CIG Responds in Support of Dismissing Crytek's First Amended Complaint [Crytek vs CIG & RSI lawsuit]

[AlTech]

Star Citizen has responded in support of dismissing Crytek's First Amended Complaint.

 

RSI and CIG are fighting back against Crytek (again).

 

The word Exlusively word is causing so many headaches. Defendants claim that Crytek has used Exclusively to mean different things if in fact Crytek was trying to "shackle" CIG to CryEngine.

 

In one instance Crytek's definition of Exclusively suggests that Crytek is forcing Defendants to manufacture, produce, market and exploit the game. Whilst in another instance, Crytek's definition suggests that Defendant are are forced to use CryEngine forever when developing the Game.

 

The former sounds ludicrous and is absolutely hilarious.

 

Defendants argue that the GLA prevents them from engaging in the business of creating a game engine which competes with cryengine.

 

Defendants also argue that the word exclusively does not need to be defined as it already is unambiguous in the usage in the GLA.

 

Defendants continued to argue that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 were permitted to be developed in CryEngine and were permitted to switch to Amazon Lumberyard.

 

We may end up seeing a second Amended Complaint.

 

For now, the facts have been yet to determined. We'll just have to wait for what the Judge thinks. I personally am not favoring either side as they've both made mistakes and both clearly had not spent enough time putting together the GLA.

 

Source:

 

[Thermosman]

7 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

may end up seeing a second Ammended Complaint.

 

Wrong amendment

Edit: Nevermind if you meant amended, read as amendment

[Hero7750]

2 minutes ago, Thermosman said:

Wrong amendment

Edit: Nevermind if you meant amended, read as amendment

I read that wrong too and I was like "when did they get guns involved"

[shermantanker]

3 hours ago, Hero7750 said:

I read that wrong too and I was like "when did they get guns involved"

I thought the same thing lol

[dalekphalm]

Yeah I watched the video yesterday. 

 

Honestly CIG has the stronger position here and the more well reasoned arguments. 

 

CryTek have filled their documents with superfluous language, which appears to be designed to confuse the reader into making assumptions and leaps of logic that the facts do not support.

 

Furthermore, CryTek’s arguments rely on a lot of unusual interpretations for wording. 

 

It could still go either way, but I’m still leaning towards CIG getting the more positive outcome. 

[Misanthrope]

I'm watching Leonard's video on it. It seems like Crytek mains claims are "You did more than one game" (Though to show since none of that is officially released) and "You didn't contribute your code improvements back".

 

Seems like this is a very Linux-like case since the GLP basically states that you can use it for free but you cannot "close" the source meaning any contributions you have to contribute back. Not sure if this has been tested in court yet so it's an already challenging claim to make but more so for a commercial license: You're selling me the code but you want me to make it better for you? Then what the hell did I bought?

 

It's not unheard of I think but it just doesn't has the same optics the GNU and Linux guys have which is aiming to be more philanthropic in nature (Even if it often turns misanthropic instead)

[dalekphalm]

56 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I'm watching Leonard's video on it. It seems like Crytek mains claims are "You did more than one game" (Though to show since none of that is officially released) and "You didn't contribute your code improvements back".

 

Seems like this is a very Linux-like case since the GLP basically states that you can use it for free but you cannot "close" the source meaning any contributions you have to contribute back. Not sure if this has been tested in court yet so it's an already challenging claim to make but more so for a commercial license: You're selling me the code but you want me to make it better for you? Then what the hell did I bought?

 

It's not unheard of I think but it just doesn't has the same optics the GNU and Linux guys have which is aiming to be more philanthropic in nature (Even if it often turns misanthropic instead)

The interesting thing about it, is that the very first page of the GLA defines "the game" as "Space Citizen" (Error or name change to Star Citizen - possible early pre-release name before Star Citizen was chosen) and the "related game Squadron 42".

 

So literally any time the GLA refers to "The Game", it means both SC and SQ42.

 

In addition, there's a clause in the GLA that states only intentional breaches, or breaches of gross negligence, are liable for monetary damages. And both of those things would be considered "tort", which CryTek has specifically said they aren't suing for Tort damages.

 

So, I dunno. CryTek seems to have really misinterpreted the GLA. Or they know they will lose, and they are hoping this will simply give them additional PR and exposure.

 

The Bug Fixes thing would likely not fall under intentional breaches either, so even if they did breach the GLA by not giving CryTek bug fixes, it's something that they can't be sued over anyway.

 

Granted, I think this will still go to court. But I suspect the court will dismiss one or two claims immediately, and that the court will then interpret the GLA and set clear what it "means".

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Seems like this is a very Linux-like case since the GLP

*GPL

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

It's not unheard of I think but it just doesn't has the same optics the GNU and Linux guys have which is aiming to be more philanthropic in nature (Even if it often turns misanthropic instead)

Yeah. At first I thought I liked GPL but I ended up almost hating it.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

*GPL

Yeah. At first I thought I liked GPL but I ended up almost hating it.

Aye: Much like Communism, compelled niceness isn't the solution: there's other ways to foster cooperation and shared knowledge than "Or else I'll fucking sue you"