Sillybones posted:

What are CIG arguing here? That Crytek had to promise CIG that they would not let anyone else make Star Citizen with their engine? Is that something Crytek would be able to do? Steal Star Citizen and have someone else make it?

And this is the well-established interpretation? Is this a common thing?

Question mark??

Ursine Catastrophe posted:

to resist it is useless
it is useless to resist it
his company is smoking but it never seems to crash
he is grooming his whales, he is living comfort eagle
you can meet at his location but you better come with cash
now his head is on backwards
he can show you his snafus
he is in the movie business
he is calling you whoa did ehp did eh woh did

Cao Ni Ma posted:

Look at Cryteks suit, its well organized and all the claims make sense by themselves. Now at look at CIGs response, their affirmative defenses make no loving sense and you have to struggle to understand what they are trying to say.

SelenicMartian posted:

Where's the link to the CIG reply thing?

Sillybones posted:

What are CIG arguing here? That Crytek had to promise CIG that they would not let anyone else make Star Citizen with their engine? Is that something Crytek would be able to do? Steal Star Citizen and have someone else make it?

And this is the well-established interpretation? Is this a common thing?

Question mark??

quote:

Crytek is a big stupid meanie. Look at them play to the Fake News Media and slander us. They are really, really awful. Also, they are bad at contracts. They don't even know what a contract is or the right person to sue. We didn't do anything wrong by breaking every part of the GLA we attached, if you listen to our insane interpretations of it. This shouldn't be in court, at all, and is a sham and a lie. Let me tell you about tort law. Also we took everything about tort law and copied it directly from the first Google result lol no they really did

SoftNum posted:

As near as google tells me, the meaning of 'exclusive' in IP law and licencing means what CIG is claiming. But I would defer to lawgoons on actual interpretation.

Squadron 42 is an interesting question though, as it clearly is marketed as a stand alone product.

Chiwie posted:

Even bettererererer option: Derek turns up and just watches. With a bag of popcorn.

Chiwie posted:

Please tell me we are going to have a goon court reporter on site.

Even bettererererer option: Derek turns up and just watches. With a bag of popcorn.

kw0134 posted:

Nah, that motion is probably set up for failure but that's not the point, because there's no loving way that they could get the case thrown out on that. An FRCP 13(b)(6) MtD is for the absolutely meritless claims, like claiming being called a "jerk" in a public place constitutes defamation, that sort of thing. Even if it were true, and the defense admits all the facts alleged, it doesn't rise to an actionable cause of action. Of course, the barest reading of the complaint would be "there's a contract, defendant violated contract, gimme moneys" is pretty much the reason civil courts exist! I'm more amused by the effort to strike certain sections of the complaint.

It exists pro forma, to assure everyone that they did indeed stay awake during civ pro. Not filing one, no matter empty it would be, might be seen as failing the zealous defense of one's client. Though...I'd probably try a teensy bit harder than that. The bare assertion that it needs to be dismissed is eye-rolling. Just sayin'.

TheAgent posted:

like that whole tort section was a single gold fringed flag away from being totally ludicrous

boviscopophobic posted:

In the Streetroller refund e-mail chain, Ortwin refers to RSI as CIG's "publishing arm". My non-lawyer, totally uninformed conjecture is that CIG develops while RSI publishes, sells, and promotes, which rights CIG can freely sublicense according to item 2.1.3 of the GLA. This means that RSI gets all the whale revenues, which might explain why it's worth trying to apply the wrong company defense for it.

However, Chris Roberts signed the Autodesk amendment to the GLA on behalf of both Cloud Imperium Games and RSI, so the separation isn't as clean as this legal theory would imply.

Dusty Lens posted:

I feel like we are on the precipice of waiting for something great to happen sometime.

Maybe soon.

Maybe sooner than anyone expects.

shrach posted:

Seems like it. Having paid the total €1.85m in installments, is probably what Erin Roberts referred to in that post somewhere when he said they had, "bought out the engine completely" or whatever he said on some random forum.

I think there are plenty of points in the CIG response to arm a smug moma. This show is going to run, renewed for at least another season.

Sandweed posted:

LoL you think Chris is going to pay them? He'll do what he always does, complain about how they did this, if they had just listened to him this would have been fine. Then maybe offer them a 50% of what was originally offered because he is such a nice guy.

TheAgent posted:

yeah, they'll burn this lawfirm without a problem. I fully expect them to switch to a different firm to buy them more time

lol when FKKS sues them for breach of contract

AP posted:

https://twitter.com/Jorunn_SC/status/949647038995673088

AlbieQuirky posted:

TheAgent posted:

man whoever has to read CIGs response to this lawsuit is going to be absolutely fuckin pissed. what a waste of words and time

christ

Loxbourne posted:

The motion is to rally the backers and reassure investors. It's to be read by third parties, not the court. CIG get a platform to publicly decry their enemies and that'll fire up the Citizenry. They might even get a brief pledge spike off this. Yeah, CIG! Tell 'em like it is! Bring the fire and fury!

D_Smart posted:

Yeah, that's what Erin was referring to. Except that the "buyout" as per the GLA, was related to the royalties portion. Instead of Crytek waiting to earn royalties down the road, they opted to take it upfront. Which is hilarious because if they hadn't done that, well, imagine how much of the $175M they would have if you look at the GLA.

Loxbourne posted:

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.

TheAgent posted:

omg there is a section arguing that this is tort not contract law and I am loving dying

like never has a legal document made me lol this much

Latin Pheonix posted:

Funnily enough, I'm reading through it myself and it's making me unduly angry. The tone, the unrelated rants, the unnecessary case law, it's all a nightmare to read for what should have been a quite straightforward response.

As has been said, the whole thing reads like something Chris/Ortwin dictated and the FKKS lawyers tried their best to clean up and make presentable for the court. On the other hand, FKKS seem to be quite proud of their fame as a reputation management firm, so I wouldn't be surprised if their very aggressive defence of Ortwin is part of the service they're providing CIG first and foremost (protect Ortwin (and Chris?) first, CIG if they can).

I might do an effortpost later today or tomorrow about this, basically comparing their response to the original complaint with some of my thoughts.