|
Dusty Lens posted:I will concede that Derek did in fact call that the law firm hired to sue CIG has responded to CIG's response. Furthermore I will concede, as witnessed by all here, that Skadden's response to the response is directed in such a way as to present their best legal position in such a way that is advantageous to their own efforts to win the case. He done goofed e: veteran backer catte tastes just enough to keep the dream alive https://i.imgur.com/0p3PUar.gifv
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
25 848 F. Supp. 682 (E.D. La. 1994) .................................................................... 22 Hernandez v. Monsanto Co., Confirmation that Star Citizen backers are legally defined as an agricultural product. This is a big deal as it strips the cultural tradition loopholes that were previously being used by CIG's efforts to classify their efforts as whaling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Crytek's approval and, upon information and belief, have provided Faceware access Case 2:17-cv-08937-DMG-FFM Document 25 Filed 01/19/18 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:255 1 to Crytek's technology including source code. (FAC ¶ 51.) This breach of the GLA 2 also entails an infringing distribution of Crytek's copyrighted source code. MFW
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:I gotta clear it with legal, who was currently chewing on a bone if I could post the PDF or not
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Looking through the overview now and it basically boils down to what goons wrote in the first five comments after CIG's response. Glad everyone's been arguing about this poo poo for a week lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. SO MUCH CASE LAW IN THIS RESPONSE LOL!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:Looking through the overview now and it basically boils down to what goons wrote in the first five comments after CIG's response. Glad everyone's been arguing about this poo poo for a week lol It's not like there's a game to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
has anyone said "Ortwinning" yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:Looking through the overview now and it basically boils down to what goons wrote in the first five comments after CIG's response. Glad everyone's been arguing about this poo poo for a week lol Confirmed: Skadden reads the thread. Called it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
big nipples big life posted:It's not like there's a game to talk about. Mostly I was thinking of reddit when wrote that post. My eyeballs pulled up their roots and ran away by page 2 of the Great "Exclusively" War of 2018, so I sure hope nobody broke any rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
quote:1 2015. . . . What runs Star Citizen and Squadron is our heavily modified version of 2 the engine which we have dubbed StarEngine.") (emphasis added); (see also First 3 Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 33 (ECF No. 18) (quoting Roberts's statement that 4 "[W]e don't call [the video game engine] CryEngine anymore, we call it Star 5 Engine.").) Yet Defendants repeatedly refused to substantively provide 6 optimizations or bug fixes to Crytek. This poo poo right here is my favorite part. I hope for more of this. Your honor I would like to direct the attention of the Jury to 10ftc E. 87
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Has anyone said 10 to 20 for the chairman yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:Mostly I was thinking of reddit when wrote that post. My eyeballs pulled up their roots and ran away by page 2 of the Great "Exclusively" War of 2018, so I sure hope nobody broke any rules. Marching Powder came back and posted a shitload of anime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
I guess they didn't include the full Ortwin waiver because wrestling with pigs is only fun for the pigs. But I like how they addressed it.quote:First, the letter by which Freyermuth's firm sought Crytek's consent to his ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
 get hosed grammar idiots
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Someone post to /r/games please 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
big nipples big life posted:Marching Powder came back and posted a shitload of anime. Exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Beef Hardcheese posted:get hosed grammar idiots Apparently they didn't watch ANY of the youtube videos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Isn't it nice to have real lawyers who can write well and not be superlative in unnecessary areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
quote:Defendants assert that the latter of those allegations was "demonstrably false given that Mr. Freyermuth had obtained a written conflict waiver from Crytek prior to negotiating the GLA on behalf of CIG." (Defts.' Br. at 20.) Having removed that allegation in an (apparently futile) effort to avoid this motion practice, Crytek will refrain from addressing it at length, and will instead briefly note as follows: I guess just declaring "there's no conflict of interest" isn't enough. The Saddest Robot fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Settling exclusivity forever: Defendants correctly recognize that "[t]he whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other." ... Yet their argument wholly disregards that principle, relying on two related and false assertions: (1) that Crytek's claim "is based entirely on isolating the word 'exclusively' contained in Section 2.1.2"; and (2) that no other provision of the GLA precluded Defendants from abandoning CryEngine for a competitor's product. Section 2.1.2 grants Defendants a license "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game." That grant is "[s]ubject to strict and continuous compliance with the restrictions in the Agreement." (GLA 2.1) If there is any doubt that Section 2.1.2 prohibits Defendants from developing the Game with engines other than CryEngine, another section of the GLA also makes Defendants' obligation clear. Section 2.4 provides: 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. (Emphasis added.) This section further confirms there is only one reasonable construction of the GLA: that CryTek received exclusivity for Star Citizen (among other things) in return for the license, technical support, and financial discounts that it provided to Defendants. Thus, even if the Court were to construe Section 2.1.2 to permit Defendants to abandon CryEngine in favor of another engine - and CryTek respectfully submits that such a construction is inconsistent with the GLA - that same abandonment and concomitant development, suport, maintenance, promotion, selling, and licensing of that other engine would constitute breaches of Section 2.4 etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Pretty scary when you have 3 imba attourneys, with god-knows-how-many-250$/hr-people working for them in the shadows, trying to take away your toys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Beef Hardcheese posted:
Looks I totally called the use of the words "absurd" and "nonsense" huh?  https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&pagenumber=3519#post480416413 ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
omg their response to the tort vs contract law holy poo poo lol just so much lol quote:Defendants cite a number of cases distinguishing generally between tort and contract law, but none of those cases involve contracts, like the GLA, that differentiate between remedies available for intentional or grossly negligent breaches of contract, on one hand, and negligent breaches, on the other. For example, in Erlich v. Menezes, the plaintiffs had contracted with the defendant, a licensed general contractor, to build a "dreamhouse." 21 Cal. 4th 543, 548, 981 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1999). The contractor did a very bad job on the house: for example, "[t]hree decks were in danger of 'catastrophic collapse.'" Id. at 549, 981 P.2d at 981. The plaintiffs testified that they suffered emotional distress as a result of the defective condition of the house and the defendant's botched efforts at repair, and the jury awarded them damages for those tortious injuries over and above the sum awarded for breach of contract. Id. The court noted that tort remedies are available for negligent breaches of contract "only when the conduct in question is so clear in its deviation from socially useful business practices that the effect of enforcing such tort duties will be . . . to aid rather than discourage commerce." Id. at 554, 981 P.2d at 985 (citation omitted). Erlich is not applicable here because Crytek does not seek tort remedies for Defendants' breaches of contract. TheAgent fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah this looks like a bullshit response. Crytek gave some plausible complaints in the lawsuit, at first, without us knowing what was in the GLA. CIG responds to every point with good arguments and the actual text in the GLA pointing out what its a frivolous lawsuit The counter response is reasserting the original claims that were completely shot down, without actually putting forth anything new or offering a rebuttal Combined with how they initially tried to conceal the GLA to make it appear they had a viable argument, it seems pretty obvious this is just a cash grab. Their plan is likely to attempt to use the corrupt video game press and publicity to drag this lawsuit out and attempt to get them to settle
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
gently caress, derek was right about something. Quick, how can moma spin this into a win for him? Gotta come up with something for him to use before he hurts himself trying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Rubageddon! Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Leonard French has already not read it and ready to stream about it on Youtube
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Beef Hardcheese posted:
I reiterate my statement anyone here who argued about this is a retard
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
The whole Freyermuth conflict of interest is going to get tossed out in the first pass. A bloo bloo bloo we signed a contract with someone who wrote our previous contracts for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
poo poo gets really snarky too: To avoid burdening itself and the Court with the wasteful motion practice threatened by Defendants, Crytek did delete certain allegations from its pleading. Specifically in the First Amended Complaint, Crytek retained its allegation that Freyermuth hd confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices due to his prior representation of Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties, but removed its allegations that Freyermuth's possession of that information would unfairly advantage Defendants and that Freyermuth never resolved that conflict of interest. Defendants assert that the latter of those allegations was "demonstrably false given that My. Freyermuth had obtained a written conflict waiver from Crytek prior to negotiating the GLA on behalf of CIG." Having removed that allegation in an (apparently futile) effort to avoid this motion practice, Crytek will refrain from addressing it at length...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Daztek posted:Yeah this looks like a bullshit response. Crytek gave some plausible complaints in the lawsuit, at first, without us knowing what was in the GLA. CIG responds to every point with good arguments and the actual text in the GLA pointing out what its a frivolous lawsuit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:57
|
|
Welcome to the
|
Daztek posted:Yeah this looks like a bullshit response. Crytek gave some plausible complaints in the lawsuit, at first, without us knowing what was in the GLA. CIG responds to every point with good arguments and the actual text in the GLA pointing out what its a frivolous lawsuit
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Ayn Marx posted:I reiterate my statement anyone here who argued about this is a retard Yeah but you must admit, it was loving hilarious watching the mental gymnastics though. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
So what is next in the LULZ PIPELINE(tm, covered by UltraGLA3.4) -sc reddit thread --> silly people make a video -games reddit thread -goons trolling, inverse-trolling and melting down (hi Moma) -court action? AutismVaccine fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Yeah but you must admit, it was loving hilarious watching the mental gymnastics though. Those guys would have been gold medalists in the mental gymnastics if doping wasn't outlawed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
dear god, how can people back this game be so loving stupid like y'all are loving stupid as hell goddamn
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
the worst kind of rubbing
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Skadden: "DID WE loving STUTTER  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:03
|
|
