Star Citizen: Death of a Space Thread?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Star Citizen: Death of a Space Thread?

Bofast: Feb 21, 2011; Grimey Drawer

A Neurotic Corncob posted:

When they realize our entire system of laws is under the spellbinding aura of Lie-tek, the citizens will have only one option; secede from the union and declare war on the United States.

The United States would win by simply asking their ISPs to turn off the Internet services to said warmongerers. They would surrender after two weeks of having to actually go outside to buy food, talk to people or spend their money on garbage.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 15:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 15:45

Dementropy: Aug 23, 2010

# ? Jan 28, 2018 15:42

Tippis: Mar 21, 2008; It's yet another day in the wasteland.

Mr Fronts posted:

What the gently caress is this bullshit?

https://wccftech.com/wccftech-investigates-the-star-citizen-economy-with-special-guest-tony-zurovec/

"The difficulty is that the real world doesn�t work like that and as many long term followers of the game are aware, Tony has wanted to get it to a place where we have some of the real world levers and influencers of economic activity in the game in a relatively advanced (for a game) method. With static or simplistic prices and immediate impacts, you face problems such as the value of a commodity dropping below a profitable level for a producer, so in a simplistic rules based game engine, the production immediately ceases. In reality, that takes time, some people will continue to subsidise loss making operations in the hope that the market will turn around. Perhaps a spike in demand will occur which will mean that business will continue to be worthwhile. Cross-subsidisation of business lines also makes for a more involved scenario."

I'm not making this up. That's actually what it says.

So� wait. Is he trying to explain why a simple economic model of direct impact means that it won't model economy properly? Basically, what's not just trivial to conclude, but what's been known in game design for� oh� 80+ years? And he's trying to suggest that this makes things difficult, when it's actually pretty easy to solve, design-wise?

# ? Jan 28, 2018 15:50

Beexoffel: Oct 4, 2015; Herald of the Stimpire

RubberJohnny posted:

AP posted:
This goes to the heart of what has happened to all the money in my view.

Chris Roberts couldn't have built the demo without Crytek, on kickstarter launch day CIG's (subcontractor, built) website crashed, so CIG switched subcontractors to Turbulent. This is a pattern that repeats, there are so many ex-subcontractors, Turbulent are understandably a lot harder to ditch now than normal.

Turbulent - Web platform, Spectrum, store, sales - Montreal, Canada

Behaviour Interactive - Concept art, Ships, 890 Jump, x85, mobiGlas, hangar flair - Montreal, Canada

CGBot - Artwork - Mexico Probable source of the leak from 2013

IllFonic - FPS module/1st unfinished version of Star Marine - Denver

Moon Collider - Kythera Artificial Intelligence middleware - Scotland

Rmory - weapon concept art - Bavaria, Germany

The Imaginarium - 63+ day Failed motion capture shoot - London

Wyrmbyte - Network engineering, Universe, Servers - Louisville Colorado

Virtuos - Ships, 1st version of the Cutlass, props - Shanghai, China

RedHotCG - props - Shanghai, China

voidALPHA - environment & concept art - Emeryville, California

Not even sure this covers all the ones we know about (faceware, Side for casting etc), never mind the ones that were never made public. Now consider that Chris Roberts doesn't seem able to do much himself, so he hires people, after a while the relationship normally ends. It now appears, the relationship sometimes ends very badly

Yes, you're missing:

Streamline Studios (Netherlands) - SQ42 Art (stuff in leak)

Massive Black (California) - Art

Atomahawk Design (England) - Art

Confetti Special FX (California) - Nebula tech and explosion particle effects

3lateral (Serbia) - Facial mapping

Cubic Motion (England) - Facial animation

Liquid Development (Oregon) - art

The period where they were using this massive list of outsourced studios is actually the period where the project made the most progress - we got the Hangar Module, Social Module, Arena Commander, Illfonic Star Marine with Sataball, Ship Adverts, and saw some stuff of SQ42.

Then they started transitioning stuff in house in mid-2015 to mid-2016, and that's basically the point everything ground to a halt. It's clear most of the work these old studios did have been redone to Chris whims, and they're now firefighting all the time and chasing the next gimmick.

Is this in any overview-post yet?

# ? Jan 28, 2018 15:58

Quavers: Feb 26, 2016; You clearly don't understand game development

Lawyer dude is live chatting about the lawsuit now: https://www.twitch.tv/leonardfrench/

# ? Jan 28, 2018 16:15

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Sarsapariller posted:

The trick to reading Derek's articles is to skip to the final 2 paragraphs. Everything before then will be a recap, the last two will have the new stuff, if any.

Yeah, but the blogs aren't written for you guys. Not everyone is moronic enough to come here, or visit all the placed where things are discussed. So yeah, some stuff will be new to you guys. And that's why, as a signal booster, I'm a famous wahlord, and you're not. :grin:

----------------
This thread brought to you by a tremendous dickhead!

# ? Jan 28, 2018 16:19

no_recall: Aug 17, 2015; Lipstick Apathy

Looking at the filing from an unbiased and neutral standpoint, does CIG's response hold a candle; if at all?

# ? Jan 28, 2018 16:21

PederP: Nov 20, 2009

no_recall posted:

Looking at the filing from an unbiased and neutral standpoint, does CIG's response hold a candle; if at all?

I don't think you're going to find an unbiased and neutral standpoint around here. Anyone who can be arsed to read those documents has some kind of preconception about this mess. However, rational voices among supports of CIG have pointed out the response is unprofessional in tone and/or verbosity.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 16:31

Tortolia: Dec 29, 2005; Hindustan Electronics Employee of the Month, July 2008; Grimey Drawer

no_recall posted:

Looking at the filing from an unbiased and neutral standpoint, does CIG's response hold a candle; if at all?

It doesn't seem to conclusively answer all of Crytek's arguments and claims, so it is hard to see how CIG's motion to dismiss is granted. In that sense, it doesn't.

Then you get into more subjective matters of tone and clarity, and that's much more subject to our biases. Most of us hold that it is much more poorly written than the Skadden filing and unnecessarily aggressive, which might play well to the more zealous backers but is probably at best neutral and more probably actively harmful when the judge is actually reading and assessing the arguments on both sides.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 16:39

intardnation: Feb 18, 2016; I'm going to space!

G0RF posted:

Archered.

isnt the gold armour just like gold mechs for mwo?

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:17

AP: Jul 12, 2004; One Ring to fool them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to milk them all
and pockets fully line them; Grimey Drawer

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/223287750?t=52m07s

:gary:

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:19

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

no_recall posted:

Looking at the filing from an unbiased and neutral standpoint, does CIG's response hold a candle; if at all?

Annoying effort legal post incoming!

The motion will get denied, as it is being filed under FRCP 12(b)6. This particular rule in the charming Federal Rules of Civil Procedure handbook states that a motion can be filed in defense "for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted." This denial is indisputable and inarguable because the standard for a dismissal under FRCP rule 12(b)6 is "In appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed ...unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson (1957), 355 U.S. 41 (emphasis added). That's a SCOTUS ruling; this binds all the courts in the Federal system, including our little district court.

That is to say, the standard is to weed out the cases that are either totally incompatible with the legal system -- alleging a witch put an evil eye on a child, say. Or asking for declaratory ruling that you're the God King of Arrakis. As the rule says, there's no "relief" available to such a claim in the law or equity; we do not recognize the outcome or we do not recognize that this is a "thing" for which you can sue someone over. Really technical analysis of the claims can be very hair-splitting if the elements of the law that support the claim are complex. But if you read that tiny excerpt from the ruling (which is part of every 1L's CivPro syllabus) then there's no objective way to grant the motion, because Crytek's claims are pretty straightforward: there exists a contract, CIG broke it, Crytek was harmed, give us money.

See, whether or not we get to the actual merits of the claims in the response, CIG has already severely hosed up by trying to substitute Crytek's facts with their own. "Unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim." CIG does NOT get to do that. You do NOT get to say "well if my version of the facts are right, then you must dismiss!" NO! That's what 1L students gently caress up and civpro professors have to hammer that in to their thick skulls. You dismiss if you look at it under every possible angle and can't find a way to proceed. The standard is so high that it's almost never granted when a cause of action is brought by an actual trained lawyer since it's for obvious losers and they should be getting laughed out of the attorney's office, nevermind at the stage that you're reading your rubbish case in front of a judge.

I looked at the table of contents on the response, saw that CIG was trying to argue on the merits and closed the PDF. If you have to argue the very facts of the case, guess what dumbass? You've got an actual "case or controversy" ripe for judicial intervention! You've proven to the court that procedurally it should hear both sides because the one side where Crytek's facts prevail, CIG is hosed. On the one hand if the response is true, CIG is not hosed. And the only way to do that...is to go through the entire process of holding a trial and evaluating evidence! Congratulations CIG, you forgot basic CivPro. I'm hope you're happy.

(I am because this is hilarious to me)

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:23

Hav: Dec 11, 2009; Fun Shoe

Streetroller posted:

Uhhh.
Hate to jump in but this is kinda a specialty of mine.

Login requests through JQuery should be sent through some kind of internal secure api via a post script.
(honestly, who writes in plain JQuery anymore anyway? Sheesh)
Even if You're trying to be backward compatible for say Netscape Navigator with a <form /> tag, there literally should be no event in which form data shows up in an address line.
Unless you do something like a hotlink to a php page with form data in the address line such as:
php:
<?
<a href="reallyBadFormExample.php?Param_A=[a]&Param_B=[b]" />?>
This is like... a high-schooler's approach to param handling. It's almost intentional.
(*Okay, guess you could do a Get request... but who the gently caress puts a get request on a form?)
Hey, CIG... CHECK THIS OUT https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html

There�s the minor wrinkle that GET lines also turn up in logs. As you say, web 101, tho.

kw0134 posted:

Annoying effort legal post incoming!

The motion will get denied, as it is being filed under FRCP 12(b)6. This particular rule in the charming Federal Rules of Civil Procedure handbook states that a motion can be filed in defense "for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted." This denial is indisputable and inarguable because the standard for a dismissal under FRCP rule 12(b)6 is "In appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed ...unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson (1957), 355 U.S. 41 (emphasis added). That's a SCOTUS ruling; this binds all the courts in the Federal system, including our little district court.

That is to say, the standard is to weed out the cases that are either totally incompatible with the legal system -- alleging a witch put an evil eye on a child, say. Or asking for declaratory ruling that you're the God King of Arrakis. As the rule says, there's no "relief" available to such a claim in the law or equity; we do not recognize the outcome or we do not recognize that this is a "thing" for which you can sue someone over. Really technical analysis of the claims can be very hair-splitting if the elements of the law that support the claim are complex. But if you read that tiny excerpt from the ruling (which is part of every 1L's CivPro syllabus) then there's no objective way to grant the motion, because Crytek's claims are pretty straightforward: there exists a contract, CIG broke it, Crytek was harmed, give us money.

See, whether or not we get to the actual merits of the claims in the response, CIG has already severely hosed up by trying to substitute Crytek's facts with their own. "Unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim." CIG does NOT get to do that. You do NOT get to say "well if my version of the facts are right, then you must dismiss!" NO! That's what 1L students gently caress up and civpro professors have to hammer that in to their thick skulls. You dismiss if you look at it under every possible angle and can't find a way to proceed. The standard is so high that it's almost never granted when a cause of action is brought by an actual trained lawyer since it's for obvious losers and they should be getting laughed out of the attorney's office, nevermind at the stage that you're reading your rubbish case in front of a judge.

I looked at the table of contents on the response, saw that CIG was trying to argue on the merits and closed the PDF. If you have to argue the very facts of the case, guess what dumbass? You've got an actual "case or controversy" ripe for judicial intervention! You've proven to the court that procedurally it should hear both sides because the one side where Crytek's facts prevail, CIG is hosed. On the one hand if the response is true, CIG is not hosed. And the only way to do that...is to go through the entire process of holding a trial and evaluating evidence! Congratulations CIG, you forgot basic CivPro. I'm hope you're happy.

(I am because this is hilarious to me)

I appreciate your effort. I also looked at their response, giggled and closed the PDF.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:31

Loxbourne: Apr 6, 2011; Tomorrow, doom!
But now, tea.

kw0134 posted:

I looked at the table of contents on the response, saw that CIG was trying to argue on the merits and closed the PDF. If you have to argue the very facts of the case, guess what dumbass? You've got an actual "case or controversy" ripe for judicial intervention! You've proven to the court that procedurally it should hear both sides because the one side where Crytek's facts prevail, CIG is hosed. On the one hand if the response is true, CIG is not hosed. And the only way to do that...is to go through the entire process of holding a trial and evaluating evidence! Congratulations CIG, you forgot basic CivPro. I'm hope you're happy.

I doubt very much that FKKS forgot basic CivPro. I do suspect that Ortwin doesn't care, because CIG management aren't playing on the level of reality. They're playing on the backers' level. "You said a mean and nasty thing about us. That makes you WORSE THAN HITLER so we must cause you as much humiliation and harm as possible, with the maximum force possible, because How Dare You."

Daring to file this lawsuit in the first place is the ultimate evil.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:33

Hav: Dec 11, 2009; Fun Shoe

Bofast posted:

The United States would win by simply asking their ISPs to turn off the Internet services to said warmongerers. They would surrender after two weeks of having to actually go outside to buy food, talk to people or spend their money on garbage.

We have secret societies on the inside of the ISPs that are currently waiting to be activated to provide a shadow internet in the event that our loving uptime is compromised.

SLAs can melt steel beams.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:34

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Loxbourne posted:

I doubt very much that FKKS forgot basic CivPro. I do suspect that Ortwin doesn't care, because CIG management aren't playing on the level of reality. They're playing on the backers' level. "You said a mean and nasty thing about us. That makes you WORSE THAN HITLER so we must cause you as much humiliation and harm as possible, with the maximum force possible, because How Dare You."

Daring to file this lawsuit in the first place is the ultimate evil.

That's why I said "CIG" because I don't know whose hand is writing this flibertygibberish. If you're an experienced attorney then of course you know. If you're an inexperienced one, then you've just took the bar exam and ought to know, and probably know better the dusty corners of procedure than some of the older associates.

If you're, say, a German transplant that may or may not have gotten a full three years of legal training in the nation that you've moved to, then that's a bit more understandable...

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:40

Pixelate: Jan 6, 2018; "You win by having fun"

If it pleases Space Court...

The whole 'dog ate my homework' bit about bug fixes is puzzling me:

quote:

If the Court allows the claim to proceed, Defendants will demonstrate that CIG tendered delivery of the bug fixes more than two years ago, but that tender was ignored and then forgotten by Crytek. CIG satisfied any remaining obligation under Section 7.3 of the GLA by delivering an updated version of the bug fixes on January 23, 2018, a delivery that CIG planned to make before Crytek jumped the gun and sued.

So sure, cute, they suddenly and spontaneously lobbed some fixes over.

But the 7.3 clause sez they should be chucked over annually until publication:

quote:

Annually during the Game's development period, and again upon publication of the final Game, Licensee shall provide Crytek with any bug fixes, and optimizations made to the Cryengine's original source code files...

So they didn't even try to send any in 2016, by their own account? Sounds like they acknowledge the Crytek definition of July 31 2015 = "First Public Release" then? (It's not like they can try their ''We were in the Lumberyard, with the gingham dress on' switcheroo, as that was 2.6 / late 2016 etc.)

So. QED? They're acting like SQ42 is published as far as the GLA is concerned?

---

e: DISCLAIMER: I don't understand the law, or time. The "First Public Release" thing is just loving funny

Pixelate fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 28, 2018

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:41

Dementropy: Aug 23, 2010

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:42

Xaerael: Aug 25, 2010; Marching Powder is objectively the worst poster known. He also needs to learn how a keyboard works.

Leonard "I'm not really that great with contract law, especially Californian contract law", *proceeds to pick apart a super complex contract law case with his self proclaimed inexperience* French

Guy's so idiotically out of his depth. He should shut up and stop panhandling because it's obvious he's only doing this poo poo to squeeze idiot citizens for money by fluffing CIG's legal defence.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:44

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

kw0134 posted:

Annoying effort legal post incoming!

The motion will get denied, as it is being filed under FRCP 12(b)6. This particular rule in the charming Federal Rules of Civil Procedure handbook states that a motion can be filed in defense "for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted." This denial is indisputable and inarguable because the standard for a dismissal under FRCP rule 12(b)6 is "In appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed ...unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson (1957), 355 U.S. 41 (emphasis added). That's a SCOTUS ruling; this binds all the courts in the Federal system, including our little district court.

That is to say, the standard is to weed out the cases that are either totally incompatible with the legal system -- alleging a witch put an evil eye on a child, say. Or asking for declaratory ruling that you're the God King of Arrakis. As the rule says, there's no "relief" available to such a claim in the law or equity; we do not recognize the outcome or we do not recognize that this is a "thing" for which you can sue someone over. Really technical analysis of the claims can be very hair-splitting if the elements of the law that support the claim are complex. But if you read that tiny excerpt from the ruling (which is part of every 1L's CivPro syllabus) then there's no objective way to grant the motion, because Crytek's claims are pretty straightforward: there exists a contract, CIG broke it, Crytek was harmed, give us money.

See, whether or not we get to the actual merits of the claims in the response, CIG has already severely hosed up by trying to substitute Crytek's facts with their own. "Unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim." CIG does NOT get to do that. You do NOT get to say "well if my version of the facts are right, then you must dismiss!" NO! That's what 1L students gently caress up and civpro professors have to hammer that in to their thick skulls. You dismiss if you look at it under every possible angle and can't find a way to proceed. The standard is so high that it's almost never granted when a cause of action is brought by an actual trained lawyer since it's for obvious losers and they should be getting laughed out of the attorney's office, nevermind at the stage that you're reading your rubbish case in front of a judge.

I looked at the table of contents on the response, saw that CIG was trying to argue on the merits and closed the PDF. If you have to argue the very facts of the case, guess what dumbass? You've got an actual "case or controversy" ripe for judicial intervention! You've proven to the court that procedurally it should hear both sides because the one side where Crytek's facts prevail, CIG is hosed. On the one hand if the response is true, CIG is not hosed. And the only way to do that...is to go through the entire process of holding a trial and evaluating evidence! Congratulations CIG, you forgot basic CivPro. I'm hope you're happy.

(I am because this is hilarious to me)

Agreed 100%

Also, this is why when I see people floating the theory that CIG is probably deliberately loving up this case so that they lose, thus getting an excuse (Crytek sued us) it doesn't sound so far-fetched after seeing their latest filing. There is no other explanation.

ps: I called all of what I highlighted back on Dec 13th, 2017. :grin:

----------------
This thread brought to you by a tremendous dickhead!

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:44

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

kw0134 posted:

That's why I said "CIG" because I don't know whose hand is writing this flibertygibberish. If you're an experienced attorney then of course you know. If you're an inexperienced one, then you've just took the bar exam and ought to know, and probably know better the dusty corners of procedure than some of the older associates.

If you're, say, a German transplant that may or may not have gotten a full three years of legal training in the nation that you've moved to, then that's a bit more understandable...

Indeed. And since the first filing, I have always maintained that these responses have Ortwin all over them, and he's only using FKKS as attorneys of record.

Nothing else makes any sense.

----------------
This thread brought to you by a tremendous dickhead!

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:46

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Xaerael posted:

Leonard "I'm not really that great with contract law, especially Californian contract law", *proceeds to pick apart a super complex contract law case with his self proclaimed inexperience* French

Guy's so idiotically out of his depth. He should shut up and stop panhandling because it's obvious he's only doing this poo poo to squeeze idiot citizens for money by fluffing CIG's legal defence.

It's embarrassing.

----------------
This thread brought to you by a tremendous dickhead!

# ? Jan 28, 2018 17:47

Xaerael: Aug 25, 2010; Marching Powder is objectively the worst poster known. He also needs to learn how a keyboard works.

I mean, well done to Leonard French for working out what CIG have, in that all you need to do is tell this group of mongos what they want to hear, and they open their wallets up to you like you're a two dollar whore. But if he hasn't worked out his exit plan, he's going to have a ton of citizen howling to wade through when CIG loses more than "a hundred thousand dollars or so".

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:00

nnnotime: Sep 30, 2001; Hesitate, and you will be lost.

D_Smart posted:

Agreed 100%

Also, this is why when I see people floating the theory that CIG is probably deliberately loving up this case so that they lose, thus getting an excuse (Crytek sued us) it doesn't sound so far-fetched after seeing their latest filing. There is no other explanation.

ps: I called all of what I highlighted back on Dec 13th, 2017.

Even if CIG throws out that excuse, they cannot avoid fault since they could have avoided the lawsuit in the first place.

If CIG saw some advantage with using Lumberyard due to better network code (or whatever reason), they could have gone back to Crytek and asked to amend the contract in a way that would have been lucrative for both parties. Then they all could have continued with building SC and perhaps even got a better working relationship with Amazon out of it, all three entities working together towards a common goal.

But no: CIG chose the option to screw Crytek first. In my opinion Chris probably had the initial idea to bail on Crytek and Ortwin agreed, thinking the scheme would work since Crytek appeared vulnerable and unable to do anything about the double-cross.

When presented with business and ethical challenges Croberts always appears to favor the low road: "The backers will never know"....

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:06

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Xaerael posted:

I mean, well done to Leonard French for working out what CIG have, in that all you need to do is tell this group of mongos what they want to hear, and they open their wallets up to you like you're a two dollar whore. But if he hasn't worked out his exit plan, he's going to have a ton of citizen howling to wade through when CIG loses more than "a hundred thousand dollars or so".

I definitely feel I can see in his eyes every time he says "Well from my perspective it seems like Star Citizen have the stronger argument... but" he knows it's not really like that and that there will be a point in the future when he has to explain why a judge has interpreted everything in a completely different way to himself.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:07

Dusty Lens: Jul 1, 2015; All Glory unto the Stimpire. Give up your arms and legs and embrace the beautiful agony of electricity that doubles in pain every second.

Xaerael posted:

Guy's so idiotically out of his depth. He should shut up and stop panhandling because it's obvious he's only doing this poo poo to squeeze idiot citizens for money by fluffing CIG's legal defence.

Give the people what they want.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:08

Colostomy Bag: Jan 11, 2016; C-Bangin' it

I honestly don't think Skadden knows who they are loving with.

Ortwin will pull a Mumm-ra from the Thundercats when the time comes.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:25

Xaerael: Aug 25, 2010; Marching Powder is objectively the worst poster known. He also needs to learn how a keyboard works.

Quick question for any lawgoons still lurking.

So, assuming it goes to court, how does the injunction work? Is that optional? Who has to prove they're still/not using CE code over LY code? Does it just go "BOOM" and start right away, or do they have time to fix their poo poo?

Xaerael fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 28, 2018

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:29

Dusty Lens: Jul 1, 2015; All Glory unto the Stimpire. Give up your arms and legs and embrace the beautiful agony of electricity that doubles in pain every second.

Xaerael posted:

Quick question for any lawgoons still lurking.

So, assuming it goes to court, how does the injunction work? Is that optional? Who has to prove they're still/not using CE code over LJ code? Does it just go "BOOM" and start right away, or do they have time to fix their poo poo?

I'm not a lawyer but

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:31

Colostomy Bag: Jan 11, 2016; C-Bangin' it

I'm the worst kind of lawyer.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:32

A Neurotic Corncob: Nov 12, 2016; A light wind swept over the corn, and all nature laughed in the sunshine.

Also, if the injunction is denied (and I'm assuming it will), how much time will CIG have before the discovery process begins? Are there ways for CIG to stall the process?

A Neurotic Corncob fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jan 28, 2018

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:37

Colostomy Bag: Jan 11, 2016; C-Bangin' it

It there is one thing CIG is good at, is stalling.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:39

Fil5000: Jun 23, 2003; HOLD ON GUYS I'M POSTING ABOUT INTERNET ROBOTS

Colostomy Bag posted:

I honestly don't think Skadden knows who they are loving with.

Ortwin will pull a Mumm-ra from the Thundercats when the time comes.

So... Lose and run away?

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:42

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Star Citizen: Making the F-35 look like a sound investment

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:47

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

The preliminary injunction will certainly be denied. There's no irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by a liquidated judgment (i.e., cash money) at the end if Crytek prevails.

The injunction may or may not be granted at the end of the trial if Crytek wins, to which Crytek is entitled to if there's a copyright violation. If it is, then it takes effect at a time the court deems appropriate, which may be immediately once the judgment is entered. This can be stayed pending any appeals, so if and when the poo poo truly hits the fan there will be long notice of it happening. How it'll be enforced is going to be crafted by the court with the plaintiffs strongly advising -- Crytek can basically write the order for what they'd like to see to ensure satisfactory behavior, and the judge can sign off on it or modify it. Remember, at this point CIG has had an open and fair opportunity to show no wrongdoing and if the injunction takes place well they've hosed up in the eyes of the court and under copyright laws they're not entitled to any real benefit of the doubt. This can be pretty drat invasive, and as we've seen before in other cases the fact it's fatal to them is of no import to the court; after all, the law itself wants the consequences to be heavy and painful.

I wouldn't be surprised if CIG is forced to allow Crytek to audit the whole thing top to bottom and Crytek is allowed to go "this is mine, this is mine, this is mine, this garbage is not ours, eww, this is mine..." until there's naught left but T-posed commandos and jpegs.

Also discovery and stuff like getting all the hearings in place before setting a trial date should start kicking into gear once the initial handshakes finish. If CIG stalls, then the court can get real cross, especially if the other side is ready. The court will be content with delaying things if there's serious settlement talks going on though; getting out of actually holding a trial is job one in the court system given how many cases are pending on a typical docket. Both sides seem dug in and are lobbing grenades o'er the top, but that could be just a front while serious talks by adults are being held in a conference room somewhere, it's happened far too often to dismiss. CIG probably has no adults in charge though.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:50

Tank Boy Ken: Aug 24, 2012; J4G for life; Fallen Rib

I guess a Diff of the last build of the CryEngine as provided by CryTek against the current build of Star Citizen should show what's "original CIG Code".

# ? Jan 28, 2018 18:54

nnnotime: Sep 30, 2001; Hesitate, and you will be lost.

Tank Boy Ken posted:

I guess a Diff of the last build of the CryEngine as provided by CryTek against the current build of Star Citizen should show what's "original CIG Code".

That would get complicated since they would have to also view diffs from past builds, during the time period when CryTek claims the contract breach took place.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 19:08

happyhippy: Feb 21, 2005; Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup; Pillbug

kw0134 posted:

I wouldn't be surprised if CIG is forced to allow Crytek to audit the whole thing top to bottom and Crytek is allowed to go "this is mine, this is mine, this is mine, this garbage is not ours, eww, this is mine..." until there's naught left but T-posed commandos and jpegs.

I hope CIG has been the last few weeks replacing Crytek comments in the code with random 'Made by Chris' dates on them.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 19:11

Sarsapariller: Aug 14, 2015; Occasional vampire queen

D_Smart posted:

Yeah, but the blogs aren't written for you guys. Not everyone is moronic enough to come here, or visit all the placed where things are discussed. So yeah, some stuff will be new to you guys. And that's why, as a signal booster, I'm a famous wahlord, and you're not.

I know I'm arguing with a brick wall, but: nobody who's reading a blog about Star Citizen legal proceedings at this stage in the game is unfamiliar with the drama to date. A dramatic and wide-ranging summary is great if you are a media outlet bringing the story to ten thousand fresh new sets of eyes, but at this point the thread and your blog are basically the hardest of the hardcore special-interest demo's and you are only going to get a few dozen people at most. At that point it's better to do fun, interesting "Hot takes" on the latest stuff, followed by a really insightful and conversation-altering long-form post once every couple months, if you have a lot of new dirt to cover.

You don't know whether or not I'm a warlord. You don't know my life.

# ? Jan 28, 2018 19:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 15:45

Tank Boy Ken: Aug 24, 2012; J4G for life; Fallen Rib

nnnotime posted:

That would get complicated since they would have to also view diffs from past builds, during the time period when CryTek claims the contract breach took place.

If they kept those builds around. It might actually be possible that they're not using any kind of version control. Though I find that hard to believe. You can't be that ~~dumb~~ thumb?

# ? Jan 28, 2018 19:24

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Star Citizen: Death of a Space Thread?

«‹›6530 »