|
Hav posted:It doesn't matter; the naming is the thing that nullifies it from happening, and becomes the 'you step back, we don't do anything'. There are specific reasons for naming the _co-founders_ in the document rather than just referring to the 'Defendants'; one is the entity named, the other are people with privileged information about the entity. Skadden has Frankfurt and Munich offices. Makes it easier on the foreigners. AngusPodgorny posted:I doubt Skadden cares about getting Ortwin disqualified, because there's no way they're afraid to go up against a non-litigator in court. Plus he lacks the staff to defend against a firm like Skadden, so they were hiring an outside firm anyway. I still think that mentioning Ortwin was a shot across the bow. I doubt CIG has a lot of money to waste in biglaw litigation and would want to keep things super cheap until later in the discovery phase. I'd bet that Ortwin would be solely responsible for the answer, the initial disclosures and initial written discovery requests/responses. Could save a bit of money the first few months of the case doing it in house. poo poo, look at all the times Ortwin has written stupid letters as CIG counsel when he shouldn't have been... CIG would absolutely use Ortwin.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
 Pack it up Chris, time to settle and order that plane ticket. If a ton of youtube videos are gone this time next week I would not be surprised in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
I'm glad CryTek gave the thread one last big cup of coffee before Christmas.
Virtual Captain fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Nicholas posted:This was obvious from the start but it got lost in the never ending stream of CIG gently caress ups. I don't think anyone took it seriously, it's properly dumb if that's what they actually intended. It's like changing the name of your house and then stopping your mortgage payments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:Yeah, there's things like attorney-client privilege and apex depositions in play, but analyzing that all is too much like work. For anyone with more knowledge of the terminal end of American business... I'm curious, because I have a blind spot around the liabilities for American business, but what's a good tactic for sliding out from a judgement that might exceed the ability of the Defendant business to pay? Can it fold, wind up or otherwise cease to exist? Is it possible to transfer assets based on a nominal fee to a third party company, or are they considered part of the debt of the old company and get liquidated by a nominated officer? I know how to avoid this in UK terms, just not US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
I think the saddest part about all this is the space news van might be delayed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:22
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Nyast posted:But can they afford not to settle ? If they don't then they don't have the rights to Cryengine at all, period. So they'd be forced to switch to LY. Not a slow gradual step by step upgrade, but an instant switch. There's no way they can even do that without removing access to the game from all backers during the transition period, which could take up months.. If they got an injunction against them using CryEngine, I don't know that they could jump to pure Lumberyard. Ignoring the technical details involved in that, Lumberyard is fundamentally CryEngine. It would be an issue only courts could decide, and I'm sure CryTek's lawyers would be laying down paper roadblocks the whole way. Functionally, they'd probably be blocked from using either CryEngine or Lumberyard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
 A preview of today's bugsmashers episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Derek, sorry for not trusting you. This looks like a loving wolf after all. Now if backer money indirectly leads to Crytek resurfacing and making a new Crysis game, I'm buying the complete 3000AD box set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
StarCitizen: Crytek vs CiG a 67 point BRUTAL TAKEDOWN. edit: that legal summary is up to 7k views already. There's going to be some ~games journalism~ really soon. Raskolnikov fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
AP posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
AP posted:
Clearly that's from before they switched to Lumberyard, as otherwise they would still be using code that CryTek could claim in their injunction and we know they're not that incompe-
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Bayonnefrog posted:Ha good point. It's mostly for fun. No one has ever responded. Makes sense, I guess. I have called myself PineapplePizza when playing Rocket League for similar reasons. It seems to somehow upset a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
"A drat good lawyer" posted:In 2012, Defendants sought to develop a new game called "Star Citizen," which was billed as an epic space adventure, trading, and dogfighting video game. To make that game a reality, Defendants sought to use the CryEngine video game development platform as its foundation. Crytek and Defendants agreed to preliminary license terms, and Crytek invested significant time and expense in creating impressive demonstrations and proofs-of-concept that were used to persuade the public to contribute financially to a "crowdfunding" campaign to support development of the video game. Crowdfunding in quotation marks 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Raskolnikov posted:StarCitizen: Crytek vs CiG a 67 point BRUTAL TAKEDOWN.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
AP posted:
Oh the vanity of these morons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Having a hard time finding the countdown clock to the CIG Holiday Live stream. Who else is pumped for this year's festivities??!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Indeed it is an incredible title suggestion. But I think we need to give the Warlord his due and leave the current one for a while. He did - in fact - call it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Virtual Captain posted:If a ton of youtube videos are gone this time next week I would not be surprised in the slightest. Got a quick screencap of their youtube page for just this reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
And LOL if CIG is forced to pay off Coutts with CryTek taking possession of everything CIG--imagine Chris, Ortwin, Erin, and Sandi gone with CryTek finishing development. There might actually be a game. But at what cost--with no Pusher scenes how good would it be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/209256270?t=12m18s  
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Jim DiGriz posted:Derek, sorry for not trusting you. This looks like a loving wolf after all. Steady on, you might have to play them. Memo went out; "Don't discuss the lawsuit".
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Hav posted:For anyone with more knowledge of the terminal end of American business... It's basically just bankruptcy. They can try to play musical chairs with all their corporate entities, but that's up to the courts to handle. I'm pretty sure UK law and US law are very similar on these kinds of procedures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo it's the best Christmas present ever
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Over 250 people here yet where oh where is Lazrin? Pay us a courtesy call and hot take, man. We miss you, Bro, and your testy barbs. Does anyone know if the summoning ritual works for Zealots? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
500 post in an hour wtf happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Coutts owns Squadron 42. Crytek owns the code in Squadron 42. Crytek gets an injunction against using the code in Squadron 42. Coutts can's use or sell the rights to Squadron 42 without getting the injunction lifted. Coutts has to make a very serious phone call to Chris Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:At least Sandi will get away scot-free, since nobody in the world will recognize her. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
HycoCam posted:And LOL if CIG is forced to pay off Coutts with CryTek taking possession of everything CIG--imagine Chris, Ortwin, Erin, and Sandi gone with CryTek finishing development. There might actually be a game. But at what cost--with no Pusher scenes how good would it be? Nobody's finishing this poo poo. This project has negative value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Citizen olympic-level mental gymnastics have begun: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7jm1xd/rsi_bought_out_the_engine_in_2013/?st=jb5ilrrj&sh=a2953fe6 https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7jly2g/someone_just_proved_cig_is_using_lumberyard_lol/?st=jb5ilus4&sh=f2fa4aea
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:500 post in an hour wtf happened Star Citizen is out. Goons are repenting. We've all bought completionist packages, you better hurry before stock runs out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SandiGardiner/status/864609751031660545 We can only hope they get these things out in time for Crytek to force them to recall them like Silicon Knights had to for Too Human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Today in the Star Citizen thread: https://gfycat.com/OfficialHarmfulAnteater
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Ahhhh I'm missing the ele playing tactilol soldier in a classroom
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:500 post in an hour wtf happened All the good things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
XK posted:It's basically just bankruptcy. They can try to play musical chairs with all their corporate entities, but that's up to the courts to handle. I'm pretty sure UK law and US law are very similar on these kinds of procedures. In the UK, you can voluntarily fold and pass over your assets to another company while leaving your debts behind. It's the very function of shell companies (usually w/2 officers). It's also one of the slightly more slippery aspects of British business that I don't expect other domains to expect. Actual bankruptcy in the UK usually involves winding up proceedings involving a liquidator, but that's usually when the company (ie with more than the mandatory two officers) is no longer a going concern and has actual assets that need to be turned into liquidity for the outstanding debt. I just don't know how it works in the US and I'm lazy. I can probably ask the wife later, she's doing a bunch of commercial legal bullshit. Middle one should be 'star engine'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
hot balls man no homo posted:Coutts owns Squadron 42. Crytek owns the code in Squadron 42. Crytek gets an injunction against using the code in Squadron 42. Coutts can's use or sell the rights to Squadron 42 without getting the injunction lifted. Coutts has to make a very serious phone call to Chris Roberts. Coutts: Loan is automatically called in. Where's our money? Crobbler: Ummm, I'll have it in a minute. Just let me do another ship sale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:38
|
|