CryTek v CIG/RSI

[jgajek]

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.

You set up a strawman by choosing to interpret my reference to CryTek's CLAIM meant the entire CASE.  Clearly I was referring to the claim that was the subject of the MtD.

This is exactly why you are consistently wrong about things.  You are always twisting your interpretation to suit your personal agenda.  Doesn't bother me, but it means you won't come up with the correct conclusion.

[dsmart]

You set up a strawman by choosing to interpret my reference to CryTek's CLAIM meant the entire CASE.  Clearly I was referring to the claim that was the subject of the MtD.

This is exactly why you are consistently wrong about things.  You are always twisting your interpretation to suit your personal agenda.  Doesn't bother me, but it means you won't come up with the correct conclusion.

Oh so now it's my fault. Even if we considered the alternative, you would still be wrong.

ps: That's not how a strawman argument works btw

[dsmart]

I briefly saw your post about my past arguments regarding a lawsuit that was settled due to the use of an Oxford comma.

Nice try.

But I was right. Here's how the judge herself parsed the language:

On p5, she even did the SAME highlighting that I did.

"During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of
two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly
or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating [or]
promoting . . . (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which
compete with CryEngine."

And she did it again on p7:

"During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of
two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly
or indirectly engage in the business of . . . promoting . . . or licensing"

This was my post about the Oxford comma. Search for "oxford"

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html

I quote:

Wait! It gets worse.

The language in 2.4 not only prevents CIG from using a competing engine, it also prevents them from being in the "business of" doing so.

I bring this up for a reason. First, read this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html

The 1st part of 2.4 is explicit: "in the business of designing,"



Some of our Internet "lawyers" were claiming that 2.4 pertained to CIG developing their own engine based on CryEngine, and trying to do all those things.

I said it was FALSE back in Jan.

[jgajek]

Wow, you still think you were right?   

In any case, people are free to follow your every word if they choose to.

Also, I don't really follow Reddit, but you can pile me in with those guys if it makes you feel better.  The nice part is that at some point reality kicks in, and we will be able to compare your legal interpretations to the actual outcome.  There are some things that you got right about Star Citizen.  The CryTek lawsuit is not one of them.

[Greggy_D]

Neither of you know how this is going to turn out, so how about we wait and see.

[N0mad]

Never mind all the MTDs, that's all a distraction and delaying tactic to try and prevent the inevitable Discovery phase, which is where (in my opinion) all the danger lies for CIG. For instance it MIGHT show:

• That CIG is effectively bust, has no cash in the bank and is scraping together just enough to pay people month by month.
• That when CIG went from Crytek to Lumberyard they just changed all the copyright descriptions in the code headers, rather than starting with a fresh version of Lumberyard and copy pasting all their custom code.
• That Chris Roberts, his wife, and all his friends, have siphoned off a lot of money over the years. It will be entirely legal to do so, but might not impress the Whales.

The interesting thing will be how much will be made public, how much is hidden, and whether CIG try to settle this out of court!

[jgajek]

Neither of you know how this is going to turn out, so how about we wait and see.

It's true that we can't predict with absolute certainty.  But Derek is making basic errors in his analysis.  Just wanted to point that out.

I am on record with some statements that I think are more likely than the doom & gloom that Derek is spreading.

https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1030848639005020161
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1039246275542171648
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1039242795331010560

But you are of course free to believe whatever you want.  And none of this means that Star Citizen will be a playable game anytime soon.

[jgajek]

Never mind all the MTDs, that's all a distraction and delaying tactic to try and prevent the inevitable Discovery phase, which is where (in my opinion) all the danger lies for CIG. For instance it MIGHT show:

• That CIG is effectively bust, has no cash in the bank and is scraping together just enough to pay people month by month.
• That when CIG went from Crytek to Lumberyard they just changed all the copyright descriptions in the code headers, rather than starting with a fresh version of Lumberyard and copy pasting all their custom code.
• That Chris Roberts, his wife, and all his friends, have siphoned off a lot of money over the years. It will be entirely legal to do so, but might not impress the Whales.

The interesting thing will be how much will be made public, how much is hidden, and whether CIG try to settle this out of court!

Except that none of the things you listed are relevant to CryTek's surviving claims, so who cares (as far as the outcome of the lawsuit is concerned).

[jwh1701]

It's true that we can't predict with absolute certainty.  But Derek is making basic errors in his analysis.  Just wanted to point that out.

I am on record with some statements that I think are more likely than the doom & gloom that Derek is spreading.

https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1030848639005020161
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1039246275542171648
https://twitter.com/jgajek/status/1039242795331010560

But you are of course free to believe whatever you want.  And none of this means that Star Citizen will be a playable game anytime soon.

You said prior you were done with SC which I infer you believe to have become a scam? Is you only real issue with Derek's take on the lawsuit? Do you have any prior or current legal training that helps you to believe or understand differently? 

[jgajek]

You said prior you were done with SC which I infer you believe to have become a scam? Is you only real issue with Derek's take on the lawsuit? Do you have any prior or current legal training that helps you to believe or understand differently?

Scam is a strong word that I'm not sure I would be prepared to use without more evidence.  But it's on the table as far as I'm concerned.  The development process is definitely out of control and the promised features do not appear to be attainable.

I do not have legal training.  My opinions are based on reading the documents, and listening to contract lawyers on the subject.

[StanTheMan]

I read the documents carefully myself and used my brain,

You have shit for brains because you think this qualifies you to ignore the arguments of people with far more legal experience and expertise than you and then go on to claim you know more about the law than they do.

[jgajek]

You have shit for brains because you think this qualifies you to ignore the arguments of people with far more legal experience and expertise than you.

I'm pretty sure I can safely ignore yours from now on.   

[dsmart]

But Derek is making basic errors in his analysis.  Just wanted to point that out.

And yet you can't seem to be able to provide any evidence of that. Instead, you're hurling insults, aggressive innuendo, and baseless arguments.

[dsmart]

Except that none of the things you listed are relevant to CryTek's surviving claims, so who cares (as far as the outcome of the lawsuit is concerned).

Except he never claimed that. He clearly was talking about the things which Crytek would come up with in discovery and which may or may not be relevant to the case - because that's how discovery works. It's a fishing expedition.

[dsmart]

Scam is a strong word that I'm not sure I would be prepared to use without more evidence.  But it's on the table as far as I'm concerned.  The development process is definitely out of control and the promised features do not appear to be attainable.

It's a scam. And there are more signs of this that go beyond my list of 6 in my latest article.

I do not have legal training.  My opinions are based on reading the documents, and

Reading isn't the same as comprehending. That's why they teach both in school.

listening to contract lawyers on the subject.

Those dweebs on YT don't count.