CryTek v CIG/RSI

[StanTheMan]

You can't be serious.  CryTek's central claim just got dismissed.  The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing.  And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition.  Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.

It is one of several causes of action.  How did you determine that the surviving claims are just "nuisance" and that this one is CryTek's "central claim" ?

How do you think Discovery is going to play out ?

[jwh1701]

You can't be serious.  CryTek's central claim just got dismissed.  The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing.  And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition.  Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.

If you go back and look at the SC reddit history, or Lawful Masses with Leonard French, YouTuber Law they are the ones that have called it wrong from the beginning.

[jgajek]

It is one of several causes of action.  How did you determine that the surviving claims are just "nuisance" and that this one is CryTek's "central claim" ?

How do you think Discovery is going to play out ?

I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind.  You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.

[Motto]

You can't be serious.  CryTek's central claim just got dismissed.  The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing.  And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition.  Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.

Hotdogs! Hotdogs! Get your hotdogs over here! Popcorn too! Care for a beer or some soda? Get it here! We got another one! Hotdogs!

The idiots at Reddit are so convinced that this is in favor of CIG for the whole of the Crytek lawsuit rather than just one aspect of it, that one of them just couldn't resist and actually came here for a discussion with Derek. Oh dear God almighty, with what kind of flowers should we bury him after Derk is done with him?

[Motto]

I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind.  You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.

Oh, this is why we love you guys so much. Pure and utter gold. How much are you in for, commando?

[jgajek]

Oh, this is why we love you guys so much. Pure and utter gold. How much are you in for, commando?

I'm in for the minimum $30 or so. I gave up on Star Citizen a long time ago.

[jgajek]

The idiots at Reddit are so convinced that this is in favor of CIG for the whole of the Crytek lawsuit rather than just one aspect of it, that one of them just couldn't resist and actually came here for a discussion with Derek. Oh dear God almighty, with what kind of flowers should we bury him after Derk is done with him?

What is it with you people?  Are you unable to form opinions of your own and need them spoonfed to you?  Do you need Derek to protect you from the mean people that attack you with annoying facts?  News flash:  the merits of the CryTek lawsuit have nothing to do with the viability of the Star Citizen game itself.  And the only thing Derek can be considered an authority on is game development.  He is not a lawyer, and has been consistently wrong in his interpretation of the documents.

I predicted that the judge would be likely to throw out CryTek's complaint by looking at the facts and applying basic logic.

https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1053395856081055744

[N0mad]

I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind.  You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.

It's no good coming onto these forums, telling us we're a bunch of retards without so much as an explanation or counter argument - that sort of thing gets you banned round here. If you're going to turn up and insult us then please explain in detail why we're wrong. Because when the Internet Warlord turns up you can be pretty sure that he's going to go into detail about why you're wrong.

It's a bit like turning up to a fight, insulting the other guy and firing a pea shooter at him. You just don't realise that the other guy has turned up for the fight with an arsenal of tactical nukes.

[dsmart]

You can't be serious.  CryTek's central claim just got dismissed.  The surviving claims are just a nuisance, and probably not even worth pursuing.  And the discovery will be limited to documentation that is responsive to the surviving claims, so it won't be a fishing expedition.  Just going through your history of posts on the subject shows that you are completely out to lunch and have no clue what's going on legally.

This requires only one response:

UPDATE: I have deleted some of your posts. We do NOT engage in harassment, naming calling, attacks etc around here. Take that shit to Reddit. You do that again, you get banned.

[dsmart]

I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain, instead of getting my information from a biased source with an axe to grind.  You guys are certainly welcome to isolate yourselves from facts and reality, and be shocked at every turn when things turn out completely different to what you were told to believe.

Yeah, we've heard this all before. I remember back when you guys were claiming that the case was frivolous, that it would get thrown out etc. Then fucking hell, this happened:



Let me explain something to you in the simplest way possible.

Even if the MtD wrt to item #2 (which is also what the current MtD is about) remains granted (in favor of CIG), these are the damaging surviving causes of action in which #3 and #4 are completely destructive. I don't even want to get into what "injunctive relief" would mean for the project in general; so go look it up.

#3 Breach Of Contract
#4 Copyright Infringement
#5 Monetary damages, Statutory damages, Injuntive Relief

Basically, the exclusivity (2.1.2 & 2.4) are just additional gas fuel to an already burning flame. The case is still damaging without it because it's only about ADDITIONAL DAMAGES

[jgajek]

The motion to dismiss was on the legal merits of the claims, which is a really low bar.  And several of CryTek's core claims couldn't even meet that.  That the judge refused to dismiss everything just means that the other claims are questions of fact, and evidence needs to be presented before the judge can rule.  It doesn't mean they have merit or that CIG won't be able to dispose of them easily.

In any case, your legal opinions have no credibility, especially after you have shown your inability to think objectively about it and separate your personal interests from the facts.  I'm not asking anyone to believe my opinions either.  The documents are there for anyone who cares to read them, and for any legal questions one should ask a real lawyer.

[dsmart]

I predicted that the judge would be likely to throw out CryTek's complaint by looking at the facts and applying basic logic.

https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1053395856081055744

Sorry to burst that bubble, but that is NOT a prediction. That's a statement. You said:

"If the judge were planning to deny CIG's motion to dismiss, then why would she vacate the schedule hearing (presumably on discovery)? Seems more likely to me that she's about to throw out Crytek's complaint."

She didn't throw out the complaint (the case). She denied, via a MtD, the SAC (as per 2.4) the amendment (2.1.2), but gave them the chance (again) to correct is as-needed.

And this is my Tweet in that thread:

"The last time the judge vacated a hearing on a CIG motion, when she did rule, she smacked them so hard that I think CIG are still stunned from that one."

In this regard, the judge was heavy (IMO rightfully so) on Crytek because they neglected to provide additional supporting material. But still STILL (again) allowed them to amend their SAC just in case it was more about omission than about neglect.

I don't think the Crytek attorneys realized that they would get caught in a "single use" sort of discussion. This means that the judge is PAYING ATTENTION.

When she issues that previous DEVASTATING (to CIG) MtD, she did NOT give CIG the opportunity to even amend their responses. And this is the SECOND time that she is giving Crytek that opportunity because these types of cases are very complex and are serious enough to take down entire companies in one shot.

[jgajek]

Sorry to burst that bubble, but that is NOT a prediction. That's a statement. You said:

"If the judge were planning to deny CIG's motion to dismiss, then why would she vacate the schedule hearing (presumably on discovery)? Seems more likely to me that she's about to throw out Crytek's complaint."

She didn't throw out the complaint (the case). She denied, via a MtD, the SAC (as per 2.4) the amendment (2.1.2), but gave them the chance (again) to correct is as-needed.

And this is my Tweet in that thread:

"The last time the judge vacated a hearing on a CIG motion, when she did rule, she smacked them so hard that I think CIG are still stunned from that one."

In this regard, the judge was heavy (IMO rightfully so) on Crytek because they neglected to provide additional supporting material. But still STILL (again) allowed them to amend their SAC just in case it was more about omission than about neglect.

I don't think the Crytek attorneys realized that they would get caught in a "single use" sort of discussion. This means that the judge is PAYING ATTENTION.

When she issues that previous DEVASTATING (to CIG) MtD, she did NOT give CIG the opportunity to even amend their responses. And this is the SECOND time that she is giving Crytek that opportunity because these types of cases are very complex and are serious enough to take down entire companies in one shot.

Right, you will keep reinterpreting your previous opinions and coming up with excuses for why you were wrong.  It would be much easier for people to just read the documents for themselves.

[dsmart]

The motion to dismiss was on the legal merits of the claims, which is a really low bar.  And several of CryTek's core claims couldn't even meet that.  That the judge refused to dismiss everything just means that the other claims are questions of fact, and evidence needs to be presented before the judge can rule.  It doesn't mean they have merit or that CIG won't be able to dispose of them easily.

In any case, your legal opinions have no credibility, especially after you have shown your inability to think objectively about it and separate your personal interests from the facts.  I'm not asking anyone to believe my opinions either.  The documents are there for anyone who cares to read them, and for any legal questions one should ask a real lawyer.

The judge already DENIED their MtD as per very important and critical claims. Which means the case is off to trial (it's already in discovery) - unless they settle first.

[dsmart]

Right, you will keep reinterpreting your previous opinions and coming up with excuses for why you were wrong.  It would be much easier for people to just read the documents for themselves.

wot? My comments and posts are in the first post in this thread, with links to my analysis with each filing. And though IANAL, my track record in this case are been better than all those YT lawyers with their law degrees. It's still hilarious to me how all you guys were claiming the case was frivolous, that it would be dismissed etc. Then BOOM!

And how am I wrong? I just posted our EXACT exchange in the Twitter thread that YOU posted.