still a company in business. 

ScotchUp

Balmong said:

I wouldn't be surprised if CIG moves for a protective order on the discovery, since they are still a company in business. 

I expect that, but Judge may rule backers of the project have a right to see the financials, like any other business backing the game.

Balmong

ScotchUp said:

Balmong said:

I wouldn't be surprised if CIG moves for a protective order on the discovery, since they are still a company in business. 

I expect that, but Judge may rule backers of the project have a right to see the financials, like any other business backing the game.

Why though? Backers aren't the ones suing CIG, Crytek is, the judge isn't just going to order someone to make it's financials public if it isn't directly related to the trial. It's much more likely that any and all discovery will be sealed for Crytek's eyes only. 

It probably wouldn't even be that hard. With the number of people slavering all over this, and some of them being those of malicious intent or competitors, i could see it being labeled trade secrets.

As per Rule 26(C) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move the court for a protective order.  The motion must include a certification that the person has in good faith conferred with other parties in an effort to solve the dispute without the interference of court.  The court may issue an order to protect a party from annoyance, oppression, undue burden, expense by forbidding the disclosure or discovery, forbidding inquiry into certain matters, designating persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted, requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order, requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed, and requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents in sealed envelopes which has to be opened as the court directs.

https://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/discovery/protective-order/

Kyleran

ScotchUp said:

Balmong said:

I wouldn't be surprised if CIG moves for a protective order on the discovery, since they are still a company in business. 

I expect that, but Judge may rule backers of the project have a right to see the financials, like any other business backing the game.

Probably not, unless relevant in some manner to the trial itself or the financial integrity of the firm is in serious question.

This isn't a bankrupcy hearing.

Kefo

Crytek wasted no time filing their amended complaint. 

They are demanding a jury trial for the following issues

A) breach of contract
copyright infringement 

And are using the following issues to support A and B

1) developing a separate game using cryengine without permission
2) removing trademark and copyright notices without permission
3) adopting and promoting a competing game engine
4) broke their promise to collaborate on cryengine development
5) disclosed Crytek technology to third parties without permission

Their prayer for relief are as follows

i) damages(direct, indirect, special, consequential)and fees, costs and expenses for breach of contract and copyright infringement
ii) permenant injunction (this is the game killer if this passes)
iii) actual damages and disgorgement of profits
iv) awarding all remedies provided under 17 U.S.C. 504
v) granting any other relief the court deems proper

Erillion

Link to amended complaint please.

Thank you

Have fun

Kefo

Erillion said:

Link to amended complaint please.

Thank you

Have fun

https://www.docdroid.net/Btqzzhy/031128797590.pdf#page=16

Should work

*edit cause I can’t spell lol*

MaxBacon

Oh Crytek, you edgy!

If they are filling an injunction as that is to threaten CIG of the potential it has to halt Star Citizen development... So they're trying to corner CIG into a settlement huh?

Kyleran

MaxBacon said:

Oh Crytek, you edgy!

If they are filling an injunction as that is to threaten CIG of the potential it has to halt Star Citizen development... So they're trying to corner CIG into a settlement huh?

Absolutely, they have had their strategy planned out since the start, hoping the potential threat of injunction, however remote is enough to force a settlement.

I'm sure CIGs lawyers have their own strategies to counter, one of which might be to delay this as long as possible and try to outlast Crytek and bury them in legal fees.

After all, CIG is pulling in $2-3M a month currently,  plenty of cash to cover the lawyers, right?

If not, imagine how much they might be able to raise with a "Save the Game" funding campaign. Another $50M easy I'm sure.