AngusPodgorny posted:

It's really just a random draw. Any civil case worth more than $75,000 filed with the federal court system in central California has a chance to end up in front of J. Gee. As well as a bunch of other things, like she might do an immigration case in the morning and a billion dollar patent infringement in the afternoon.

Also most federal judges have pretty impressive resumes, so the other random alternatives were no slouches themselves.

Beexoffel posted:

For a long time I have wondered why the authorities weren't investigating CIG.
And I also wondered why such a distinguished judge was put on what I think is a relatively small a case of a fraud under 500 million.
But now I got the idea that this is exactly how the authorities are getting involved: CIG exists by ambiguity and muddled dependencies and sidetracking and inane verbosity and confusion, and this judge is a master at cutting through the bullshit. She'll cut off the fluff and expose the small, simple mechanism by which crowdfunding has been bent into scamming.
Giving clear directions for regulation on crowdfunding once the case is over.

Beexoffel posted:

Thanks, then I was reading more into in then there was.

Sarsapariller posted:

Yes- spreading doubt and then buying low, to sell high when the game comes out and is good.

This is what some backers actually believe

G0RF posted:

ThatKazan has a spooky gift for psychoanalysis. He’s got you down, Beet.

Does he know that if the game ever launches he’s already on the Goon Top 5 Bounties List? Last I heard only B’tak outranked him.

Sarsapariller posted:

I am convinced that if there is one incredibly shady thing that CIG did that may not actually be illegal but loving should be, it is the resale market.

They artificially propped it up for years by selling "Exclusive one time only" ships that you were then allowed to trade freely. Or by only offering ships for resale at an increased price. This meant anyone racing to buy early would actually be earning money, you see, in the long run because they could always sell at a markup. Some of the markups on exclusives were insane, too- 450% or more for cap ships at one point.

We know that the above is true. We also know, anecdotally, that they handed out ships to streamers and employees with the explicit intent that they be sold through this market to supplement income (without any of that nasty tax business). I mean, setting up your own digital goods market based on artificial scarcity and then partially paying your employees under the table in those digital goods- that has to be illegal, right?

Beet Wagon posted:

I particularly like the callout about "you run the SA thing and the subforum," or whatever it was that he said.

Here's some free advice, reddit guys: if someone's following you around reddit bothering you, report them to the subforum moderators, reddit admins, and Jesus, and then block them. It's really that simple. There are - and this will be a suprise, I know - no rules anywhere else on the internet preventing people from posting links to your stupid comments. That's an entirely in-house feature of reddit. So if someone's brigading you or whatever, you have to use reddit's tools to stop that.

Beet Wagon posted:

I've always wondered what spawned the "you're just creating fud to make profits on the grey market!" conspiracy theory, but I've never actually asked.

Ayn Marx posted:

I'm having the time of my life with you guys here. Reading about CIG makes me feel a lot better about the different shitshow of a gaming company I work for.

AngusPodgorny posted:

Nope. There should be a choice of law provision in the contract that says California law always applies.

Even if someone forgot to add that to the contract, which is pretty badly drafted granted, you only get one shot at a judgment. Other states will enforce a judgment from a California court, but they won't add things onto it.

And as a practical matter, you'd have to find a state with more plaintiff-friendly laws than California. If such a place existed and suing was possible there, then Skadden should have done so in the first place, because shopping for a favorable forum is Litigation 101.

Looks from the order like they're only potentially on the hook for SQ42 sales during the time period when it was for sale independently and before the switch to Lumberyard, which would limit if not eliminate the damages. The question of how long that time period was and how many sales occurred is something J. Gee is going to wait for some evidence on.

SpaceCurtisLeMay posted:

Federal district court of East Texas used to be the go to for IP cases if you were shopping for a friendly venue....

Bayonnefrog posted:

so what's the consensous from legal people on here?

Does Crytek go in full blast discovery/subpoena/trial all that stuff?

Or do we get a quiet settlement. What does the sound legal strategy say?

TheAgent posted:

there's actually a good way for people to stop posting your stupid posts across the internet

stop loving making them

Scruffpuff posted:

They could have gotten a quiet settlement months ago - CIG offered one.

TheAgent posted:

there's actually a good way for people to stop posting your stupid posts across the internet

stop loving making them

Bayonnefrog posted:

oh ok I didn't know that. Do we know the amount?

Morphix posted:

goddamn am i happy i stopped my gaming career aspirations after trying game testing at a microsoft contractor back in high school

i got fired for posting halo 2 secrets i think on here actually lol

Mirificus posted:

peter gabriel posted:

No, because this isn't an episode of Columbo

TheAgent posted:

haha yes, that's it, not because ben was covering for sexist and homophobic comments and letting whales do whatever the gently caress they wanted without repercussion

Dooguk posted:

Just one more thing.

TheAgent posted:

like the grey market is already at like 60% of the value of poo poo and its projected to fall to 40% if 3.4 doesn't come out this year and is fuckin amazing

so are we trying to get the market to crash to buy back a bunch of stuff at lower prices or something

I dont fuckin get it

Bayonnefrog posted:

so what's the consensous from legal people on here?

Does Crytek go in full blast discovery/subpoena/trial all that stuff?

Or do we get a quiet settlement. What does the sound legal strategy say?

Mirificus posted: