Defendants’ Motion seeking dismissal and other relief is without merit: http://docdro.id/v7yQ0LL
Sarsapariller
RSI: You can’t sue us because it was CIG who signed your stupid deal!
Skadden:
3. If RSI Is Not A Party To The GLA, Then Crytek’s Claims For Copyright Infringement Are Even Stronger:
Defendants’ suggestion that RSI is not bound by the GLA igores the implications that holding would have for Crytek’s claims of copyright infringement. If the Court determines that RSI is not bound by the GLA, then RSI was not authorized to obtain Crytek’s code: RSI is not included on Exhibit 3 to the GLA, which lists the “[a]uthorized third party developer(s)” who are entitled to receive access to Crytek’s technology pursuant to Section 2.6 of the GLA. (GLA Ex. 3 at 19). If RSI is not a party to the GLA, then CIG had no license to distribute Crytek’s technology to RSI. And a fortiori, RSI had no license to (for example) publish Crytek’s source code through the “Bugsmashers” videos hosted on RSI’s web site.
Leonard French has already not read it and ready to stream about it on Youtube
I liked this part about Skadden not including the GLA in the initial filing:
Defendants suggest that the Court should draw negative inferences from the fact that Crytek did not file the GLA as an exhibit to its initial and amended complaints. (E.g., Defts.’ Br. at 1-2 (accusing Crytek of “conceal[ing]” the GLA from the Court by “deliberately omitt[ing]” and “hiding” the GLA); id. at 9 (describing the GLA as “the hidden document”); id. at 18 (arguing that “the entire FAC should be dismissed for failure to state a claim particularly given the lack of candor by Crytek regarding the GLA.”). The GLA contains sensitive business information concerning Crytek’s licensing practices and Crytek was not obliged to attach it to a public filing. In any event, the terms of the GLA contradict Defendants’ contentions here.
This is what a professional filing looks like.
**“All rise,” bellowed the bailiff.
A tired, annoyed judge, hunched over, walks in. He doesn’t look at the defendants, nor the plaintiffs, nor the audience. He knows how this is going to go. He just has to get through it, he tells himself.
“You may be seated,” he says, his voice tailing off into a sigh. Exasperation had gripped him for a week, and he saw no use in hiding it today.
“Now, we begin today wi-,” he starts, but an airhorn blows from the back of the room. His temper had already risen all morning. He was just waiting for one poke to push him over the edge.
“THE COURT WILL BE IN ORDER!” he shouts, slamming the gavel down again and again, tripling in noise with every slam, every second.
“ya whoa,” someone mutters from the back.
The judge’s eye quivers, a vein protrudes from his temple. “Excuse me?” he asks, incredulously.
“ya whoa did ehp did eh woah did,” said the timid voice again, but louder. Giggles are heard from the general area.
“ORDER, ORDER, I WILL NOT HAVE THESE DISRU-!” he tries to exclaim, cut off by a short burst of another airhorn, from a different corner.
“LET HIM FUCKING FINISH!” growls Derek Smart through convulsions of laughter, tears streaming down his face.**
VictorianQueerLit
Is Leonard French a backer or just a bad lawyer?
He is a backer. He shows the same faith based reasoning that the stereotypical “true believers” do except he is either dishonest or delusional enough to try and pretend he is some blind justice weighing the scales of this lawsuit while having an extremely clear bias.
“I’m impartial on this subject. Speaking purely neutrally. I’m speaking as an experienced lawyer who is not taking sides to give a fair look at this subject and be impartial
…….so obviously every possible outcome in any possible conflict is the best case scenario for Cloud Imperium Games.”
Backers eat this shit up because it’s an “authority” reinforcing their views. That “authority” asserts itself as neutral and unbiased so therefore when it takes their side that means they are really, totally and truly in the right.
Defendants’ interpretation of the word “exclusively” in Section 2.1.2 is that
18 Crytek gave only Defendants — not some unrelated third party — the right to embed
19 CryEngine in Defendants’ game Star Citizen. (Defts.’ Br. at 9.) That is absurd: How
20 could Crytek license a third party to do anything at all with Defendants’ software?
21 Defendants admit: “Obviously CIG could never have a document that even remotely
22 suggests Crytek could grant somebody else the right to embed the Engine in the
23 Game.” Accordingly, Defendants’ suggestion that the
24 parties added the word “exclusively” to prevent Crytek from allowing some third
25 party to develop Defendants’ software is nonsense.
Now I’m rubbing.
Second, Defendants reiterate their argument that the GLA authorized them to
develop Squadron 42 as a standalone game. It did not. See supra Part II.B.2.
Accordingly, Defendants’ development of Squadron 42 exceeded the GLA’s scope
and infringed, inter alia, Crytek’s exclusive rights to copy, distribute, and prepare
derivative works with regard to CryEngine. Here, however, the GLA authorized the
Defendants to embed CryEngine in only one game, not two separate games.
Skadden is so on the ball it’s nuts.
Even if the Court determines that Defendants were permitted to switch
engines and did in fact do so, Defendants’ argument fails to account for the full year
of infringing conduct between Defendants’ announcement of the separate, standalone
Squadron 42 on December 16, 2015, and Defendants’ eventual engine switch on
December 23, 2016. (FAC ¶¶ 22, 38.) In any event, notwithstanding Defendants’
representation that they no longer use CryEngine in any way (Defts.’ Br. at 15-16),
Crytek alleges that Defendants’ use of CryEngine is ongoing. (E.g., FAC ¶¶ 25, 51,
66.) Crytek should be permitted to obtain discovery to test the truth of Defendants’
assertions that they have completely abandoned the use of CryEngine.
This is why Skadden is so expensive.
Every time someone quotes reddit I’m going ughhhhhh you’re not trying to litigate the merits of the case you fucking SC morons, you’re trying to argue there’s no controversy to litigate all you’re doing is proving to the court that there are significant issues begging for the court to decide shut up shut up SHUT UP and go buy another Idris you goddamn idiots and leave the law to people who didn’t receive a full frontal lobotomy with a completionist pack
French is thinking there will be trial and discovery. Open the lolgates.
GamesBeat: They’ve changed their licensing policies some. Does that help you at all? Or do you have a more general license?
Roberts: Yeah, we bought it out. We’re building this game for the long term. It’s an MMO. Hopefully it lasts as long as something like EVE or World of Warcraft. We need to have control over it. So we basically had to buy it out and control the source and everything. We still get updates from them. We work very closely with Crytek. But their new licensing deal doesn’t factor into what we do.
The Crytek vs CIG Star Citizen court documents are still going back and forth, and following CIG’s request that this case is dismissed, Crytek’s lawyers have hit back with a response and it’s firey.
This latest response from Crytek holds no punches and they have outlined clearly in this document why the court should not allow CIG to dismiss this case. The preliminary statement sums it up:
Defendant’s Motion seeking dismissal and other relief is without merit. Rather, that Motion is a blatant effort to impose delay and burden Crytek as it seels to vindicate its rights under its contract with Defendants and its copyrights.
The facts here are straightforward: Plaintiff Crytek GmbH (“Crytek”) granted Cloud Imperium Games Corp (“CIG”) and Roberts Space Industries Corp (“RSI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) a license to use Crytek’s powerful video game development platform, CryEngine, in the development of Defendant’s video game called “Star Citizen”. Pursuant to that Game License Agreement (the “GLA”), Crytek agreed to provide technical support and know-how to Defendants and licensed CryEngine to Defendants at a discounted rate, in return for certain promises from Defendants.
But after accepting Crytek’s assistance — and after raising record-breaking amounts from video game consumers in a crowdfunding campaign — Defendants began to break their promises to Crytek.
Defendants promised that they would develop Star Citizen with CryEngine, not any other development platform. But Defendants now boast that they have breached that promise, and are promoting a competing development platform.
Defendants promised that they would prominantly display Crytek’s copyright notices and trademarks within Star Citizen and in any marketing materials for Star Citizen. But Defendants have admittedly breached that promise.
Even though Defendants had licensed Crytek’s technology to develop only one game (Star Citizen) they later separated Star Citizen’s feature “Squadron 42” into a standalone game without a license to use Crytek’s technology in two games
Defendants promised to provide Crytek with any improvements or bug fixes that they made to CryEngine while developing Star Citizen. Defendants never made a good faith effort to honor that promise.
Defendants promised that they would maintian the condidentiality of Crytek’s valuable technology, But they published excerpts if Crytek’s source code unilaterally and shared Crytek’s technology with a third-party developer without Crytek’s approval.
Defendants say this action should never have been filed. Indeed, if only they had kept their promises, the action would never have ben filed. But now Crytek seeks to enforce its contractual rights and copyrights. Defendants deny any enforceable obligation to Crytek and move the court to dismiss Crytek’s claim entirely. Defendants’ argument simpy do not withstand scrutiny, and certainly cannot meet the demanding standard required to obtain dismissal of Crytek’s claims as a matter of law. The court should deny Defendants’ Motion and permit Crytek to proceed so that it may vindicate its rights.
The full document is lengthy and goes into more detail citing more references to specific areas of contention with links to forum posts made by CIG and other cases that may set precedent for copyright infringement. Whether the court decides in favour of Crytek remains to be seen, but if this case is heard in court, it’s going to be one to watch because as more documents have appeared the more confusing it has become.
At this stage, it is starting to look like there will be a fight in court which is not good news for CIG. It’s money that would be dripped away to lawyers and not into the game. Backers will not be pleased if this goes further.
We thought the Star Citizen developers’ response to Crytek would have baffled them. But Crytek has just replied, and their arguments are equally convincing.
Recall from the previous episode: Crytek accused CIG of developing two games when the original contract stipulated only one. They also complained that CIG broke the contract by changing the engine, so they did not use the CryEngine any more. CIG pointed out to them that the two complaints canceled each other out and that the case was therefore irrelevant.
Crytek’s response: CIG was offered a preferential rate on the CryEngine in exchange for multiple promises they did not keep:
**• CIG was to use CryEngine and promote it, but today they support a competing engine;
• CIG had committed to go back to Crytek the improvements they could have made to the engine, as well as the bug fixes. But after publicly boasting of improving the engine, they never shared their work with Crytek;
• CIG violated certain confidential aspects of Crytek’s technology by publishing excerpts from the code.**
In summary, Crytek believes it helped CIG in the early development of Star Citizen by offering them their engine at a preferential rate. The contract specified then that CIG had to return the same to them by ensuring the promotion of the engine and by sharing the improvements that they would have brought to him. But as soon as the developers of Star Citizen started to raise millions, they paid for a massive gold toilet, they printed the contract with Crytek, and they went to sink a monumental bronze before blowing themselves with it.
Derek Smart
This is the unroll thread of my take on the latest Crytek response in the CryTek v CIG lawsuit.
