CryTek v CIG/RSI

[StanTheMan]

So is it likely the judge will order the financials are kept out of the public domain ?

And I like this

http://docdro.id/3xk4ojP

cig .. five and a half years ... developing .. a game of unprecedented scale ...

Lying bastards ...

But this document is the best ...for many of the reasons Derek has been talking about...

https://www.docdroid.net/Ofv2K49/att2-declaration-of-jeremy-goldman-in-support-of-motion-for-protective-order.pdf

[dsmart]

So is it likely the judge will order the financials are kept out of the public domain ?

As I said in my write-up, there is no way of knowing that. It's up to the judge.

[dsmart]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html

[jwh1701]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/972869243954974720.html

Great write up and easily explains the lack of character of CR and previous lies. Leaks that expose wrong doing, theft etc I'm fully behind. I would love to see legislation to protect people that do so involving the government from harassment or worse.

[dsmart]

Great write up and easily explains the lack of character of CR and previous lies. Leaks that expose wrong doing, theft etc I'm fully behind. I would love to see legislation to protect people that do so involving the government from harassment or worse.

CIG knows everything is likely to leak. That's why they are delaying discovery which allows them to also do some shenanigans in the meantime.

[dsmart]

hearing moved from 13th to 17th. OP updated.

[Kyrt]

Is it just me...or is it actually impossible for CIG to legally uphold the GLA unless it uses CryEngine?

I'm talking about clauses such as promoting CryEngine via a splashscreen. How can CIG do that without committing fraud if it doesn't use CryEngine?

Or granting CryTek the right to free use of Star Citizen to promote CryEngine. Surely they are acting to deprive CryTek of a contractual right without due compensation  if they switch?

Or are there implied rights or laws or standards which cover this?

[StanTheMan]

Is it just me...or is it actually impossible for CIG to legally uphold the GLA unless it uses CryEngine?

I'm talking about clauses such as promoting CryEngine via a splashscreen. How can CIG do that without committing fraud if it doesn't use CryEngine?

Or granting CryTek the right to free use of Star Citizen to promote CryEngine. Surely they are acting to deprive CryTek of a contractual right without due compensation  if they switch?

Or are there implied rights or laws or standards which cover this?

What they should have done is shared the success of SC with Crytek.

A win win is good for business.

A Contract can't possibly adequately define the comprehensive relationship between two parties which is why the law allows for interpretation wider than the definition of words.

They appear to have been given every opportunity to engage with Crytek and thrown it all back in their face- because they are C^%ts !

Whether Amazon are happy to be dragged in to this is another factor.

So as Derek has said many times Skadden are going to do a thoroughly professional job of getting as much mileage from this legal process as they can.

You can bet that on moral grounds, Skadden and Crytek will have an eye for the money Croberts and his cronies have been getting on false pretenses from gamers.   

[Kyrt]

What they should have done is shared the success of SC with Crytek.

What they should have done is upheld the GLA...and not paid Crytek a penny more than they needed to.

But the question was whether or not CIG could legally fulfil its contractual obligations if it switched to another engine.

For example...the GLA provides CryTek with a right to sue Star Citizen to promote CryEngine. But CIGs move to  Lumberard would strip that right away with no compensation. Some might say tough
But the GLA also requires CIG to promote CryEngine via a splashscreen. However, it appears the is clause does not depend on the engine being in use. It simply states CIG has to do something in exchange for the right to use CryEngine. However, if they promote CryEngine as contractually required at a time when they are not using CryEngine, that could possibly be construed as fraud.

In essence, even discounting the question of interpretation over the word "exclusive",  do the terms of the GLA ensure that the only way CIG can legally uphold its obligations is to use CryEngine...a de facto exclusivity clause even if there isn't one mentioned specifically?

[StanTheMan]

What they should have done....and not paid Crytek a penny more than they needed to.

Not wise.

Goodwill goes a long way and as Derek says... it is a small industry.

[dsmart]

What they should have done is upheld the GLA...and not paid Crytek a penny more than they needed to.

But the question was whether or not CIG could legally fulfil its contractual obligations if it switched to another engine.

For example...the GLA provides CryTek with a right to sue Star Citizen to promote CryEngine. But CIGs move to  Lumberard would strip that right away with no compensation. Some might say tough
But the GLA also requires CIG to promote CryEngine via a splashscreen. However, it appears the is clause does not depend on the engine being in use. It simply states CIG has to do something in exchange for the right to use CryEngine. However, if they promote CryEngine as contractually required at a time when they are not using CryEngine, that could possibly be construed as fraud.

In essence, even discounting the question of interpretation over the word "exclusive",  do the terms of the GLA ensure that the only way CIG can legally uphold its obligations is to use CryEngine...a de facto exclusivity clause even if there isn't one mentioned specifically?

According to my sources, they spent the better part of 2017 playing the "come at me bro!" game with Crytek. Until Crytek decided they had had enough. All CIG had to do was settle for having switched engines, and also buy a license for SQ42. That would have been the end of it.

[Orgetorix]

According to my sources, they spent the better part of 2017 playing the "come at me bro!" game with Crytek. Until Crytek decided they had had enough. All CIG had to do was settle for having switched engines, and also buy a license for SQ42. That would have been the end of it.

What's so hilarious is that even if they had settled with CryTek on switching engines, they'd still be committing fraud, because they never switched engines.

No matter what CIG does, they can't help but commit fraud. 

[dsmart]

What's so hilarious is that even if they had settled with CryTek on switching engines, they'd still be committing fraud, because they never switched engines.

No matter what CIG does, they can't help but commit fraud.

It won't be fraud. That would be copyright infringement.

[Orgetorix]

It won't be fraud. That would be copyright infringement.

FRAUD Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 1950

fraud,n.1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to
induce another to act to his or her detriment. • Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. — Also termed intentional fraud. [Cases: Fraud 1, 3, 16.] 2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. [Cases: Fraud 31.] 3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. [Cases: Fraud 13(3).] 4. Unconscionable dealing; esp., in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain. [Cases: Contracts 1. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 2–3, 9, 12.] — fraudulent,adj.

Copyright Infringement is just one of many breaches of the law that CGI/RSI have, in my opinion, committed.

[dsmart]

FRAUD Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 1950

fraud,n.1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to
induce another to act to his or her detriment. • Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. — Also termed intentional fraud. [Cases: Fraud 1, 3, 16.] 2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. [Cases: Fraud 31.] 3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. [Cases: Fraud 13(3).] 4. Unconscionable dealing; esp., in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain. [Cases: Contracts 1. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 2–3, 9, 12.] — fraudulent,adj.

Copyright Infringement is just one of many breaches of the law that CGI/RSI have, in my opinion, committed.

Thus far, there is no evidence that fraud has been committed. And Crytek's lawsuit has no such insinuation. Fraud is a very high bar. It will come into play if/when the Feds or the State|District attorneys take an interest in the case either through referral (from public, attorneys etc) or their own investigations. Lying isn't fraud.