It's a fun read, and it's good to see that common-sense legal notions that I've been holding (along with many others around here), like "there's no way in Hell a disposition can take precedence over a definition in the body") are also shared by the judge. And, yeah, Derek, you get the honor of "calling this one" on 2.4. In the footnote, the good judge notes that the plaintiffs brought up 2.4, but states that she can't enter into the matter because the plaintiffs did not move on 2.4 in the complaint. That's what will be in the next amended complaint, and should defendants move to dismiss that amendment, then I don't think we'll wait 8 months for a reply.
The punitive damages don't really matter here.
The core problem is this: they developed and marketed two games. They didn't do this simply because someone got greedy. They did this for the F42 tax break: SQ42 could be argued British, while SC could not. So they took the tax break; they took loans against the tax break, and they shot a ton of Mocap. Meanwhile, their grand theory was to build one space-engine, and they needed that before they could do most of the design work for SQ42. So they focused on the space-engine, aka SC.
Now, they've got a broken-ass engine, a commitment to the UK government to deliver SQ42 or pay a ton of back taxes, and Crytek comes along with this here lawsuit. It's not disputed that they (pre)sold copies of SC and SQ42 during the period that nobody disputes CryEngine was used. So, even on RSI/CIG/.../'s best-case scenario, they're still on the hook for a few million they don't have.
Throw in discovery, and throw in the towel.
