|
D_Smart posted:Are you serious? Is this the first time you are hearing the use of the word "exclusive" and what it implies in the business world? This guy covered it pretty well: Edit: https://i.imgur.com/lK9xrXW.gifv shrach fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jan 7, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Enchanted Hat posted:I wonder if the section was actually intended to mean something like this: Yeah, this crossed my mind as well. However, since all contracts are based on intent, and given that the license to use CryEngine in "GAME" was already defined elsewhere, even the above interpretation doesn't hold up. quote:One thing I'm seeing a lot is "lol, why would CryTek give CIG an exclusive license to the CryEngine? That doesn't fit with their business model, that would be a terrible deal for them! Clearly that's a silly interpretation". I have never been involved in contract disputes like that, but I'm not sure "this is a really bad deal, so that can't be the interpretation" works as a legal argument. The license agreement between CryTek and CIG involves CIG paying millions of dollars for a license to use the CryEngine. If I were someone completely unaware of Star Citizen and I read this agreement without any context, I don't think I'd immediately interpret it the way CryTek does. I certainly wouldn't feel totally confident having to convince a judge and a jury that the exclusivity clause should be interpreted the way CryTek wants it to be interpreted. Yeah, it's hilarious. Which is why I can't wait to read the judge's ruling on the MtD because my guess is she will be going "WTF IS THIS poo poo?!?!" quote:tl;dr: I don't think the dispute over the meaning of an exclusive license is a slam dunk for CryTek/Skadden. Yup. That's why if/when the MtD fails, it would send a clear signal that the case has merits and can go forward. If the judge agrees with CIG that they can switch or use another engine without repercussions, then the case if over. But that's just not gonna happen because, well, the contract wasn't even terminated - and it can't be under normal circumstances. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
I;m thinkin bout thos lawsuits
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
PhallicPhalanges posted:How dare people not interpret this exactly as DS prescribes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
PederP posted:Against better judgement I will chip in. IANAL, but I have licensed game engines for development and have worked with engine development as well, so I do know a bit. (I have also represented myself in an actual court of law, which was dumb and shall never be repeated). The "exclusive" parts are poorly written, but generally exclusive is used with other wording to give a license which cannot be freely sub-licensed, which cannot be transferred, which does not prevent usage of other engines/middleware/libraries, and which does not prevent the licensor from licensing to other parties. So CIG and CryTek both are trying to have the poorly written contract mean something very different than the original intent and what is normal in licensing. Anglo-Saxon law is weird, with your insistence on sticking to the letter, ignoring the 'bonus pater' concept, etc. so I have no idea what the court will end deciding is the effective meaning of this terribly phrased contract. I like this opinion because it makes sense and this is pretty much the gist of what I have been saying. Except that what's missing, as you should well know, is that exclusive deals are done all the time in our biz. So Crytek saying they gave them a cheap license (which they will compare to what AMZ paid btw) in exchange for their exclusive use of CryEngine as publicity, makes perfect sense because it's very normal. e.g. how would it look if CIG gave Intel an exclusive to market and give free keys for a ship in their Optane SSD line, then CIG turned around and gave the same deal to Crucial? ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
We either get long drawn out comedy from space court if it goes through or a short furious burst of high test comedy from Derek if it gets dismissed. A win/win for the thread imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
PhallicPhalanges posted:How dare people not interpret this exactly as DS prescribes! Because their tane's blood level is too low and they need an injection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Chalks posted:So if CIG goes bust and sells the rights to Star Citizen to EA, clause 2.1.2 would mean that EA doesn't automatically get to use CryEngine to continue development of the game under this license and it has to be renegotiated. Because CIG (and not others) have the right to embed CryEngine in the game due to the use of the word exclusive. No. That's covered in the Term and Termination section. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:I like this opinion because it makes sense and this is pretty much the gist of what I have been saying. Except that what's missing, as you should well know, is that exclusive deals are done all the time in our biz. So Crytek saying they gave them a cheap license (which they will compare to what AMZ paid btw) in exchange for their exclusive use of CryEngine as publicity, makes perfect sense because it's very normal. Absolutely, exclusive deals are very common, it's just the phrasing is so horribly bad compared to other similar licenses I have read, that I find it difficult to think this was the original intent. It may even be Ortwin sabotaging the agreement on purpose, knowing that he's bailing. (even if incompetence is more likely). I may also suspect that CryTek simply didn't expect CIG to be dumb enough to change engines and throw away all development. The existence of LY is a bit of an oddity, and it's not normal be able to switch to an engine with effectively the same codebase (I also think it's a lie that they even did this, but assuming for a moment it is true). So it might not have been a base CryTek took much care in covering. I expect if true exclusivity was the intent, there are mails and other communication backing this up. I don't know if US law places any relevance on such evidence, but even if not, it would be entertaining to read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
AutismVaccine posted:Last thing: There's been a reddit thread on sc for the major developments so far and that's likely to continue. I've been hyping how amazing the CIG response has been and how Crytek don't have a chance as a way to encourage more of these feel good threads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
"Sue them all and let space court sort them out."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:I like this opinion because it makes sense and this is pretty much the gist of what I have been saying. Except that what's missing, as you should well know, is that exclusive deals are done all the time in our biz. So Crytek saying they gave them a cheap license (which they will compare to what AMZ paid btw) in exchange for their exclusive use of CryEngine as publicity, makes perfect sense because it's very normal. It's more like what if Sunoco gave NASCAR a cheap price on fuel, engineering assistance, and some start-up cash in exchange for using and promoting their fuel as the "official fuel of NASCAR." Then NASCAR unilaterally decides to start switching over to another fuel - which is just a rebranded blend of Sunoco fuel, despite being reminded by Sunoco that they are under contract. Whether or not the new fuel they switch to is better, or at a cheaper price to NASCAR, is ultimately immaterial. There was a deal, and NASCAR has breached the deal, and is liable for damages. Same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
shrach posted:This guy covered it pretty well: Have you ever come across the term, context? OK, how about this. Do you know what it means when: - game is exclusive to a console? - breaking news story is exclusive to a media station|paper? - bundle in a store (e.g. Walmart) is exclusive to the store? - piece of middleware is bundled exclusively in an engine? - license (e.g. Lumberyard) allows you to exclusively use their tech (e.g. AWS) and no competing ones? So no, exclusives are not suddenly new because some people choose to interpret an otherwise ambiguous use of the term in disputed contract. Also, even if 2.1.2 didn't exist - at all - and we weren't having this stupid argument among ourselves - it STILL won't mean CIG is off the hook because the GLA never terminated. And that alone means they are in breach of the other parts of Crytek's claims which have NOTHING to do with exclusively using CryEngine for ONE game. ---------------- D_Smart fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
It's almost like everything in this entire project has been done to an upmost content of incompetence, faith and belief in the Crobberts on all sides involved. This leaves the interpretation standing that the video game industry is pretty darn stupid in general and exceptionally greedy in certain cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I would love to see CIG's marketing BS be used against them. That’s the basis of the proof of the complaint. Lol, they even refer to SQ42 as the whole game within Star Citizen. That pricing split was a massive faux pas. Nice to see they’re going after the Carl Jones claim of bad faith. That felt weak because it spoke to motive up front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
PederP posted:Absolutely, exclusive deals are very common, it's just the phrasing is so horribly bad compared to other similar licenses I have read, that I find it difficult to think this was the original intent. It may even be Ortwin sabotaging the agreement on purpose, knowing that he's bailing. (even if incompetence is more likely). I may also suspect that CryTek simply didn't expect CIG to be dumb enough to change engines and throw away all development. The existence of LY is a bit of an oddity, and it's not normal be able to switch to an engine with effectively the same codebase (I also think it's a lie that they even did this, but assuming for a moment it is true). So it might not have been a base CryTek took much care in covering. I expect if true exclusivity was the intent, there are mails and other communication backing this up. I don't know if US law places any relevance on such evidence, but even if not, it would be entertaining to read. I don't think the contract was setup to fail. It was constructed in 2012. CryEngine was still a thing. And that popularity is why Amazon (much like what Havok did when they bought Trinigy Vision Engine and made it their own called Havok Vision Engine) licensed CryEngine with the intent to build their own engine so they could sell AWS services to our industry. That didn't happen until 2015. During 2016 CIG claims to have been looking into switching. Here is the timing. Jan 2016: announce SC + SQ42 split Feb 2016: split happens. two products sold separately Dec 2016: release a patch and news announcing the switch to LY See where I am going with this? They totally planned it. Which is precisely why, through ALL OF 2016, they never said a WORD about it to backers or in any of their shows, like they normally would. Yes, Lumberyard happening was a stroke of good fortune and presented a wrinkle. But here's the thing. Contrary to popular belief before we even saw the GLA, most (myself included) also thought that maybe CIG switched so they didn't have to pay royalties Crytek whereas LY had no such royalty requirements. Now we know that they had already pre-paid their royalties up front. But when you look at the GLA and the Crytek claims, it's easy to see how switching to LY makes sense when you can develop as many games as you want - for FREE. Something the GLA expressly forbids. Which means that them developing Star Citizen + Squadron 42 either meant they had to pay CryEngine a fortune, or breach the GLA and pay nothing. I don't care what anyone says, unless they settle this, they're hosed. And yes, ALL communications such as emails, contracts etc, will go into discovery. People will be deposed etc. All of this is going to go toward the key aspect of this: INTENT. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Golli posted:It's more like what if Sunoco gave NASCAR a cheap price on fuel, engineering assistance, and some start-up cash in exchange for using and promoting their fuel as the "official fuel of NASCAR." Then NASCAR unilaterally decides to start switching over to another fuel - which is just a rebranded blend of Sunoco fuel, despite being reminded by Sunoco that they are under contract.  That analogy makes even more sense because it totally expresses the CryEngine v Lumberyard "engines" as per different types of the same gas. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Hav posted:That’s the basis of the proof of the complaint. Wait. The split wasn't the best part of the faux pas at all. It's that those clowns then went and took tax credits against a single NAMED game in the UK. And even though all the internal documents will end up in discovery if this goes that far, we already know from the public UK filings that the game used for the tax credits AND a loving loan, was Squadron 42, and not Star Citizen. 
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Have you ever come across the term, context? What you're doing here is what the kids call "whataboutism". This concerns a contract that is for CryEngine and it is an EXCLUSIVE licence to CIG. We even know that is the meaning because we then get exceptions to this exclusivity. It's all the companies that are third parties signed off at the end. The notable omission is apparently the Faceware guys. The Faceware guys can't use CIG's CryEngine licence because it is EXCLUSIVE to CIG. It is CIG'S EXCLUSIVE right to use this licence. However, maybe CIG just forgot to get permission for a third party. We know CIG are allowed exceptions to this exclusivity and they just need CryTek to sign off on them. Maybe the Faceware guys were using Lumberyard though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Legal ruling is in! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Pixelate posted:Legal ruling is in! Yeah, he totally blew it in last night's stream. That's why I called him out on it. He barely LOOKED at the GLA; instead spending time reading every single line of the stupid CIG response. THEN - get this - saying that if were a judge, he would side with CIG. Because yeah, that's how that works. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
SW spoilers ahead!  That would be so fitting given that Luke in that scene was just a ghost, not real. And then even died. MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Do the redditors really think that filing a MtD is like the master stroke by CIG? It's standard...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
If Crytek wins, Star Citizen is dead and it's hilarious for us. If Crytek loses, Star Citizen comes out and it's hilarious for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Do the redditors really think that filing a MtD is like the master stroke by CIG? It's standard... CIG did it therefore it must be epic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
PederP posted:Absolutely, exclusive deals are very common, it's just the phrasing is so horribly bad compared to other similar licenses I have read, that I find it difficult to think this was the original intent. It may even be Ortwin sabotaging the agreement on purpose, knowing that he's bailing. I think when you add intent and context to the contract, it's hard to argue that exclusive means anything other than not being able to switch to another engine. We're in 2012, Crytek is a tech provider, CIG barely exists and hasn't raised much money yet ( only a few millions ), so CIG definitely isn't in a strong bargaining position. Crytek provided the license and helped on promoting and realizing the Kickstarter with tech demo. And a cheaper than industry standards license. Do you think they did that out of selflessness ? Now, what do they have to gain from such a deal ? If not for immediate cash, if not for a high amount of royalties.. what remains is promotion / marketing visibility. This is payment for their effort and support. Now here's the multi million dollars question: Does the GLA contain a time limit during which CIG absolutely has to stick to Cryengine ? Since the anwer is the obvious "no", there are only two possibilities: 1. Crytek invested some significant time and effort and signed a contract which allows CIG to switch to another engine with no restriction. In fact, CIG could have switched to Unreal engine the next day the GLA was signed, with no consequence. 2. Or the word "exclusive" in the GLA here means what we think it means, aka. that they can't switch to another engine, ever. I mean, it's one of the two possibilities. If you seriously argue that "exclusive" here doesn't apply to sticking to Cryengine forever, then you're basically saying that Crytek was completely dumb and never envisionned a scenario where CIG would switch to another engine, even within days of signing the GLA. In other words, the very fact that there's no time limit clause during which CIG has to stick to Cryengine is very, very telling, and hints that the exclusivity deal is real and lasts forever. The only other alternative is that they never read the contract they signed, are completely dumb and never thought about one of the most basic scenarios of their deal. Nyast fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:CIG did it therefore it must be epic. Crytek files complaint saying CIG did something to merit CIG files MtD saying the complain't doesn't have merit There is a hearing for this, and since the Crytek complaint even to laypeople has merit I would wager that the Judge will deny the MtD and move forward with the case. I haven't read any of the documents but hasn't CIG even asserted affirmative defenses? That's kind of telling
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Lets not forget that there will be more evidence like emails and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:If Crytek wins, Star Citizen is dead and it's hilarious for us. Actually, Star Citizen will never come out either way. And in the second case CR keeps waving his hands around, thereby hypnotizing the whales that want to believe, and will eventually announce a 'temporary' hold on all development and slink away with whatever money is left. All of which is likely to take another half a decade at the rate this poo poo has taken to run out of money. Which, frankly, isn't nearly as funny to me as the ELE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Do the redditors really think that filing a MtD is like the master stroke by CIG? It's standard... As if you have to ask. They're all a bunch of loving dumb rear end-clowns. And they're all going down with the ship. Just wait. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
CIG is going to win. Crytek will go bankrupt from legal fees. Derek will pretend this never happened like all the other ELE's. Calling it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Nyast posted:I think when you add intent and context to the contract, it's hard to argue that exclusive means anything other than not being able to switch to another engine. 
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Would be funny if Ben turns up as a witness for Crytek, who leverages his sense of betrayal and loss at being banished from the kingdom to
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:If Crytek wins, Star Citizen is dead and it's hilarious for us. At this point I've started thinking about it the way that sportscasters talk about season-wide stats: "You know Jim, win or lose here, I think it's important to remember that only three teams in history have ever ended a season with a winning record after taking a lawsuit in the first three games." "That's right, Bob, and ya know, two of those three were the Dolphins, in '73 and '74 - their powerhouse offense really pulled them out of that early season slump, and I'm just not sure Chris Roberts has the leadership or the skill to really put that ball downfield the rest of the season and put this lawsuit behind him."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
I've a kettle on atm and it's been doing an amazing job of keeping pace with what I imagine DS is saying in the posts that I keep scrolling past. On that note time for tea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Da Bears!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Galarox posted:Hey Derek - was that stream guy, Leonard, the guy who wrote you an open letter a couple years back saying please stop spreading FUD? Also I liked his hat. The French defending his PU? Why am I not surprised...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:24
|
|
