Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lawsuit'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome
    • Announcements & News
    • New Arrivals
  • Star Citizen - Roberts Space Industries
    • General Discussion
    • Ship Discussion
    • Professions
    • Multimedia and IT
    • Modding
    • Fleets & Recruitment
    • Role Playing & Fan Fiction
    • Off Topic
    • Imperium Embassy
  • SCB Marketplace
    • Ships & Packages
    • Other Items
  • Imperium Fleet

Product Groups

  • One Time Donations
  • Monthly Donations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. and some highlights: Refutation of CryTek's Claims Claim: CIG was only given permission to make "the game" with CryEngine, selling SQ42 standalone is in violation of this. Defense: The GLA defines "the game" as both "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'", with a passage allowing for name changes (Space Citizen > Star Citizen). Additionally, this term does not apply to any games made without CryEngine, and CryEngine is no longer used. Claim: CIG violated the GLA by switching from CryEngine to Lumberyard, they are only allowed to "exclusively" use CryEngine. Defense: The GLA says they are given "exclusive rights to use CryEngine" and the right "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the game". The well-established meaning of this wording is that the right is given only to them (and those subcontracted within the terms), not that they are only allowed to use CryEngine. Claim: CIG is no longer displaying CryTek copyright notices in game, in violation of the GLA. Defense: This obligation only applies if CIG is using CryEngine, which they are not. Claim: Ortwin was employed by CryTek prior to becoming CIG's attorney and co-founder so he had a conflict of interest when negotiating the contract. Defense: Ortwin received a signed waiver from CryTek dismissing any conflict of interest. Claim: Confidential source code was shown on Bugsmashers and disclosed to FaceWare in violation of the GLA. Defense: No defense provided, though FaceWare was after the switch to Lumberyard. Claim: CIG was required to provide any bugfixes they developed for CryEngine up until launch. Defense: No defense provided. Additional Statements The GLA prohibits either party from seeking any damages from one another "except for intentional acts or omissions or gross negligent acts". CIG, not RSI, is the signatory of the GLA, so CryTek committed a legal blunder by pursuing RSI rather than CIG in a number of claims. CIG seeks to have the entire complaint dismissed with prejudice (barring any further related action) on the grounds that none of the complaints are sufficient.
  2. I saw this today on my news feed and it made me kind of scratch my head. I don't have a 970, so I haven't been affected by this, but I can see this possibly being a bit of a black eye for Nvidia if the court decides to accept the lawsuit. What do you guys think about this? Valid lawsuit or people trying to make a fast buck? http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887234/nvidia-hit-with-false-advertising-suit-over-gtx-970-performance.html
×