› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

1…1516182021…53

Comments

  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,463
    edited January 2018
    beebop500 said:
    I think this entire thing was manufactured by CIG.  I mean, look, now they're embroiled in a lawsuit!  That's got to give them oodles of excuses they can feed to their fanbois for....what, at least 8 to 10 more years?  "Gee guys, you know, with this whole suit thing going on...it's required us to focus on some other things...."

    Plus, if they win the suit, which they may, well then you have a Victory Sale!  So not only would they be compensated (I'm assuming) by Crytek, they could also sell some more of their ships, while at the same time explaining that the latest major delay in development was all Crytek's fault!  Dang tort system!

    I think it's genius, truth be told.
    Wait, are you really implying that because of this lawsuit CIG has to ask their lawyers to step away from developing Star Citizen and actually work on that case? :D

    Just another whole lot of nothing like the "courts drama" thing to add to the list.

    In about 90 day's will probably never hear from it again as usual.
  • BalmongBalmong Member UncommonPosts: 170
    The demand for CIG's version of the CryEngine (StarEngine) casts this lawsuit in an even worse light, it makes CryTek come off as even more petty. CIG improving on the original design, using engineers that left Crytek due to lack of payment, seems to have wrankled Crytek pretty badly.

    I'm no lawyer, but to me CIG's argument that they didnt break exclusivity due to Amazon being an authorized dealer still comes across as the best argument.
    Asm0deusBabuinix
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545
    edited January 2018
    Balmong said:


    I'm no lawyer, but to me CIG's argument that they didnt break exclusivity due to Amazon being an authorized dealer still comes across as the best argument.

    I don't think CiG ever used that defense (with good reason, IMHO, but my opinion is moot when CiG isn't using that defense in the first place).  At most, they said that SQ42 was exempt from the exclusivity clause because it was made entirely from Lumberyard from the ground up with no Crytek code in it at all.  They never said anything about Amazon being an authorized dealer in their defense statement, if I recall correctly.
  • GruugGruug Member RarePosts: 1,794
    What I find interesting is that this is being fought not in the courts (real courts) but places like here on this site. I think Crytek is aware of a possible weak case and is trying to go the trail by public opinion route. To me, it is not working. Since both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are in development, I just feel it is a business and development decision as to what engine you use. If the Cry engine was not up to snuff, then it is up to CIG to come up with a better one.  That they did, or I think they did. Nothing wrong with that to me.

    kikoodutroa8

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • BalmongBalmong Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Tiamat64 said:
    Balmong said:


    I'm no lawyer, but to me CIG's argument that they didnt break exclusivity due to Amazon being an authorized dealer still comes across as the best argument.

    I don't think CiG ever used that defense (with good reason, IMHO, but my opinion is moot when CiG isn't using that defense in the first place).  At most, they said that SQ42 was exempt from the exclusivity clause because it was made entirely from Lumberyard from the ground up with no Crytek code in it at all.  They never said anything about Amazon being an authorized dealer in their defense statement, if I recall correctly.
    I distinctly remember reading that somewhere during all these conversations, but it could have just been someone waxing philosophical. 
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545
    Gruug said:
     Since both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are in development, I just feel it is a business and development decision as to what engine you use. If the Cry engine was not up to snuff, then it is up to CIG to come up with a better one.  That they did, or I think they did. Nothing wrong with that to me.

    Er... that doesn't have anything to do with the legalities of the case.  There's a reason why something like whether or not Cryengine was "up to snuff" isn't mentioned in either Crytek's original complaint or CiG's defense statement reply Oo
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545
    edited January 2018
    Balmong said:
    Tiamat64 said:
    Balmong said:


    I'm no lawyer, but to me CIG's argument that they didnt break exclusivity due to Amazon being an authorized dealer still comes across as the best argument.

    I don't think CiG ever used that defense (with good reason, IMHO, but my opinion is moot when CiG isn't using that defense in the first place).  At most, they said that SQ42 was exempt from the exclusivity clause because it was made entirely from Lumberyard from the ground up with no Crytek code in it at all.  They never said anything about Amazon being an authorized dealer in their defense statement, if I recall correctly.
    I distinctly remember reading that somewhere during all these conversations, but it could have just been someone waxing philosophical. 

    Yea, a ton of random forum people argued that using Lumberyard doesn't count because it has Cryengine code or because it's a Cryengine fork, or other variations of that defense.

    CiG, however, hasn't stated and used that defense at all in their statement (and again, with good reason, in my opinion.  But there's no need for me to argue why such a defense wouldn't work when even CiG isn't bothering to use it)
    Balmong
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited January 2018
    Kefo said:
    The part quoted from the GLA about clarification of what the Game meant:

    "For avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content sold or marketed separately," is interesting, as is Skadden's response that the portion of the GLA that was posted to this thread regarding the definition of the "Game" was not the full definition accepted in the contract, but was simply a sort of summarization recital in the introductory portion of the contract.  They're claiming that there is an actual, full definition of that term contained elsewhere that supports Crytek's complaints, and the case law is consistent that if the definition of the term is contested, the contractual provision and full definition contained therein takes precedence, generally, over a recital elsewhere in the contract.

    My gut tells me the motion to dismiss will be denied, as the judge will likely want further clarification via oral arguments from both parties on the issues being contested (at least, reading the documents from both sides leaves me wanting more clarification of the argument coming from both sides).  I won't presume to have a good idea of what ruling the judge might issue, though.

    It's getting more interesting with each new event.  

    KefoIselinOctagon7711

    image
  • adamlotus75adamlotus75 Member UncommonPosts: 387
    You really think CryTek have taken a close look at 3.0 and thought 'Wow i gotta get me some of that!!'

    You'd have to be deluded.

    Its also obvious that these internet lawyers know jack shit and are completely out of their league. Skadden know that exactly what they are doing and how to do it.

    Some of you guys have a huge blind spot where CIG is concerned - they can do no wrong. Its always someone else.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,328
    >>> They're claiming that there is an actual, full definition of that term contained elsewhere that supports Crytek's complaints, >>>

    Would it not be risky to withhold that other document at this time ?

    The judge could follow CIGs motion and kick CryTeks claim out of court without ever seeing that other document.


    Have fun
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    MadFrenchie said:
    Kefo said:
    The part quoted from the GLA about clarification of what the Game meant:

    "For avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content sold or marketed separately," is interesting, as is Skadden's response that the portion of the GLA that was posted to this thread regarding the definition of the "Game" was not the full definition accepted in the contract, but was simply a sort of summarization recital in the introductory portion of the contract.  They're claiming that there is an actual, full definition of that term contained elsewhere that supports Crytek's complaints, and the case law is consistent that if the definition of the term is contested, the contractual provision and full definition contained therein takes precedence, generally, over a recital elsewhere in the contract.

    My gut tells me the motion to dismiss will be denied, as the judge will likely want further clarification via oral arguments from both parties on the issues being contested (at least, reading the documents from both sides leaves me wanting more clarification of the argument coming from both sides).  I won't presume to have a good idea of what ruling the judge might issue, though.

    It's getting more interesting with each new event.  

    People around here tend to forget that good lawyers are those guys who can argue either side of any issue with enough conviction that their arguments sound totally believable.

    Like I said before, you need more than one pack or Orville's Buttery for this. Might as well buy a whole case :)
    MadFrenchie
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Iselin said:
    MadFrenchie said:
    Kefo said:
    The part quoted from the GLA about clarification of what the Game meant:

    "For avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content sold or marketed separately," is interesting, as is Skadden's response that the portion of the GLA that was posted to this thread regarding the definition of the "Game" was not the full definition accepted in the contract, but was simply a sort of summarization recital in the introductory portion of the contract.  They're claiming that there is an actual, full definition of that term contained elsewhere that supports Crytek's complaints, and the case law is consistent that if the definition of the term is contested, the contractual provision and full definition contained therein takes precedence, generally, over a recital elsewhere in the contract.

    My gut tells me the motion to dismiss will be denied, as the judge will likely want further clarification via oral arguments from both parties on the issues being contested (at least, reading the documents from both sides leaves me wanting more clarification of the argument coming from both sides).  I won't presume to have a good idea of what ruling the judge might issue, though.

    It's getting more interesting with each new event.  

    People around here tend to forget that good lawyers are those guys who can argue either side of any issue with enough conviction that their arguments sound totally believable.

    Like I said before, you need more than one pack or Orville's Buttery for this. Might as well buy a whole case :)
    Lol yes.

    Seems to me from the outside looking in that the largest benefit of CIG's motion to dismiss will be that it forced Skadden to show it's hand more explicitly, so to speak, which would allow CIG to mount a more effective defense against the allegations once hearings start.

    image
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Erillion said:
    >>> They're claiming that there is an actual, full definition of that term contained elsewhere that supports Crytek's complaints, >>>

    Would it not be risky to withhold that other document at this time ?

    The judge could follow CIGs motion and kick CryTeks claim out of court without ever seeing that other document.


    Have fun
    Why would it? You think they are going to show up in court on the 9th and the judge is just going to make a decision without talking to either parties and asking if they have any new evidence to submit to the court?
  • kikoodutroa8kikoodutroa8 Member RarePosts: 565
    Maybe the judge is a star citizen too?
  • MensurMensur Member EpicPosts: 1,531
    Hmm. There is something deeply rotten in the company since crytek decided to go full apeshit lawsuit on them. 

    mmorpg junkie since 1999



  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,328
    Mensur said:
    Hmm. There is something deeply rotten in the company since crytek decided to go full apeshit lawsuit on them. 
    Deeply rotten in which company ?

    Hmm, which company closed 4 studios and did not pay its employees for several months (twice) ?


    Have fun
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,328
    Kefo said:
    Erillion said:
    >>> They're claiming that there is an actual, full definition of that term contained elsewhere that supports Crytek's complaints, >>>

    Would it not be risky to withhold that other document at this time ?

    The judge could follow CIGs motion and kick CryTeks claim out of court without ever seeing that other document.


    Have fun
    Why would it? You think they are going to show up in court on the 9th and the judge is just going to make a decision without talking to either parties and asking if they have any new evidence to submit to the court?
    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
    Phry
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    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.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,328
    MaxBacon said:
    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.
    Thank you for that clarification.


    Have fun
    Mensur
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    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. :p
    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 :p
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    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. :p
    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 :p
    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.

    image
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    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.
    Thanks Max. I was wondering that myself 
  • MensurMensur Member EpicPosts: 1,531
    edited January 2018
    Erillion said:
    Mensur said:
    Hmm. There is something deeply rotten in the company since crytek decided to go full apeshit lawsuit on them. 
    Deeply rotten in which company ?

    Hmm, which company closed 4 studios and did not pay its employees for several months (twice) ?


    Have fun
    I take it back. Didn't do
    my research :)

    mmorpg junkie since 1999



  • kikoodutroa8kikoodutroa8 Member RarePosts: 565
    Guys, look at the name, the avatar...
    MadFrenchie is obviously fugly-hat law dude from youtube!!!
    MadFrenchie
  • TruplayaUBTruplayaUB Member UncommonPosts: 46
    They made Crysis 1 - 3 ....  so for me i hope they win the case =) .... and Lumberengine from Amazon WAS or still IS "The CryEngine".... even if you marry it with Twitch ... How you all think could they switch the project as fast as day one ?!?!? 
    Winner Winner Chickendinner ;) 
    Kefo
This discussion has been closed.