Discussions are on my Discord server (invite code:
https://discord.gg/7nUXA9u)
1) The Crytek v RSI/CIG lawsuit was filed on
Dec 12, 2017.
Since then I have been keeping track, while writing up my opinions on it. You can track all the filings either on
PACER or
COURT LISTENER.
2) The Crytek v RSI/CIG lawsuit settlement was finalized on
Mar 23, 2020 (Note: 1 day before the trial).
The conclusion was that
after Crytek found out (starts on p4) - through discovery - that CIG hadn't actually switched (
1,
2) to Lumberyard as CIG had claimed, they [Crytek] decided to withdraw the lawsuit until SQ42 (the main target of the lawsuit) was released so that it would be conclusive proof that it in fact use CryEngine and not Lumberyard.
1,
2,
3,
4The issue there is that CIG was being cagey about
when SQ42 would actually release (Note: Beta was scheduled for Q1/2020, but has since been pushed to Q2/2020. But it was
totally coming in 2017 though). Hence the reason that Crytek decided to press pause on the lawsuit in order to be able to refile once SQ42 had released (
1). CIG obviously didn't want that hanging over their head - especially since it was already proven that they didn't actually switch engines - thus putting SQ42 at huge risk.
So, after CIG tried several times (via legal files) to settle with Crytek (who rebuffed it and opted to wait until discovery was over), this final settlement did go through. And
several sources have told me that it was a financial settlement in which
CIG paid Crytek to drop the claims and lawsuit once and for all. All this happened less than one month to the March 24, 2020 trial date.
Mar 23, 2020 - JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSALFILINGS
https://www.docdroid.net/MjI2SL9/govuscourtscacd6964371260.pdfMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1245453181812977669Feb 20, 2020 - NOTICE OF SETTLEMENTFILINGS
https://www.docdroid.net/yZRTiKt/govuscourtscacd6964371230.pdfMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1230978569121214465Feb 6, 2020 - ORDER RE STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSALFILINGS
https://www.docdroid.net/LSEkrpu/031132400868.pdfJan 24th, 2020 - APPLICATION to file document Portions of Reply ISO Crytek's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal under seal filed by Plaintiff Crytek GmbHFILINGS
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/115/2/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/https://www.docdroid.net/aWBMByc/031132310975-pdfhttps://www.docdroid.net/mxx7RhW/031132310976-pdf
Jan 2nd, 2010 - Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial and Related Dates and Regarding Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion to DismissFILINGS
https://docdro.id/t4uERy1https://docdro.id/alz5usWMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1213141052342882304https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1213945643158450176
Oct 2nd, 2019 - PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm re Stipulation for Protective Order 83FILINGS
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.88.0.pdf
Sept 16th, 2019 - ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESFILINGS
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.87.0_1.pdf
Sept 11th, 2019 - Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial and Related Dates from March 24, 2020 to June 16, 2020FILINGS
https://docdro.id/wFyO34Lhttps://docdro.id/z8dM5PPMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1172947678805864451
Aug 19th, 2019 - CryTek posts $500K bond as per court rulingFILINGS
MY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1163884753860399106
Aug 6th, 2019 - STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Crytek GmbH.(Brazen, Clifford)FILINGS
https://www.docdroid.net/HE1VZ5z/govuscourtscacd696437830.pdfMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1159227074898477056
July 22nd, 2019 - IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A BONDFILINGS
https://www.docdroid.net/QeUAw3h/govuscourtscacd696437810.pdfMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1153771217649897472The judge in the Crytek v CIG et al case has finally ruled on the bond request filed by CIG back in March.
She set a $500K bond which, considering what's at stake, seems pretty low to me - especially seeing as the target is a foreign company.
July 18th, 2019 - MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnonFILINGS
https://www.docdroid.net/NuaU8KF/govuscourtscacd696437800.pdfSettlement conference held. A settlement agreement is not reached. The Court understands that the parties will continue their efforts to settle the case, and they may contact the Magistrate Judge's CRD if they wish to schedule a further settlement conference
MY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1152571204865286144?s=21So the prelim settlement conference in Crytek v CIG went as well as was expected. Nothing happened. Which is in line with Crytek's continued efforts to see this matter to trial or get paid a sum with lots of zeroes in it.
June 27th, 2019 - ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendants' Motion for a Bond presently scheduled for hearing on June 28, 2019, is appropriate for decision without oral argument.FILINGS
none
MY COVERAGE
CIG left it up to the judge to make a decision on the bond based on the already submitted interrogatories - without a hearing. So the judge canceled [vacated] the hearing (where both sides show up in court to argue some more - in front of the judge) as moot.
CIG had previously notified the judge that they were in settlement talks. So they have to do the settlement discussion on July 16th; and it's completely unrelated to the bond hearing.
The judge is still going to rule on the bond hearing
If both sides don't reach a settlement by that date, then it's off to discovery (depending on the judge's ruling on the bond)
June 26th, 2019 - ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnonFILINGS
https://docdro.id/6yDKoZbThe Settlement Conference has been placed on calendar for Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 780, 7th Floor, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. No later than 5:00 p.m. ten days before the conference, each party shall submit a Confidential Settlement Statement by email it to the Magistrate Judge's chambers email (
[email protected]).
MY COVERAGE
This is standard procedure ahead of a trial. During this period, all parties have to engage in good faith settlement talks. If no settlement, the case proceeds as per the trial schedule (scroll to bottom of this post for that).
June 14th, 2019 - REPLY TO CRYTEK GMBH'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR BOND filed by DefendantsFILINGS
https://docdro.id/4ps7wSTMY COVERAGE
It's a load of the same nonsense as before. No additional commentary needed.
June 7th, 2019 - OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Bond for Costs and Fees by Plaintiff CrytekFILINGS
https://docdro.id/Fk8H2rFhttps://docdro.id/i85TkMMhttps://docdro.id/j17EnTHMY COVERAGE
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1137397385389367296.html
May 29th, 2019 - NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Chris R Schmidt on behalf of Plaintiff CrytekFILINGS
https://docdro.id/5UdFKVCMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1136312413433806848
May 28th, 2019 - Crytek Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response To Defendants' Motion for BondFILINGS
https://docdro.id/rOh64bg
May 24th, 2019 - EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response To Defendants' Motion for Bond by Plaintiff CrytekFILINGS
https://docdro.id/2who2DIMINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION (court notice to Crytek about EX PARTE motion)
https://docdro.id/wvQIBlM
Apr 4th, 2019 - Joint STIPULATION to Continue HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR BONDFILINGS
Motion moved to June 28th, 2019 before Judge Dolly M. Gee
https://docdro.id/CsIvVSJProposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation To Continue Hearing On Defendants Motion For Bond
https://docdro.id/rIr5RccMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1115697321453420549
Mar 29th, 2019 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Bond for Costs and FeesFILINGS
Motion set for hearing on 4/26/2019 before Judge Dolly M. Gee
https://docdro.id/AgJklS8Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for a Bond Pursuant to CCP § 1030
https://docdro.id/lU3KMThDeclaration of Ortwin Freyermuth
https://docdro.id/O2SsvLMDeclaration of Jay Grenier
https://docdro.id/BJHYpEVDeclaration of Jeremy S. Goldman
https://docdro.id/sGdRly8MY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1111977284536360961
Mar 7th, 2019 - SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL & TRIAL DATES(JURY TRIAL)FILING
https://www.docdroid.net/NRDf1Rh/schedule-of-pretrial-and-trial-dates.pdf
Feb 6th, 2019 - CIG FILES ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTFILING
https://www.docdroid.net/WPfo6Rw/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp-et-al-cacdce-17-08937-00530.pdfMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1094022928461639680
Jan 16th, 2019 - CRYTEK DECIDES NOT TO FILE A THIRD AMENDMENT COMPLAINTFILING
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S DECEMBER 6, 2018 ORDER (ECF NO. 49)Case 2:17-cv-08937-DMG-FFM Document 52 Filed 01/16/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:639
https://www.docdroid.net/o9vH8px/govuscourtscacd696437520.pdfMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1085923758072909824
Dec 21st, 2018 - CRYTEK ASKS FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO LATEST MTDFILING
JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
https://docdro.id/5iiTOHk[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
https://docdro.id/R11BU1yMY COVERAGE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1077210969984696320
Dec 6th, 2018 - JUDGE GRANTS 5/5 ITEMS (wrt 2.4 of the GLA) IN CIG MOTION TO DISMISS CRYTEK'S SAC - WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (by Crytek)FILING
https://www.docdroid.net/Jv5BRif/031129522308.pdf"
The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants' Motion to Dismiss42 . Within 21 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies discussed in this Order or notify Defendants and the Court that it does not intend to amend. Thereafter, Defendants shall file their response within 21 days."
MY COVERAGE
Sept 28th, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS CRYTEK'S SACFILING
https://www.docdroid.net/gyyGc4q/031129092131.pdfSept 28th, 2018 - FILING OF JOINT RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY REPORTFILING
https://www.docdroid.net/iucXCm0/031129091565.pdf
Sept 21st, 2018 - CRYTEK RESPONDS TO CIG MOTION TO DISMISS THE SACFILING
https://www.docdroid.net/5WYum99/031129038076.pdfMY COVERAGE
http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6639/
Sept 6th, 2018 - CIG FILES MOTION TO DISMISS OVER CRYTEK'S SACFILING MEMORANDUM
http://docdro.id/0LxN6KaPROPOSED ORDER (used by judge if she grants the MtD)
http://docdro.id/DIPUrHOJUDGE ORDERS RULE 26 DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (
FRCP Rule 26)
NOTE: Scheduled for Oct 12, 2018
http://docdro.id/OGVjIHWMY COVERAGE
http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6615/
Aug 17th, 2018 - CIG FILES RESPONSE & OPPOSITION TO CRYTEK RULE (26f) DISCOVERY CIG, not waiting for their 20 day period, have immediately filed a response to Crytek. Not sure why they're so afraid of discovery. It's weird. Almost as if they're trying to hide something.
OBJECTIONS to Notice (Other), Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Second Amended Complaint and Suggestion that Rule 16 Conference Be Convened
https://www.docdroid.net/N0hyv2e/031128808931.pdfMY COVERAGE:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030835962899849222.html
Aug 16th, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (SAC)BREAKING! Crytek have now filed a second amended complaint that solidifies their claims. They specifically went for what I wrote that they would as per 2.4.
It's funny - and I'm not even a lawyer.
I will have more in a bit.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants
https://www.docdroid.net/Btqzzhy/031128797590.pdfNOTICE of Filing SECOND Amended Complaint And Suggestion That Rule 16 Conference Be Convened
https://www.docdroid.net/X4V4AC9/031128797710.pdfMY COVERAGE:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030420136250040320.html
Aug 14th, 2018 - JUDGE GRANTS 2/7 ITEMS (wrt GLA) IN CIG MOTION TO DISMISS CRYTEK'S FAC - WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (by Crytek)The judge denies the MtD. Only the exclusivity claim was granted with leave to re-file by CryTek
Filing :
https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo
MY COVERAGE :
http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6560/https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1029687504205688832Also, worth noting that even though the judge dismissed section 2.1.2 (exclusivity), the 2.4 breach is even more harmful to CIG. PLUS - right there on the last page of the filing - the judge invited Crytek to file any amendment if her understanding of their intent (e.g. 2.1.2) was misunderstood. If the judge was certain that 2.1.2 and the punitive damages issue were open and shut, she would NEVER have left that door open for Crytek to file an amended complaint as per the two items she didn't dismiss. She's not stupid.
It's also worth pointing out that
7 MONTHS ago back in Jan after the lawsuit was filed, I had claimed that 2.4 was going to be a problem. Yet, until the judge just brought it up in her ruling, neither Crytek nor CIG made a point of it. You can read my thread about that here.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html
Apr 17, 2018 - JUDGE DENIES CIG PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTIONThe judge denied (as moot) the filing.
http://docdro.id/tx3rLrT (ruling)
http://docdro.id/vAoGioC (minutes)
MY COVERAGE:
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/986319843514306561
Apr 3, 2018 - CIG FILES FURTHER MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PROTECTIVE ORDERCIG have filed yet another response to CryTek's filing. This discovery issue really has them spooked. Gee, I wonder why that is.
http://docdro.id/Gqus4SZMY COVERAGE:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/981554668538089472.html
MAR 27, 2018 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Protective OrderCryTek have filed their answer to the Mar 9th filing for a protective order by CIG.
http://docdro.id/oxLxMkt
MAR 13, 2018 - COURT HEARING MOVED FROM APRIL 13TH TO APRIL 17THhttps://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al]scheduled for April 13th, moved to 17th
MAR 11, 2018 - MY COVERAGEhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html
MAR 10, 2018 - MY COVERAGEhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972488629674283013.htmlWhen you read through what Crytek is requesting, it's easy to see EXACTLY what I said back in Dec and how this lawsuit was going to go.
EVERYTHING is going to come out. And there isn't a DAMN thing that CIG can do about it.
And that's why CIG are panicking and filing this PO.
Pop quiz. See if you can guess why Crytek is also requesting unedited AtV shows. e.g.
this one from Dec 2017, as per production request #23. FF to 21:40 where it was clearly spliced where he probably said CryEngine before it was changed to Lumberyard.
Remember back when I said we keep all this shit cuz we're gamers and we're all particularly autistic & have long term memory?
MAR 9, 2018 - CIG FILES A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERYCIG filed a
protective order motion with the court.
A motion for protective order refers to a party's request that the court protect it from potentially abusive action by the other party. Such a request is often made in relation to discovery, as when one party seeks discovery of the other party's trade secrets. In certain instances, the court will craft a protective order for protecting one party's trade secrets by ordering that any secret information exchanged in discovery shall be used for the pending suit only and it shall not in any manner be publicized.
http://docdro.id/sh74oDz (motion)
http://docdro.id/3xk4ojP (memo)
http://docdro.id/0HkRbvA (proposed order)
http://docdro.id/Ofv2K49 (attorney declaration)
MAR 5, 2018 - MY COVERAGEWe know that Crytek created the early tech demos. They said so. Curiously, CIG/RSI didn't make any moves to deny this in their court filings. Gee, I wonder why.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/970714392764518400.html
MAR 1, 2018 - MY COVERAGEMusings on the ensuing discovery shenanigans
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/969294105225383937.html
FEB 28, 2018 - MY COVERAGEMusings on the Rule 26(f) discovery filing. Here we also learn that CIG tried to enter into settlement talks with CryTek, but were rebuffed.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html
FEB 27, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES DISCOVERY PLAN UNDER FCRP RULE 26(f) As per
Rule 26 (Discovery), CryTek and CIG attorneys had their conference. It looks like it got heated, hostile etc. So Crytek filed a notice/complaint with the court.
https://www.docdroid.net/uMDHWEY/discovery-plan.pdf
FEB 10, 2018 - MY COVERAGESo the judge vacated the oral args in the MtD.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/962372778967093249.html
FEB 8, 2018 - MY COVERAGEAs a likely precursor to her tossing the MtD, judge Gee has hilariously canceled the Feb 9th hearing for oral arguments.
Apparently she doesn't want to be subjected to the bullshit that RSI/CIG have injected into their pleadings.
I warned that language would come back to haunt them.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Claims for Relief Therein or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Certain Portions of the First Amended Complaint (FRCP 12(B)(6), 12(E) & 12(f))19 presently scheduled for hearing on February 9, 2018, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
Basically what this means is the judge, aside from not wanting to engage in any stupid arguments as per the RSI/CIG pleadings, probably decided to do further research on one or more of the causes of action in the complaint, before issuing a final ruling (she's going to toss it).
As she stated "is appropriate for decision without oral argument", she has enough information from all the pleadings to make a decision without wasting further time in a hearing with oral arguments.
Clearly she didn't want to rule "out of hand" on a matter that, hyperbole aside, is based on both contract and IP law.
Besides, who wants to be that judge listening to an attorney argue the meaning of the word "exclusive"?
RSI/CIG rebuttals are so beyond belief, that some of us are of the opinion that their arguments, coupled with the tone, look like a deliberate effort by RSI/CIG to get Cryrekt, thus getting an excuse to scuttle the project.
As far-fetched as that sounds, this is Star Citizen
FEB 8, 2018 - JUDGE DECIDES NOT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTSFed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15 allows her to do so, regardless of whether or not either side requests or agrees.
Oral arguments, especially in Fed court, are not mandatory.
Also, any such request to skip oral arguments from either attorney, would also need to be in the form for a pleading to the court. And such pleading would be part of the court record. There is no pleading preceding the judge's decision. Ergo, the attorneys had nothing to do with her decision.
And this judge does this regularly. Here is
one of her cases from 2014
Scroll down to entry # 24 on
08/19/2014Note that after skipping oral arguments, the case continued as normal. The judge didn't rule on the MtD until
10/28/2014 (see entry #25)
Meet the Honorable judge Dolly M. Gee
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/961629006708781056.html
JAN 26, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEKAs was to be expected, because Ortwin just can't leave well enough alone and wait for the Feb 9th hearing, they have responded to the Crytek answer. I will dig into it later this weekend.
https://www.scribd.com/document/370105345/031127439162
JAN 20, 2018 - MY COVERAGEMy thoughts on the apocalyptic Crytek response to the MtD
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/954724633344913408.html
JAN 19, 2018 - CRYTEK RESPONDS TO CIG MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FAC)OK, the much anticipated Skadden response to the CIG motion to dismiss, is live on Pacer.
https://www.docdroid.net/v7yQ0LL/response-skadden-011918.pdfAs has been reported, it's absolutely catastrophic for RSI/CIG.
I am going over it now and will post my comments shortly. At a glance my first reaction is...
I am predicting that today will be an apocalyptic day of reckoning in Crytek v CIG, with RSI/CIG being on the receiving end.
Oh, I have no doubt in my mind that Ortwin Freyermuth is well on his way to being disbarred after this fiasco is exposed.
JAN 17, 2018 - MY COVERAGEWhile we wait for the Skadden response that's coming within the next two weeks, ahead of the Feb 9th Motion To Dismiss ruling, I chime in some additional thoughts. I also touch on Chris Roberts work with Blink Media in Vancouver, the company he was with during 2010 when they were evaluating CryEngine for the game.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/953691070898102272.html
JAN 6, 2018 - CIG FILES A MOTION TO DISMISSThis was a no-brainer that they filed it. Standard procedure to see what sticks
https://www.scribd.com/document/368546512/2-2017cv08937-Crytek-v-CIG-20180105-Notice-of-Errata-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-Exhibit-BMY COVERAGE:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html
JAN 5, 2018 - CIG RESPONDS TO CRYTEK LAWSUIThttps://www.scribd.com/document/368545940/2-2017cv08937-Crytek-v-Cig-20180105-Declaration-of-Jeremy-s-Goldman
JAN 4, 2018But as they never filed, and there is no longer an incentive to keep it under wraps, this is who I am hearing they have hired to respond to the law suit.
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + SelzMY COVERAGE:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.htmlALSO:
Right off the bat @ 0:56, they talk about "two games being built". You know, the same damn thing they're being sued for.
God, seriously, we're not making up. And if we are, it's all on you.
I can't wait for Skadden to add more intentionally inserts in their reply to what we believe is going to be a hilarious response from RSI/CIG.
On 12/13/17, RSI/CIG already PUBLICLY admitted to "switching engines".
At this point, they should just give CryTek a blank check.
We already KNOW they're going to claim they were built with Lumberyard. Which is going to be just as epic a response as any.
Jan 2, 2018 - CRYTEK FILES FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FAC)https://www.scribd.com/document/368322159/Crytek-GmbH-v-Cloud-Imperium-Games-Corp-Et-Al-Cacdce-17-08937-0018-0As if the bombshell lawsuit wasn't enough, Crytek amended it, added some scathing language which is no doubt based on new information they received in the interim. In fact, the use of the word
intentionally jumps right at you this time around.
Hilariously, all this happened on the day that RSI/CIG were to respond.
As can be seen from the DIFF between the original and amended filing, they removed the part about Ortwin having a conflict of interest in their dealings with Crytek. I had hinted at this before saying that unless there was a waiver, that he had some explaining to do.
https://www.diffchecker.com/GTqP0gvuThey also tightened up the wording and conveyed the message that they felt RSI/CIG clearly
intended to do these things. Which to me means that they probably got hold of additional evidence since the original 12/12/17 filing, leading them to believe this.
As I reported in my Twitter thread above, according to sources, Ortwin DID produce such a waiver, which either Crytek didn't originally have a copy of, or that section wasn't updated prior to the original filing.
Following the filing of the amended complaint, I go back in with my thoughts and opinions on what this all means for RSI/CIG in terms of where they are in the Richter scale (1 - 10) for how screwed they are. They are firmly sitting at 11.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.htmlAs things stand, we're waiting to read the RSI/CIG response to the amended complaint. We don't know whether or not they already received the amended complaint ahead of it being filed. That being the case, they would have additional time to respond. And knowing those clowns, they will take full advantage of any such delays, rather than responding in a timely fashion.
So I don't personally expect to see them respond today. And even so, we wouldn't know about it until tomorrow when PACER updates. Instead, we could see other procedural filings instead.
UPDATE:
As I had mentioned before, seeing as RSI/CIG didn't even respond to the lawsuit during the past 21 days, which expires today, it's not likely that they will respond today.
Especially now that they have another 14 days due to the amended complaint. Like literally TWO WEEKS (if you don't get the joke, leave my server please).
So they have to respond between now and Jan 17th.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3):
Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.
Dec 18, 2017 - MY COVERAGEWith the Star Citizen Defense Force out there saying all kinds of stupid nonsense (the lawsuit has no merit, Crytek are bankrupt etc), I go back in and do what I do. It drives them nuts.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942753856332685312.html
Dec 17, 2017 - MY COVERAGEWith the anxiety increasing among backers trying to figure out what Skadden was going to do with their JPEGS, I got back in with another hilarious storm
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.htmlI also decided that I was going to be filing an amicus brief for the case obo of all confirmed backers, trolls, and those Goon bastards
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/942758171545952257
Dec 15, 2017 - MY COVERAGEI dive deeper into the chasm of hilarity, as I posit just how screwed those clowns at RSI/CIG were
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941688759589986305
Dec 13, 2017 - MY COVERAGEMy Twitter thread detailing the implications of this lawsuit
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457This is the same day that the registered agents for both companies, accepted service of the lawsuit; thus starting the 21 day countdown. RSI/CIG have until Jan 3rd, 2018 to respond.
DEC 12, 2017 - CRYTEK v RSI/CIG INITIAL FILINGhttps://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
CASE TIMELINE
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_alhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
