Star Citizen Breaking News

[Spunky Munkee]

 Why would Crytek give exclusive rights to use Cryengine to CIG? It makes NO sense. It flies in the face of the supposed agreement to prominently display the Crytek logo. Why bother advertizing for Crytek if Crytek cannot licence its product any longer to any other party. They would be out of business.

Aside from the fact that apparently Crytek did licence it's engine to Amazon to create Lumberyard. If Crytek could licence to Amazon then it's "exclusive" agreement did not hogtie Crytek but rather ties CIG into using Cryengine exclusively, and ties CIG to the agreement not to build any games with any competing engine for 2 years after they conclude using Cryengine.

CIG's argument makes no sense. If Ortwin sold the contract that he claims exists to Crytek then he really did fuck them hard.

[Wipeout]

Why would Crytek give exclusive rights to use Cryengine to CIG? It makes NO sense. It flies in the face of the supposed agreement to prominently display the Crytek logo. Why bother advertizing for Crytek if Crytek cannot licence its product any longer to any other party. They would be out of business.

Aside from the fact that apparently Crytek did licence it's engine to Amazon to create Lumberyard. If Crytek could licence to Amazon then it's "exclusive" agreement did not hogtie Crytek but rather ties CIG into using Cryengine exclusively, and ties CIG to the agreement not to build any games with any competing engine for 2 years after they conclude using Cryengine.

CIG's argument makes no sense. If Ortwin sold the contract that he claims exists to Crytek then he really did fuck them hard.

From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG.  It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game".  Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"

Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.

[Aya Reiko]

From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG.  It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game".  Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"

Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.

[Wipeout]

Would be nice if you actually  put some real effort into rebuttal, make a point, cite references for your opinion.

[Aya Reiko]

Would be nice if you actually gave an actual put some real effort into rebuttal instead of posting something as trollish as that.

Because what you wrote is so beyond idiotic, there is nothing of value worth replying to.

Businesses DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.  EVER.

[Wipeout]

Because what you wrote is so beyond idiotic, there is nothing of value worth replying to.

Businesses DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.  EVER.

I posted references, gave a reason for it.
And yes, business do work that way, and I have shown a link that provides back up to what I said.

[N0mad]

Ever since Serendipity left / got banned this forum has been a bit devoid of argument and name calling.

Don't mind me sitting here with my popcorn.

[Wipeout]

Ever since Serendipity left / got banned this forum has been a bit devoid of argument and name calling.

Don't mind me sitting here with my popcorn.

Well I am done with him unless he provides a better argument.
I have no love for the game, rather I find the whole situation fascinating.  I only pledged to get the full experience out of this whole situation.  If a game actually manages to come out of this, then it will be pleasant surprise, but I am not expecting it at all, I lean more to that everything will be shut down before they get anything completed at worst and at the best they'll release something mediocre compared to what it was supposed to be, and give the worst scenario the highest probability.  But that doesn't mean that I will automatically be against CIG on everything that comes to them, I'll put research into it, find relevant opinions, learn something new, to come to the conclusions that I do.

I do give my feedback on game development, just in case that my "best" scenario does actually happen, then at least I can feel I put in some feedback that they may or may not have listed to.  Though they have not listed to suggestion I made so far, lol.

[Kyrt]

From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG.  It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game".  Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"

But in this case, it isn't describing an exclusive right...but a license to exclusive embed CryEngine into a game.

CryTek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game.

CryTek can't give this license to anyone else because they don't own the IP.  Nor is the interpretation that this simply means only CIG can develop the Game with CryEngine because that same right is addressed in 2.6.

Section 10.7 also seems to deal with the "protect CIG" interpretation you suggest.....and also seems to negate, to a degree, the no damage clause.

Barring a legalistic definition, the clause in question seems readily understandable.

So long as CryTek want to use CryEngine, then no other engine can be used.

The other side of the question is...does it have to use CryEngine?
The GLA in turn reads as if ONLY CryEngine can be embedded....a harsh condition, perhaps but one that CIG agreed to.

However, besides legalistic interpretations of the clause, the other aspect is "intent". We don't know what supporting evidence either side will bring to the case.

The simple fact is this is a GLA that appears to have no termination date, no major support from CryTek or obligation upon it,  requires CIG to display...prominently...CryTeks logos and which requires CIG to share optimizations and bug fixes while requiring it to protect CryTeks IP.

CIG got a cheap engine out of this deal...and it was smart to sign on...but this is not really a document that suggests an agreement between equals. CryTek were doing CIG a favour and it shows.

The only weird aspect is the damage indemnification clause. It seems weird that CryTek would agree to waive damages except for an intentional breach. ...especially since other sections seem to indicate monetary damages are a possibility.

I wonder if Section 10.7 might be applicable as a way to sidestep that damage waiver?

As an aside...it looks like 7.1 does confirm the GLA is subject to an NDA. CIG might have breached that by effectively putting the GLA onto the public domain.

[Resin]

From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG.  It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game".  Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"

Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.

Still doesn't make any sense. Why put something like that in contract when Crytek is in no position to give anyone else right to use their engine to make Star Citizen.

Why would it impossible to add restrictive elements to grants? Crytek granted CIG the right to use their engine for the game if they use that and only that engine.

But dunno how that will interpreted. Your suggestion of interpretation doesn't make any sense. Why put something in contract you don't possess any control to do in first place? Why would it be there?

[Wipeout]

Still doesn't make any sense. Why put something like that in contract when Crytek is in no position to give anyone else right to use their engine to make Star Citizen.

Why would it impossible to add restrictive elements to grants? Crytek granted CIG the right to use their engine for the game if they use that and only that engine.

But dunno how that will interpreted. Your suggestion of interpretation doesn't make any sense. Why put something in contract you don't possess any control to do in first place? Why would it be there?

Well, for an example of where a contract states something that is already protected by laws anyways: Every lease I sign for an apartment include stuff that is already protected by law anyways, but yet it is still in the contract.  So apparently lawyers still feel this stuff needs to be said in a contract.

Anyways, my interpretation comes from the link that I provided, plus many more that I found during my search, and then these 2 lawyers confirmed what I already came to a conclusion for through my own research.

[Wipeout]

But in this case, it isn't describing an exclusive right...but a license to exclusive embed CryEngine into a game.

CryTek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game.

CryTek can't give this license to anyone else because they don't own the IP.  Nor is the interpretation that this simply means only CIG can develop the Game with CryEngine because that same right is addressed in 2.6.

Section 10.7 also seems to deal with the "protect CIG" interpretation you suggest.....and also seems to negate, to a degree, the no damage clause.

Barring a legalistic definition, the clause in question seems readily understandable.

So long as CryTek want to use CryEngine, then no other engine can be used.

The other side of the question is...does it have to use CryEngine?
The GLA in turn reads as if ONLY CryEngine can be embedded....a harsh condition, perhaps but one that CIG agreed to.

However, besides legalistic interpretations of the clause, the other aspect is "intent". We don't know what supporting evidence either side will bring to the case.

The simple fact is this is a GLA that appears to have no termination date, no major support from CryTek or obligation upon it,  requires CIG to display...prominently...CryTeks logos and which requires CIG to share optimizations and bug fixes while requiring it to protect CryTeks IP.

CIG got a cheap engine out of this deal...and it was smart to sign on...but this is not really a document that suggests an agreement between equals. CryTek were doing CIG a favour and it shows.

The only weird aspect is the damage indemnification clause. It seems weird that CryTek would agree to waive damages except for an intentional breach. ...especially since other sections seem to indicate monetary damages are a possibility.

I wonder if Section 10.7 might be applicable as a way to sidestep that damage waiver?

As an aside...it looks like 7.1 does confirm the GLA is subject to an NDA. CIG might have breached that by effectively putting the GLA onto the public domain.

You miss quoted what it says:
to exclusively embed Cryengine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub licensable pursuant to sec 2.6

It states it as a "right", in the grant section.  They are not obligated to exercise a right granted to them.

it also states

to exclusively manufacture, market, promote, sell, license, publish, and exploit the Game in any way which right shall be freely sub-licensable.

This means they can sell the "Game" in any way.  And the "Game" has been defined as
"for the game currently entitles "Space Citizen: and it's related space fight game "Squadron 42", together hereafter the "Game"

10.7 is interesting because it kind of falls in line about what I am saying that 2.1.2 is to protect CIG from Crytek trying to license the "Game" to other people, cause in 10.7 there is a clause in saying "nor shall Crytek be entitled to enjoing the publishing or other exploitation of the Game," so apparently there is a need to to show if Crytek has the right to license the "Game" to other people.  At least that is what it looks like to me.

Up until today I would have completely agreed with you on them breaking the NDA, provided that #1 below was not considered as breaking the NDA on Crytek's part.  I saw this earlier on the Star Citizen's refund reddit and the guy makes a good point, which is #2 on the list, and I'll quote him.

As far as 7.1.
2 things:
1) Crytek revealed details of the GLA to the public first, they put it in their complaint.  That can very well open it up for CIG to also use the GLA in their response since it was Crytek that broke the NDA first.

But #1 may not even matter because of this
 Federal law allows to break NDA when it comes to tort suit, which this suit is under tort.

"The existence of a privilege to disclose another's trade secret depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, including the nature of the information, the purpose of the disclosure, and the means by which the actor acquired the information. A privilege is likely to be recognized, for example, in connection with the disclosure of information that is relevant to public health or safety, or to the commission of a crime or tort, or to other matters of substantial public concern." https://tinyurl.com/y84nkglb


I really don't care which way this lawsuit goes, but it has been interesting searching the internet for my research, looking at other links people provide, getting analysis from real lawyers.  I find it a great chapter in the SC Drama Show, where the show will most likely lead to everyone on CIGs side being, figuratively, dead in the end, haha

[Kyrt]

You miss quoted what it says:
to exclusively embed Cryengine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub licensable pursuant to sec 2.66

It states it as a "right", in the grant section.  They are not obligated to exercise a right granted to them.

Which could also be read as simply requiring any third party sub contractor also needs to only use CryEngine.

Further, some "rights" can be de facto obligations because terms and other clauses tender it non feasible to do otherwise. Obligations can also be implied and can arise from legal rights.

I could still make a case for saying this is an obligation die to its wording, but the reality is that there may very well be a legal/technical definition of "exclusively"....not to mention emails and other supporting evidence for either side...which means there is a case you be decided.

That you and I have different interpretations of this clause shows the truth of what I've been saying. That this will need to be decided by a judge.

However...even if this is decided to be a right in the manner you suggest, CIGs problem is that they appear to have merged in LY code rather than remove CE coding, replace it with LY code and recompile. I can't day if that is the case or not but some people state they have decompiled 3.0 and CE code is still present.

If so, that breaks all sorts of clauses...in LY as well IIRC.

And the "Game" has been defined as
"for the game currently entitles "Space Citizen: and it's related space fight game "Squadron 42", together hereafter the "Game"

Two games...marketed, promoted and sold as a single entity and not as two separate standalone games. Ref...Exhibit 2 of the GLA.

10.7 is interesting because it kind of falls in line about what I am saying that 2.1.2 is to protect CIG from Crytek trying to license the "Game" to other people, cause in 10.7 there is a clause in saying "nor shall Crytek be entitled to enjoing the publishing or other exploitation of the Game," so apparently there is a need to to show if Crytek has the right to license the "Game" to other people.  At least that is what it looks like to me.

All that is doing is setting limits..namely that CryTek cannot expect to be part of the games lifecycle simply because it provided the engine and that whatever is awarded, it doesn't get the game. Nothing more. There is a clear reason for such a clause and it doesn't repeat previous clauses.

In short...CryTek can't get control of the game as part of awarded damages.

Up until today I would have completely agreed with you on them breaking the NDA, provided that #1 below was not considered as breaking the NDA on Crytek's part.  I saw this earlier on the Star Citizen's refund reddit and the guy makes a good point, which is #2 on the list, and I'll quote him.

There is a difference between selective quoting to justify the levied charges and facilitate the legal process and needlessly putting the entire commercially sensitive document into the public domain.

But #1 may not even matter because of this
 Federal law allows to break NDA when it comes to tort suit, which this suit is under tort.

A factor which would justify CryTeks selective quoting and not CIGs wholesale publication.

[N0mad]

I suspect at the end of the day:

1) The contract will be deemed to be ambiguously worded & Ortwin should get blamed for that - I hope it will be shown that his incompetence is partly the problem here OR, perhaps, he purposely made the wording ambiguous knowing that Crytek would agree to it and he'd find a way to wriggle out of the GLA at a later date

2) It will all depend on the intentions of the two parties at the time - which may be a good reason alone to have a jury to decide. There may well be supporting evidence which might clarify the meaning of the GLA as intended at the time (emails etc), maybe even evidence which is confidential and therefore not published on Pacer.

The Skadden response will be interesting. I don't think that they're stupid enough to purposely misinterpret the GLA without good reason. But who knows, this could have just been a fishing trip to see if CIG would settle and done by junior employees of the firm?

[Wipeout]

Which could also be read as simply requiring any third party sub contractor also needs to only use CryEngine.

Further, some "rights" can be de facto obligations because terms and other clauses tender it non feasible to do otherwise. Obligations can also be implied and can arise from legal rights.

I could still make a case for saying this is an obligation die to its wording, but the reality is that there may very well be a legal/technical definition of "exclusively"....not to mention emails and other supporting evidence for either side...which means there is a case you be decided.

That you and I have different interpretations of this clause shows the truth of what I've been saying. That this will need to be decided by a judge.

However...even if this is decided to be a right in the manner you suggest, CIGs problem is that they appear to have merged in LY code rather than remove CE coding, replace it with LY code and recompile. I can't day if that is the case or not but some people state they have decompiled 3.0 and CE code is still present.

If so, that breaks all sorts of clauses...in LY as well IIRC.





Two games...marketed, promoted and sold as a single entity and not as two separate standalone games. Ref...Exhibit 2 of the GLA.

All that is doing is setting limits..namely that CryTek cannot expect to be part of the games lifecycle simply because it provided the engine and that whatever is awarded, it doesn't get the game. Nothing more. There is a clear reason for such a clause and it doesn't repeat previous clauses.

In short...CryTek can't get control of the game as part of awarded damages.

There is a difference between selective quoting to justify the levied charges and facilitate the legal process and needlessly putting the entire commercially sensitive document into the public domain.

A factor which would justify CryTeks selective quoting and not CIGs wholesale publication.

It makes sense there is CE code, cause Lumberyard is CE.  So it comes at no surprise people find CE code in an engine based off of CE.

Exhibit 2 actually supports CIG's case;
It has 2 stipulations; For avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold separately and not being access through the Star Citizen client, eg a Fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game, as opposed to an add-on/DLC to the game.

Selling the 2 games separately, but still use the same game client and the 2 still interacting with each other would settle this stipulation.  If Squadron 42 was being sold separately and did not use the same client and did not interact with SC then it would be against Exhibit 2.

So we have in the GLA that SQ42 and SC are shown as 2 games.  That CIG can do what ever they want to sell and market the games.  And that the only stipulation is that the 2 games need to use the same client and have some kind of interaction with each other.