|
SomethingJones posted:Well if that's their defence then they really are truly hosed because a jury ain't buying that load of old cobblers in ten million years. If you can even find 12 jurors in CA who know what 'gravamen' means without googling it, that is.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Well if that's their defence then they really are truly hosed because a jury ain't buying that load of old cobblers in ten million years. If what is alleged is true, it’ll never get to a jury. They’ll win on summary judgment. Too much indisputable material fact out there. The “most transparent development ever” has seen to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Hav posted:The defendants have indicated multiple times that they've shifted engines. They had a GLA not to shift engines. Turmoil. "But, Mr. Judge, although it is true that we have switched to LY, we haven't switched to another engine. See, LY is based of CE. So we're still using CE !". In this case, it will depend on judge's understanding of what an engine is or isn't. The zenimax vs facebook oculus case and Carmack's failed defense should tell you a thing or two about how non-computer friendly people ( and even so-called experts ) interpret things in a way that you might not expect, despite being pretty clear cut to you. So I definitely do not think it's going to be an easy win. CIG is going to fight hard to interpret the GLA in a way that invalidates this engine switching clause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Lawyer: 'So Mr Roberts you did UNLAWFULLY use a game engine, how do you plead?' 'Game? what loving game *waves hands* there is no game *waves hands* how can I be guilty of this if there is no game?????'Goons: 'It's true your majesty there is no game, we've been saying it for years' Lawyer: 'No further questions, I am all out of ideas CASE DISMISSED'  I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Golli posted:If you can even find 12 jurors in CA who know what 'gravamen' means without googling it, that is. I'm sure they'll have big sheets of paper and crayons to draw flow charts for them
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Thread is good, again. I am hundreds of posts behind. Help a brother out. I see "in excess of $75,000" used quite a lot. Is there an actual figure or range or estimate anywhere in that lawsuit filing? Lawsuits happen all the time. Does anyone want to estimate how likely this is to be the thing that does in Star Citizen, or maybe just gives Chris cover to fold up operations and abscond with whatever money he's shuffled off to the Caymans or wherever? Are the Citizens having glorious meltdowns, or are they all pretending not to care / not to be worried? Are we ready for this much awesomeness? The fun doesn't end after CIG folds. There will likely be months of infighting and projecting and blaming after this scam collapses. We're going to get a fine crop of people blaming Goons and frivolous lawsuits for the failure of their star fantasy. Star Citizen really is the grift that keeps on giving. I know I already said that, but come on... It's so true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
mjotto posted:Oh for the love of god, will you guys stop posting? I. Just. Can't.Keep.Up. Some music for getting through the thread today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wxI4KK9ZYo
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Incitatus posted:Skadden: "I'm going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the studio changed the development from CryEngine to Lumberyard. Is that correct?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
A Neurotic Corncob posted:https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/941069079187738625 Jason Schrier can eat poo poo tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Golli posted:If you can even find 12 jurors in CA who know what 'gravamen' means without googling it, that is. That's easy. Gravyman: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Well if that's their defence then they really are truly hosed because a jury ain't buying that load of old cobblers in ten million years. not to mention that it only invalidates 37, not 36-- it's hard to argue around "well we didn't develop star citizen using another video game engine per se", it's pretty binary, especially if you've got years of your CEO saying "We're developing it in Star Engine/Lumberyard" Nyast posted:Yes I know. But you must admit the case if a bit more ambiguous than if they had switched, say, to Unreal 4. Because LY still technically is CE. So is LY another, completely different engine, or is it a new branch of CE that is marketed/owned by a different company ? LY is based on CE, yes, and it means that arguing "well we did switch"/"well we didn't switch" would be a lot more complicated with the bits of legacy/shared code. But the argument here is either: - You didn't switch and you're violating copyright and our exclusivity contract by developing SQ42 and sending code to other people, not to mention ripping all mention of cryengine out and claiming it's all Star Engine or whatever OR - You did switch and you violated the contract saying you'd develop Star Citizen in Cryengine There's no legal superposition here where we can't tell which one you did ergo you're innocent on both counts, you either did A and you're getting sued for it or you did B and you're getting sued for that instead It's like schrodinger's cat but the cat is dead either way
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Golli posted:If you can even find 12 jurors in CA who know what 'gravamen' means without googling it, that is. Not my fault you are all a much of illiterate assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Man I love gravy
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Hello Skadden lawyers, you know where to find me. <3
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Nyast posted:Yes I know. But you must admit the case if a bit more ambiguous than if they had switched, say, to Unreal 4. Because LY still technically is CE. So is LY another, completely different engine, or is it a new branch of CE that is marketed/owned by a different company ? Claiming that one is switching to technically the same engine is still an act of switching. Plus in doing so they were trying to no longer honor the contract with Crytek. But accusations of switching engines is only one complaint of many Crytek placed in the court filing. I don't see any way for Ortwin or Crobbers to mush-mouth their way out of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
MinorInconvenience posted:If what is alleged is true, it’ll never get to a jury. They’ll win on summary judgment. Too much indisputable material fact out there. The “most transparent development ever” has seen to that. If the injunction is handed down that's the end of it right there, in fact the Foundry guys waking up tomorrow morning in the UK are going to work with the actual real and true threat of an injunction hanging over the project. gently caress that for a game of xmas charlie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/3033144/#Comment_3033144
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Schrodinger's Gravy That's the name of my prog rock band
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
MinorInconvenience posted:Not my fault you are all a much of illiterate assholes. Now wait just a minute, Sparky... What are the odds of getting a preliminary injunction prohibiting further development granted in the near term, to prevent destruction of evidence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
There's always more and it's always worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
thatguy posted:There's always more and it's always better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
XK posted:Seeking an injunction against using the engine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
mjotto posted:Oh for the love of god, will you guys stop posting? I. Just. Can't.Keep.Up. No. You must suffer like all SC audience members have to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
thatguy posted:There's always more and it's always worse. It's going to be incredibly, unbelievably funny.* * 2 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:The first Coutts is the deepest, baby, I know Another Cat wrote that. Edit. The original song I mean. *lotsofdancycats.gif* Dooguk fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Veni Vidi Ameche! posted:Thread is good, again. Apparently that's the lower limit for such a thing, it has to be above that amount, like a bar. Everyone has been googling the law firm though and it turns out they won't look you in the eye for less than a grand an hour so this is pretty major stuff. Also what the gently caress are CIG thinking not settling this before it gets filed into the public domain, they clearly CLEARLY don't have the cash
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:edit - the word "exclusively" is explicit and easily understood. I agree. But I can't tell if it is prescriptive or proscriptive language from the selections presented in the complaint. For the illiterate, I don't know if it is language granting CIG permission to do something or requiring CIG to do something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Great timing on this, just top notch work fellas. I'm sure it's all going to work out for you. Dear diary, it's the 6th August 1945 and at 8.17am I completed the purchase of my brand new home in the beautiful city of Hiroshima.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Veni Vidi Ameche! posted:Thread is good, again. There is not. The $75,000 figure is a qualification for the suit to be heard in a Federal court (baseline set by Congress in the 1990s). Could be $75,001, could be millions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:not to mention that it only invalidates 37, not 36-- it's hard to argue around "well we didn't develop star citizen using another video game engine per se", it's pretty binary, especially if you've got years of your CEO saying "We're developing it in Star Engine/Lumberyard" OR - We did switch and we did not violate the contract saying you cannot switch, because *insert excuses*. This last case would not invalidate claims related to what happened *before* switching engines. Such as not giving Crytek back the modified source code, or disclosing stuff ( prior to the LY switch ) in Bugsmashers. It would however ( assuming CIG succeeds at tweaking the LGA ) invalidate the SQ42 claim or the Faceware claim or the logo/marketing removal claim. Although the SQ42 one is even dubious, because Crytek could claim some earnings on every SQ42 preorder until the LY switch; not sure how much that amounts to..
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
CIG is going to claim: Game? What game? All we have is an alpha tech demo at best. There is no game here. SQ42 and Star Citizen is simply market speak for raising money--they are both the same thing! Missing splash screen logos? These are test builds--you don't understand game development. And as was called long ago--all CIG has done with Lumberyard is change a few calls to work with Amazon servers instead of Google. i.e. CIG never broke the switching engine clause because they never really switched engines. But I'm only hoping for maximum comedy. And probably the funniest will be the Skadden lawyers figuring out there hasn't been any money for six months plus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
It's funny that for the purposes of the case lawyers are going to get paid to sift through Something Awful subforum posts. Your Honor we submit to the court evidence exhibit ELE, printouts of the Star Citizen Thread lcated in the General Bullshit forum of the website Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
is the game out yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
serious norman posted:is the game out yet? Soon, friend
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Golli posted:Now wait just a minute, Sparky... You don't get preliminary injunctions to prohibit spoliation. That's just illegal without any such PI or TRO stuff. And since all they allege is money damages.... no irreparable harm. I'd say its a pretty low probability. But what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Bofast posted:Nah, Escape Velocity was good My friends and I played this so much in high school that we called it Escape Reality. Then Everquest happened 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Apparently that's the lower limit for such a thing, it has to be above that amount, like a bar. Maybe CIG can hold the backers hostage and start a new crowdfunding campaign for their legal defense fund. "If you _really_ want to see the Star Citizen and SQ42 get built to completion then help us defend against this obvious spiteful and hateful lawsuit that CryTek is using to try to stop you from playing."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
nnnotime posted:Maybe CIG can hold the backers hostage and start a new crowdfunding campaign for their legal defense fund. I'm hoping against all hope that it comes to this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941075252871942145
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Veni Vidi Ameche! posted:I see "in excess of $75,000" used quite a lot. Is there an actual figure or range or estimate anywhere in that lawsuit filing? It's jurisdictional. Diversity jurisdiction in Federal courts requires disputed to be in excess of $75k. Although they allege copyright violations, which are original jurisdiction in Federal courts even without the $75k limit. I presume they put that in there as a belt and suspenders thing to ensure Federal jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:14
|
|