|
Beet Wagon posted:At this point I've started thinking about it the way that sportscasters talk about season-wide stats: Well at least CIG wont have to worry about repeating the legacy of the Browns.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Mostly due to hiring practices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:At this point I've started thinking about it the way that sportscasters talk about season-wide stats: 
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
As great as space court is, I kind of miss the old days when every week Crobbles would promise poo poo about hunting procedurally generated birds and serving drinks to passengers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:As great as space court is, I kind of miss the old days when every week Crobbles would promise poo poo about hunting procedurally generated birds and serving drinks to passengers. Can you imagine the meeting when they had to sit him down and tell him he can't do anymore 10 for the chairman ? I'm betting a lot of reverse psychology being used to make him think it was his idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
PhallicPhalanges posted:How dare people not interpret this exactly as DS prescribes! I wonder if people are intent on doing so?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
D_Smart posted: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. DS intent of proving he is exclusively right. So are you going to answer the call (2018tm) and tell us about the next on to drop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:I know it's a brain-teaser for some people who aren't used to contracts and contract law. That's why we have lawyers and judges. This isn't going to be hard at all because it's going to come down to INTENT. I know you're dismissing my posts out of hand, but I'd actually like to get your reasoning on this. You're saying that if 2.1.2 were to say it was "non-exclusively", it would be that CIG and others (not only CIG as in your 2.1.1 example) would be allowed to embed CryEngine in the game. But if it said "exclusively" it means not that "only CIG" may embed CryEngine in the game, but "CIG must" embed CryEngine in the game. Isn't that changing the relationship of the exclusivity just by inverting it? So taking the original example: 2.1.2: "non-exclusively" = That being CIG and others would be allowed to, for example, "embed CryEngine in the Game" Would the inverse not be as per the other examples: 2.1.2: "exclusively" = That being only CIG would be allowed to, for example, "embed CryEngine in the Game" not: 2.1.2: "exclusively" = That being the CIG must "embed CryEngine in the Game" Also the law dictionary example you linked of exclusive right seems to support the "only CIG definition". If we insert that over the exclusivity we get: "...Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to [the right or privilege that can only be used by the person who it is granted to] embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub-licensable pursuant to Sec. 2.6" That would really sound to me like they are saying only CIG can put CryEngine in the game, and you need (as per 2.6) CryTek's written permission to let anyone else work on the game. It's a right being granted to CIG (the Licensee), and only CIG can use that right. I would assume this would be to protect their code from anyone who might steal it or whatever. If CIG could let anyone work on Star Citizen, then people who hadn't signed the NDA and Terms and Conditions with CryTek could go nuts. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm enjoying the Star Citizen train wreck as much as everyone else here. This law suit is a perfect example of whoever loses, we win. But I'd like to actually understand why that section is such a slam dunk. Total aside, am I the first to notice the "First Public Release" conditions in 1.5? Half a million alpha or beta players, game being released as non-beta (does a pre-alpha qualify?), or July 31, 2015, whichever is sooner. Star Citizen is out you guys, we all missed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
intardnation posted:I wonder if people are intent on doing so? Have you been reading the thread? It's several people posting their opinion, getting called names for not interpreting it in a very narrow specific way. What a lot of people here forget this is going to be interpreted and decided by 12 people with high school diplomas or GED's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
That reads more confrontational than I intended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Post isn't edit. Either. Distracted watching real football.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Lladre posted:Have you been reading the thread? It's several people posting their opinion, getting called names for not interpreting it in a very narrow specific way. First it has to be interpreted by a judge who may think the contract is so poorly written that there is no point of a trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
The judge just needs to read their Twitter feed then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
IANAL, and I didn't actually read the legal documents because  , and thus I feel the need to tell you my detailed analysis of the situation:Star Citizen is bad Ben is fat Dancy cat is angry and whatever happens next, I am quite sure Derek called it
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Martman posted:Who is attempting to force someone to use a right? My point was just that 2.1.2 refers to the embedding of CryEngine into the game as a right of the Licensee (CIG) that can be sub-licensed subject to conditions. If you read the embedding of CryEngine into the game as a condition, something that CIG are obliged or forced to do, then it's not really a right anymore. Again, not a lawyer, so maybe there are legal rights that are conditions or penalties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:If Crytek loses, Star Citizen comes out ... let's not get ahead of ourselves :v
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:At this point I've started thinking about it the way that sportscasters talk about season-wide stats: maybe nancy grace can interview ben or the man himself for court tv?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Since the Lumberyard Engine and CryEngine it's based off is similar in almost every way, does anyone know if there's any copyright, comments, notes etc. in any of the CryEngine source code? If so, are these present in the Lumberyard source code? My train of thought is, that if e.g. 95% of the Lumberyard source code is identical to CryTek, and there's still some "Copyright CryTek" etc. present in the source code, will this be an argument against CIG that they're not using Lumberyard? Also, as far as I remember watching BugSmashers, the editor etc. which they show on screen is still called "Cry"-something. Would it show that if they're using Lumberyard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Fangrim posted:Since the Lumberyard Engine and CryEngine it's based off is similar in almost every way, does anyone know if there's any copyright, comments, notes etc. in any of the CryEngine source code? Yes it is all over the place. https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=crytek So when you see Bugsmashers code with CryTek comments it doesn't prove anything for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Fangrim posted:Since the Lumberyard Engine and CryEngine it's based off is similar in almost every way, does anyone know if there's any copyright, comments, notes etc. in any of the CryEngine source code? Bug smashers has shown many instances of CryTek copyright notices in the current code base, up to just a few weeks before the lawsuit was filed. e:fb
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Just because Amazon bought it, the copyright still belongs to crytek.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Lladre posted:Just because Amazon bought it, the copyright still belongs to crytek. It depends what they bought. It wasn't just a license as far as I'm aware, they bought complete rights to the code which would include copyrights. Amazon clearly has the right to copy and distribute this code without written permission from Crytek, as stated in the copyright notices so they are no longer valid. I imagine they would only have been left in out of laziness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Gorilla channel! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Lladre posted:Have you been reading the thread? It's several people posting their opinion, getting called names for not interpreting it in a very narrow specific way. And irrespective of that, one of the things you learn very quickly when dealing with the law at the sharp end, is that it is relatively easy for an intelligent, logical layperson to interpret the law as it is written down and another to reconsile that with real world experience of how it is actually interpreted on the day in court or by llegal professionals themselves. In other words ...all sorts of poo poo goes on when matters get into the legal system and the application of the law is a lot more nuanced and fluid than one might expect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
I ANAL Furthermore...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Thread's moving so fast I can't remember where I saw it, so I'll ask: did I read that the contract in question was drawn up by Ortwin who was working for Crytek at the time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Same. I would like someone to fill in this well that so many people are pouring their poo poo. I think it's come up already, but I would not be surprised in the least bit if this whole thing was intentional on the part of cig for this very reason. They get to cut and run while maintaining credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
It may have been in Ortwin's game plan. The Robert's although seem incapable of planning on coming out of this good or bad (it will always be bad) with some money socked away. If rumors are true they have been leasing their home as well as their cars!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:I think it's come up already, but I would not be surprised in the least bit if this whole thing was intentional on the part of cig for this very reason. They get to cut and run while maintaining credibility. The kill switch theory is my favorite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Sunswipe posted:Thread's moving so fast I can't remember where I saw it, so I'll ask: did I read that the contract in question was drawn up by Ortwin who was working for Crytek at the time? He may have been involved in the original template that Crytek were using with all parties that the CIG contract was based on. Skadden tried so say that Ortwin never resolved any conflict of interest. You'd have to assume they double checked with Crytek who must have told them that there was no waiver. Then the CIG lawyers / Ortwin did produce some signed waiver that showed it was resolved. That looks like a bit of an omnishambles from Crytek/Skadden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Virtual Captain posted:Yes it is all over the place. Chalks posted:Bug smashers has shown many instances of CryTek copyright notices in the current code base, up to just a few weeks before the lawsuit was filed. Cool! I wonder how that will hold up in court then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Bait and kill switch development is extremely Star Citizen
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
If 2.1.2 in this GLA states that CIG must exclusively use CryEngine for Star Citizen... Is this language different in CryTek GLAs with other companies? And are GLAs with other engines worded the same?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
shrach posted:He may have been involved in the original template that Crytek were using with all parties that the CIG contract was based on. Skadden tried so say that Ortwin never resolved any conflict of interest. You'd have to assume they double checked with Crytek who must have told them that there was no waiver. Then the CIG lawyers / Ortwin did produce some signed waiver that showed it was resolved. That looks like a bit of an omnishambles from Crytek/Skadden. I really doubt they showed off a waiver before replying. It would be a nice selling point for their side of the argument. Hmm then again, incompetence and occam's razor....
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Isn't there someplace in the game where there is a book on the table and one of pages looks like engine source code?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:28
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Bootcha posted:If 2.1.2 in this GLA states that CIG must exclusively use CryEngine for Star Citizen... Ask the guy who allegedly has one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Lladre posted:I really doubt they showed off a waiver before replying. It would be a nice selling point for their side of the argument. That's literally what Goldman's signed declaration is saying. He told all this to Skadden in phonecalls and meetings and so Skadden amended their complaint, but they didn't amend the allegations against Ortwin enough for their liking among all the other complaints.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:If 2.1.2 in this GLA states that CIG must exclusively use CryEngine for Star Citizen... This is an excellent question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
shrach posted:He may have been involved in the original template that Crytek were using with all parties that the CIG contract was based on. Skadden tried so say that Ortwin never resolved any conflict of interest. You'd have to assume they double checked with Crytek who must have told them that there was no waiver. Then the CIG lawyers / Ortwin did produce some signed waiver that showed it was resolved. That looks like a bit of an omnishambles from Crytek/Skadden. It's all very confusing to my non-legal mind. Just seems like a massive coinkie-dink that Ortwin was involved in crafting a badly-written contract, then is later working for a company who could benefit from the confusion. But like I said, not a lawyer, don't like legal TV dramas, kinda hoping this all ends with a helicopter battle. That I can understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:40
|
|