CryTek v CIG/RSI

[dsmart]

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.

Yup. Aside from that, not even CIG would dare to bring that up because it's a whole different can of worms for them. It's those Shitizens as usual making shit up out of whole cloth. In fact, it was the entire basis of the Epic Games v Silicon Knights lawsuit which SK lost based on case precedent and the fact that EG counter-claims were far more damaging. They ended up bankrupting SK.

[dsmart]

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

There is zero truth to it. You should ask them the same questions I posted above. This is a very damaging case for CIG, and if that argument had any merit, they would have filed a counter-claim against Crytek. They haven't - and they can't. That's why they're on the defensive and basically just answering the lawsuit. They have NO claims against Crytek. They didn't even come up with bs in that regard, even if they knew it would be thrown out by the judge once Crytek filed a motion to dismiss it.

[StanTheMan]

There is zero truth to it. You should ask them the same questions I posted above. This is a very damaging case for CIG, and if that argument had any merit, they would have filed a counter-claim against Crytek. They haven't - and they can't. That's why they're on the defensive and basically just answering the lawsuit. They have NO claims against Crytek. They didn't even come up with bs in that regard, even if they knew it would be thrown out by the judge once Crytek filed a motion to dismiss it.

Indeed. 

Considering the other sides conduct and a counter claim is one of the first things you do when legal shit lands in your mailbox.

It is a huge part of any potential defence and provides a basis for reducing your liabilities.

I am thinking about taking a company to court when I get back from my holidays and  I have to consider any counter claim they may have against me.  If I get it wrong it could cost me a lot of $$$.  As the little guy it is even more important.

[Penny579]

I see CIG got its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Crytek failed to state a claim in which relief could be granted  - 2.4 is non start.

[Penny579]

Wait ima retard i read the proposed order like it was the official response.... that ain't Judge Gee smashing out justice at all.

there i was thinking as this motion contains the least amount of desk pounding outrage vomit and was just plainly written the judge just got on with it ... explains the lack of activity on the matter in the forums.   

[N0mad]

With a new MtD I assume CIG will simply resist discovery once more until this new motion gets thrown out.

In fact, the more they can drag this out, the less concerned the zealots will be and the more ships they can sell to fund the inevitable settlement / fine.

[dsmart]

OP updated with latest hilarity.

[Spunky Munkee]

So essentially the Judge says that Crytek left one good aspect of the lawsuit out as she sees it. So Crytek ammends their complaint to add this to the case. Now CIG tries to get in knocked down even though the judge sees it as a legitimate complaint in this case. Hmm I know it's sort of reflexive on CIGs part but it makes CIG seem stupid, arguing against the judges opinions.
Just how I see it but I could be wrong, hell Star Citizen could come out tomorrow and sell a Hundred Million copies and be the start or world harmony and a great space initiative creating the planetary colonization of our own solar system and onwards.

What the fuck am I smoking, It's Star Citizen and Clit Robbers we are talking about there. He cazzzzzzzzznt z

[Bubba]

Yes, their argument about "engaging in the business of" is lamentable... Well, no it's actually laughable. They cite Webster's on "competition" and then claim that "to be in the business of" means to be directly dealing with third parties. Yet we have tons of instances of entire businesses dedicated to promoting someone else's product. We call them ad agencies. So yeah, showing that Amazon Beaver, that counts as promotion.

I still don't see the relevance of Oakhurst,  mind you. That case clearly revolved around an ambiguous contract (and a lack of an Oxford comma). Here, Ortwin is clearly at least hindered by not being a native English speaker ("any game
.. which competes."), but it's clear that there's no ambiguity in the text. They have no grammatical leg to stand on.

Finally,  from what I saw of the posting,  the honorable judge put the rule 26 order up 45 minutes after cig, or 5 pm on day 20.

[dsmart]

I still don't see the relevance of Oakhurst,  mind you. That case clearly revolved around an ambiguous contract (and a lack of an Oxford comma). Here, Ortwin is clearly at least hindered by not being a native English speaker ("any game
.. which competes."), but it's clear that there's no ambiguity in the text. They have no grammatical leg to stand on.

That's because you don't understand it. You should read my comments from yesterday where I explained it clearly. If you understand the comma in Oakhurst, then you should understand the comma that follows "in the business of" - because that's what normalizes the entire sentence.

[Kyrt]

I still don't see the relevance of Oakhurst,  mind you. That case clearly revolved around an ambiguous contract (and a lack of an Oxford comma). Here, Ortwin is clearly at least hindered by not being a native English speaker ("any game
.. which competes."), but it's clear that there's no ambiguity in the text. They have no grammatical leg to stand on.

I think Derek is suggesting that because of Oakhurst, 2.4 needs to be read as...

....Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly
-engage in the business of designing
-developing
-creating
-supporting
-maintaining
-promoting
-selling or licensing (directly or indirectly)

...any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine

If so, I think I would disagree.

CIGs problem with this clause is that they ARE in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining and promoting and have made money by doing so. They make a fair bruhaha about the work they do on the engine and use that to promote sales. The problem is they are doing so with competitors to CryEngine.

StarEngine and LumberYard.

[N0mad]

I Am Not A Lawyer, but...  Like the rest of the contract, section 2.4 is really badly worded. Nor does it help that CIG seem to misread / misinterpret their own contract when arguing their side,

The pro CIG guys (even the YT lawyers) argue that it's just a standard non-compete clause, that because CIG have access to the CryEngine source, they then cannot then start peddling their own engine that they've created now that they've become game engine experts. But that isn't what 2.4 says, it makes no reference as to whose game engine they can or cannot do all those things with, just that it cannot be an engine which competes with CryEngine.

Lumberyard does compete with CryEngine and CIG have been doing many of those things.

So they might end up arguing over what exactly is meant by "engaging in the business of", since CIG would argue that they are in the business of scamming whales making games rather than making or selling a game engine.

Somehow I don't think this is going to end well for them though.

[dsmart]

I think Derek is suggesting that because of Oakhurst, 2.4 needs to be read as...

Yes, that's basically their argument.

They're stating that, for example, since they're not in the "business of developing any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine" that they haven't breached 2.4. They're saying that their "business" isn't related to that, and that it relates to making a game. This despite the fact that they've actually done 6 of the 8 items listed.

[dsmart]

I Am Not A Lawyer, but...  Like the rest of the contract, section 2.4 is really badly worded.

Yes it is. However, the judge herself pointed it out. That section was never before in dispute by either side, despite the claims in 2.1.2 which she tossed.

This is why it's going to be interesting to see how the judge rules on this. She started it.

[N0mad]

I kinda like your theory along the lines that Crytek knew section 2.4 supported their case but wanted to see how CIG would respond to everything else before throwing it in. We raised 2.4 as an issue when the GLA was first made public, so I'm pretty sure Skadden noticed it too. As it happens the judge pointed it out first.

I seem to remember you said CIG were trying to sell / licence their "StarEngine" to other studios - if so, that's another little detail which could come out in Discovery.