|
Man the only thing left is the Chris Robert defense. Please please please let the Chris Robert defense be real
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
http://fkks.com/attorneys/jeremy-goldman Jeremy S. Goldman is a partner in the Litigation Group, focusing on entertainment, media, intellectual property, commercial and privacy law. Jeremy is an experienced commercial litigator who regularly counsels clients through challenging disputes and incidents, achieving success both inside and outside the courtroom. Deploying more than a decade of experience, a natural curiosity, and “type A” intensity, Jeremy cuts to the heart of any matter, zeroes in on dispositive evidence, and moves clients ahead and toward their business goals. He is widely respected as a passionate oral advocate, persuasive writer and skilled negotiator. Jeremy has been the lead attorney in many high stakes trials, arbitrations, mediations and litigations, including representing Hasbro in a closely watched federal trial over the motion picture rights to Dungeons & Dragons, and The Authors Guild in its copyright infringement claims against Google Books. He recently helped the leading children’s book publisher, Scholastic Inc., defeat a motion in federal court seeking to restrain publication of an important book about art only days before its publication date. Jeremy has also led numerous federal and state investigations into alleged consumer protection, data privacy and antitrust violations, helping large brands and corporations conduct and respond to regulatory inquiries and obtain favorable outcomes. Jeremy has litigated a broad spectrum of complex commercial cases, with special expertise in the media, entertainment, advertising, technology and interactive industries. Many of his cases arise from breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, right of publicity, false advertising, intermediary liability (DMCA and CDA § 230), privacy, defamation, IP licensing and chain of title matters. Well-known consumer brands, award-winning creative agencies, and leading production companies call on Jeremy to handle the full range of issues that pop up on and off the set, including claims related to production mishaps, talent disputes, licensing, intellectual property, indemnification and insurance. Jeremy also advises clients on a range of issues involving privacy and data security, combining his experience and instincts as a litigator with a deep technical understanding of computers, software and the Internet. Among other matters, Jeremy assists clients in responding to security incidents and data breaches; reviewing, designing and implementing data security programs; complying with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and other privacy laws; and responding to federal and state regulatory inquiries. Jeremy has written and presented extensively on copyright, entertainment, privacy, data security and other matters. His published work appears in The Lexis Practice Advisor and Bloomberg’s Federal Practice Law Reports, and he has been quoted in Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter, ZD Net, PC World, Quartz, Courthouse News, and other media. Variety included Jeremy in its Legal Impact Report for 2015. Jeremy is Co-Chair of the Los Angeles Chapter of The Copyright Society of the USA, Secretary of the IP, Internet & New Media section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and an active member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals. The International Association of Privacy Professionals has certified Jeremy as a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US). In 2015, after spending eight years with the firm in New York, Jeremy moved across the country with his wife and two children to help launch Frankfurt Kurnit’s LA office. He is admitted to practice in New York and California. You can follow Jeremy on Twitter at @ipprivacylawyer. https://twitter.com/ipprivacylawyer/status/923267733122195456
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:10
|
|
|
passionate oral advocate
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
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.) Yeah, I just hit that part. I mean... you'd have to be a total retard to think that CIG's version was fact. "Crytek LITERALLY gave us CryEngine FOREVER, and no one else is EVER allowed to use it!" loving retarded. CryTek is a company that survives purely on people using it's loving engine you loving retards. RETARDS. WALL TO WALL RETARDS. LOOK AT THE RETARDS. I swear, when this come to trial, and CIG's crew is called into the room, if this doesn't play while the Judge yells at the top of her voice "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! THE RETARDS FROM CIG!!! (and the idiots defending them)", it's a missed opportunity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LQftYK2n8o
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Lack of GIFs and emoji in my outlook for Chris Roberts, too
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:I'm calling the judge taking off his/her glasses and saying "In all my years" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3M0uTIt3zA&t=222s
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Oh, and your inconsequential bullshit above - much like all your other ramblings - is somehow not speculation. But he is Toast, he is in the know. Except that as a poxy paralegal he is only fed poo poo that is wrong and that we can quote the poo poo out of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ipprivacylawyer/status/834950303526998016
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
So MOMAs meltdown was because he knew this turd was coming and we were all calling it about how bullshit their defense was going to be. Not because we actually knew, but because they were the funniest what if options and guess, they all came true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:you just don't understand signature development I find the way he printed his name and position within the company even funnier tbh and bonus points for not knowing what the date was:  Aged 5 and a haff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
Mental age, certainly
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
Arms_Akimbo posted:So they just pasted comments from r/SC and filed it to the court?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
Ashye posted:(non lawyer idiot posting) Hey idiot, Outlook supports the entire unicode emoji range, which you can easily enter using the Windows 10 on-screen keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
With CIG's defence relying so heavily on a technical definition of the word "exclusive", I am hereby Calling It that we will start to see the Citizenry suddenly become very interested (and very authoritative) about the exact meanings of words. Expect a lot of smug posts about definitions, dictionaries, the size of a citizen's law dictionary, quotes from Blacks, etc etc. I have so Called It. Make a note in the log. Let it be written in the Great Book of Calling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/hip9XKz.gifv
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Abuminable posted:Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, please rise as we present the prosecution's surprise witness: Dr. Derek K. Smart. The Court advises the Jury to please permit the esteemed witness to loving finish. Has anyone said "Jury Blog" yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Me, faced with latest legal documents:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
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. This may sound a bit flippant but afaik development of SQ42 started in 2011-2012, with CryEngine. Not in 2016 with Lumberyard. Lumberyard switch was announced in December 2016 whereas SQ42 carved out and marketed separately from the Game was announced on February 2016. There is at least 11 months worth of CIG apparently and intentionally breaking the GLA in terms of "Game" definition (scroll to page 24, Exhibit 2 here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta) and/or engine use rights. And probably more in terms of engine exclusivity as a whole. MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
To give CIG legal team some credit, it is good to now have the GLA public and see what is in it, some of it does support CIG depending on how you choose to view it - but that's where the legal arguments will come in. Also, in my quick skim across it, I thought it said that CIG paid Crytek about $1.85 million and no royalties for the engine .... is that how anyone else reads it? (section 3.1 of something, maybe the GLA is where I think I seen it.) Also lol at Chris child like printing - he really is a thumb child.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
I'm thinking it'd be more like the trial from The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
Sabreseven posted:I find the way he printed his name and position within the company even funnier tbh and bonus points for not knowing what the date was: Added fidelity: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
lmfao a meme lawyer v. Skadden
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
What the hell is the deal with the RSI/CIG distinction? RSI either has no assets what so ever, or they're using cryengine without a license, so what is the point of making this distinction in their response?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
Master IP book writers foolproof plan
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Sabreseven posted:Added fidelity: How can they say "nah wrong company" when Chris Roberts 'signed' right below the words "Roberts Space Industries Corp." Idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Kosumo posted:To give CIG legal team some credit, it is good to now have the GLA public and see what is in it, some of it does support CIG depending on how you choose to view it - but that's where the legal arguments will come in. Now both parties have filed their statements of case, we're firmly into the territory of "will this argument fly with a court?". That's subjective and dependant entirely on the judge and jury's own reactions on the day. We can comment on the evidence, caselaw, etc (and I think there's plenty of scope for a good effortpost or three about the caselaw FFKS are citing on the meaning of "exclusive"), but we are not qualified to say which argument is likely to win. Even if we were, every lawyer's seen a totally bullshit argument unexpectedly work, or an ironclad one fail. Absent something hilarious happening, the thread's best bet now is to watch, laugh as the citizens all suddenly become experts on the legal definitions of words, and sit tight until discovery. I'm sure there's going to be all kinds of lovely things to comment on if the case proceeds that far. Chalks posted:What the hell is the deal with the RSI/CIG distinction? RSI either has no assets what so ever, or they're using cryengine without a license, so what is the point of making this distinction in their response? They're Totally Different Companies(TM), so CIG are essentially arguing that they didn't breach exclusivity because they only ever used CryEngine and RSI only over used Lumberyard. They're also laying the groundwork for a retreat to RSI if the court does find against CIG and CIG goes down in flames. Keep an eye on those filings - we might start to see assets and people begin to migrate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
Exclusively literally means that it excludes other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Kosumo posted:How can they say "nah wrong company" when Chris Roberts 'signed' right below the words "Roberts Space Industries Corp." Because that screenshot is VERY MISLEADING i said exactly the same thing the actual GLA is only signed by CIG, that signature there is a EULA involving autodesk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
 They are aware that distinction between LTI and non-LTI ships is stupid as gently caress. They can't have whales refunding when their Hull E gets blown up by dirty goon griefers. Or worse, by any one of a million physics bugs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
G0RF posted: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: More like Star Citizen: potentially the greatest game that never got made
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Ponzi posted:
...or Derek Smart is funding the CryTek lawsuit 
---------------- D_Smart fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
While catching up on the pages i've missed in the thread......................I was awed by Beet's Wagon Stupid sexy Beetwagon 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
I received notification late last night about CIG filing their response. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al I have yet to read it in detail, but will do so later today, then hit the Hootsuite powered Tweet storm hard. Anyone who has ever seen a contract before, or who understands contract law, can take one look at the Term, Termination and Exhibit sections to see why Crytek filed this suit. RSI/CIG breached the GLA in so many ways, that I don't even know where to begin. Thread coming later. FYI section 3 being deleted as part of the contract is standard. It is Crytek's standard template contract and that part didn't apply to RSI/CIG, so it was removed. It's standard practice to do that without having to re-number all the sections that such a removal would require. ps: Has anyone told MoMa yet that I totally called the lawfirm, days ago? http://fkks.com/attorneys/jeremy-goldman https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/948962887841861632 ---------------- D_Smart fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Why would Crytek want a jury trial? Wouldn't it be easier to argue contractual stuff to one judge instead of 12 (relative layman) jurors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Is Chris Robert mentioned anywhere in those papers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Strategic decision I am guessing for higher potential damages. Also the way they phrased the contract argument is pretty straightforward, e.g., they violated the exclusivity clause, here's them talking up another engine. A is not B, you must give us money, sort of deal. Also that Motion to Dismiss is the laziest thing in the world. You need one I suppose for good practice but does it ever read like a person who's never taken civ pro 1 and hope that by claiming something it becomes true if they hold their breath long enough. It's fascinating to me that more attention is focused on the "scandalous" portions of the complaint that probably pertain to Ortwin and are likely to have already been excised in the amended complaint. Priorities!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
 at Chris standing over the shoulder of his lawyer and doing the legal equivalent of telling him what colour the pixel should be in the court response.Dude just cannot help telling more qualified people how to do their jobs
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Go gently caress yourself. You get spoonfed details by some people on here to make it seem like you know poo poo then everyone gets to sit and giggle in the corner while you flail about like you think you know what you're talking about 1/4 of the time (and you're too stupid to realize it you dumbfuck). This post cured my erectile dysfunction. Is it time to rub yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
D_Smart posted:...or Derek Smart is funding the CryTek lawsuit Don't play with my heart like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:52
|
|
