|
I would think CIG would have included the termination letter and proof that it was received if they were to say the gla was terminated. So, don't think that is going to work out for them.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Aesaar posted:How does this sort of thing handle code explicitly built upon proprietary code? For instance, CIG's whole 64-bit precision and their local physics grids are obviously built on top of and interact directly with CryEngine object code. So who owns that new code in the event CIG need to get rid of any Crytek code? Is it CIG's because they wrote it, or is it Crytek's because it wouldn't have been writeable in the first place without their code? Any modifications they made to CryEngine were supposed to be sent back to CryTek, so I imagine the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:I'm not sure if anyone has noted how fitting it is that Crobber is going to be exiled from the gaming industry in the same way he was exiled from Hollywood. Well Crytek may have been burned by deciding to work with Chris but on the plus side one look at the community just shows how much of a loyal fanbase they've gained by gambling their financial future and the livelihoods of their employees by daring the impossible and bringing space games back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
Once again I found myself watching Brian Chambers conversation with Batgirl about the Lumberyard switch and noticed a couple of new things. First, when he first hears her mention of Lumberyard, he chuckles to himself. Second, after he talks about the legal trickiness of the switch, he states that “after everything was inked and dotted” they were finally able to talk about the switch publicly. Presumably, the inking and dotting was with Amazon. Perhaps I’m reading too much in but one assumes the need to not discuss it publicly beforehand was to keep Crytek oblivious to their plans? The switch in itself needn’t have been controversial with backers yet the involvement of lawyers and need to keep plans quiet until after deals were inked seems suggestive that cig’s lawyers knew they were in dicey territory. Maybe there’s another way to interpret this but that seems like the clearest reading to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
This is the first time we expected something in 2 weeks and CIG delivered early!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Interesting stuff! The bits from the GLA that stand out to me so far are: (note: I have no legal training or expertise.) WHEREAS Licensee desires to use, and Crytek desires to grant the license to use, the "CryEngine" for the game currently entitled "Space [sic] Citizen" and its related space fighter game "Squadron 42," together hereafter the "Game", pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; I'd have to read the complaint again, or maybe there's something else I'm missing, but it does sound like CIG is covered in this respect. Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only: 2.1.2. to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sublicensable pursuant to Sec. 2.6); CIG is claiming this translates to something like "Only CIG are allowed to use CryEngine to make the game." Crytek is claiming this translates to something like "CIG are only allowed to use CryEngine to make the game." I'll grant that the wording is a bit ambiguous, but I think the commonsense reading favors Crytek's version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
G0RF posted:Second, after he talks about the legal trickiness of the switch, he states that “after everything was inked and dotted” they were finally able to talk about the switch publicly. Presumably, the inking and dotting was with Amazon. Perhaps I’m reading too much in but one assumes the need to not discuss it publicly beforehand was to keep Crytek oblivious to their plans? The switch in itself needn’t have been controversial with backers yet the involvement of lawyers and need to keep plans quiet until after deals were inked seems suggestive that cig’s lawyers knew they were in dicey territory. My thought would be "we started doing work with lumberyard before the contract was signed but we couldn't come out and say that or our lawyers would pitch a fit", but who knows
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:Comedy addendum: they really did invoke the "wrong company" defense. This is the "so you're saying that company that didn't have a license at all is doing this?" way of getting hosed by skadden c/d?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
Tortolia posted:I am so confused right now. Are they trying to ninth-dimensional-chess their legal defense? Also, hands up who called this first because I know for a fact someone did quote:The GLA shows on its face that defendant RSI is not even a party to the GLA
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
In other Batgirl news... After her two minute tale of errors upon frustrations (clipping errors, dragonflies stuck in scaffolding, broken legs and more) to no end, the punchline: “and I think that’s a perfect example of why I like this game.” G0RF fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
Does no one find it hilarious that the fictional entity that Sandi is using to send out these invites, is a bank ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:Interesting stuff! The bits from the GLA that stand out to me so far are: (note: I have no legal training or expertise.) quote:For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client, e.g. a fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game (as opposed to an add-on / DLC to the Game).; Good thing they've always been very clear that Squadron 42 is an https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Squadron-42-Standalone-Pledge Whoops! Someone fix that url.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Blue On Blue posted:Does no one find it hilarious that the fictional entity that Sandi is using to send out these invites, is a bank ? Sandi pretending to be someone important and powerful? Well I never!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:to resist it is useless 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
I'm calling the judge taking off his/her glasses and saying "In all my years"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:I'm calling the judge taking off his/her glasses and saying "In all my years" “I never quite believed that Derek Smart would call it... but then I read this here July Blog!”
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:Legal docs (not doxx), grab them while they're hot. Includes CIG's response, a motion to dismiss, and a copy of the GLA. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Also, hands up who called this first because I know for a fact someone did It doesn't take a Nostradamus to guess they'd trot out their beloved wrong company defense. Here's another recent instance, unverified $12.8k refund so take it with a large grain of salt though: /r/starcitizen_refunds posted:Anyway just this wednesday cig responded to the case with a statement identical to what juicy said they would respond with, basically they deny any knowledge of robert space industries in the UK and say "we are in no way connected to such an enterprise and not liable to answer on their behalf". I then replied and updated the case using the reply juicy had already given me at the start knowing that would say that, pointing out cig has responded to letters from other people writing to robert space industries both on this subreddit and the BBB, and that the directors of all enterprises are the legally registered same people. The very next day (thursday) I got an email from some woman called schala at cig that the ID was no longer required and they would go ahead and issue a full refund but asked that I drop the small claims court case. Today I check my PayPal and the money has arrived!!!! https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/7ocih9/a_christmas_miracle_i_cant_ever_thank_you_guys/
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
Here is something that I have to agree with - the lawyers play an insane shell game on Squadron 42 that just might work. Essentially, they say that Squadron 42 was covered during development by the GLA because it was part of Star Citizen. Therefore their use of CryEngine was fine. But, when they decided to make it a standalone game it was developed using Lumberyard and not CryEngine and therefore it was not in breach of the GLA provisions banning them from using CryEngine for more than one game. Now, I know what you're thinking. "But Squadron 42 was supposed to release in 2014!" and that's correct. But; in fact, and as legally stated, development on it only started in late 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:It doesn't take a Nostradamus to guess they'd trot out their beloved wrong company defense. Here's another recent instance, unverified $12.8k refund so take it with a large grain of salt though: If no Switcheroo, the refund’s due?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:Oh and if you feel that sudden, unyeilding urge that you just MUST throw money at the screen.. it's ok. I am, after all, the best marketer in the world since I was a little girl. Hey, hang on a second, you sound like famous tickle porn actress Mae Demming?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
Waitaminute, what's this?quote:During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and 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 that compete with CryEngine. That looks, uh, pretty damning...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm only up to page 3392, but goddamn holy poo poo MoMA is in that amazing overlap of unknowledgeable and vocal. Angry and stupid ManofManyAlliases/Toast/Erris best ManofManyAlliases/Toast/Erris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Can't omit their "You're suing the wrong shell company so it should be dismissed."quote:A. RSI is Not a Party to the GLA
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:Waitaminute, what's this? That's just a non-compete clause intended to stop anyone licensing CryEngine, mining it for ideas, then developing their own engine. They'd be pushing poo poo uphill trying to get it to be read as binding CIG to not be able to use another game engine for development+two years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:That's just a non-compete clause intended to stop anyone licensing CryEngine, mining it for ideas, then developing their own engine. They'd be pushing poo poo uphill trying to get it to be read as binding CIG to not be able to use another game engine for development+two years. lmao if star engine gets brought up
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Here is something that I have to agree with - the lawyers play an insane shell game on Squadron 42 that just might work. Isn't that an admission that they committed fraud when they claimed the game was in development much earlier than it actually was?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
Regrettable posted:Isn't that an admission that they committed fraud when they claimed the game was in development much earlier than it actually was? Doubt they could get in real trouble for that even if the backers gave a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Here is something that I have to agree with - the lawyers play an insane shell game on Squadron 42 that just might work. But during this time they were claiming British tax credits on Squadron 42 because it was separate to Star Citizen. It will be funny if in the process of defending against Crytek they expose tax credit fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:28
|
|
|
The punchline — after a half hour of bugs, anecdotes about worse ones removed from the edit, comments about terrible frame rates, and the performance of some very light cargo mission work without combat or anything resembling fun: ”...potentially the greatest game ever made.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:28
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:lmao if star engine gets brought up It already was, somewhere in the legal papers is a link to the time stamp of a video, where chris says "we call it star engine now". lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
G0RF posted:If no Lis Alibi Pendens, Vive Vas Deferens? Pas de qui pro quo ? Objection votre honneur !
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:Doubt they could get in real trouble for that even if the backers gave a poo poo This might come as a shock to you, but fraud is a criminal offense. It doesn't matter if the backers give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Regrettable posted:Isn't that an admission that they committed fraud when they claimed the game was in development much earlier than it actually was? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
Regrettable posted:This might come as a shock to you, but fraud is a criminal offense. It doesn't matter if the backers give a poo poo. looks at trump yeah i'll believe things matter when i see it i guess  e: "yes we were developing SQ42 in storyboards and motion capture but we didn't commit to an engine until lumberyard"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:looks at trump They were selling it as almost complete, though. It might be more plausible for them to say that they started development in CryEngine but halted it once they announced it as a standalone so they could start over in Lumberyard. It's late and I didn't read that part so maybe I'm off base here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:Comedy addendum: they really did invoke the "wrong company" defense. Can anyone explain what exactly the difference between CIG and RSI is supposed to be? Like, if CIG is the company that's signing the GLA with Crytek and trying to make a game, what is RSI doing? Does it have any role in game development, or is it just there for business reasons (moving money, or hiding money, or paying extra salaries to important executives), or is it doing some kind of overall project management, or what? Because if RSI has employees on its payroll and some of those employees are/were working with CryEngine, then I don't see how CIG's lawyers can argue that RSI doesn't qualify as an "affiliate" of theirs under the GLA. And if they're an affiliate, the GLA seems to suggests that they're very much on the hook. Trilobite fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
Ayn Marx posted:Pas de qui pro quo ? Objection votre honneur ! If no pot left to piss in, the court won’t listen? Zzr posted:Angry and stupid ManofManyAlliases/Toast/Erris best ManofManyAlliases/Toast/Erris. less than three posted:Can't omit their "You're suing the wrong shell company so it should be dismissed." I thought MoMA had many aliases but turns out that’s the foundation of CIG’s entire legal defense strategy. Are you sure you’re not Toast, MoMA? Or are you “not Toast” in the same way “Robert Space Industries” is not “Roberts Space Industries”?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Here is something that I have to agree with - the lawyers play an insane shell game on Squadron 42 that just might work. (non lawyer idiot posting) That might play out for the 2 games under one license but doesn't that still gently caress them in not displaying crytek/cryengine logos on whatever game they're still developing? And reading the termination section if they did stop using CE they'd have to give everything back (as listed in Exhibit 1 I think) to CE and redo poo poo in LY. Unless that's what they're trying to claim the 'two days' switchover was, replacing their custom code on the branch of LY (which I don't think works that way, I'll leave it up to the programming goons to talk about that idea)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
EggsAisle posted:Interesting stuff! The bits from the GLA that stand out to me so far are: (note: I have no legal training or expertise.) I agree that that does seem to cover CIG at that point, unless Crytek are claiming at the point where CIG started to sell them separately (the valentines day split) they then became 'two' games as oppesed to 'two' games in one package which was to the oringal contract. (some poo poo spelling in there - I could be the CIG legal dude)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 10:03
|
|