Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

MadFrenchie

Kyleran said:

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.

Save the Game pledge packs come with a signed letter of thanks from Ortwin and CR!

Get yours know and show everyone you're a true believer for only $3,000 a pop!

Erillion

>>> for only $3,000 a pop!  >>>

More like ... 50 bucks.

This is the US law system ... anything else than an out-of-court settlement would surprise me.  In my opinion CryTek only wants money.

Have fun

BeansnBread

Erillion said:

>>> for only $3,000 a pop!  >>>

More like ... 50 bucks.

This is the US law system ... anything else than an out-of-court settlement would surprise me.  In my opinion CryTek only wants money.

Have fun

Of course they only want money. What the fuck do you think they're suing them for?

MadFrenchie

Erillion said:

>>> for only $3,000 a pop!  >>>

More like ... 50 bucks.

This is the US law system ... anything else than an out-of-court settlement would surprise me.  In my opinion CryTek only wants money.

Have fun

Yes but if you only go with go with the $50 letter it's recycled paper and no lifetime-gusranteed ink.  You don't want that- you want the good stuff with the lifetime guarantee that you'll always have it!

Erillion

BeansnBread said:

Of course they only want money. What the fuck do you think they're suing them for?

Justice ?

That is what the jurisdiction should be about.

Have fun

BeansnBread

Erillion said:

BeansnBread said:

Of course they only want money. What the fuck do you think they're suing them for?

Justice ?

That is what the jurisdiction should be about.

Have fun

Getting money for your product would be justice to them. You can question the validity of their claim, but their motive is that they want some kind of recompense for being screwed over (in their eyes). In civil court, money is what we use to make things fair again. Money is justice in the end.

Erillion

BeansnBread said:

Getting money for your product would be justice to them. You can question the validity of their claim, but their motive is that they want some kind of recompense for being screwed over (in their eyes). In civil court, money is what we use to make things fair again. Money is justice in the end.

It is my impression that in the US law system the only one who wins is the lawyers.

And that most of the money goes to them.

I would not call that "making things fair again".

Have fun

BeansnBread

Erillion said:

BeansnBread said:

Getting money for your product would be justice to them. You can question the validity of their claim, but their motive is that they want some kind of recompense for being screwed over (in their eyes). In civil court, money is what we use to make things fair again. Money is justice in the end.

It is my impression that in the US law system the only one who wins is the lawyers.

And that most of the money goes to them.

I would not call that "making things fair again".

Have fun

Umm... ok?

MadFrenchie

While no doubt lawyers charge far more than they're rationally owed for their work, Erillion is being way too simplistic on his assessment.  If only lawyers truly won, folks wouldn't bring suits because the benefit would not outweigh the cost.

Kyleran

MadFrenchie said:

While no doubt lawyers charge far more than they're rationally owed for their work, Erillion is being way too simplistic on his assessment.  If only lawyers truly won, folks wouldn't bring suits because the benefit would not outweigh the cost.

No worries, there will plenty of money to be shared by the plaintiffs and their lawyers if they win.

Likely CIG and its backers lose even if the plaintiffs don't prevail as CIG may have to eat much of the legal expenses.

At the very least its a distraction diverting executive attention away from the core mission, fundraisin..  er, I mean creating the game.

azarhal

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?

Doesn't look like it, CIG already asked them what they wanted and Crytek answered "I don't know".

From Crytek own discovery plan: During the Rule 26(f) conference, Defendants asked Crytek what it wanted from this case and whether it had a settlement demand. Crytek said it was not prepared to make a settlement demand or tell Defendants what it hoped to achieve from the lawsuit. Defendants asked Crytek what method of settlement procedure Crytek preferred; Crytek would not state. If this case is not fully dismissed, when Crytek is able to articulate its substantive settlement position, Defendants believe a constructive approach would be for the parties to appear before Magistrate Judge Mumm for a settlement conference.

edit: by the way, Crytek asked for every correspondances CIG had with its customers (i.e backers) including personal data.

MaxBacon

azarhal said:

Doesn't look like it, CIG already asked them what they wanted and Crytek answered "I don't know".

From Crytek own discovery plan: During the Rule 26(f) conference, Defendants asked Crytek what it wanted from this case and whether it had a settlement demand. Crytek said it was not prepared to make a settlement demand or tell Defendants what it hoped to achieve from the lawsuit. Defendants asked Crytek what method of settlement procedure Crytek preferred; Crytek would not state. If this case is not fully dismissed, when Crytek is able to articulate its substantive settlement position, Defendants believe a constructive approach would be for the parties to appear before Magistrate Judge Mumm for a settlement conference.

edit: by the way, Crytek asked for every correspondances CIG had with its customers (i.e backers) including personal data.

They weren't prepared, it's all about strategy if one is to exercise enough pressure first, doubt they ever wanted to go through the whole case without the prospect of settling, don't be so easily deceived by their initial standing hehe

They would not file one injunction before the court case even starts to halt the development of the game if they weren't looking into working for a settlement to face the fewer resistance from CIG to it as possible, one granted injunction would destroy the company altogether because they couldn't work at all, rendering the prospects of what they could get from a case as this rather insignificant.

Arglebargle

Kyleran said:

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.

I was contemplating a posting asking for suggestions about what CIG could sell next.  Then I read this.  Goes to the top of the list instanter! 

Kefo

Arglebargle said:

Kyleran said:

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.

I was contemplating a posting asking for suggestions about what CIG could sell next.  Then I read this.  Goes to the top of the list instanter! 

They make record amounts during the save the game campaign and then the jury grants the disgorgement of profits and the hilarity ensues as the death threats will surely fly

Balmong

Kefo said:

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

The "Adopting and promoting a competing game engine" part confuses me. Lumberyard is licensed out by Crytek. That's a business associate, not a competitor. 

I'm genuinely curious to see what Crytek would get awarded, especially since the judge has to have noticed they need this to keep the lights on over there. I'm not sure how they expected CIG to "collaborate on development" when they couldn't pay their software engineers.

Kefo

Balmong said:

Kefo said:

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

The "Adopting and promoting a competing game engine" part confuses me. Lumberyard is licensed out by Crytek. That's a business associate, not a competitor. 

I'm genuinely curious to see what Crytek would get awarded, especially since the judge has to have noticed they need this to keep the lights on over there. I'm not sure how they expected CIG to "collaborate on development" when they couldn't pay their software engineers.

Lumberyard is considered a separate game engine now. It doesn’t matter that it was originally cryengine because enough modifications have been done and amazon bought the engine rights outright.

i don’t think the judge will care if they need to keep the lights on if they deem CIG has violated the contract enough for an injunction. 

That last sentence is you trying to redirect to an issue that has no bearing on the issue

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

i don’t think the judge will care if they need to keep the lights on if they deem CIG has violated the contract enough for an injunction. 

This injunction has so little grounds that is like asking "please halt the development of their game for what we THINK and accuse them of using our copyrighted code".

I don't think a judge would before the case evens starts, where such accusations have no matter of evidence produced yet, order a company to stop operations.

But again, this is America, the land where little children are considered fitting to defend themselves in court in front of a judge... so who knows where logic fits in.

TheScavenger

This must be like porn for Derek Smart

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

i don’t think the judge will care if they need to keep the lights on if they deem CIG has violated the contract enough for an injunction. 

This injunction has so little grounds that is like asking "please halt the development of their game for what we THINK and accuse them of using our copyrighted code".

I don't think a judge would before the case evens starts, where such accusations have no matter of evidence produced yet, order a company to stop operations.

But again, this is America, the land where little children are considered fitting to defend themselves in court in front of a judge... so who knows where logic fits in.

Any judge that grants an injunction without evidence is probably going to have a lot of explaining to do. 

I would assume that they will need to goto discovery and then Crytek will have to prove that CIG is using the code in breach and then could apply for an injunction. At which point the judge can weigh the facts and make the call at that point to either grant or dismiss. 

Balmong

Kefo said:

Balmong said:

Kefo said:

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

The "Adopting and promoting a competing game engine" part confuses me. Lumberyard is licensed out by Crytek. That's a business associate, not a competitor. 

I'm genuinely curious to see what Crytek would get awarded, especially since the judge has to have noticed they need this to keep the lights on over there. I'm not sure how they expected CIG to "collaborate on development" when they couldn't pay their software engineers.

That last sentence is you trying to redirect to an issue that has no bearing on the issue

Is it though? How can a company in good faith cooperate on development of an engine if one of the teams is unable to effectively run their company? Crytek staff were jumping ship to Foundry 42 for that exact reason, it's well documented that they couldn't pay their employees for months.

I seriously don't see how they could have supported development if Crytek was actively going bankrupt at the time, and yet they want to include that in their reasoning for a breach of contract. A couple of those will stand, like the watermark, but I can see that being tossed out.  

Kefo

Balmong said:

Kefo said:

Balmong said:

Kefo said:

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

The "Adopting and promoting a competing game engine" part confuses me. Lumberyard is licensed out by Crytek. That's a business associate, not a competitor. 

I'm genuinely curious to see what Crytek would get awarded, especially since the judge has to have noticed they need this to keep the lights on over there. I'm not sure how they expected CIG to "collaborate on development" when they couldn't pay their software engineers.

That last sentence is you trying to redirect to an issue that has no bearing on the issue

Is it though? How can a company in good faith cooperate on development of an engine if one of the teams is unable to effectively run their company? Crytek staff were jumping ship to Foundry 42 for that exact reason, it's well documented that they couldn't pay their employees for months.

I seriously don't see how they could have supported development if Crytek was actively going bankrupt at the time, and yet they want to include that in their reasoning for a breach of contract. A couple of those will stand, like the watermark, but I can see that being tossed out.  

It doesn’t matter if They couldn’t pay their employees. The deal was that CIG collaborate with Crytek by sending out fixes to the code. Since they allegedly failed to do that they are in breach of contract and they could be shit out of luck

Wizardry

A contract is legal binding,however there can be additional contracts/wording that contradict each other so then it comes down to a judge to determine what is actually binding within the contracts.
I am quite certain that CIG's lawyer found some loophole they figure is a guarantee easy win to break the contract and manipulate it's wording.
Then we have to remember that CIG is a business number with in all reality no equity,everything is paid for by gamer's,Robert's and his brother and wife and lawyer stand to lose NOTHING.
That is why YOU people who give other so called devs a FREE PASS,free money you ruin it for all the legit developers and are encouraging a terrible business model.

Balmong

Wizardry said:

A contract is legal binding,however there can be additional contracts/wording that contradict each other so then it comes down to a judge to determine what is actually binding within the contracts.
I am quite certain that CIG's lawyer found some loophole they figure is a guarantee easy win to break the contract and manipulate it's wording.
Then we have to remember that CIG is a business number with in all reality no equity,everything is paid for by gamer's,Robert's and his brother and wife and lawyer stand to lose NOTHING.
That is why YOU people who give other so called devs a FREE PASS,free money you ruin it for all the legit developers and are encouraging a terrible business model.

It's not the "real" developers that see any of the money. It's Tencent, Sony, EA, and Activision that would stand to be harmed by CIG's business model. Obviously, with the amount of support for current/past projects, players are willing to cut out those big business's and deal directly with developers.

And Roberts does stand lose something, if this goes under, his name. He'll never work in the media industry again if this crashes and burns.

But you are correct, I doubt CIG would have taken the steps they did if they didn't think they had an ace in the hole. Whether it'll fly or not remains to be seen. 

rpmcmurphy

Balmong said:

And Roberts does stand lose something, if this goes under, his name. He'll never work in the media industry again if this crashes and burns.

But you are correct, I doubt CIG would have taken the steps they did if they didn't think they had an ace in the hole. Whether it'll fly or not remains to be seen. 

To be fair he ran himself out of the industry with the Digital Anvil/Freelancer debacle but that didn't stop him crawling back cap in hand. 

I think they took the steps they did out of hubris and their belief that Crytek was going to fold, there were comments made by CIG basically saying that at the time.

Arglebargle

CIG's continual need to bloviate endlessly will likely end up giving Crytek ammunition.  Though I pity the poor bastid that has to search all those videos for the incriminating bits.   But with all that hubris, there's bound to have been some loose lips a'flappin'.

Oh, and the last film that CR was involved with is still unreleased, and tied up in litigation to this day.   So he kinda ran himself out of Hollywood as well, as the movie business is weirdly superstitious about folks associated with a disastrous failure. 

Pretty sure that's what kindled his sudden desire for game design again.  It's not like he had any particular clue about the huge latent interest in the genre.  That came later.