|
Alchenar posted:If you have to go down this path then someone hosed up at the contract drafting stage. A good contract should mean what it says in plain language without the need to refer to anything else. Yes, and yes. I've had a client that perpetually skimps on legal talent quality and experience, to the extent that there's months of training whenever someone was onboarded fresh out of their JD program. You do not want fresh patent and contract managers, especially if your lifeblood is licensing IP. They'll crumple as they fail to separate the meaningless unique sticks any given industry legal department may have up its rear end from the very serious redlined language that brings in industry-specific precedent whose depth is beyond the fresh faced dipshit's understanding.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
I think you guys are forgetting at times that this is the gaming industry, and also more specifically, loving crytek and cig we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
The outcome of the trial is going to be exclusively decided by 12 people with bleached anuses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Truga posted:I think you guys are forgetting at times that this is the gaming industry, and also more specifically, loving crytek and cig we're talking about. I'm offering how the actual world works, not how two strange weirdo shitling businesses duking it out looks. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing that going down, assuming I'm not myself in a shitling midget hamster clown car of a business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Lladre posted:The outcome of the trial is going to be exclusively decided by 12 people with bleached idrises
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
What's with the American obsession in bleaching everything? Teeth, assholes.... they're meant to exclusively be that colour!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Again, the basic problem is that this was drafted in 2012, which seems so long ago that I cannot remember what it means to feel hope, when the game was a Freelancer update with some bits and pieces for modern playstyles. Crytek wasn't anticipating providing an engine in perpetuity to an open ended MMO whose scope makes the Matrix look like a cheap WoW clone. Chris Roberts wasn't fully coked out of his mind and hadn't promised stars, planets, -MOONS to anyone who might throw a Benjamin at him. If we ever see the email chain, I'll bet the value of a fully loaded Javelin* that it'll be like "okay, we'll get this space shooty game out, we'll make like $25 mil optimistically, you agree to use us since we provided the sizzle reel and we give you a discount, sign here." The original agreement was for a game that could have conceivably been made in a time frame that should have already passed, years ago even. I feel like no one felt it would have been a burden or probably even gave it more than a passing thought, because it would have been done by now. Like sponsoring an auto racing team, we give you technical assistance and provide an engine, you slap FORD all over the chassis. Except it's one race, and it makes no sense to yank said engine out but you put in the exclusivity phrasing because it's a major investment, right? But the race never occurs, the race car is now promised to be a space yacht that is going compete in an interstellar regatta, the FTL drive is almost built PLEDGE TODAY and Ford is annoyed that this engine that is now able to go to Pluto and back on a single tank of gas hasn't been returned to them so they can try to incorporate it into their own designs and the racing team is super quiet about when they're actually gonna finish. I think this analogy got away from me, but gently caress it, I'm late to work. *as the Javelin doesn't exist, said value is null
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Xaerael posted:What's with the American obsession in bleaching everything? Teeth, assholes.... they're meant to exclusively be that colour! One could say that their natural colour is intentional!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Combat Theory posted:We joked about what happens if the judge is a backer 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Xaerael posted:What's with the American obsession in bleaching everything? Teeth, assholes.... they're meant to exclusively be that colour! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YijwLZtslY Dunno, but that video legit reminds me of someone I know IRL. Tho I suppose 'bleached rear end in a top hat' can be replaced with anything else that's just as awkward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Really the most interesting thing out of all of this is going to be the precedent set for whether or not changing the vector of usage of a piece of software constitutes changing software. CIG made their stuff in CryEngine and don't contest it. CIG "spent less than one day" porting those things to Lumberyard, meaning CIG still has substantial amounts of code written in CryEngine in there, but Lumberyard is substantially the same as CryEngine (even down to copyright notices) So, if I write a document in Microsoft Word, then open it in Corel WordPerfect, and add one line - was the document written in WordPerfect or Word? One could argue that because the most recent save was in WordPerfect, the whole document was written in it, but that denies the material reality and all the saved history of it in Word. If I sign a contract permitting me to use Software X, and then I use Software X to develop a game, can I switch to Software Y, a kang of Software X that is substantially identical but owned by another company, and claim that none of my code uses Software X? What if Software Y's commented copyright notices explicitly state it's identical to Software X? I legit don't know if there is legal precedent for this question yet, but I am far more interested in what legal precedent will be cited or established than I am in the specific outcome in this case. It seems dubious to me that a software port from one engine to another distribution channel of effectively the same engine means I get to claim that none of the original code is based on the original engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Exclusively, my arsehole is bleached white.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Caught up with the thread!Ubik_Lives posted:No, it's English. I'm just bemused by this. Both exclusive and exclusively have two meanings, with my reveal example coming from the Oxford Dictionary. With two definitions you'd have to look at the better fit. Or not, because we all know the English language has no issues with homonyms and stressing changing meaning. Then it became something of a weird brain teaser where people were saying the two definitions were the same, only they clearly resulted in different outcomes when you swapped the examples around, and their definitions for the "same" definition weren't universal and are clearly unique to each example. Check out theme/rheme (or topic and comment) relevance in sentence structuring and meaning. What you're talking about is pretty much theme/rheme-related. To save some time - you can structure a sentence in ways where new information is either set as front or end focus. Punctuation marks and word order can and will affect this. "I will exclusively do X" introduces "new" information in the end, the "do X" is the bit of the sentence that's modified by "exclusively". "I exclusively will do X", however, has a different informational focus - it's not about doing X, or the agent doing it - it's about HOW it will be done. In this case, exclusivity is the focal point of the sentence. Finally, "Exclusively I will do X" shifts the focus again, this time to the front of the sentence - this time "I" is being modified, so ONLY I will be doing the X thing. Minor differences in sentence structure can affect the meaning. As for differences in voiced stress - that's where punctuation marks come in: "Let's eat grandpa" vs "Let's eat, grandpa" being one example of that. So yeah, it's not about semantic meaning, it's about sentence structure. And it's not exclusively an English thing. Deathsquid fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
The contract was also written by non English speakers. CIG is going to argue since Crytek developed the sizzle reel they wanted to make sure that they had the exclusive right to make the game using Crytek, not the guys who made the sizzle reel. Three years from now the new ELE will totally be it. I can feel it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov posted:Something tells me that Sandi isn't into exclusivity. Sandi to Chris in an extremely not wearing her wedding ring voice, "Sorry but fidelity is exclusively scheduled for Marriage 3.0."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
The exclusive stuff being in the grants section and not the restrictions section seems to be the biggest problem to me, an ANAL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
exclusively
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Lladre posted:The contract was also written by non English speakers. All I know is that once this court case dies, Star Citizen will finally be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
 Pledge now
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:All I know is that once this court case dies, Star Citizen will finally be good. luckily it's literally impossible for anything to be bad for Star Citizen, so I can still dream and have faith
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:No I think, unfortunately, it's not so clear. This is what our plain reading of it tells us, but our plain reading is based on our already preconceived understanding. That CIG is arguing "you have to use the plain meaning of words, not the legal understanding" is in fact shooting themselves in the foot, because Derek linked a legal definition to something a few days ago that actually, by my reading, fell in line more with CIG's argument than Crytek's. The thing is, words and grammar do have meaning and common meaning, but the difference between a lawyer and a linguist-with-an-opinion is that the lawyer understands the context of how those meanings are traditionally interpreted when those phrases arise in legal documents, which is different sometimes than the common use, or sometimes narrows down what is ultimately kind of ambiguous. In the example of "exclusively use" in particular, CIG's argument is not what people keep thinking they're arguing. I "fell for it" at first, but thinking about it more, I understand. The argument CIG is making is that the license is a "license to use CryEngine to produce Star Citizen," and that that license is exclusive to CIG. (Even here we can see how ambiguous this word is, because "exclusive to CIG" can mean both "excludes CIG" or "CIG only, excluding all else"). And, I think that's compelling. I think that's probably pretty boilerplate language. It's saying "a product is being made, called Star Citizen, and we, Crytek, are granting CIG and CIG only the license to use CryEngine for the purpose of making that game. If Microsoft wants to make the game Star Citizen, they do not have the right to use CryEngine." Such language would both protect CIG from competition, and protect CryTek from their IP being passed unwittingly to another company when CIG goes "eh, gently caress it, nevermind" and sells Star Citizen's production rights to Ubisoft or whoever. Where it's tricky, in the "plain language" thing, is that it doesn't say "Crytek grants Licensee the exclusive right to use CryEngine in the production of the Game." It says "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game..." And that's a radically different statement. Now, the question is, does that mean "Licensee and Licensee only can embed CryEngine in the Game..." or does it mean "Licensee can embed CryEngine and CryEngine alone in the Game..." We can break this down to grammar, but it's still not clear. "Exclusively" here, at a grammatical, pedantic, "let's diagram a sentence" level that I haven't encountered since college, does modify "embed," straight up. It can't modify the "grants" in "Licensee grants" because of the split infinitive in "to embed". For the theory "Licensee exclusively can embed..." to hold muster, the sentence would have to read "Crytek grants Licensee exclusively the right to embed CryEngine in the game..." (edit: and on a second reading, actually even this is ambiguous - is the right exclusive to the License, or is the right being granted what is exclusive, i.e., there are no other rights being granted?) or "Crytek exclusively grants Licensee the right..." But it reads "to exclusively embed CryEngine..." Still, there's ambiguity there. To my reading, that "exclusively" is modifying the verb's interaction with "Licensee," not the verb's interaction with "CryEngine." Word order in English is difficult because you can generally put an adverb anywhere, especially a flavor adverb, and its meaning still has to be derived from context. Technically, the word "exclusively" doesn't need to be there at all. It's like "true and correct copy." There are no false and correct copies or true and incorrect copies, so you can just say "copy," but lawyers throw "true and correct" in there all the time. The inclusion of the word "exclusively" here muddies the waters a bit because obviously a licensing contract only grants the license to parties involved. We can derive some context, though, from the "non-exclusively" granted right in the paragraph before, and again this seems, to me, to favor CIG's interpretation of it. The license to embed CryEngine in the Game is exclusive, as in, only CIG has that permission, whereas the right to "develop, support, maintain, extend, and/or enhance CryEngine" is "non-exclusive," as in not only CIG has that right. But in either case, contrary-wise to what the plain-language reading of it is, there is a conventional meaning within this legal context, I am sure, with which for example Leonard French is familiar and with which I am not (and the existence of which makes CIG's appeal to plain language interpretation loving baffling). So I'm not 100% sold on the theory that the "exclusive" here means what we're holding it means. "exclusively" modifies "embed" but whether it modifies it by way of the subject or the object or the direct object is ambiguous because English doesn't have grammatical structures to indicate that and is, ultimately, a fairly ambiguous language. Which is why we have contract lawyers in the first place, and why there's the stereotypical reputation of lawyers being sleazy and using weasel language and so on. All this is not to say "no CIG's interpretation is ironclad like the TOS," but rather "I don't think it's completely an insane theory and it makes us look ourselves a bit unreasonable when we assert that it is." There is some ambiguity here. It absolutely can be interpreted both ways by a reasonable person. Gonna be real interesting to see this resolve out either way. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
February 9th can't come soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Skimmed the thread and every page is the intolerable, unintelligible musings of non lawyers, pondering the nature of the origin of the meaning of the word meaning. See ya when the lawsuit’s over I guess, because holy poo poo this is like reading r/sc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
I can't believe its not r/sc!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Thinking about it a bit more, I'd be shocked if the word "exclusively" didn't fall between "to" and "embed" specifically and intentionally to prevent it from being interpreted as modifying "grants" from the pre-colon phrase. The sentence is actually less ambiguous than it could be, if it fell outside the infinitive.Toops posted:Skimmed the thread and every page is the intolerable, unintelligible musings of non lawyers, pondering the nature of the origin of the meaning of the word meaning. Yeah I mean at the end of the day, it is specialist language being used in specialist context, and the plain-language arguments of armchair-linguists aren't really going to provide the insight we need, but I mean, whither the wind blows. Gonna be a fun trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Any more funny clips of 3.0?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:Any more funny clips of 3.0? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuHYlwwqqkI&t=3s
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLdaYwtEGks&t=1762s
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Yeah I mean at the end of the day, it is specialist language being used in specialist context, and the plain-language arguments of armchair-linguists aren't really going to provide the insight we need, but I mean, whither the wind blows. I don’t mean to crap in anyone’s count chocula here, god knows I’ve bored the thread to death before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2UhMro2Mm0
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Note that clause 2.4 of the GLA states ( in the "restrictions" section ) thatquote:During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in business of designing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine. I wonder if the switch to Lumberyard could be considered a breach of that clause. They've certainly been supporting and promoting Lumberyard. I do wonder about the term "licensing" too. Does that mean "acquiring a license", or "selling a license" ? Does that section only apply to CIG try to sub-license their "Star Engine", or can it be argued that it can be taken as another hint that they were not allowed to license another engine ? It certainly says "any game engine", not "any engine derivative made by CIG"...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Cloud Imperium responds to Crytek's Star Citizen lawsuit STAR CITIZEN DEVELOPER CLOUD IMPERIUM FILES MOTION TO DISMISS IN CRYTEK COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT Star Citizen maker launches fiery legal defence against Crytek Hope that youtube lawyer guys likes all the hits. It's going to be funny if he's wrong. AP fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Verxion/status/950366944435122181
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
The spinning bleached anus of the universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
I don't think the judge is prepared for the incoming wave of amicus briefs from internet lawyers explaining to her just exactly what the word "Exclusively" means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
AP posted:Cloud Imperium responds to Crytek's Star Citizen lawsuit It was amusing when he started blocking off inconvenient points and going a bit scitizen by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
I just want to know why Leonard French is panhandling on Patreon and GoFundMe rather than doing actual attorney work? It's almost as if he's a lovely nobody who can't get a real job because he's not very good at his chosen profession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
SomethingJones posted:You are hopelessly and irretrievably wrong. No, you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:39
|
|
