CryTek v CIG/RSI

[N0mad]

So do you think that it will be required of Crytek to examine all of the code the CIG is using at any point after the lumberyard switch to find lines of code that are clearly Cryteks source code and definitly not Lumberyards altered code?

It's easier than that. All Crytek have to do is get access to CIG's version control software and look at how they did the swap: did they (a) start with a fresh Lumberyard build and cut and paste their own code into it (which would have taken weeks) or (b) do a replaceAll to change the copyright headers on each file from Crytek to Lumberyard (which takes seconds, there will be a few extra Lumberyard specific files to copy aswell). We're betting it's (b), and their version control system will prove it. Even if the logs weren't available, all Crytek have to do is get hold of the engineers who did the swap and force them to testify. In fact, it's likely that those engineers were ex-Crytek employees. It makes you wonder whether Crytek might have been in touch with some of their ex-employees and already know what they're going to find in Discovery - just a theory.

[jwh1701]

Leo is back!

@ 8:37 is where Leser trips up; and is precisely why most of us were regarding 2.1.2 as "exclusive" use. When you look at 2.4, it goes with 2.1.2. The thing is that since the judge has thrown out 2.1.2, it doesn't mean CIG has to continue to promote CryEngine if they're not using it. That's bs. It just means that unless the contract terminates + 2 yrs, they can't do anything listed in 2.4. So guess what? If they had in fact stopped using CE, why didn't they terminate the GLA? Simple. They're still using it. And if so, they're fucked with 2.4.

I still found it him biased, I would have thought Chris would of had them work day and night to switch over. But
judging by so many of his other actions he may not have done so. I still wonder about Ortwin, did he ever warn Chris of his actions and the consequences?

[dsmart]

It would be hilarious if we discovered that Ortwin had a hand in the drafting of this part of the agreement and messed it up so badly that Crytek were able to sue them out of existence.

Ortwin drafted the whole GLA. It's mentioned in the original Crytek lawsuit.

[dexatron]

Derek,  You mentioned that CIG had replied to the second filing by CE.  Any news on that?

[Kyrt]

You cannot prevent a person from making a living, the same applies to companies I would suppose.

If CIG can demonstrate that the CryEngine was too flawed to continue development with, they might have a chance...

At which point, CIG should have terminated their existing GLA with CT or sought to amend it.

As it is, "Too flawed" would be misdirection since they appear to have had the right to amend the engine to make it suitable.

[dsmart]

Derek,  You mentioned that CIG had replied to the second filing by CE.  Any news on that?

Yeah, it's in the OP

[Noztra]

He really like to talk..

9.40 into the video:

"I am no lawyer myself, but i am able to research and read when it comes to legal matters. It is worth listening to the views of and expert with that in mind i do recommend watching the two most recent videos by youtuberlaw, on the matter where he goes over the MTD and the second amendment complaint and actually talks about where he thought the judge went wrong on the MTD."

Later he says:


"There is alot of Cryteks case that does rely on reading the GLA out of context."

[StanTheMan]

As long as people keep watching his vids he is golden.

[dsmart]

He really like to talk..

He's a moron. They've all benefited in some way from this scam. So they're all going to continue spewing bs right to the very end. Just wait and see how this ends.

[dexatron]

I couldn't agree more Derek, but a question - what about the counter argument that Cry didn't fulfill their part of the deal with the operational problems they encountered with cash shortflows? (lack of support to CIG/RSI)

Greg

[Kyrt]

I couldn't agree more Derek, but a question - what about the counter argument that Cry didn't fulfill their part of the deal with the operational problems they encountered with cash shortflows? (lack of support to CIG/RSI)

Greg

Unless I am missing something, the only thing the GLA obligated CryTek to do was supply the engine. Anything else was at best, "best endeavours" or "kindness of heart".

One could of course argue that CE was not and is not suited for the game being developed, but CT delivered an engine that WAS suitable for the game CIG were originally going to make before they expanded the scope. CryTek aren't responsible for CIGs change in genre or lack of design....I assume CR had a list of criteria for whatever engine he licensed needed to fulfil and so long as CE met ***THAT*** list, I can't see this argument having much legal weight

CR could use this argument to excuse his switch to LY - but LY is, of course,  a flavour of CryEngine with many of the same problems.

Further, CT gave CIG the right to modify the engine and so allow them to compensate for any shortfall in capability. CE might not been ideal for an MMO, but as Aion shows, it can be done.

With good planning, design and management.

Personally, I can see CIG keeping up with this  line of attack....but unless they have emails where specific promises were made and not kept, I don't see it having much impact.  Even if such promises were made, CIGs proper course of action would still have been to terminate the GLA first

IANAL, but I personally don't see much room for maneuver here on CIGs part.

[dsmart]

I couldn't agree more Derek, but a question - what about the counter argument that Cry didn't fulfill their part of the deal with the operational problems they encountered with cash shortflows? (lack of support to CIG/RSI)

Greg

How exactly is that relevant to the case? And where in the GLA did you see any guarantee of performance, let alone any business dealings that would have made Crytek liable for anything related to that? Also, did you see any such allegations in CIG's answer, let alone a counter lawsuit (like what Epic Games did when Silicon Knights sued them).

These software contracts don't come with any guarantee of performance. Also, CIG was supposed to renew and pay for on-going support after a certain period of time. They opted to stop paying for it, thus ending Crytek's obligation to provide on-going support. It's actually in the GLA.

e.g. when I licensed Havok Vision Engine for LOD, I had 6 months free support. Then it was about $14K a year after that.

[Spunky Munkee]

If for some reason CIG did try and make the argument that Crytek was unsuitable for their purpose then why switch to Lumberyard which is a lightly modified version of Crytek? Its not Apples to Oranges,  its a Fuji to Honeycrisp switch.

[dexatron]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was reading posters talking about reverse-liability and wanted to know if there was any truth to it.  Apparently its just more b.s. from CIG.

Greg

[DemonInvestor]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was reading posters talking about reverse-liability and wanted to know if there was any truth to it.  Apparently its just more b.s. from CIG.

They're basically blaming Crytek for failures of CIG and thinking a court is actually about 'justice' and not about laws.
Crytek sold more or less software as seen, meaning no major additional services included - so this liability isn't there. And if CIG didn't understand what the engine can do, it's also most likely their fault, as i don't think they didn't get a documentation about the engine beforehand.
They also happily try to blame CryTek for CIG entering obligations which might ruin them, with their given business model. Again the contract has a termination clause and paragraphs about obligations and both parties could read them. Thinking there are nessecarily cop-outs from obligations financially ruining a side, like they seemingly do, is wild. CryTek and CIG both entered the contract in good faith, saddly neither realized there was going to be such a problem beforehand - so putting the blame again solely on CryTek is also wild.
And again with another business model, that doesn't require constant sales and being in the public eye, might have helped with a way to change the engine Crytek neither would have said anything against, nor could have made a case out of.
Hell CryTek isn't even that evil, seeing how CIG afaik often blamed CryEngine for problems they had with the development pace, which i found unprofessional and unfair against CryTek.