|
ManofManyAliases posted:What CryTek alleges and what the facts are could very well be two different worlds here. CryTek is alleging breach of contract, insomuch that infringement on IP is a consequence hereto. CryTek also had to make its engineers available for corroboration, which might have been hard to do with all of the financial troubles they've encumbered: Asking people to stick to their agreements is not a cash grab you dumb piece of poo poo. The gently caress kind of man are you? Also goongrats to those whos brains arent broken ahahahaha
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
MoMA is on the case. CryTek breached their own contract somehow and when they claimed CIG was in breach of contract for trying to say they weren't using CryEngine anymore MoMA expertly responded that if they aren't using CryEngine then there is no breach of contract. It's the whole "Attorney General had nothing to do with the refund since there were no formal charges filed and he only contacted CIG who immediately refunded the customer after being contacted by the Attorney General" rules lawyering dialed up to 11. MoMA this is being kept out of most of the backer communication channels so if you hurry you might offload your thousands of dollars of spaceships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
nnnotime posted:CIG will have to make a public statement about this little issue, won't they? After all, why would any current backers, and any possible new backers, want to buy new jpgs if there's a significant chance now that's all they will get? Well in THE PLEDGE Chris promised to treat backers like he treats publishers so I'd expect him to go silent, then fetal and remain clutching the leg of his desk until Microsoft pry him off it and shitcan him
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Bayonnefrog posted:It's bad publicity for CIG sure. But I'm going to do a "wait and see" approach to this. Filling a suit is one thing. Anyone can do that. What the courts do with it is another. It says he is filling for breach of contract and copyright infringement. That may very well be true I'm not a lawyer and will let the experts handle all of that. On the breach of contract side I will say it looks like they are trying to argue that Crytec agreement with CIG was for ONLY ONE game. What they consider to be "Star Citizen" but then CIG went and used their engine (against the agreement) for other games (SQ42, etc etc). CIG is going to argue that they're all the same game and that they were fine to use it for all of that. I think they might have an argument there. But we'll see. Will be fascinating to see how it plays how. The court might toss it out at the start but with a big legal team behind this they will probably get it to a hearing somewhere down the road. In order to keep operating, CIG is going to have to pay them an absolute shitload of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
If there is no settlement, is there any chance Dr. Derek Smart will be called upon as an expert witness in this Crytek trial by the plaintiffs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:It doesn't matter. According to CryTek, CryTek owns any single improvement, code change or feature CIG added to the engine since 2012. That means CryTek owns Star Citizen and SQ42, and, in their lawsuit, are not only asking for damages but the entire game to stop production, permanently. in light of this their so called engine change was really loving dumb. they need crytek for the old cryengine code and they need amazon for the lumberyard code they merged into their modified cryengine. trouble is they only got those respective licenses on the provision they would heavily promote the engine the game was built in which they can't do for both engines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
thatguy posted:If we're lucky it will be one hand-typed by Chris in the middle of the night. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Just lol that mspaint scribble is now highly likely to be a critical piece of evidence in a lawsuit. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Mirificus fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What CryTek alleges and what the facts are could very well be two different worlds here. CryTek is alleging breach of contract, insomuch that infringement on IP is a consequence hereto. CryTek also had to make its engineers available for corroboration, which might have been hard to do with all of the financial troubles they've encumbered: Oh, you're weighing in on a legal matter, and you say everything is fine. Glad to know CIG is hosed then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
That's why you don't owe Burger King any money when you order food there, because if they don't sell it, it gets thrown out anyway. Ironclad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
nnnotime posted:If there is no settlement, is there any chance Dr. Derek Smart will be called upon as an expert witness in this Crytek trial by the plaintiffs? That's were the r/ds archive can be useful to him when in court he'll say : I WAS RIGHT and all is archived.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Primed for VR development  Why are you sticking the boot in I thought you liked CIG?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What CryTek alleges and what the facts are could very well be two different worlds here. CryTek is alleging breach of contract, insomuch that infringement on IP is a consequence hereto. CryTek also had to make its engineers available for corroboration, which might have been hard to do with all of the financial troubles they've encumbered: Hereto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Too bad CIG didn't agree to that deal, and stupidly signed one that they then stupidly violated because they're in the stupid habit of stupidly infringe anything and everything in any way they can think of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
I HAVE HERE FOR THE COURT ANOTHER JPG *entire courtroom groans*
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:When MoMA effort posts it's usually a sign that damage control has been ordered unless it's about belts in that case you can't shut the fucker up no matter what coffee _everywhere_ Tippis posted:Too bad CIG didn't agree to that deal, and stupidly signed one that they then stupidly violated because they're in the stupid habit of stupidly infringe anything and everything in any way they can think of. I think he needs to know that the contract was Ironclad. Hav fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
It's quite pleasing to see the way Skadden Arps have crafted the suit to rely heavily on CIG's own public domain broadcasts. Their own massive video archive is being cited as evidence against them. I wonder if CIG will start pulling it down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
We wish you an E-L-E, we wish you an E-L-E, and a sadly no game!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases/Toast, just stick to your non-troll account and howl at the moon like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
this also means that the faceware camera might completely be stalled, as the underlying technology was shared with them without CryTeks approvalquote:On August 26, 2017, news reports announced a partnership between Defendants and a third party developer, Faceware Technologies. Upon information and belief, as a result of the partnership, Faceware received access to the underlying technology for CryEngine (including computer source code). Defendants did not disclose this third party developer's involvement to Crytek, let alone obtain Crytek's prior written approval. This was entirely in breach of the GLA. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Golli posted:SCENE: Interior bedroom - daytime - drawers askew - I can’t get caught up because I keep hitting these lines and cracking up!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
10 for the defendant
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What CryTek alleges and what the facts are could very well be two different worlds here. CryTek is alleging breach of contract, insomuch that infringement on IP is a consequence hereto. CryTek also had to make its engineers available for corroboration, which might have been hard to do with all of the financial troubles they've encumbered: This is great news for
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Loxbourne posted:It's quite pleasing to see the way Skadden Arps have crafted the suit to rely heavily on CIG's own public domain broadcasts. Their own massive video archive is being cited as evidence against them. I'm guessing that this would be a very very bad thing for them to do. So I expect it to happen starting 22:00 UTC or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Posting from 5 pages back  ing and simultaneously while trying to catch up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
basically chris roberts just made half a dozen companies poo poo their pants lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Golli posted:Amazon will likely turn on CIG as well, to head off any allegations of collusion in the copyright infringement. Especially if CIG misrepresented their agreement with Crytek to Amazon during their negotiations. so true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Backer thoughts regarding obtaining refunds for products not delivered: You're a piece of poo poo who doesn't follow through with your obligations! Backer thoughts on CIG being sued for not following through with contractual obligations: This is a money grab from CryTek!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Tippis posted:Too bad CIG didn't agree to that deal, and stupidly signed one that they then stupidly violated because they're in the stupid habit of stupidly infringe anything and everything in any way they can think of. Exactly. We are talking about a company that routinely got called out for stealing $5 art assets, and copyrighted landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Petition to change it to On the 12th day of xmas my true love gave to me 12 law suits pendin'
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
It's time for Space Court https://mobile.twitter.com/spacecourt
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Lladre posted:Exactly. Makes you wonder if there's any pirated software floating around the place. No, they wouldn't.... Edit: One small 'Ortwin has something to do' wrinkle; he's named in the complaint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I thought about making fun of this argument. If you have any rationality left using this image to somehow try and refute dozens of breaches of a formal legal contract should make you want to sell your space ships. This is like showing up to court with a screenshot of a Toyota advertisement claiming that you don't have to actually pay them the money in your loan agreement because you aren't going places and their slogan is "Let's Go Places" This is the point in the movie where you look in the mirror and see what rock bottom looks like and gain new resolve to become better. You are better than this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
PederP posted:I don't think the download button at https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/downloads/ took notes when it was clicked. Yeah, Amazon is going to go with, "What, no, we weren't involved at all." That's pretty evident simply due to the fact that Amazon is not mentioned in the filing in any way except for the one time in the citation of CIG switching to Lumberyard. I wouldn't be surprised that CryTek already talked with Amazon, and Amazon said, "Don't look at us."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
VictorianQueerLit posted:You are better than this. lol no he isn't
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Guys, isn't it obvious? Clearly CIG was able to do things with CryEngine that CryTek only could dream of. So, this is their way to get their own engine back, upgraded and enhanched and all. It's a brilliant move. Now Chris will get Amazon involved as well, because Amazon doesn't want to lose the benefits of the enhancements made by CIG as well. How can you not see this? Clearly you don't know anything about game development. Derek is just spreading FUD. Again!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Judge: CIG, what do you have to say in your defense? Ortwin: As you can see, we've been carefully documenting the last several years of company activity. I believe there is enough accumulated evidence here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at no time was CIG developing, or planning to develop, a game. Judge: You're right - no reasonable person could see what your company has been doing for the last several years and ever conclude that a game could come out of it. Judgement in favor of the defendant - case dismissed!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:24
|
|