G0RF posted:

Well the Judge Gee daughter-of-NASA connection didn’t seem to help much.

Maybe in Space Court people handle these things like adults?

Mirificus posted:

Virtual Captain posted:

Content Locus

Mirificus posted:

quote:

Crytek points to section 2.4 in support of its argument that section 2.1.2’s grant prohibits
Defendants from using any other software platform in Star Citizen. See id. at § 2.4 (“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 the business of designing,
developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or
indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine.”). Yet, section 2.4
precludes Defendants from engaging in certain competitive conduct regardless of sections 2.1’s
and 2.2’s directives. Indeed, section 2.4 supplements the preceding contractual provisions.
Accordingly, as explained above, Defendants’ interpretation of “exclusively” in section 2.1.2 of
the GLA best gives meaning to section 2.4 rather than rendering it, in part, superfluous, as
Plaintiff’s definition does. [6]

Because section 2.1.2 of the GLA neither requires Defendants to embed CryEngine in Star
Citizen nor precludes Defendants from embedding other software platforms into the game,
Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract, insofar as it is predicated on section 2.1.2, fails.
The Court therefore GRANTS the MTD in connection with this aspect of Plaintiff’s cause of
action for contract breach."

quote:

"[6] In this regard, section 2.4 may support Plaintiff’s theory of breach in connection with Defendants’ alleged
use of another software engine in Star Citizen. See, e.g., FAC at ¶¶ 38–39; see also Opp’n at 15 (“[E]ven if the Court
were to construe Section 2.1.2 to permit Defendants to abandon CryEngine in favor of another engine . . . that same
abandonment and concomitant development . . . of that other engine would constitute breaches of Section 2.4.”). The
MTD does not move to dismiss any cause of action for breach in connection with section 2.4 of the GLA, and the
FAC predicates no theory of liability on that section. Indeed, the FAC does not even mention section 2.4. Because
Crytek did not allege any cause of action for breach in connection with section 2.4 of the GLA, and Defendants did
not move for dismissal with regard to that provision, the Court will not consider the merits of such a claim. Thus, to
the extent that Defendants’ Reply seeks dismissal of any alleged claim for breach predicated on section 2.4, the Court
does not consider the argument. See FT Travel—NY, LLC v. Your Travel Ctr., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1079 (C.D.
Cal. 2015) (collecting cases on the rule that courts decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply
brief)."

G0RF posted:

Time to clear the air of all the recent Pay To Win controversies and get back to the one that was already fouling the brand at the start of the year...

The first responders are, unsurprisingly, Bored and Breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

YOUTUBE: BoredGamer - Crytek Vs Star Citizen Lawsuit Updates | What was Dismissed?

MASSIVELYOP: A JUDGE HAS MOSTLY DENIED STAR CITIZEN STUDIO’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CRYTEK COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT

Pash posted:

Man the people commenting on Boredgamer's video (did not watch so might be boardgamer as well) have no idea what like 95% of this court stuff means and are just like bam! Home run for CIG! They also still seem to think that if Crytek gets access to Star Citizen's code that they will copy and sell it, cause that's not like blatantly illegal. Besides I'm fairly sure that the CIG code would actually be looked over by a trained contracted investigator, not Crytek itself.

Pash posted:

Man the people commenting on Boredgamer's video (did not watch so might be boardgamer as well) have no idea what like 95% of this court stuff means and are just like bam! Home run for CIG! They also still seem to think that if Crytek gets access to Star Citizen's code that they will copy and sell it, cause that's not like blatantly illegal. Besides I'm fairly sure that the CIG code would actually be looked over by a trained contracted investigator, not Crytek itself.

Hav posted:

First preface: Derek Smart pointed this out, but I think his conclusions are slightly off.

Second preface:

The Warlord, on MOP posted:

“This is completely destructive, and it’s basically lights out for CIG/RSI. My logic
(hint: I was right – since the beginning)”

G0RF posted:

“Paging Joe Blobbers, your services are needed in MOP comments, STAT.”

El Grillo posted:

Is crytek likely to be able to amend their grounds to include the exclusivity argument based on cl.2.4 at this point?

Pash posted:

They also still seem to think that if Crytek gets access to Star Citizen's code that they will copy and sell it, cause that's not like blatantly illegal.

Morphix posted:

I had never seen these, but the quality of these videos between 2015 and now has gone down by leagues and bounds. Like that clip could easily be mistaken to be some TBS show, I mean ignore the acting and the whatever it this is trying to convey, I'm just talking lighting, camera, etc

and now they just skype from a strange bunker with lando

Scruffpuff posted:

It's not even that it's illegal - everything CIG has made is literally worthless hot poo poo. You could erase every bit of work CIG has done from the first day they started coding and you'd be ahead of where they are today. That backers still think CIG has made something is incredible.

G0RF posted:

https://twitter.com/Frustmaster/status/1029344702640869376
https://twitter.com/CtznShenanigans/status/1029414284886007808
https://twitter.com/Frustmaster/status/1029419236102479872
https://twitter.com/Frustmaster/status/1029523910759522305

“Why not? To make it in all eternity it was too exhausting :-) I proved to myself that I can ... That's enough for me.”

Hav posted:

Speaking as an internet fuckwit, I'd say that this is on the cards. Three weeks to see if they try their luck.

Hav posted:

Speaking as an internet fuckwit, I'd say that this is on the cards. Three weeks to see if they try their luck.

Scruffpuff posted:

It's not even that it's illegal - everything CIG has made is literally worthless hot poo poo. You could erase every bit of work CIG has done from the first day they started coding and you'd be ahead of where they are today. That backers still think CIG has made something is incredible.

Jack the Lad posted:

Maybe Chris Roberts is playing 11D chess with Crytek and they've just given him the perfect excuse to scrap Squadron 42.

"It would have been amazing, what a shame that Crytek's lawsuit means we can never release it."

El Grillo posted:

Certainly they will try. It seems a heck of an oversight not including it separately and in the alternative in their original grounds (speaking as a UK legal trainee Internet fuckwit).

Pash posted:

I agree, i just forgot to mention that. Ya no way anyone wants what CIG has done.

his nibs posted:

Derek has been typing...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html

G0RF posted:

By the power invested in me by the absolute state of Space Court, I hearby summon MoMA.

IT IS SO ORDERED that you appear before the Space Court and submit your amended MOTION TO DISS.

IT IS ALSO DETERMINED that Charlie Hall file a briefing before the Space Court that buries the lede PURSAUNT to the terms outlined in the RSI CIG/Vox LICENSE TO SHILL contract, as per Addendumb 4 attached to this ruling.

Mr Fronts posted:

I found myself singing Pink Floyd while reading the Crytek court document, and couldn't work out why... until I remembered this... this is why...

Ayn Marx posted:

It is so ordered, no quid pro quo?

Jobbo_Fett posted:

I DESERVE a ship of my own, apart from all the other dumb nerds here!

Tippis posted:

You'd think that the lawyers on both sides, having seen the whole mess, would be the ones least likely to buy anything from anyone related with this project.