Star Citizen Breaking News

[Andrew]

CIG got a deeply discounted license to use Crytek and agreed to prominently display Crytek's logo in all SC splash screens and advertising. They  were tied to Crytek and to bolster that point CIG was forbidden to work on any game using a competing engine  for a period of 2 years. Sounds like a serious exclusive deal tying CIG to Crytek.

Crytek CLAIMS they got some sort of discount. Does 1.85 Mio Euros look like a big-time discount? Not sure. As Derek said: Usually there are royalties included in these contracts. Crytek probably did not believe in a big success and opted for upfront payment.

The other point you refer to I think you misread. IIRC they are forbidden to create an ENGINE for 2 yrs. So Crytek is ensuring that they are do not study their code and then turn around and develop a competing engine.

Here's a livestream from the same lawyer who examined the original complaint by Crytek and he concludes that Cryteks claim may actually get dismissed:

[dsmart]

Crytek CLAIMS they got some sort of discount. Does 1.85 Mio Euros look like a big-time discount? Not sure. As Derek said: Usually there are royalties included in these contracts. Crytek probably did not believe in a big success and opted for upfront payment.

It doesn't work that way. Royalties are calculated based on gross or net. I am sure that they calculated this, then CIG opted to pay up front as it was cheaper. And they made the right call because, well, they would still be paying royalties on $175M raised.

The other point you refer to I think you misread. IIRC they are forbidden to create an ENGINE for 2 yrs. So Crytek is ensuring that they are do not study their code and then turn around and develop a competing engine.

That 2yrs only kicks in after termination of the GLA.

Here's a livestream from the same lawyer who examined the original complaint by Crytek and he concludes that Cryteks claim may actually get dismissed:

He dropped the ball on this one. As a Star Citizen backer, it makes sense that he would want to pander to Shitizens for views. He spent more time reason the docs we already did, than offering any reasonable opinion.

For one thing, an attorney would never - ever - look at a case and call it a slam dunk. That's what courts are for. He said that if  he were the judge, he would rule in favor of CIG. This after not even reading the important key points of the GLA which Crytek was alleging have been breached.

So of course, once again, Shitizens who are used to raising their hopes, only to see them dashed time and time again, are latching onto that bullshit.

Once the judge rules on the MtD on Feb 9th, and which we fully expect that she will rule against CIG, we'll see their reaction.

[helimoth]

What kind of impact will this have on RSI ability to keep the books closed? Will this court case force them to open up the books and go in depth on their financials etc or?

[Kyrt]

He said that if  he were the judge, he would rule in favor of CIG. This after not even reading the important key points of the GLA which Crytek was alleging have been breached.

To be fair, he probably read the GLA and other stuff before making the video. And while I think he may be overstating the strength of CIGs case, there is still that is open to judicial interpretation.

Having said that, he did seem surprised at the damage indemnification clause.

[Aya Reiko]

Once the judge rules on the MtD on Feb 9th, and which we fully expect that she will rule against Crytek, we'll see their reaction.

I assume you meant rule against CiG on the MtD matter.

About how long should we expect this case to go on?  Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling.  Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.

[StanTheMan]

To be fair, he probably read the GLA and other stuff before making the video. And while I think he may be overstating the strength of CIGs case, there is still that is open to judicial interpretation.

Having said that, he did seem surprised at the damage indemnification clause.

When it comes down to it ......there isn't much analysis in his video.  He doesn't strike me as though he has read it beforehand ( eg the way he comments on Autodesk being in it)

If it is as clear cut as he seems to suggest .. why are Skadden pursuing it ?

How likely is it that a judge would dismiss such a case at this stage ?  For my money judges don't like to dismiss things unless there is absolutely solid ground to do so.

How many judges are sufficiently up on game contract law to confidently dismiss a case like this at near enough first pass ?

Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling.  Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.

And yet our friend French here believes this is going to be dismissed....pretty strong position to take .. but what does he actually have at stake by making it ?

[dsmart]

I assume you meant rule against CiG on the MtD matter.

About how long should we expect this case to go on?  Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling.  Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.

Yeah that was a typo.

These cases can go on for years, depending whether or not there is room for settlement. I personally feel that there is plenty of room for it to be settled. Especially since I don't believe that RSI/CIG wants any of their shit in discovery, let alone putting their people through depositions.

[Kyrt]

When it comes down to it ......there isn't much analysis in his video.  He doesn't strike me as though he has read it beforehand ( eg the way he comments on Autodesk being in it)

He mentioned that he would talk about a couple of issues "later" as they were more relevant then. That indicates he did some study of the entire document before making the video.

If it is as clear cut as he seems to suggest .. why are Skadden pursuing it ?

A: They made a mistake.
B: He made a mistake.
C: Skadden were paid to do it and took the money.

How likely is it that a judge would dismiss such a case at this stage ?  For my money judges don't like to dismiss things unless there is absolutely solid ground to do so.

CryTek suing the wrong company could be suitable grounds for dismissal, but would seem to be a delaying tactic. Given that they are all interlinked bodies working on different aspects of the same project with the same owners/mangers/people involved, the judge could also decide that Skadden are right.

How many judges are sufficiently up on game contract law to confidently dismiss a case like this at near enough first pass ?

Don't think that is relevant at this stage. Just whether CIGs analysis makes sense.

[Narrenbart]

On SA there is the Code Copyright thing again.

/*
* All or portions of this file Copyright (c) Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates or
* its licensors.
*
* For complete copyright and license terms please see the LICENSE at the root of this
* distribution (the "License"). All use of this software is governed by the License,
* or, if provided, by the license below or the license accompanying this file. Do not
* remove or modify any license notices. This file is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
*
*/
// Original file Copyright Crytek GMBH or its affiliates, used under license.

Basically in Germany you can not sell a copyright you can only sell the right to distribute, sell and stuff but the copyright holder will never change (unlike in america) and Cryengine has been created in germany

[Backer42]

On SA there is the Code Copyright thing again.Basically in Germany you can not sell a copyright you can only sell the right to distribute, sell and stuff but the copyright holder will never change (unlike in america) and Cryengine has been created in germany

While this is true, it doesn't really affect the case.

I've some shitizens spreading fake news that CryTek sold their entire CryEngine IP to Amazon. This is of course BS, because that would mean that CryTek would lose all rights to use their own engine. True is: CT licensed a specific older version of CryEngine to Amazon with the rights modify and sub-license it. However it's still CryTeks IP and copyright still applies.

[StanTheMan]

He mentioned that he would talk about a couple of issues "later" as they were more relevant then. That indicates he did some study of the entire document before making the video.

Not good enough.  Read the whole thing and analyse it in depth..or he didnt do enough to do the thing justice. 

A: They made a mistake.
B: He made a mistake.
C: Skadden were paid to do it and took the money.

Sure and lawyers do make plenty of mistakes (or appear to).  IME they often say little and can appear to hide behind silences to "explain" their position, but you still have to go with their professional judgement of a situation more often than not

Skadden could be said to have too much face to lose if this case gets kicked out before it has really started.    It is one thing to lose another to get the "paperwork" this wrong...

CryTek suing the wrong company could be suitable grounds for dismissal, but would seem to be a delaying tactic. Given that they are all interlinked bodies working on different aspects of the same project with the same owners/mangers/people involved, the judge could also decide that Skadden are right.

Sure but again ..did Skadden really make such a Rookie error ?

Don't think that is relevant at this stage. Just whether CIGs analysis makes sense.

I say it because I think it is far easier for a judge to allow a case to continue and let the parties shed light on the matter than to have the balls to dismiss it so early on.   Judges ime may "try" by banging heads together and aggressively questioning one side or the other to make the case to continue but IME they just need a good enough reason to continue the affair - because after all these opening stages are not meant to be a presentation of the whole case including all the evidence and arguments from both sides.

Judges have a lot of discretion and for reasons stated above ...i wouldn't bet on them kicking the case out.    Space citizen a mistake ...why not RSI instead of CIG also a mistake..?

[Meowz]

Will Crytek get a chance to reply to the MtD before a judge ruling?

[dsmart]

Will Crytek get a chance to reply to the MtD before a judge ruling?

Yes. That's the reply we are now waiting for.

[Andrew]

Sure but again ..did Skadden really make such a Rookie error ?

Maybe it is a trial-run? Sue the wrong company and force them to argue a motion to dismiss and show their hand a bit. Then sue the correct one afterwards? I'm sure there's a lot of little tricks to that kind of stuff. And they MUST have reason to go after a different company than stated in the contract.

[Backer42]

Maybe it is a trial-run? Sue the wrong company and force them to argue a motion to dismiss and show their hand a bit. Then sue the correct one afterwards? I'm sure there's a lot of little tricks to that kind of stuff. And they MUST have reason to go after a different company than stated in the contract.

Maybe because RSI sits on the money?  There must be a reason, why CIG got all the Kickstarter funds, but RSI is the company who pays the refunds.