CryTek v CIG/RSI

[Caveat Emptor]

Regarding the 'promotion of a competing game engine' component of the lawsuit, and the judge granting this aspect of the MTD, isn't the Lumberyard splash screen a form of promotion? Otherwise, why would an engine''s developer insist on it as part of the licence?

[dsmart]

Regarding the 'promotion of a competing game engine' component of the lawsuit, and the judge granting this aspect of the MTD, isn't the Lumberyard splash screen a form of promotion? Otherwise, why would an engine''s developer insist on it as part of the licence?

Yes, but the judge ruled that a single promotion doesn't qualify. That's why Crytek can file a third amendment to show other instances. I suspect that's when they will try to make the argument about the logo.

[N0mad]

Yes, but the judge ruled that a single promotion doesn't qualify. That's why Crytek can file a third amendment to show other instances. I suspect that's when they will try to make the argument about the logo.

I couldn't be bothered to read the latest court documents, but wasn't the GLA 2.4 issue always about CIG promoting a competing game engine? Wasn't that what Crytek were accusing them of? or did they miss that bit out?

[dsmart]

Watch my latest video or listen to the podcast.

[dsmart]

Also, for those of you wondering what those guys are going on about, they went to Google, found the first link about amendments, then post it as  proof that the MtD ruling on the SAC, somehow supersedes the MtD ruling on the FAC, thus those claims are gone <--- yeah hilarious.

"The Court found that an amended pleading supersedes an original pleading, and parties are free to correct inaccuracies in pleadings by amendment.   The Court noted that the original pleading is of no effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the original pleading. In this way, the amended pleading results in “withdrawal by amendment” of the judicial admission."

The above is why the MtD ruling on the SAC has zero impact on the MtD ruling of the FAC.

This is also the bs that those "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.

#1 (12/12/2017) - original complaint

#2 (01/02/2018) - FAC = First Amended Complaint. This one contained EVERYTHING from the original complaint except they cleaned up the Ortwin issue related to his waiver. So THIS one did supersede the original complaint

#3 (08/16/2018) - SAC = Second Amended Complaint. This one was ONLY about 2.4 which the judge gave them leave to amend in her ruling on the FAC. As a result of this smaller filing, that's why the judge had this at the TOP of her MtD ruling over 2.4 "On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss ("MTD"), now before the Court, seeking dismissal of Crytek's claim for breach of contract based on Section 2.4 of the GLA"

The End

[jgajek]

This is also the bs that those "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.

Lior's been pretty credible so far.  I'm sure he'll clarify why he seemed to overlook the surviving claims in his video.

This is all just a sideshow anyway.  The important point is that the surviving claims are just a nuisance for CIG at this point.

[N0mad]

Lior's been pretty credible so far.  I'm sure he'll clarify why he seemed to overlook the surviving claims in his video.

This is all just a sideshow anyway.  The important point is that the surviving claims are just a nuisance for CIG at this point.

No and no I'm afraid: Lawyers are paid to pay attention to this sort of detail. Having covered the case previously, they'd be pretty incompetent if they were to forget about previous documents. Much more likely that they're both pandering to the SC Cult (hence of course preventing Derek from making comments).

The surviving claims, as I understand it, could still result in all sorts of trouble for CIG. But much more likely Discovery is going to cause the next big headache for CIG. I can't wait for the Zealot surprise when that gets announced - assuming they make it public.

[dsmart]

Lior's been pretty credible so far.  I'm sure he'll clarify why he seemed to overlook the surviving claims in his video.

Really? He's been COMPLETELY WRONG about this lawsuit since his very first video. Would you like a link?

Also, I just checked his latest video. Nope, no change or correction.

Meanwhile, Leonard - who is in the same boat - seems to have rolled back somewhat.

Trying to answer a frequent question:

The previous dismissal is from the First Amended Complaint. Crytek filed a Second Amended Complaint. It doesn't "add to" the previous complaints; it replaces it. The 2nd Amended Complaint is now dismissed with Leave to Amend and file a third amended complaint.

The issues are getting whittled down to the main meritorious issues. But this latest dismissal was a bit final, with the judge saying that they aren't sure how Crytek could overcome, but still granting leave to amend in case.

They would have to have facts to overcome the issues highlighted in the latest dismissal.

If they had said facts in their favor, they would have alleged them. The judge is being "polite" in the procedural sense.

That was after this deleted shit-show which I highlighted in my video.

The important point is that the surviving claims are just a nuisance for CIG at this point

It's hilarious that you think breach of contact and copyright infringement claims are a "nuisance". You should try telling that to all the companies and individuals who have been sued into the ground over one or both of those.

[dsmart]

No and no I'm afraid: Lawyers are paid to pay attention to this sort of detail. Having covered the case previously, they'd be pretty incompetent if they were to forget about previous documents. Much more likely that they're both pandering to the SC Cult (hence of course preventing Derek from making comments).

The surviving claims, as I understand it, could still result in all sorts of trouble for CIG. But much more likely Discovery is going to cause the next big headache for CIG. I can't wait for the Zealot surprise when that gets announced - assuming they make it public.

It's fake news. They're pandering to the cult for subs and Patreon money. There is no other explanation because if they had READ both the FAC and the SAC, and they ARE aware of how amendments work, AND they noticed that the SAC didn't contain ANY of the FAC claims, they would know they were just flat-out wrong. Neither one of them cared. They've done this before in ALL their Star Citizen videos. But they upped the ante this time around.

[dsmart]

@jgajek this is your very last chance and warning. If you can't stay on topic and keep the insults out this, you're getting IP banned. I have grown tired of moderating your bs. This is why you are muted (and now blocked) on Twitter. I mean, how hard is it to engage in a civil discussion? Nobody asked you to come here. And this isn't Reddit.

[Resin]

But doesn’t Leonard claim there that FAC is no more since SAC replaced it?

[dsmart]

But doesn’t Leonard claim there that FAC is no more since SAC replaced it?

Yes. And he's wrong.

[StanTheMan]

Also, for those of you wondering what those guys are going on about, they went to Google, found the first link about amendments, then post it as  proof that the MtD ruling on the SAC, somehow supersedes the MtD ruling on the FAC, thus those claims are gone <--- yeah hilarious.

"The Court found that an amended pleading supersedes an original pleading, and parties are free to correct inaccuracies in pleadings by amendment.   The Court noted that the original pleading is of no effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the original pleading. In this way, the amended pleading results in “withdrawal by amendment” of the judicial admission."

The above is why the MtD ruling on the SAC has zero impact on the MtD ruling of the FAC.

This is also the bs that those "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.

#1 (12/12/2017) - original complaint

#2 (01/02/2018) - FAC = First Amended Complaint. This one contained EVERYTHING from the original complaint except they cleaned up the Ortwin issue related to his waiver. So THIS one did supersede the original complaint

#3 (08/16/2018) - SAC = Second Amended Complaint. This one was ONLY about 2.4 which the judge gave them leave to amend in her ruling on the FAC. As a result of this smaller filing, that's why the judge had this at the TOP of her MtD ruling over 2.4 "On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss ("MTD"), now before the Court, seeking dismissal of Crytek's claim for breach of contract based on Section 2.4 of the GLA"

The End

You are doing the heavy lifting and I am inclined to think that they are not thorough.

When they come up against you they look lazy and foolish because they make silly mistakes.

[N0mad]

https://guardfrequency.com/241/

They were pretty fair, and an interesting take from the perspective of a real lawyer.

I'm actually quite pleased that the Zealots think it's all over, and that CIG have won. I can't wait to read about their surprise when more news about discovery comes through. Also can't wait to see how the two YT so-called lawyers try to spin it !

[dsmart]

Yeah, we will do what we always do.