Crytek Responds to motion to dismiss Star Citizen lawsuit | Copyright Infringement or Breach Of Contract?

[AlTech]

Crytek has responded to the motion to dismiss the First Ammended Complaint filed by Robert Space Industries (from herein called RSI) and Cloud Imperium Games (from herein called CIG).

 

Before we get into the meat of this, both the Defendant (RSI and CIG) and Plaintiff (Crytek) have screwed up in writing this contract.

 

The only reason RSI is still involved is because an Exhibit of the Game License Agreement (from herein called GLA) contains a signature of Chris Roberts from RSI as well as CIG at the bottom of the exhibit.

 

The response from Crytek raises questions such as the question if "Game" in the GLA constitutes both "Star Citizen" and "Squadron 42". In the GLA there is conflicting information including one part which states that "Squadron 42" is a feature of "Star Citizen". And yet another part seems to suggest that Star Citizen and Squardon 42 are 2 different games.

 

The word "Exclusively" is still causing headaches and the court will need to decide who's definition of "Exclusively" is correct. 

 

The main issue boils down to this: Did Defendants (RSI and CIG) Breach Contract or is this in fact Copyright Infringement? Or is it both?

 

In California (where the lawsuit was filed), there is usually never both. Copyright Infringement is usually a lot more punishing than Breach of Contract.

So, at some point the court will need to decide which it is.

 

Crytek has asked the court for a Discovery Period (learning information about the case) to see if Defendant (CIG and RSI) is still using CryEngine in the "Game". 

 

Amazon Lumberyard (the engine that CIG and RSI are believed to be using) mainly consists of CryEngine Source Code along with some Amazon original source code.

 

Oh and Crytek's biggest sticking point against Defendants (again RSI and CIG) is that they did not provide promised bug fixes and optimizations .

 

Source:

 

[Ryujin2003]

This is kind of funny. It's like waiting for the train wreck... So.. I'm not a lawyer, so what are the potential outcomes of this, and what are their implied impacts at this point?

 

Also, it seems kind of late to be asking about this "Discovery Period".

[AlTech]

8 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

This is kind of funny. It's like waiting for the train wreck... So.. I'm not a lawyer, so what are the potential outcomes of this, and what are their implied impacts at this point?

Realistically speaking, Neither company will go bankrupt because of this case.

 

Crytek is after money. They're seeking damages.

 

RSI and CIG owe an amount of money to Crytek for either breach of Contract or copyright infringement.

 

The amount of money needs to be decided and what the issue is needs to be decided (E.g. Breach of Contract or copyright infringement).

 

I fully expect Crytek to walk away from this with more money than they started this with.

Quote

Also, it seems kind of late to be asking about this "Discovery Period".

lol. From what I've heard, I'd say it's not too late because the court and the Plaintiff need to know to what extend CIG and RSI are either breaching contract or infringing on copyright.

 

They can't determine how much damages were caused unless they know if CIG and RSI are still using the copyrighted material.

[Cookybiscuit]

I hope this case wipes the Star Citizen devs out financially and early-access games die forever.

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

I hope this case wipes the Star Citizen devs out financially and early-access games die forever.

Don't worry. CIG and RSI still collectively have millions of dollars in the bank.

 

Unless Crytek really hits them hard with Copyright infringement, they'll still have ridiculous amounts of cash in the bank at the end of all this.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

The only reason RSI is still involved is because an Exhibit of the Game License Agreement (from herein called GLA) contains a signature of Chris Roberts from RSI as well as CIG at the bottom of the exhibit.

Wow, that is exactly the sort of fuck up you pay your lawyers to make sure doesn't happen.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Wow, that is exactly the sort of fuck up you pay your lawyers to make sure doesn't happen.

And just to drive the point home again, exactly the kind of thing a publisher like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Bethesda, etc. Would have covered in legal and some developer playing at being a publisher didn't.

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Also, it seems kind of late to be asking about this "Discovery Period".

That is normal.

 

It's a phase of a lawsuit where the sides prepare to go to court, and can demand documents etc. from each other.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

[Bananasplit_00]

this is pretty funny to follow, because its either breach of contract, copyright infringement or BOTH  

[dalekphalm]

My opinion here is largely unchanged from before, but I've had some time to think about all the possible ramifications.

 

I believe that CryTek's claims are about 25% correct.

 

What I mean by that is that it does appear like at least some very minor intention might have been done by CIG, having favourably interpreted the contract in such a way as they thought they could get away with switching engines and ending their relationship with CryTek. For whatever reason, they thought this was a good idea, and probably thought they had their legal bases covered.

 

With that in mind, it feels like most of CryTek's claims, largely rely on unusual interpretations of the wording of the GLA, which common sense might otherwise have a different interpretation.

 

It's incredibly clear that both CryTek and CIG did not do their due diligence about ensuring a properly written, well made, fair, and clear contract was created and signed. That did not happen. There are multiple poorly written segments, with often vague or unclear text.

 

That's a failure on both parties for (presumably) not having their lawyers vet the contract thoroughly enough.

 

I still don't think this will massively derail or delay the progress of the game. I don't think CryTek is going to get an injunction forcing CIG to stop development or prevent game sales from continuing. I think, if it is proven that CIG breached some terms of the contract and didn't fulfill their responsibilities in some manner, that CryTek might get awarded recoverable damages.

 

Meaning, an estimate of lost fees that CIG would have paid, had the relationship continued in the way that CryTek wanted it to (or assumed it would). We are probably looking at a couple of million USD - sure it's a lot, but CIG has a ton of money in the bank. I doubt we'd even notice a difference once the game comes out. At best, it would delay some post-launch content (Hypothetical DLC's, expansions, add-ons, more systems, etc).

 

But I'm extremely interested in seeing what evidence each party provides, and I'll keep an open mind about what that evidence actually implies.

[pas008]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

My opinion here is largely unchanged from before, but I've had some time to think about all the possible ramifications.

 

I believe that CryTek's claims are about 25% correct.

 

What I mean by that is that it does appear like at least some very minor intention might have been done by CIG, having favourably interpreted the contract in such a way as they thought they could get away with switching engines and ending their relationship with CryTek. For whatever reason, they thought this was a good idea, and probably thought they had their legal bases covered.

 

With that in mind, it feels like most of CryTek's claims, largely rely on unusual interpretations of the wording of the GLA, which common sense might otherwise have a different interpretation.

 

It's incredibly clear that both CryTek and CIG did not do their due diligence about ensuring a properly written, well made, fair, and clear contract was created and signed. That did not happen. There are multiple poorly written segments, with often vague or unclear text.

 

That's a failure on both parties for (presumably) not having their lawyers vet the contract thoroughly enough.

 

I still don't think this will massively derail or delay the progress of the game. I don't think CryTek is going to get an injunction forcing CIG to stop development or prevent game sales from continuing. I think, if it is proven that CIG breached some terms of the contract and didn't fulfill their responsibilities in some manner, that CryTek might get awarded recoverable damages.

 

Meaning, an estimate of lost fees that CIG would have paid, had the relationship continued in the way that CryTek wanted it to (or assumed it would). We are probably looking at a couple of million USD - sure it's a lot, but CIG has a ton of money in the bank. I doubt we'd even notice a difference once the game comes out. At best, it would delay some post-launch content (Hypothetical DLC's, expansions, add-ons, more systems, etc).

 

But I'm extremely interested in seeing what evidence each party provides, and I'll keep an open mind about what that evidence actually implies.

i'm not sure, would cig actually been able to crowd fund that much money without cryengine? by showing working gameplay?

 

very interested in the result either way

[Jito463]

My thoughts: Do we really need yet another thread discussing this same case?  Not trying to backseat moderate, just thinking out loud.

[AlTech]

44 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

My thoughts: Do we really need yet another thread discussing this same case?

It's a lot cleaner and easier to follow if it's not all in one thread and also new information has come to light.

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, Jito463 said:

My thoughts: Do we really need yet another thread discussing this same case?  Not trying to backseat moderate, just thinking out loud.

There are a lot of facts and changing info with this case. 

 

Trying to keep it in one thread is just asking for trouble. It would become confusing and hard to follow. 

 

But if you disagree, why not simply report the thread to the mods and be done with it?

 

That way they can decide for themselves whether it should be separate threads or not. 

[Trik'Stari]

On 1/20/2018 at 6:26 AM, Cookybiscuit said:

I hope this case wipes the Star Citizen devs out financially and early-access games die forever.

Because the rest of the industry, or should I say, most expensive part of the industry, as it sits, is so much better right?

 

It's not like all the major devs are making games, carving them up, then selling them off piece by piece and claiming that they aren't able to make enough money.

 

As opposed to offering a wide selection of base prices, and then letting the community that has purchased, watch as they make something awesome.

[dalekphalm]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Because the rest of the industry, or should I say, most expensive part of the industry, as it sits, is so much better right?

 

It's not like all the major devs are making games, carving them up, then selling them off piece by piece and claiming that they aren't able to make enough money.

Indeed to lump all early access games together is as foolish as lumping all gamers inside, say, the most toxic extreme subset of PCMR. 

 

Considering that Star Citizen is actively being worked on with clear signs of ongoing progress, I don’t think SC will be in development for ever. Though it may take longer than some people expect to be released. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed to lump all early access games together is as foolish as lumping all gamers inside, say, the most toxic extreme subset of PCMR. 

 

Considering that Star Citizen is actively being worked on with clear signs of ongoing progress, I don’t think SC will be in development for ever. Though it may take longer than some people expect to be released. 

The difference between SC and other games is that with SC being largely publicly funded there is a transparency to what is happening. This is something the public rarely see except for in controlled press releases.  

[AlTech]

On 21/01/2018 at 1:43 AM, pas008 said:

i'm not sure, would cig actually been able to crowd fund that much money without cryengine? by showing working gameplay?

 Crytek made the argument that they wouldn't have been able to.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

 Crytek made the argument that they wouldn't have been able to.

And on top of that the game has a lot of wow factor and acclaim to it even though it hasn't even been finished.  Crytek argue it's their work and IP but without their name in the credits and loss of payment after being ditched, so it might just get through on that, especially with the ambiguity of the "exclusive use" clause.

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And on top of that the game has a lot of wow factor and acclaim to it even though it hasn't even been finished.  Crytek argue it's their work and IP but without their name in the credits and loss of payment after being ditched, so it might just get through on that, especially with the ambiguity of the "exclusive use" clause.

Oh no, they do have stuff against CIG and RSI which definitely will stick.

 

CIG and RSI did not provide the promised optimizations and bug fixes to Crytek despite the fact they fixed bugs for themselves (they just didn't share them with Crytek).

 

But yeah, Crytek was claiming that the crowdfunding campaign would not have been a success without their help in making a pretty looking demo (let's be real, there is probably some truth to that).

[AlTech]

On 1/20/2018 at 1:40 PM, Tedny said:

so, creater of engine suits one of biggest buyer of that engine..... sorry,you lost me 

Crytek was hoping that CIG would help spread the word about CryEngine and would promote it through the use of the game.

 

Crytek gave CIG a discount of some description under the assumption that CIG would follow the license agreement and show CryEngine branding.

 

Crytek needed publicity of CryEngine and wanted Star Citizen to raise awareness of it's existence in a positive manner.