33:00 Completely still disagrees with Crytek, says cig can use any engine to make the game.
I think that depend son the definition of the word "exclusive".
35:20 still says crytek is not interpreting 2.4 correctly
Let's be honest here - that IS a noncompete clause. Its doubtful - IMO - that CryTek has any documentation or emails showing it to be anything else other than what it is. That doesn't mean Skadden won't try, and on a literal reading, it could be argued that the use of promotion of Lumberyard by CIG is contrary to 2.4...
But it is, at the end of the day, a non compete clause. Even using LumberYard doesn't mean CIG is "in the business of" promoting or developing an engine.
I'd agree with French here, but as I said, that doesn't mean Skadden cannot make it mean what they want it to mean.
51:12 states cytek claims can be blown out of water depending on interpretation of the license statement above 1. / 1.1
1:01 says crytek made a 24 page gla that is ambiguous, lots of mistakes have been made
I'm not sure about that. I'm not a lawyer, but the meaning of the GLA seems pretty clear to me.
1:08 new term "hammer and nail case" to try and push the one game narrative
Exhibit 2 defines a standalone game.
S42 seems to qualify...unless you want to argue that a standalone game that is marketed and sold as a standalone game that doesn't require Star Citizen to run somehow coiunts as using the Star Citizen client.
1:09 Crytek admits they do not know if CIG is using their tech
Part of discovery. Two days to switch engine is not a plausible statement...but it could be just marketing PR. But two days isn't enough time to test and modify and replace code and assets. LY and SE both started from similar bases, but both teams were boasting about how they'd rewritten 65% or more of each engine....that's gotta be hugely divergent, especially with certain fundamental aspects changed. Then again, there are some people who have reported decompiling the code and who report some CryEngine code still present. But it doesn't only matter if the code is or is not present now - but WHEN it was switched.
More importantly is the question as to if S42 could be argued to have been developed using LY only.
1:20 thinks judge will take this to discovery, and the lawsuit is a lot of petty stuff, says the gla is terrible
Of course it is terrible. But it also depends on what supporting documentation they have. As it is, it also seems to give CIG very little power and a "plain English" reading of 2.1.2 would seem to support CryTeks assertions. The big suspect issue is the damage waiver...I'm still not sure why CryTek agreed to that.
In essence, the GLA offers CIG a very cheap engine deal with limited training and no real support, but allows CryTek to wash its hands of the project while requiring CIG to promote CryEngine (regardless of engine), improve CryEngine and share such improvements (64 bit positioning, localised physic grids, subsumption AI and the rest) with a perpetual, royalty free license and offers no effective termination clause.
To be honest, that CIG accepted a clause that required it to promote CryEngine is, to me, a fair sign they intended to use only CryEngine. As it is, even if they used Unity or something else, CryEngine would need to be promoted.
