CryTek v CIG/RSI

[mtn355]

If you're implying that they are using CryEngine, then that's just what the Lumberyard directory looks like:

Lumberyard Github

Unless I've missed something :)

damnit, my last post got lost in oblivion, eaten by JS  errors, grr.

Well, you have to take a closer look at the tooltip of the cursor and the working directory of the file shown:
f:\[...]-LA_DEV\CryEngine\Code\CryEngine\CryAction\EntityEnergyComponent\EntityComponentPowerConnection.h [Read Only]

This must be one of their Customizations to CE, since the dir "EntityEnergyComponent" is not found either in CE, nor in LY:
https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/tree/release/Code/CryEngine/CryAction
https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/tree/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryAction

If you have a closer look in the "Solution Explorer" window, one might recognize that there are some dirs eclusive to CE which are not included in LY at all:
for instance FlashUI und GameSessions

So, this might indicate that their proclaimed switch of engines might not have been completed until now, if not imposible at all.

This is so hilarious! How can one still post this material of evidence m(

[N0mad]

If you have a closer look in the "Solution Explorer" window, one might recognize that there are some dirs eclusive to CE which are not included in LY at all:
for instance FlashUI und GameSessions

So, this might indicate that their proclaimed switch of engines might not have been completed until now, if not imposible at all.

This is so hilarious! How can one still post this material of evidence m(

That would explain CIG's love of refactoring code - take the original CryEngine files, rename all the variables and methods, rearrange it all a bit then add Copyright StarEngine to the top and hope the lawyers don't notice.

I'm guessing that will form part of the argument in trial - did CIG untangle all their custom code from CryEngine then add it to a fresh build of Lumberyard, or did they just add all the Lumberyard extras to their existing custom build of CryEngine? I'd be willing to bet it's the latter. If they were stupid enough to do all this using version control with an online repository (eg Github) then they're screwed - although, since this is CIG and reinventing the wheel is what they do, then they'll have a custom server with all the incriminating version history that they can just wipe, but again, if they don't remove all reference to it in the software then it could get discovered. Who's willing to bet that Skadden have a team of software engineers who do exactly these sorts of checks?

[Bubba]

I confess I don't read Rule 26(f) reports for a living, so I can't tell you how FKKS's behavior here compares to other cases; I would find that rather enlightening.
On the face of it, it is impressive that FKKS chose to repeat the MtD arguments here. It's nugatory, beside the point, and, to my outsider's eyes, dangerous. Alluding to "ulterior motives" and refusing categorically, in a conference to determine the subjects on which discovery will focus, to discuss any subjects, would seem to play into the hands of plaintiff.
Let's assume that the MtD is not granted in its entirety. Then the court has to consider a discovery plan where CryTek has laid out what it wants, when it wants it, and how to go about it; the other has replied by repeating arguments that the court has already dismissed, saying that (as I read it) these invalid arguments are the reason why it refuses to discuss in a substantial way any sort of discovery plan at a Rule 26(f) meeting.

As judge, what would you do?

Of course, it doesn't help FKKS that Skadden filed the document and put on record their replies to all of FKKS' accusations, most notably their specific reply to the relevance-of-crowdfunding charge in IV-B, and, in V-E Crytek's willingness for Alternative Dispute Resolution against CIG/RSI's charge that they "would not state" what method of settlement procedure they preferred.
I also liked the "professional courtesy" that FKKS refused at the end.

[Motto]

Why would they care at FKKS at this point? They are getting paid by the hour. If the idiot Ortwin insists on dictating how they should respond and they can make extra money by cleaning up his moronic statements, why would they? It's his money. And when the time is there that Ortwin just doesn't cut it anymore, they either walk away with the monies earned, or they take the whole shitshow over and then even extra monies are popping in. So it's just mo monies mo monies for FKKS.

[GaryII]

Well, you have to take a closer look at the tooltip of the cursor and the working directory of the file shown:
f:\[...]-LA_DEV\CryEngine\Code\CryEngine\CryAction\EntityEnergyComponent\EntityComponentPowerConnection.h [Read Only]

 Changing directory names probably would broke a lot of references - project is huge after all...
 Probably only few people are capable to sort out that mess anyway...so they are lazy here to save the time..

 Anyway this project is turning into Best Damn Kickstarter Lawsuit Ever (BDKLE)  ;)     

[Bubba]

Why would FKKS care? Well, the attorneys are responsible for making a good faith attempt to agree on discovery, not the clients. On most of the filings, they can take Ortwin's money, but here, it's their ass on the line, especially if they come to a meeting about discovery and fail to make any agreement, on the grounds that, the GLA, which would be material to any claim, was "concealed by Crytek in its two pleadings".

[dsmart]

I confess I don't read Rule 26(f) reports for a living, so I can't tell you how FKKS's behavior here compares to other cases; I would find that rather enlightening.
On the face of it, it is impressive that FKKS chose to repeat the MtD arguments here. It's nugatory, beside the point, and, to my outsider's eyes, dangerous. Alluding to "ulterior motives" and refusing categorically, in a conference to determine the subjects on which discovery will focus, to discuss any subjects, would seem to play into the hands of plaintiff.
Let's assume that the MtD is not granted in its entirety. Then the court has to consider a discovery plan where CryTek has laid out what it wants, when it wants it, and how to go about it; the other has replied by repeating arguments that the court has already dismissed, saying that (as I read it) these invalid arguments are the reason why it refuses to discuss in a substantial way any sort of discovery plan at a Rule 26(f) meeting.

As judge, what would you do?

Of course, it doesn't help FKKS that Skadden filed the document and put on record their replies to all of FKKS' accusations, most notably their specific reply to the relevance-of-crowdfunding charge in IV-B, and, in V-E Crytek's willingness for Alternative Dispute Resolution against CIG/RSI's charge that they "would not state" what method of settlement procedure they preferred.
I also liked the "professional courtesy" that FKKS refused at the end.

FKKS argued the merits of the case in a MtD filing; something that's not par for the course either. So them incorrectly regurgitating the same nonsense in a Rule 26(f) filing, isn't much difference.

The attorneys have no incentive to reign in their client. It's not a criminal case; it's a civil case. If Ortwin wants to look bad in the eyes of the court, while playing to the toxic backer base, that's on him. I hope he continues.

[dsmart]

Why would FKKS care? Well, the attorneys are responsible for making a good faith attempt to agree on discovery, not the clients. On most of the filings, they can take Ortwin's money, but here, it's their ass on the line, especially if they come to a meeting about discovery and fail to make any agreement, on the grounds that, the GLA, which would be material to any claim, was "concealed by Crytek in its two pleadings".

That's why attorneys who can't control their clients, tend to withdraw from cases. It's about ethics. Since FKKS is also a reputation management firm, it stands to reason that they would allow this sort of nonsense. They are going to regret it because all they're doing is giving Skadden every reason to completely embarrass their client in court filings, without having to resort to playground rhetoric. We've already seen this happen in Skadden's FAC filing, as well as their Rule 26(f) filing where they leaked that CIG had approached them about a settlement, which they turned down. That's not the sort of info CIG would have wanted to be made public. Especially since it destroys their narrative - as well as that of their toxic backer base - that Crytek was after a quick cash pay day.

[StanTheMan]

That's why attorneys who can't control their clients, tend to withdraw from cases. It's about ethics. Since FKKS is also a reputation management firm, it stands to reason that they would allow this sort of nonsense. They are going to regret it because all they're doing is giving Skadden every reason to completely embarrass their client in court filings, without having to resort to playground rhetoric. We've already seen this happen in Skadden's FAC filing, as well as their Rule 26(f) filing where they leaked that CIG had approached them about a settlement, which they turned down. That's not the sort of info CIG would have wanted to be made public. Especially since it destroys their narrative - as well as that of their toxic backer base - that Crytek was after a quick cash pay day.

CIG can reasonably predict that sufficient numbers of Backers will accept any excuse (for a settlement) along the lines of "although the case against us was baseless, we have decided to negotiate.. yadda yadda yadda ... for the good of the game, Backers etc etc" and presumably the details of the settlement would be kept quiet.   

However that was also the case weeks ago.

It does seem a weak position for CIG to have made an offer to settle at this stage in proceedings because you would have thought any sensible experienced business people would have sat down and thrashed out this sort of shit at the point that Skadden filed the original complaint.

If they can't afford to settle this would surely have been part of those hypothetical discussions with Skadden and might include an offer to pay from future Backer generated sales, in which case it wouldn't be in Cryteks interest to bring them crashing down if they wanted a pay day, would it ?

As it stands now, it looks like CIG have been lying to their attorneys as well as everyone else.

They are all over the place with their defence just as they are all over the place with their development of SC.

Perhaps they have just told FKKS they can't afford much and thats why they have made an offer to settle now..

[Bubba]

Could be. Note that if by "their [Skadden's] Rule 26(f) filing" you mean the document posted at the top of this thread, then while Skadden technically filed the document, FKKS had to agree explicitly to the content of the "CIG's position" parts, and, if they have any brains at all, wrote them themselves. So, Skadden didn't leak the "settlement" part; CIG/FKKS said, "Okay, V-E, possibilities for resolution. How much money do you want?" They then wrote down that Skadden/Crytek wouldn't give them a figure, since they had "ulterior motives".

[dsmart]

Could be. Note that if by "their [Skadden's] Rule 26(f) filing" you mean the document posted at the top of this thread, then while Skadden technically filed the document, FKKS had to agree explicitly to the content of the "CIG's position" parts, and, if they have any brains at all, wrote them themselves. So, Skadden didn't leak the "settlement" part; CIG/FKKS said, "Okay, V-E, possibilities for resolution. How much money do you want?" They then wrote down that Skadden/Crytek wouldn't give them a figure, since they had "ulterior motives".

That's not how it works. Anything discussed in the Rule 26(f) can go into the filing. CIG probably objected at the inclusion of what they said, but Crytek probably refused and added it. Parties don't get to pick and choose what goes into a joint filing. If that were the case, Crytek wouldn't have allowed half the irrelevant bullshit that CIG stated in it, and which have no place in a Rule 26(f) filing.

However, I have to believe that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and are using these sort of abusive tactics to delay the inevitable and frustrate the plaintiffs.

From this Rule 26(f) filing, I fully expect that Skadden will file a motion to the judge, asking her to compel them to comply with FCRP. I can't wait to read it - and the CIG rebuttal.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ortwin is behind the wording and context of these filings. I have similar responses from him as proof.

I don't think CIG cares about the case, as they are probably thinking that it's going to settle anyway. Which means that Crytek's rejection of their request for a settlement offer, probably came as a surprise. Which also explains why they're making pointless arguments in a Rule 26(f), like they did in the MtD where they tried to argue the merits of the case, thus all but guaranteeing its failure once the judge sees that there is something worth arguing about - at trial.

The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to buy into that other conspiracy theory: That they want to fuck this up so badly, that the lawsuit destroys them, forces them into BK - then they get to blame Crytek while walking away.

It also explains why they ended up with the likes of FKKS, going up against a powerhouse like Skadden. Fucking hell, they threatened me and The Escapist with powerhouse lawyers (Cooley LLP). That was back in 2015. What happened since then?

[Bubba]

Either I just don't see it, or we mean the same thing. Skadden did not "leak" the settlement discussion.
First, take page 13:

p. 13 “I, (signing Skadden lawyer’s name), attest that the signatories listed above, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing.”

That is, both FKKS and Skadden had to sign off on the content. Hence it's a joint statement.

Now, about the settlement demand, here's what FKKS/Ortwin wrote on page 8, in "their version" of the events:

Defendants asked Crytek what it wanted from this case and whether it had a settlement demand. Crytek said it was not prepared to make a settlement demand or tell Defendants what it hoped to achieve from the lawsuit. Defendants asked Crytek what method of settlement procedure Crytek preferred; Crytek would not state.

Skadden/Crytek, on page 7, gave two paragraphs, the first one their own position, the second a reaction to the above, namely:

Crytek disputes Defendants’ description infra of the parties’ discussions during the Rule 26(f) conference as incomplete and inaccurate. (In particular, Crytek’s counsel stated that Crytek was open both to mediation with a neutral from the Court Meditation (sic) Panel or with a private mediator, but declined to respond to Defendants’ insistence that Crytek make a settlement demand during the Rule 26(f) conference.) Crytek will further respond to those allegations at an appropriate time as may be required.

Translation: "no, that account is factually false. We did express an openness to mediation, but, in a conference on discovery, they kept asking us how much we wanted."

[dsmart]

Either I just don't see it, or we mean the same thing. Skadden did not "leak" the settlement discussion.

You don't see it - or don't understand it.

The point I was making is that Rule 26(f) discussions are not recorded word-for-word. Both sides have to also agree to that filing. Which means that CIG saw what Crytek was planning on submitting for their end, and what they were submitting from CIG's end.

"Crytek disputes Defendants' description infra of the parties' discussions during the Rule 26(f) conference as incomplete and inaccurate. (In particular, Crytek's counsel stated that Crytek was open both to mediation with a neutral from the Court Meditation Panel or with a private mediator, but declined to respond to Defendants' insistence that Crytek make a settlement demand during the Rule 26(f) conference.) Crytek will further respond to those allegations at an appropriate time as may be required."

Crytek didn't have to mention the "settlement demand" by CIG. But they did so "in passing" (that's why it's in parenthesis) in order to put it in the public court record.

It had no relevance to the Rule 26(f) filing because that's not the filing for that. But since CIG - already resisting discovery - wanted to use the Rule 26(f) conference to argue the merits of the case, as they did in the MtD filing, they screwed up this one too by asking for a settlement. Then Crytek rejected it.

Since CIG themselves have said in several filings - including their Rule 26(f) conference - that Crytek was after money by filing a bullshit lawsuit, and some backers making the same claims, it makes CIG look stupid for them to be the one asking for a settlement, and not the other way around. So this mention of it by Crytek is a way to show that this has nothing to do with quick money or anything of the sort.

That's how "leaks" work. Look it up.

[StanTheMan]

This Wesh man may be able to explain how leeks work.




"During Elizabethan times, Shakespeare refers to the custom of wearing a leek as an “ancient tradition”, and his character Henry V tells Fluellen that he is wearing a leek “for I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.”"

[jwh1701]

Considering how unprofessional cig has been in the fillings, I still have to think Ortwin cannot be ignorant of the consequences. I have to think they are working on the worst possible outcome and that would be loss of mtd and then onto discovery. Are they just grandstanding while they continue to milk the backers and work on covering up the whole mess? Would it not be possible to for them to account for everything legal or not with expenses, expenditures, development? It seems to me that with all the companies and movement of money that is what they have been doing all along. Getting ready for the shutdown and having all loose ends accounted for concerning the backers money. As I see companies routinely get away with shafting the US Taxpayers by billions using much smaller own companies to purchase for example FCC licenses. Or am I giving CR/Ortwin to much credit they the are indeed working out all the details for the worst case scenario?