|
Hello I would like a time machine to whenever the actual court events happen because 100 pages of this IANAL conversation is going to kill me
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
lol that you think there will only be 100 pages of it by February
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
As there is no legal authority in space at the moment, I am declaring myself now chief space lawyer. So now that I AM a lawyer, I sentence Crytek to 6 months in the sex cells on Chris's Osiris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Hello I would like a time machine to whenever the actual court events happen because 100 pages of this IANAL conversation is going to kill me You don't anal? How prudish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
For the first time in history, the court requires the use of a Xi'an translator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:58
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Nyast posted:Exclusively = only us in the entire world can use Cryengine for Star Citizen -> but that's an obvious thing since only CIG owns the SC IP. Why use the word "exlusively" here then ? I mean, they could ( / WILL ) certainly argue that, but it doesn't make much sense to me either. Not to unjustly enrich CIG's defense strategy (hello, sad intern!), but if there were some set of circumstances where CIG did lose the IP to Star Citizen -- say, for example, that CIG used it as collateral for a big loan and didn't repay it and WHOOPS now everything belongs to a bank who then sells it to another studio to make a little of their money back -- then this interpretation would actually have some teeth. It'd be Crytek saying "We made a deal with you for CryEngine, so if you (or this 'Mr. Robert Space' you claim to work with) shut down development and the IP lands somewhere else, whoever wants to make 'Star Citizen But It's Actually A Game This Time' has to come back and make a new deal with us." (edit: but seriously, sad intern, it seems like CIG definitely broke the terms of their agreement with Crytek in more than one way, so even if you could convince a court to buy this interpretation, it wouldn't help much in the end. Start looking for a new job now and avoid the rush!) Trilobite fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:The kill switch theory is my favorite. It’s pretty rich that an old “friend of Chris” was employed at Crytek at the time and was party to crafting Crytek’s confusingly written contracts. It seems beneath neither Chris nor Ortwin’s character to collude in a mutually beneficial act of contract sabotage. Yet at the same time, we have seen over and over and over again how hopelessly incompetent and shortsighted they are. These are people who have months worth of headstarts to prepare for livestreams aimed at tens of thousands whom they’re hoping to filch funds from — and time and again they’ve botched it in ways that baffle the imagination. These are people who write and approve epic meltdowns by their spokesman in response to bad press and thereby turn containable brushfires into raging firestorms spreading thrice as far and fast and burning their own asses in the process. So yes, it isn’t beneath their character, not in the slightest, but it is unthinkably beyond their competence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Chalks posted:This is an excellent question. But. If the document is drafted in such a way that it is ambiguous on reading it and after combing back and forth the court goes  then we can look at other things to help clarify the clause. Among other things you can argue "well, we didn't write it in this specific way because in the industry it is generally understood to mean x, y, and z." If Crytek pulls out other GLAs with other licensees that holds them to the engine till the project is completed, that's very good for Crytek. When we meant "exclusive," well, we meant you had to see it through to the end, with our engine.The problem of course is that most game projects aren't open ended (as we keep hammering on the cultists over and over again) and so it usually isn't an issue. You don't want to change engines, it's the classic sign of a troubled development. You finish whatever garbage you got within a year or two, chalk it up to experience, and try again with the sequel with whatever tools you like. I doubt anyone could have envisioned it going on for this long. Trilobite posted:Not to unjustly enrich CIG's defense strategy (hello, sad intern!), but if there were some set of circumstances where CIG did lose the IP to Star Citizen -- say, for example, that CIG used it as collateral for a big loan and didn't repay it and WHOOPS now everything belongs to a bank who then sells it to another studio to make a little of their money back -- then this interpretation would actually have some teeth.  ) the agreement is in breach and Crytek gets its stuff back. So exclusivity cannot be read in that way because that very contingency has been planned for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:I know you're dismissing my posts out of hand, but I'd actually like to get your reasoning on this. I am not doing that. I respond to things that I find interesting. And even then, since everyone has their own opinions on things, I can only stick with my opinions, while agreeing with others that are in line with my own. I tend to just block people I don't want to hear from; as I don't deem them to be worthy of my time and/or attention. quote:You're saying that if 2.1.2 I don't think anyone here is fighting. We're debating, arguing, and just trying to wrap our heads around a badly worded section of a highly contentious GLA. Which is why the legal system exists. Now that CIG have responded, Skadden has to respond to that as well. Then maybe CIG will have another go at it before the judge rules on the MtD which I believe she's going to toss. My only hope is that if she notices that 2.1.2 is contentious enough for her to chime on at this stage, that she will do so in her MtD ruling, thus putting us all out of our misery. I expect that, given the nature and intent of the GLA, and my experiences with contracts like this, that she will rule in favor of Crytek, that 2.1.2 means that CIG could only exclusively use CryEngine because ANY other interpretation simply won't make sense, and would go against the spirit and intent of the GLA itself. quote: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. I didn't miss it. I covered it yesterday. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html Specifically: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/949782457267752960 ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
big nipples big life posted:lol that you think there will only be 100 pages of it by February https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfFFiqZ8ZdE
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
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? No. It's the standard Crytek GLA which Ortwin (RSI/CIG partner/co-creator) negotiated and modified obo both sides, with Carl Jones who was also at Crytek. Then Jones, Tracey and others hosed off and went to a new F42-GER down the street from Crytek. They've been at war every since. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:If 2.1.2 in this GLA states that CIG must exclusively use CryEngine for Star Citizen...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Are lengthy effortposts about the lawsuit still being written by nonlawyers six pages in the future? Because if not I seriously might as well just
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Star Citizen is non-exclusively bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Ben is non-exclusively fat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
I'm non-exclusively gay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
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. What I heard happened is that Crytek had no idea such a waiver existed because they never had a copy of it on file. Why is that? Well Ortwin apparently gave a copy to Carl Jones, who apparently didn't see it fit to leave it with the rest of the docs when he hosed off to F42-GER. Ortwin, enraged, got on a call with FKKS and Skadden to complain and explain that it exists. That's when they threatened Skadden with a Rule 11 complaint. Skadden said they didn't have a copy. CIG sent it over. Skadden said it was just a standard approval by Crytek to allow Ortwin to negotiate for both sides, that it doesn't alleviate the conflict of interest itself - which is true in the eyes of the law - and they were not going to remove it from the ECF. But they didn't remove it. Instead, they reworded it and then made several other edits, notably the amply sprinkling of "intentionally" which to me was a hilarious way of accusing someone of blatant wrong-doing. I covered this in my thread two weeks ago (before the public knew it even existed) and again yesterday. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:If 2.1.2 in this GLA states that CIG must exclusively use CryEngine for Star Citizen... Why would it not be different if there is an exclusive deal? And it's not the sort of contract that would be public. The non-exclusive ones for ALL engines, including Unity, UE4, CryEngine, Lumberyard, are all online on their website. You can go read them. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:You can go read them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:The termination clause (8.2) actually addresses this: upon insolvency or inability to pay debts, or assignment for the benefit of creditors (hi Coutts! Awesome. It's genuinely ridiculous that CIG didn't just terminate their deal with Crytek officially. If they'd just paid the money they'd agreed to and taken the time to rebuild their hacked-together toolset in Lumberyard, the backers would have never known. It's not like anyone would have noticed the pace of development slowing down or thought there was something weird about having a lot of concept sales for complete bullshit that was nowhere near appearing in the game -- everyone would have just thought, hey, 2017 is exactly like 2016 which was exactly like 2015, things must still be going great! Hopefully the chapter on CIG that will inevitably be in business ethics textbooks will include a sidebar explaining why you should not break a contract with someone, even if you think they won't be around to sue you or if you really want a new sports car. edit: Oh, look, the termination clause got posted just below this, and it looks like CIG would have actually had to do something even the backers would notice in order to get out of this deal, like the "send the cash to a holding company, declare bankruptcy, then buy the IP and assets from themselves" plan that got floated around during the Coutts loan saga. What an absolute shitshow this is. I can't wait to see how it plays out. Trilobite fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Trilobite posted:Not to unjustly enrich CIG's defense strategy (hello, sad intern!), but if there were some set of circumstances where CIG did lose the IP to Star Citizen -- say, for example, that CIG used it as collateral for a big loan and didn't repay it and WHOOPS now everything belongs to a bank who then sells it to another studio to make a little of their money back -- then this interpretation would actually have some teeth. None of that will apply. The Term and Termination clause has ample guidance for that scenario. You should read it. It's actually quite hilarious, actually.  
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:The problem of course is that most game projects aren't open ended (as we keep hammering on the cultists over and over again) and so it usually isn't an issue. You don't want to change engines, it's the classic sign of a troubled development. You finish whatever garbage you got within a year or two, chalk it up to experience, and try again with the sequel with whatever tools you like. I doubt anyone could have envisioned it going on for this long. Precisely. And if you look at 1.5, it shows that the development was never supposed to be open-ended when the GLA was signed in Nov 2012. They expected that the game would be released by Nov 2014, then gave addition leeway, a date, and number of units which would satisfy the game was being "released". Then Chris went on a bender and decided to, as he always does, gently caress it all up. Here we are in 2018. Years later. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Trilobite posted:Awesome.  You didn't read the term and termination clause, did you? If you did, please point me to the part where either of the two parties could just up and terminate the GLA because they felt like it. I'll wait. The fact is, the entire CIG argument hinges on the one thing that CIG cannot do: terminate the GLA. Even if they were no longer using CryEngine, they can't terminate the GLA. Which means that all other parts of it, are in full force and effect, regardless of whether or not they were to exclusively use CryEngine or not. ---------------- D_Smart fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:My opinionated analysis I legit found this both funny and charming. Is Derek becoming... self deprecating? lol no
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
I exclusively call that someone called something for the 9th february. Don't quote the poo poo out of this unless you called your parents first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Zzr posted:I exclusively call that someone called something for the 9th february. Don't quote the poo poo out of this unless you called your parents first. I'm quoting the poo poo out of this AND I HAVEN'T CALLED MY PARENTS 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
big nipples big life posted: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. Weak.. very weak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:enjoy four different legal teams crawling inside your rear end in a top hat In a perfect world this would be the thread title by now, yet here we are, getting thread title blueballed. I’ll see you in all in court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
 That's him in the wheelchair! The Warlord yells, as he siccs Legal on yet another heretic
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
It would be a shame if Sandi got called to the stand and she was the one who had all the dirt on CIG, since her testimony would wind up getting cut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:It would be a shame if Sandi got called to the stand and she was the one who had all the dirt on CIG, since her testimony would wind up getting cut. 
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Star Citizen: evidence from the cutting room floor
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:If Crytek wins, Star Citizen is dead and it's hilarious for us. I mean, this is it right here. Beating crytek doesn't make SC a game, or good or anything. Why can't people realize the only reason most of us are posting about the lawsuit is that it's funny. It's loving  all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Why would it not be different if there is an exclusive deal? And it's not the sort of contract that would be public. OKAY I WILL GAWD JEEZ I HATE YOU DEVELOPER DAD I NEVER GET TO DO WHAT I WANT UGGH! Okay, so for Free CryEngine specifically: https://www.cryengine.com/ce-terms quote:2. Grant of License For Unity: http://download.unity3d.com/company/legal/eula quote:1. Grant of License For Unreal4: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula quote:1. License Grant For Lumberyard: https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/#57._Amazon_Lumberyard_Engine quote:57.2 License. Notice what's not in there. quote:2.1.2 BUT HEY GUESS WHAT IS EXCLUSIVE? For Unreal4: quote:17. Governing Law and Jurisdiction For CryEngine: quote:8.4. And from our own friends at CIG: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/eula quote:F. Governing Law. quote:Governing Law. Bootcha fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ItsBildo/status/950085760274894848quote:Now THIS is a video to celebrate! Not only has the CIG/CryTek GLA been released, but so has CIG's response and is all but confirmed to throw out CryTek's ERRONEOUS complaint! Hah! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
I'm glad that the energy source for this thread is Save! Thanks to their ironclad
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Star Citizen: It depends upon what the meaning of the word "exclusive" is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Whenever I get start to worry that this lawsuit might not be bringing in the laughs you come to the rescue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:Notice what's not in there. If those are the standard default templates it is only normal that something as specific as exclusivity of the engine not be there. There are many terms and conditions of a license or contract that usually change from default templates during negotiations. And exclusivity of use is one of those. If we are looking for comparable examples of other GLA we would need to look into other engine exclusive agreements, not standard default ones. MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 21:00
|
|