Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
No, you are absolutely correct that lawyers work for free and since CIG is a company funded almost entirely of backer money, there is no way backer money could be used to pay the lawyers defending against this lawsuit. Thank you for being objective and basing your comments on reality. I look forward to more of your informed posting.
TTFN
Keep in mind that one of CIGs founders IS a lawyer.
He was even CryTeks contract lawyer ;-)
Have fun
TTFN
CiG's way ahead when it comes to any discovery - should that come to pass etc. - may revolve around LY. I would imagine a comparison tool should be able to do a good job of comparing current SC code to LY. So it would then be a case of proving the provenance of the rest of the software.
Edit: I would be surprised if they weren't using Configuration Control software to track version changes etc. and if its one of the "proprietary ones" then the ability to do comparisons will be one of the standard features.)
Remember CiG's position is that SC code:
was: Crytek fork + CiG produced code
now: LY + CiG produced code
i.e. Crytek fork + Amazon produced code + CiG produced code.
The Crytek fork that CiG were using and the fork that Amazon took being the same.
Every BYTE of code that CIG still uses of CryEngine is legally owned by Amazon, even the CE code that was not publicly released in the initial LY release. So indeed no idea if there was/is a transition period or any other agreement, but end of the day would be 2 different companies with legal ownership of the exact same code CIG uses.
Unless you have accounting documents that show expenses line by line with all of the correlating CIG bank account receipts differentiated from Chris Roberts personal bank account transactional occurrences.
However, you may freely continue to populate the land of extreme delusion all you like.
That's what the funding is for, it covers the cost of development, which includes the operating costs of the company by default. CIG has no other sources of income AFAIK.
Would there be a legal issue there if that was discovered?
Now if external lawyers have been retained maybe crowdsourced money is being used - or maybe its a no win - no fee arrangement. In which case no crowdsourced money would be used.
Are there really people out there that believe crowdsourced funds must ONLY be used to pay developer salaries ? The mind boggles...
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
That does NOT translate into CIG and Chris Roberts ARE using those funds that way, thus where conjecture comes in.
CIG has business bank accounts.
Chris Roberts has personal bank accounts.
A good business man or woman would never let these mix.
If CIG were to give any money to Chris Roberts, that would be taxed either
a) as income from Chris Robert's work, or
b) as profit from the company
Whereas if Chris Roberts invests more of his own money into CIG then there aren't any taxes.
That's why we can be sure that CIG is paying those lawyer's fees, not Chris Roberts. No company owner ever uses his personal money to pay for the company's expenses unless it's in order to do something illegal.
EDIT: This post applies only to some company types. There are other types (for very small businesses) where the owner's and the company's money don't need to be separate /EDIT
― George Carlin
An audited Profit and Loss statement is quite adequate in that regard, unless Crytek want to challenge the integrity of whichever accounting firm does CIG's audits. Details of operating expenditure are outside the scope of this case, so I doubt there'll be much of the "fun" you're hoping for, lol
And it also means money spent on legal costs wont go to developing the game, so expect more and more sales at some point.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz
And not that it matters but yeah I have raised over 200, well above that actually and recently to help habitat for humanity
― George Carlin
SC has not launched; SC has not made any profit; it has been said that all crowdfunding raised will be spent on the game; it has been said by many that CiG hasn't enough money so would that be a loss? in which case Crytek's % formula would probably indicate that CiG have overpaid! Oh no.
Now future sales might generate a profit.
As it stands today though the "company" may very well be set up as a not-for-profit - akin to them saying all kickstarter funds will be used on the game. Easy enough to set up a new subsidiary later to handle any "for profit" sales. Which would be the "smart" thing to do.
Either way SC is a development project. And a P&L statement on any developmet is something like: Profit = 0; Money spent = Loss; anything under the sun that might generate a tax credit / off-set. That is the nature of development. They are financial blackholes.