Star Citizen Media Musings

[Kyrt]

So when all is said and done ... Skadden are here (being paid sure) but they are probably not here because this case is getting chucked out before it has started (they get a lot more $$$$$ as this progresses through the process, settlement or not))   The other side are throwing mud because they have little to lose at this stage.

Personally....I think CryTek have a fairly strong case to show that CIG are guilt.

HOWEVER....I am not convinced they will be able to show intent. Without that, they ha e to fall back on 10.7 for damages. Further, while I think they are guilty, there is a real question of interpretation with respect to what is one of the main charges...that CIG is using one license to develop two games.

Now, CryTek might have emails or other evidence to support their position.
I suspect they do. That would explain the tone I got from CIGs response...aggressive. Panicky. Desperate. OK....reading too much into it.

CryTek seem to have a strong case for four of the 5 charges. I'm just not sure they'll get much from the effort of doing all this.

[StanTheMan]

Personally....I think CryTek have a fairly strong case to show that CIG are guilt.

HOWEVER....I am not convinced they will be able to show intent. Without that, they ha e to fall back on 10.7 for damages. Further, while I think they are guilty, there is a real question of interpretation with respect to what is one of the main charges...that CIG is using one license to develop two games.

Now, CryTek might have emails or other evidence to support their position.
I suspect they do. That would explain the tone I got from CIGs response...aggressive. Panicky. Desperate. OK....reading too much into it.

CryTek seem to have a strong case for four of the 5 charges. I'm just not sure they'll get much from the effort of doing all this.

IMO Skadden wouldnt be peppering their complaint with intent if they didn't think it had long legs.

All good fun though isnt it. ?

I remember how long the Glider v Blizzard case took re WoW and that didnt have anything like as much potential for twists and turns as this showdown.

[Spunky Munkee]

I think that a lot of what CIG claims is window dressing. They know this is being tried in the court of public opinion and need to keep the whales onboard. Time will tell. When the fat lady sings we can all talk about it, until then everybody's opinions are worthless.

I do have to think that the only way CIG's reply could be true is if Ortwin sold Crytek on such a one sided contract that screwed Crytek badly. Is it possible that they relied on him solely in interpreting the contact and misled them as to its meaning? I doubt Crytek's lawyers would take the case if that were true.

[Wipeout]

I think that a lot of what CIG claims is window dressing. They know this is being tried in the court of public opinion and need to keep the whales onboard. Time will tell. When the fat lady sings we can all talk about it, until then everybody's opinions are worthless.

I do have to think that the only way CIG's reply could be true is if Ortwin sold Crytek on such a one sided contract that screwed Crytek badly. Is it possible that they relied on him solely in interpreting the contact and misled them as to its meaning? I doubt Crytek's lawyers would take the case if that were true.

A contract for a game license that says you have to use that engine and only that engine would be extremely unusual, putting so much power to the engine creators, would be extremely unusual.  That is something my game developing friends have told me at least.

At this point for me to change my opinion it would take Crytek producing evidence that shows communication that changes the meanings in the GLA, otherwise if they don't have it then things are likely going to go into CIGs
favor lets hope they have that evidence.

[StanTheMan]

I do have to think that the only way CIG's reply could be true is if Ortwin sold Crytek on such a one sided contract that screwed Crytek badly. Is it possible that they relied on him solely in interpreting the contact and misled them as to its meaning? I doubt Crytek's lawyers would take the case if that were true.

Any of us that are long in the tooth know that you do get corporate fuck ups.

It seems incredible that Crytek wouldn't have taken a very long hard look at any GLA about to be agreed with CIG when Ortwin had jumped ship and was now negotiating for CIG and not Crytek.

[dsmart]

Robert Marks, a legal researcher for Bien Law, weighs in on the Crytek v CIG lawsuit.

Unlike those famous Youtube lawyers calling the PR laden bullshit that CIG responsed with a "slam dunk", this one is a more measured and unbiased take. Read it.

http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/

[Wipeout]

So it looks like if Crytek cannot provide evidence with communications between CIG and Crytek that shows that the contract has a different meaning than the "golden rule" the 3 points he mentions would most likely go in the favor of CIG.

Can a Judge dismiss dismiss some complaints of case while keeping others there? Or is it where if some things can be dismissed the whole complaint can be dissmissed?  Or is it where if not everything can be dismissed than none of the case can be dismissed?

[dsmart]

So it looks like if Crytek cannot provide evidence with communications between CIG and Crytek that shows that the contract has a different meaning than the "golden rule" the 3 points he mentions would most likely go in the favor of CIG.

It's not that cut and dry. The Golden Rule is a set of guidelines, not a slam dunk decision; or there won't be any contract law disputes in court.

But yes, discovery and depositions will serve to yield more insight into the "intent" of the contract. And that's what I've been saying since I started covering the lawsuit.

Can a Judge dismiss dismiss some complaints of case while keeping others there? Or is it where if some things can be dismissed the whole complaint can be dissmissed?  Or is it where if not everything can be dismissed than none of the case can be dismissed?

She can't dismiss claims. She can only rule on the specifics of the motion to dismiss. And in doing that, she can agree to dismiss anything, while keeping others. It's not the case there being one that's solid, and so everything gets dismissed.

[dsmart]

Guard Frequency #197: (9:00) “(Ortwin’s two-sided dealings) not to the level of criminal, but almost to the level of fraud...

[Penny579]

Robert Marks, a legal researcher for Bien Law, weighs in on the Crytek v CIG lawsuit.

Unlike those famous Youtube lawyers calling the PR laden bullshit that CIG responsed with a "slam dunk", this one is a more measured and unbiased take. Read it.

http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/

I don't know why everyone finds its so crazy professionals disagree, I have seen engineers have screaming matches over whats possible, I never seen two geologists agree, heaps of people get a second doctors opinion when they don't like the answer they get, economists don't even try and agree.

suddenly lawyers who's very job is to disagree and argue opposite views are incompetent for not coming down on the 'right' side.

all we can say for sure is that clearly, an argument that is yet to be settled yet, and because crytek are spending money on this so you would expect they have some more firepower up there sleeve, i would be surprised if it got thrown out from just reading the very document that they are claiming has breached, especially after paying like $1000 an hour for legal advice.

[N0mad]

suddenly lawyers who's very job is to disagree and argue opposite views are incompetent for not coming down on the 'right' side.

all we can say for sure is that clearly, an argument that is yet to be settled yet, and because crytek are spending money on this so you would expect they have some more firepower up there sleeve, i would be surprised if it got thrown out from just reading the very document that they are claiming has breached, especially after paying like $1000 an hour for legal advice.

The main criticism is that these YouTube lawyers came down on one side so soon. I don't think anyone will disagree with the more reasoned and measured approach from cgmagonline.

Sure, we wouldn't be so critical if the YT lawyers were siding with Crytek but right now they're feeding the hopes of (& pandering to) the toxic SC community.

Apparently today is the Crytek response day. This should be VERY interesting.

[Penny579]

The main criticism is that these YouTube lawyers came down on one side so soon. I don't think anyone will disagree with the more reasoned and measured approach from cgmagonline.

Sure, we wouldn't be so critical if the YT lawyers were siding with Crytek but right now they're feeding the hopes of (& pandering to) the toxic SC community.

Apparently today is the Crytek response day. This should be VERY interesting.

I know right !!! i only have minimum backing in the game, its worth it because you simply cant buy this kind of ridiculous drama.  maybe we can get a spin off judge judy episode.

[dsmart]

suddenly lawyers who's very job is to disagree and argue opposite views are incompetent for not coming down on the 'right' side.

Clearly you missed the boat on that one. NOBODY is saying they have to be on any side. That's the whole point of being neutral and unbiased.

Go ahead, watch these two videos, and tell me why you think either one of those two buffoons are qualified enough to immediately give CIG the upperhand, when in fact not only are all the facts NOT yet disclosed, but the case hasn't even made to discovery. Leonard French flat out stated that if he were the judge, he would rule in favor of CIG. Did you miss that?

[dsmart]

The main criticism is that these YouTube lawyers came down on one side so soon. I don't think anyone will disagree with the more reasoned and measured approach from cgmagonline.

Sure, we wouldn't be so critical if the YT lawyers were siding with Crytek but right now they're feeding the hopes of (& pandering to) the toxic SC community.

Apparently today is the Crytek response day. This should be VERY interesting.

That's precisely it. They are making uninformed opinions in a bit to pander to a cult of people they're hoping to turn into subscribers/viewers. It's fucking pathetic.

[Motto]

PC Invasion on Crytek's response