|
Ayn Marx posted:Fyi any non-lawyer careposting in-depth analysis of these legal statements is just as retarded as the citizens and should be ashamed of themselves that post is just as retarded as the citizens' and you should be ashamed of yourself. stay frosty. e: the verdict will be returned by a group twelve of non-lawyers. Abuminable fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jan 7, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Actually, contract interpretation is a legal question that gets resolved by the judge, not the jury.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
my in expert legal opinion: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Fyi non-lawyers read, write and sign legal agreements every single day of the last hundreds of years, it's called doing business This is of course exactly the same as a million-dollar lawsuit!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Jason Sextro posted:I'm glad your family is dead Mods??
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:my in expert legal opinion: Whatever happens will be -worthy. There are only two outcomes: CIG will leave this battle heavily-battered or at room-temperature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:I mean, why stop at just buying JPGs? why not actually own a piece of gaming history and become a member of the Star Citizen / Squadron 42 team Bootcha posted:6) The Next Great Designer: Remember TNGS? It's like that except SC cultists compete for the best design idea for SC. Winner gets a job offer as an assistant producer in LA (because gently caress your CoL that's why) to lead a team to implement their feature. Pirate Rape, Feces Sanitation, Needless Bureaucracy, and Machinima divas on full display. Winning feature? You must have a Platinum PTTTHHHHHHPPPPPPPPPPit's just another ship gently caress you surprise I'm amending this to The Next Great Idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:*five seconds later*  Also, I like the lawyercrafting posts. Though I don’t hold strong opinions about how things will break, its interesting enough just knowing the clock on a stinkbomb is ticking yet again; a drama unfolding behind the curtain once again is largely of Chris’s own oily making. Speaking of clocks ticking on stinkbombs... looks like The Doll Web Series may eventually see the light of day after all. Episode List posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
im too dense for all this law stuff its happening or its not happening?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
All the loving high-power lawyers in the world won't make SC less of a glitchy tech demo. Personally, I want crytek to take them to the cleaners because, outside the comedy, SC is a predatory waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
G0RF posted:Speaking of clocks ticking on stinkbombs... looks like The Doll Web Series may eventually see the light of day after all. quote:A Song of Ice Cream and Fire Man, they have some quality writers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
trucutru posted:All the loving high-power lawyers in the world won't make SC less of a glitchy tech demo. Personally, I want crytek to take them to the cleaners because, outside the comedy, SC is a predatory waste of money. Same. I would like someone to fill in this well that so many people are pouring their poo poo. On an unrelated note I do feel that this event will be the whipping boy for any future misfortune or hiccup, regardless of the outcome of the case. A recurring point of amusement was who was going to take the fall in the event that Christ himself didn't descend from heaven to make the pixel green and save Star Citizen. Much of the speculation revolved around the core idea that it would be impossible to pin the blame on Chris and Co. without admitting the fullness to which one was suckered in by the glamour and urgent hand waving. This lawsuit and all of the possible issues one could pin on it, from decreased confidence to theorycrafting about closed doors deals that hamstrung the project, is an amazing standin. It'll still be an argument about greed destroying Star Citizen. But not on the part of its creators and people who made every decision along the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
Fangrim posted:
It IS pretty clear that CIG are (irrespective of the client question) treating SQ42 as it's own standalone thing, but the contract in Exhibit B makes specific reference to the client. Does this have any legs? I have no idea about the legal precedent surrounding software clients and multiple products thereof. Or perhaps I'm just reading the legal type wrong, and where it says "comma AND" I should read "OR"? Is breaching one of those conditions enough to gently caress the whole thing, or does it have to be all of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:56
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:It IS pretty clear that CIG are (irrespective of the client question) treating SQ42 as it's own standalone thing, but the contract in Exhibit B makes specific reference to the client. Does this have any legs? I have no idea about the legal precedent surrounding software clients and multiple products thereof. Or perhaps I'm just reading the legal type wrong, and where it says "comma AND" I should read "OR"? Is breaching one of those conditions enough to gently caress the whole thing, or does it have to be all of them? Much of the theorycrafting around the legs on claiming segregated products relies on CIG claiming they're two different products to the good people of the UK for tax break purposes. So that's going to be a juggle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:I haven't followed this super closely, so excuse my ignorance: but have they specifically said that SQ42 is played through something other than the SC client? Because that part of Exhibit B specifically mentions it. As far as I can find, CIG have been very careful to not mention the SQ42/CS client situation, but the one time they did, they said it would be through the same client. Now, again, I haven't kept up 100% with everything surrounding this, so I might have missed something later that contradicts this. You could How they could even contest that with a straight face I know not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
The problem with this whole situation is that Chris Roberts pulled his usual flim flam and everything to do with Star Citizen and Squadron 42 is whatever it needs to be to fit whatever Chris is trying to do in that instance. Or at least it is in his mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
That might also be the solution so everything could work out after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
A preview of CIG's lawyers in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
If CIG didn't terminate the GLA, then what's to say they're not still using CryEngine? The GLA requires a paper trail to confirm that all CryEngine code has been removed. If that paper trail existed, why would Crytek be suing? They'd know CIG wasn't using CryEngine. As far as they know, CIG's still using their code, even as they transition to a new engine, yet they did poo poo like remove the splash screens. CIG are bound by the stipulations of the agreement until they terminate the contract, and it seems pretty obvious that they haven't done that. If they had, why would any of this be happening? Did I misunderstand? Aesaar fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
Can't believe no one did this, but I guess with all this latest lawyer talk it's now appropriate... Are you not entertained?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
Aesaar posted:If CIG didn't terminate the GLA, then what's to say they're not still using CryEngine? The GLA requires a paper trail to confirm that all CryEngine code has been removed. If that paper trail existed, why would Crytek be suing? They'd know CIG wasn't using CryEngine. As far as they know, CIG's still using their code, even as they transition to a new engine, yet they did poo poo like remove the splash screens. From my understanding breaking the GLA, even for legit reasons, requires notification of the other party. None of the documents submitted detail that. If any of their argument relies on the GLA being broken, they should have provided evidence that they did so in accordance with the contract.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome CryEngine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
They sold SQ42 as a separate pre-order which breaks the term forbidding them to sell it as a separate product regardless of how it gets launched. The bit about SQ42 being a 'feature' of SC is just clarifying exactly what SQ42 is. It's the selling of it separately that's in breach. None of this is lawyering btw, this is simply reading the agreement and comparing it to what CIG actually did
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
If they ditch CE does it mean Chris will have an excuse to fire every single CE guy they've got, for culling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:I haven't followed this super closely, so excuse my ignorance: but have they specifically said that SQ42 is played through something other than the SC client? Because that part of Exhibit B specifically mentions it. As far as I can find, CIG have been very careful to not mention the SQ42/CS client situation, but the one time they did, they said it would be through the same client. Now, again, I haven't kept up 100% with everything surrounding this, so I might have missed something later that contradicts this. Blizzard use the same launcher for everything but that doesn't make WoW and Overwatch the same game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:1. There is no argument that it's an exclusive license. Whether that is determined to be unfair or unenforceable is entirely up to space court. However the money that CIG agreed to pay Crytek is based on the license terms and that's a pretty substantial one - without exclusivity the license fee would have been much, much higher. In other words, "use our engine and no one else's and we'll give you a great deal" To me the exclusive license language is not as clear as it should have been, there is wiggle room there for CIG. I don't think it matters considering everything else and if anything it's giving CIG false hope to dig themselves in deeper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
Ayn Marx posted:This is of course exactly the same as a million-dollar lawsuit! The million dollar lawsuit is what happens when companies don't stick to what they agreed in writing. If I get time I'll draw up a flowchart with nice colours and pictures to explain it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:26
|
|
|
AP posted:To me the exclusive license language is not as clear as it should have been, there is wiggle room there for CIG. I don't think it matters considering everything else and if anything it's giving CIG false hope to dig themselves in deeper. I don't see it, not saying it isn't there, just that I don't see it However having CIG's comedy lawyer arguing over the interpretation of a few words amidst a shitload of other breaches of contract is exactly the kind of thing I'm expecting to see in space court
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:50
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:However having CIG's comedy lawyer arguing over the interpretation of a few words amidst a shitload of other breaches of contract is exactly the kind of thing I'm expecting to see in space court
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:53
|
|
|
So will Love Pledge have a bonus level in the style of Ace Attorney?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:Chris Roberts, snatching failure from the jaws of success since 1999 Here's the new topic heading right here 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
Jason Sextro posted:I can't wait until that becomes a serious defense Oh, he'll still get gifts 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:I haven't followed this super closely, so excuse my ignorance: but have they specifically said that SQ42 is played through something other than the SC client? Because that part of Exhibit B specifically mentions it. As far as I can find, CIG have been very careful to not mention the SQ42/CS client situation, but the one time they did, they said it would be through the same client. Now, again, I haven't kept up 100% with everything surrounding this, so I might have missed something later that contradicts this. My interpretation is that marketing/selling the game separately is enough to breach. Not being accessed through the Game client is just another way to NOT be part of the Game (in addition to be marketed separately) and breach. Going the anal retentive way I can also point out to you that little, but completely relevant, comma before the "and" in the sentence in Exhibit 2. Otherwise CIG would have had carte blanche to create with CryEngine, and sell separately, an infinite number of games as long as they were all accessed through the same game client in any way and were all related to the described Star Citizen theme. Also: History Comes Inside! posted:Blizzard use the same launcher for everything but that doesn't make WoW and Overwatch the same game. SomethingJones posted:They sold SQ42 as a separate pre-order which breaks the term forbidding them to sell it as a separate product regardless of how it gets launched. My suspicion / speculation is that one of the drivers (probably not the only one) for CIG to market and sell SQ42 separately is to be able to benefit from the applicable UK tax credits. If Skadden can show that a separate entity was required for SQ42 to be recipient of the credits then that would help support Skadden/CryTek´s accusation. Splitting in two games and selling separately is a decision that was obviously taken by CIG in order to improve their bottom line and extract more value (ref tax credits, additional sales et al) and subpoena /investigation should be able to request the business case and relevant management approval/decision trail for that (and ask UK´s HMRC about their advice to CIG on their tax credit application); and the judge/jury should be able to determine how much value CIG thought that decision carried. Although weather ultimately successful at extracting additional value with the split or not is irrelevant. If the attempt to do so was done thanks to breaching the GLA then CryTek / Skadden have all the right in the world to chase and punish that kind of behaviour. I would imagine that is precisely what IP management/protection is all about. MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
Let's not forget that Ben lesnick ( developer ). Played all the sq42 missions long before they switched to lumberyard. He said as much
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:I don't see it, not saying it isn't there, just that I don't see it
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
EightAce posted:Let's not forget that Ben lesnick ( developer ). Played all the sq42 missions long before they switched to lumberyard. He said as much 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
What's the definition of exclusive that CIG are trying to claim is in the GLA? I'm having trouble thinking of one that both makes sense and they didn't violate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
Chalks posted:What's the definition of exclusive that CIG are trying to claim is in the GLA? I'm having trouble thinking of one that both makes sense and they didn't violate. That CIG was the only developer in the world allowed to use Cryengine in a game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
thatguy posted:
Cmon this is CIG's specially chosen counsel
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 12:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Erenthal posted:That CIG was the only developer in the world allowed to use Cryengine in a game. I think they're actually going for "CIG are the only developer in the world allowed to use CryEngine in Star Citizen" Which is even more retarded because uhhhhh, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 12:05
|
|