|
I'm scared that they're going to use the you were in a coma so I left you to die so I could bang your wife defense because The Walking Dead got awful pretty quick.
Dusty Lens fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jan 6, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
big nipples big life posted:So how long will it take for the judge to respond to this and grant or reject the motion to dismiss? Hearing is the 9th of Feb
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Gonna lmao when all these redditors who are speaking w such authority get owned when the mtd is denied
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Daztek posted:Hearing is the 9th of Feb Imagine Chris in front of a Judge....
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
I'm going to take the minority view and say some of the arguments are at least colorable (not going to disagree on the writing, which is crap): There’s an argument as to whether “exclusive” means that CIG needs to only use Crytek’s engine, or whether only CIG can use Crytek’s engine, and there’s support either way. The contract isn’t as strongly in favor of Crytek’s argument as the petition indicated, which is why I wanted to actually see it.
For Crytek’s side, it’s not an ungrammatical reading of the sentence that CIG can only use Crytek’s engine, so they can at least argue it’s ambiguous and get into intent. Their reading is also supported by other clauses, such as CIG having to always display Crytek’s copyright, rather than only having to display Crytek’s copyright if they continue using Crytek’s engine. Finally, they have an argument that CIG’s interpretation isn’t reasonable, because it can’t be that CIG is the only company that can use Crytek’s engine at all, and it makes no sense for the clause to mean that only CIG can develop Star Citizen with Crytek’s engine, because of course other companies wouldn’t be developing Star Citizen. The whole argument about RSI not being a party to the contract is perfectly valid, and why you have separate companies. A separate legal entity can’t breach a contract it's not a party to, so Crytek is going to have to jump through more hoops than it has so far. Despite having some valid legal points, this is still a badly written motion. Judges don’t appreciate bombastic personal attacks, and CIG did themselves no favors there. Like claiming that Crytek was trying to mislead the court by not filing a copy of the contract, when there’s no need to attack evidence to a petition. They also managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the Ortwin discussion. They couldn’t just take their minor win of talking to Crytek and having the Ortwin allegations dropped from the petition, which Crytek took the high road and did. No, they had to continue to complain about allegations not in the live petition, which just makes CIG look like assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Poor judge....
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
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? Sort of makes you wonder what demo they were going to show and then pull at the last moment now doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Mirificus posted:https://twitter.com/dawnofevil/status/949371087699283968 https://twitter.com/dawnofevil/status/949640922911969283 https://twitter.com/TarkaRoshe/status/949639315050639360
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
tuo posted:Poor judge.... Poor court scribe who has to record all the 'ums' and 'ah', and 'JUST DO IT'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Poor court scribe who has to record all the 'ums' and 'ah', and 'JUST DO IT'. Imagine Ben in court.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
tuo posted:Imagine Ben in court..... HOLD THE DOOR
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
I'm laughing as all this is taking place during the 0-16 Browns parade. What a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:43
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Dusty Lens posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Will he find the missing second seat that is necessary for him to sit properly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
MoMA (who is Toast) job spotted: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/949644569867620352
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:The whole argument about RSI not being a party to the contract is perfectly valid, and why you have separate companies. A separate legal entity can’t breach a contract it's not a party to, so Crytek is going to have to jump through more hoops than it has so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SC_Logicorp/status/949667077991882753 He trying to say that because SQ42 has been explicitely defined as an integral part of the Game, that means it as actually not part of the Game? Lol. These shitizens are really idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
less than three posted:Can't omit their "You're suing the wrong shell company so it should be dismissed." Chris does the shell cup game with a hundred cups Crytek just flips the table and dunks him loudly
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Mr.Tophat posted:Chris does the shell cup game with a hundred cups No respect for the honest con. And here he thought that there was some honour among 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Streetroller posted:Chris, I know you're reading this. What did you do!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:https://twitter.com/SC_Logicorp/status/949667077991882753 Yeah, that section was the most damning honestly. They explicitly say no offshoots of "the Game" or anything that will be sold as a separate product, and then name Squadron 42 as the Singleplayer /Coop , SC as Open Multi, and then Modded Multi. It's literally detailing that CIG can't sell a second product with the license and including SQ42 under the license of THE GAME...... How are people this stupid? Edit Disclaimer: I Am Not Nearly A Lawyer. FailureToReport fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Mr.Tophat posted:Chris does the shell cup game with a hundred cups CIG's legal strategy  Crytek's legal strategy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
poo poo. She´s blind. We´re hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:
So no one gets to use cryengine do develop games (or space games) while SC is in development? How does *that* work? I mean, how could you possibly argue this? Is there any example of something like that ever happening?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
nnnotime posted:Does Skadden have to remedy this? Could they file an amended complaint or file a new case? Or like Dr. Smart posted earlier does the suit apply automatically to CIG since RSI is a subsidiary (if I have that connection right). If RSI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CIG it might end up not mattering, but I don't know the corporate structure. Normally lawyers try to sue their way up a chain of companies, rather than down, because the parents have the most money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
I'm actually somewhat inclined to agree here, but if CIG loses the lawsuit, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon tells them to piss off. Or any other engine maker for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
trucutru posted:So no one gets to use cryengine do develop games (or space games) while SC is in development? How does *that* work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTEBJBESCo4&t=22s
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
trucutru posted:So no one gets to use cryengine do develop games (or space games) while SC is in development? How does *that* work? It's sloppy drafting by someone that probably lifted licensing language from another contract without thinking about whether it made sense here. It's why I don't find any of the interpretations so far particularly satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Don't CryTek have a new game coming out that uses CryEngine? Can CIG therefore sue CryTek for breaking the exclusivity clause in the GLA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:poo poo. She´s blind. We´re hosed. The inevitable consequence of consuming one too many Lesnick Challenges on the scales of justice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:They mentioned it in their amendment, so it's likely that it came up in the discussions between the firms and they're ready to argue for it. But I can't fault CIG for bringing it up, because they can't pass up an argument that'd get a client out of the case. The top company usually has the most but this is cig. The top company is broke and is supported by the smaller companies that have all the "pledges". In fact, all the money is in a subsidiary of an offshoot of a branch of a PO box in the Cayman isles
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
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 am maybe wrong but I don´t remember Skadden suit docs mentioning unpaid royalties no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
nnnotime posted:Does Skadden have to remedy this? Could they file an amended complaint or file a new case? Or like Dr. Smart posted earlier does the suit apply automatically to CIG since RSI is a subsidiary (if I have that connection right). They don't need a "remedy". They're just going to file a response to all of that bullshit soon enough. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
FailureToReport posted:Yeah, that section was the most damning honestly. They explicitly say no offshoots of "the Game" or anything that will be sold as a separate product, and then name Squadron 42 as the Singleplayer /Coop , SC as Open Multi, and then Modded Multi. loving lol if you guys thought that those broken-brained rear end-clowns were going to take one look at the RSI/CIG response, and not find a way to translate it into a victory. just wait until the Mtd is denied on Feb 9th, thus meaning that Crytek case has merits. I will be laughing so hard. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:They mentioned it in their amendment, so it's likely that it came up in the discussions between the firms and they're ready to argue for it. But I can't fault CIG for bringing it up, because they can't pass up an argument that'd get a client out of the case. It won't matter. It's just bullshit. Just like their attempts are re-definition the intent of "exclusive". It is standard practice to sue the parent in any legal action involving parent, sub etc. They are claiming that RSI is a "subsidiary" of CIG. Well of course. Go to the website right now, and you will find RSI and CIG all over the place. Only a complete moron would think that a firm like Skadden didn't know all of this, and didn't do their homework. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:Normally you'd get an exclusive license to say, sell Whataburgers in Dallas. And then no one else can sell Whataburgers in Dallas. So by extension, this exclusive license to use Crytek's engine in Star Citizen means no one else can use Crytek's engine in Star Citizen. Ortwin. He wrote a pamphlet about German IP law 50 years ago, you see.
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:There’s an argument as to whether “exclusive” means that CIG needs to only use Crytek’s engine, or whether only CIG can use Crytek’s engine, and there’s support either way. Excuse my thickness but what would be the point for a company that earns a living by licensing software to multiple clients to restrict the client list to just one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
MedicineHut posted:I am maybe wrong but I don´t remember Skadden suit docs mentioning unpaid royalties no? It doesn't. Because no royalties are due under the GLA. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 19:44
|
|