Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Orinori

kikoodutroa8 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL8chWFuM-..

I didn't see a single fat lady!

gervaise1

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

Whilst I think they probably switched to LY for other technical orientated reasons - Amazon seem to be throwing a lot of resource at LY - I think this is probably the core of the issue. Is LY "Crytek CryEngine" or not? 

@Octagon7711 what you say would be the case if they had switched to e.g. Unity (assuming they could do so etc.) I don't see any suggestion here though that that are using anything but "CryEngine".

The issue I think is - as @MadFrenchie alludes to - is the relationship between LY and "crytek Cryengine". Yes they are governed by different licensing agreements but that in itself doesn't necessarily make them "different". The Android example I gave is a case in point - buy a phone from Samsung and it will be Samsung's licencing agreement you are faced with; buy a Pixel you have one directly with Google. To mere users they are both Android though. They are "the same" but different - context being the key.

This could come down to "sub-licencing". What has been agreed between not just Crytek and RSI but Crytek and Amazon.

Going forward do RSI - for engine use: pay Crytek; or have Crytek already been paid by Amazon and RSI should pay Amazon; or are RSI expected to pay both Crytek and Amazon just for using the engine? (There is the other Amazon stuff of course).  

I don't see any suggestion that RSI they ever expected to pay for engine usage (using LY comes with a cost!)  I doubt that they expected to pay twice however. It may well be in RSI's best interests for this to be decided legally.

Kefo

azarhal said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

CIG stopped taking CryEngine build updates late 2015. That was before announcing the SQ42 only package (Dec 2015 announcement, but didn't happen until Feb 2016), starting to use StarEngine (mid-2016 change) and announcing the switch to Lumberyard (a late 2016 announcement). If they aren't taking new builds anymore, they can't really push fixes into the Crytek branch either.

The entire list of issues Crytek has with CIG start in November 2015 which line up nicely with CIG stopping to take new builds from them.

In other word, Crytek is not telling the whole story and I wouldn't be surprised that CIG will mention in their response that they considered the contract with Crytek terminated since they stopped to take code drops from them in late 2015.

It doesn't matter that they stopped taking updates from Crytek since 2015. CIG's agreement with Crytek included bug fixes to the core engine and when Crytek contacted them asking where the bug fixes were CIG lied and then stone walled them.

Kefo

Gruug said:

One, we do not know what the contractual agreement was between Star Citizen and Crytech. There could have been a clause in their contract that stated that Star Citizen had the right to replace the engine at any time if it was deemed needed to develop the game. The game is still in development and changing engines is not an uncommon practice. I would suggest that Crytech's money problems are starting to make them just a bit over reaching in an attempt to save themselves.

What money problems? You mean the half billion dollars they got as an investment this time last year? I'm not sure that can be classified as a money problem.

Phaserlight

Orinori said:

Dauzqul said:

lol @ all the lawyers here. Keep pretending!

shh, don't let them know, It's 5 Days before the first SQ42 clip. Need some build up entertainment.

I'll admit it's fairly entertaining:

https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi

Wow.

And this:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/12/crytek-sues-star-citizen-developers-over-game-engine

"Crytek further alleges that RSI [...] shared confidential pieces of CryEngine code in a 'BugSmashers' video series."

LOL

Kefo

Phaserlight said:

Orinori said:

Dauzqul said:

lol @ all the lawyers here. Keep pretending!

shh, don't let them know, It's 5 Days before the first SQ42 clip. Need some build up entertainment.

I'll admit it's fairly entertaining:

https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi

Wow.

And this:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/12/crytek-sues-star-citizen-developers-over-game-engine

"Crytek further alleges that RSI [...] shared confidential pieces of CryEngine code in a 'BugSmashers' video series."

LOL

Oh there's like 15 articles about this 

Octagon7711

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

Whilst I think they probably switched to LY for other technical orientated reasons - Amazon seem to be throwing a lot of resource at LY - I think this is probably the core of the issue. Is LY "Crytek CryEngine" or not? 

@Octagon7711 what you say would be the case if they had switched to e.g. Unity (assuming they could do so etc.) I don't see any suggestion here though that that are using anything but "CryEngine".

The issue I think is - as @MadFrenchie alludes to - is the relationship between LY and "crytek Cryengine". Yes they are governed by different licensing agreements but that in itself doesn't necessarily make them "different". The Android example I gave is a case in point - buy a phone from Samsung and it will be Samsung's licencing agreement you are faced with; buy a Pixel you have one directly with Google. To mere users they are both Android though. They are "the same" but different - context being the key.

This could come down to "sub-licencing". What has been agreed between not just Crytek and RSI but Crytek and Amazon.

Going forward do RSI - for engine use: pay Crytek; or have Crytek already been paid by Amazon and RSI should pay Amazon; or are RSI expected to pay both Crytek and Amazon just for using the engine? (There is the other Amazon stuff of course).  

I don't see any suggestion that RSI they ever expected to pay for engine usage (using LY comes with a cost!)  I doubt that they expected to pay twice however. It may well be in RSI's best interests for this to be decided legally.

According to the complaint part of the agreement was to only use their engine, and to only use it for one game SC, which would have prohibited them from switching, using multiple engines, or using it for multiple games.  No one has mentioned Amazon except for forum posters. Crytek is clearly focused only on CIG's original agreement at this point.

Erillion

coretex666 said:

@Erillion What is the mood in the office these days?

Excellent, thank you very much.

Had our company X-Mas party yesterday. Davor Glühwein und Weihnachtsmarkt ;-)


Have fun

Orinori

Phaserlight said:

Orinori said:

Dauzqul said:

lol @ all the lawyers here. Keep pretending!

shh, don't let them know, It's 5 Days before the first SQ42 clip. Need some build up entertainment.

I'll admit it's fairly entertaining:

https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi

Wow.

And this:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/12/crytek-sues-star-citizen-developers-over-game-engine

"Crytek further alleges that RSI [...] shared confidential pieces of CryEngine code in a 'BugSmashers' video series."

LOL

Is it wrong that all I see is free advertisement

Vrika

azarhal said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

CIG stopped taking CryEngine build updates late 2015. That was before announcing the SQ42 only package (Dec 2015 announcement, but didn't happen until Feb 2016), starting to use StarEngine (mid-2016 change) and announcing the switch to Lumberyard (a late 2016 announcement). If they aren't taking new builds anymore, they can't really push fixes into the Crytek branch either.

The entire list of issues Crytek has with CIG start in November 2015 which line up nicely with CIG stopping to take new builds from them.

In other word, Crytek is not telling the whole story and I wouldn't be surprised that CIG will mention in their response that they considered the contract with Crytek terminated since they stopped to take code drops from them in late 2015.

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Erillion

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

Izzin

Another point to consider is at what point would providing "fixes" expose CIG's IP. Remember, they rewrote much of the engine. Moving to 64 bit precision, and other modifications.

At what point does it become impossible to provide "bug fixes" because they are no longer to the core engine. This is why I believe they purchased the engine outright, so they had the source code to modify it to this extreme. 

If the bug fixes that interact with the non modified portion of the engine are reliant on the rebuild of other subsystems. Would this prevent the ability to give a "compatible" bug fix. 

This will be an interesting case to watch for certain. There are many things we do not know enough information to make informed decisions. 

--Izz

Octagon7711

Like others have said, I don't think CIG wants their financial records dragged through the court system and will be prepared to provide a nice size settlement to make it just go away with both sides being silent afterwards.   Leaving everyone with only speculation and a few leaks which will be argued over for years to come.

Kefo

Octagon7711 said:

Like others have said, I don't think CIG wants their financial records dragged through the court system and will be prepared to provide a nice size settlement to make it just go away with both sides being silent afterwards.   Leaving everyone with only speculation and a few leaks which will be argued over for years to come.

Depends if Crytek is really out for blood on this one or not. If they think they can get more out of CIG in court then it will make for some awesome popcorn time lol

BeansnBread

Octagon7711 said:

Like others have said, I don't think CIG wants their financial records dragged through the court system and will be prepared to provide a nice size settlement to make it just go away with both sides being silent afterwards.   Leaving everyone with only speculation and a few leaks which will be argued over for years to come.

Think about the leverage though. If CIG has been kind of iffy with their financials, there may be a lot of leverage for the Crytek lawyers to pull. Sueing for anything that even has the possibility of opening their books gives an incredible advantage to the person suing, especially when you are sueing a crowdfunded effort. They don't actually want their backers to know what they've been doing, like you said. But to a powerful law firm, they are currently deciding HOW BAD they don't want people to know. It's not easy to be in CIG's position unless they are ok with a lot of their financials going public.

Tiamat64

The financials alone means that Cryptek probably has CiG by the throat.  And that's before considering other possibilities.  If they do settle, CiG will be at a heavy disadvantage, and since Crytek hired a law firm that knows what it's doing, I'm sure Crytek is very VERY aware of that.

And as pointed out, if Crytek is out for blood, well.... sucks even more for CiG.

It might have been a different case if we could just say Crytek are idiots who don't know what they're doing.  But it's a fact that no matter how "particularly competent" Crytek is, it's a 100% fact that they at least hired someone who will make sure to exploit every potential opportunity.

BeansnBread

Tiamat64 said:

The financials alone means that Cryptek probably has CiG by the throat.  And that's before considering other possibilities.

Yup. I think that is the actual scary part for CIG. These guys aren't going to go light on them.

Izzin

As I posted earlier in this thread. The most interesting portion of this will be the setting of a legal precedence on if funds acquired via crowd funding in the US are actually considered Profit or some other type of financial state. 

-Izz

kikoodutroa8

Erillion said:

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

You need to read the whole sentence.

Tiamat64

Izzin said:

As I posted earlier in this thread. The most interesting portion of this will be the setting of a legal precedence on if funds acquired via crowd funding in the US are actually considered Profit or some other type of financial state. 

-Izz

It'll be about time for US law to address that finally.  They aren't a charity, that's for sure!  (despite what many Star Citizen fanboys seem to believe)

gervaise1

Octagon7711 said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

Whilst I think they probably switched to LY for other technical orientated reasons - Amazon seem to be throwing a lot of resource at LY - I think this is probably the core of the issue. Is LY "Crytek CryEngine" or not? 

@Octagon7711 what you say would be the case if they had switched to e.g. Unity (assuming they could do so etc.) I don't see any suggestion here though that that are using anything but "CryEngine".

The issue I think is - as @MadFrenchie alludes to - is the relationship between LY and "crytek Cryengine". Yes they are governed by different licensing agreements but that in itself doesn't necessarily make them "different". The Android example I gave is a case in point - buy a phone from Samsung and it will be Samsung's licencing agreement you are faced with; buy a Pixel you have one directly with Google. To mere users they are both Android though. They are "the same" but different - context being the key.

This could come down to "sub-licencing". What has been agreed between not just Crytek and RSI but Crytek and Amazon.

Going forward do RSI - for engine use: pay Crytek; or have Crytek already been paid by Amazon and RSI should pay Amazon; or are RSI expected to pay both Crytek and Amazon just for using the engine? (There is the other Amazon stuff of course).  

I don't see any suggestion that RSI they ever expected to pay for engine usage (using LY comes with a cost!)  I doubt that they expected to pay twice however. It may well be in RSI's best interests for this to be decided legally.

According to the complaint part of the agreement was to only use their engine, and to only use it for one game SC, which would have prohibited them from switching, using multiple engines, or using it for multiple games.  No one has mentioned Amazon except for forum posters. Crytek is clearly focused only on CIG's original agreement at this point.

The part about only using their engine i.e. CryEngine would, subject to any caveats, prevent them using Unity etc. for sure. The "engine" bit in LY though is still CryEngine - would you dispute this? Now a court may decide it is a "different" engine but I don't think its clear cut. And all the other stuff that Amazon has added has the same status as "bespoke code" - which no one says they cannot add. 

Only use it for one game. Well currently there are 0 games - so in a way that part is moot. Now I think the core of this is Crytek wanting to make sure that any royalties they get "per game" will accrue from SC / SQ42 / SC+SQ42 packages. 

In "good faith" RSI can say they have not changed their planned content. Yes they have changed their "pledge packages". 0 "games" have been launched however - or exist - and RSI could say "sorry" we will revert to a single pledge package: SC+SQ42 - so back to just one "game". All existing SQ42 development pledge packages will now get SC - so nothing taken away from people who have pledged for SQ42 only; no character slots to be provided however for these ex-SQ42 packages. So no change. As I said though I think this is Crytek wanting to make sure that they get royalties on "all sales". 



As tp the provision of "bug fixing stuff" is also mentioned above:

Crytek's own words: 

"Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version" 

make it 100% clear that RSI have provided "bug fixes". That is the only possible way the words can be read.

What Crytek are complaining about is that Crytek have not provided them in a way that makes it easy for them. And it will presumably cost them money etc.

And to this end they talk about "good faith". What they don't talk about is "as required by GLA x.x.x". Interpretation: nothing specificed. RSI could provide the bug fixes in Ancient Greek chiseled on to stone tablets and meet the "letter of the agreement". 

Which is why I - purposefully - used the phrase "good faith" in the bit about one game vs, two games above. "Good faith" and "exact wording of agreements" can - and often do - cut both ways. 

Tiamat64

gervaise1 said:

The part about only using their engine i.e. CryEngine would, subject to any caveats, prevent them using Unity etc. for sure. The "engine" bit in LY though is still CryEngine - would you dispute this? Now a court may decide it is a "different" engine but I don't think its clear cut. And all the other stuff that Amazon has added has the same status as "bespoke code" - which no one says they cannot add. 

Lumberyard is legally considered a different entity from CryEngine.  Different trademarks, different license agreements, different owners, different anything-that-has-to-do-with-legality.  That's all that matters.   If Lumberyard came and stabbed you in the gut, you'd be pressing charges against Amazon and Lumberyard, not Crytek and not CryEngine, because Lumberyard is entirely Amazon's and an entirely separate legal entity from Cryengine even if both use the same knife fighting style (and CryEngine was Lumberyard's sensei).  The complaint isn't about the code being used (in this case. The portion about the code being sent to Facetek and Bugsmashers has nothing to do with Lumberyard).  It's about who profits.  Amazon profits from Lumberyard exposure.  Crytek profits from Cryengine exposure.  The contract exclusitivity clause was clearly meant to protect Crytek's profits on that matter and it's not exactly an easy thing to screw up so the odds of CiG getting away with "Lumberyard uses the same code!" excuse is pretty much nonexistent because it's not about the code.  It's about the owners of the engine and their interests (Amazon in Lumberyard's case and Crytek in Cryengine's case).

I might not be a copyright lawyer, but I am an accountant. It's my job to know what a company owns and doesn't own as well as their rights to it so I can value it properly on their books, so I at least was educated in and understand the basics of contract law and this thing about Lumberyard and CryEngine is pretty darn basic.

Octagon7711

gervaise1 said:

Octagon7711 said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

Whilst I think they probably switched to LY for other technical orientated reasons - Amazon seem to be throwing a lot of resource at LY - I think this is probably the core of the issue. Is LY "Crytek CryEngine" or not? 

@Octagon7711 what you say would be the case if they had switched to e.g. Unity (assuming they could do so etc.) I don't see any suggestion here though that that are using anything but "CryEngine".

The issue I think is - as @MadFrenchie alludes to - is the relationship between LY and "crytek Cryengine". Yes they are governed by different licensing agreements but that in itself doesn't necessarily make them "different". The Android example I gave is a case in point - buy a phone from Samsung and it will be Samsung's licencing agreement you are faced with; buy a Pixel you have one directly with Google. To mere users they are both Android though. They are "the same" but different - context being the key.

This could come down to "sub-licencing". What has been agreed between not just Crytek and RSI but Crytek and Amazon.

Going forward do RSI - for engine use: pay Crytek; or have Crytek already been paid by Amazon and RSI should pay Amazon; or are RSI expected to pay both Crytek and Amazon just for using the engine? (There is the other Amazon stuff of course).  

I don't see any suggestion that RSI they ever expected to pay for engine usage (using LY comes with a cost!)  I doubt that they expected to pay twice however. It may well be in RSI's best interests for this to be decided legally.

According to the complaint part of the agreement was to only use their engine, and to only use it for one game SC, which would have prohibited them from switching, using multiple engines, or using it for multiple games.  No one has mentioned Amazon except for forum posters. Crytek is clearly focused only on CIG's original agreement at this point.

The part about only using their engine i.e. CryEngine would, subject to any caveats, prevent them using Unity etc. for sure. The "engine" bit in LY though is still CryEngine - would you dispute this? Now a court may decide it is a "different" engine but I don't think its clear cut. And all the other stuff that Amazon has added has the same status as "bespoke code" - which no one says they cannot add. 

Only use it for one game. Well currently there are 0 games - so in a way that part is moot. Now I think the core of this is Crytek wanting to make sure that any royalties they get "per game" will accrue from SC / SQ42 / SC+SQ42 packages. 

In "good faith" RSI can say they have not changed their planned content. Yes they have changed their "pledge packages". 0 "games" have been launched however - or exist - and RSI could say "sorry" we will revert to a single pledge package: SC+SQ42 - so back to just one "game". All existing SQ42 development pledge packages will now get SC - so nothing taken away from people who have pledged for SQ42 only; no character slots to be provided however for these ex-SQ42 packages. So no change. As I said though I think this is Crytek wanting to make sure that they get royalties on "all sales". 



As tp the provision of "bug fixing stuff" is also mentioned above:

Crytek's own words: 

"Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version" 

make it 100% clear that RSI have provided "bug fixes". That is the only possible way the words can be read.

What Crytek are complaining about is that Crytek have not provided them in a way that makes it easy for them. And it will presumably cost them money etc.

And to this end they talk about "good faith". What they don't talk about is "as required by GLA x.x.x". Interpretation: nothing specificed. RSI could provide the bug fixes in Ancient Greek chiseled on to stone tablets and meet the "letter of the agreement". 

Which is why I - purposefully - used the phrase "good faith" in the bit about one game vs, two games above. "Good faith" and "exact wording of agreements" can - and often do - cut both ways. 

The intent of the agreement would be that only their engine is used.  CR announced they were switching to a different engine, Lumberyard.  He made the official announcement if I remember correctly.

Only for use of one game would include ongoing development of that game.  Wouldn't be much of a contract if it only applied to a finished game.

rodarin

MaxBacon said:

TalulaRose said:

As this is not a court of law and just a public forum why does your question matter?

I guess when you cant speak to the comment you go after the one who made the comment.

Try harder.

There was pages ago the stream of a copyright lawyer that explained and had its take on this stuff, that is a professional opinion, this is armchair lawyering. These discussions are still opinions but not coming from professional insight, hence the "armchair this or that" term.

that is as usual one of the worst (nothing new for you) strawman arguments ever.

You know that for every 'open and shut' case there is always an opposing lawyer right? Lawyers say what theyre paid to say of if theyre not getting paid sometihng that meshes with their opinion (which may have SOME basis in law)

So claiming some 'professional' lawyer made comments means little to noting because no matter what he said you could shake a tree (especially in California) and find 20 that would say he was wrong. 

and you never answered the question I asked

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

TalulaRose said:

As this is not a court of law and just a public forum why does your question matter?

I guess when you cant speak to the comment you go after the one who made the comment.

Try harder.

There was pages ago the stream of a copyright lawyer that explained and had its take on this stuff, that is a professional opinion, this is armchair lawyering. These discussions are still opinions but not coming from professional insight, hence the "armchair this or that" term.

that is as usual one of the worst (nothing new for you) strawman arguments ever.

You know that for every 'open and shut' case there is always an opposing lawyer right? Lawyers say what theyre paid to say of if theyre not getting paid sometihng that meshes with their opinion (which may have SOME basis in law)

So claiming some 'professional' lawyer made comments means little to noting because no matter what he said you could shake a tree (especially in California) and find 20 that would say he was wrong. 

and you never answered the question I asked

Yea, it's pretty sad how he keeps resorting to an argument that's basically akin to saying "Hey everyone, some random copyright lawyer without access to the legal contracts says something might be true, so your comments are all invalid!"