Jump to content
Gremlich

Updates to Crytek's lawsuit vs CIG

Recommended Posts

On 12/31/2018 at 6:21 PM, FoxChard said:

Derek does not lay down dates. He just has a rant, shows some of their stuff from the financials website, rages that a company spends money, and then says something like "I told you so" at the end. I went to go look because I was morbidly curious. Normally I don't bother to read his drivel.

DS is a complete nutjob who desperately seeks attention because his own games fail miserably.
Chris Roberts could at this point literally save a litter of kittens from a burning house and DS would rant how that somehow means the end of Star Citizen:
How dare Chris Roberts spend backer money on kittens!? Those kittens are probably in on the whole deal... or in fact, there ARE no kittens and it's just kitten-jpegs!!
My inside sources confirm the kittens are actually shadowy investors! The fire was a distraction so we wouldn't see the sinking ship! Release your finances on kitten-saving, CIG!
GRAAAAAAH!

In any case, I think @Drum hit the nail on the head there. CryTek wants to be a part of these developments and to get their hands on all the sweet new tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 2:48 AM, Aleaf said:

i am no lawyer. can't say how that stuff works, but it is going to make crytek look pretty stupid if they lose in the courts. 

That, my friends, is what greed does to people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Plaintiff hereby notifies Defendants and the Court that it will not be amending the Second Amended Complaint at this time. Plaintiff reserves its rights to seek leave to amend its pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) at a later stage of the proceedings in this action.

Wierd... So this is why they needed 3 more weeks only to realize they have nothing left to twist into a complaint yet now it seems they want to postpone the right to amend indefinitely? 

I really wonder what "later stage" CryTek is referring to here. As I recall the main complaints ('Exclusive Use' and 'In the Business of') got thrown out completely. Unless they still want to harp on about alleged code being shown on a Bugsmashers episode (something they haven't shown any evidence of). I believe that one allegation is the only thing that 'survived' the pleading stage with the rest being just filler and you'd have to wonder how CryTek thinks it will get any money from that. 

EDIT: It looks like any and all complaints were thrown out after the Judge granted the MtD on the SAC as it replaced any and all complaints from the FAC. So not sure if there even is anything left.

"Plaintiff should note that when an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect, unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading. See West Run Student Housing Associates, LLC v. Huntington National Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 2013 WL 1338986, 5 (3d Cir. 2013)(collecting [12] cases). See also 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2008). An amended complaint may adopt some or all of the allegations in the original complaint, but the identification of the particular allegations to be adopted must be clear and explicit. Id. To avoid confusion, the safer course is to file an amended complaint that is complete in itself. Id."

 

Also 15(a)(2) which they're referring to here requires that either the Judge or CIG grants them permission to amend. If they do not get that permission the case will be closed.

Other Amendments.

In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what can i say about this lawsuit from crytek that has been said about the war with iraq ? crytek made claims, went all in with no proof, took casualties, and now doesn't have a exit strategy so it is having trouble pulling out.  

5bb84e3b210000d601c9396e.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moderate swing voter actually. i find devoted party affiliation to be like brand loyalty, a silly concept that leaves you wearing nikes to a board meeting. unacceptable, and that is coming from a man who doesn't wear pants during skype meetings. let's not turn this to politics though. i know i kindda went there a bit in effort for a joke, but let's keep it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Aleaf said:

what can i say about this lawsuit from crytek that has been said about the war with iraq ? crytek made claims, went all in with no proof, took casualties, and now doesn't have a exit strategy so it is having trouble pulling out.  

And made a group of people that was otherwise indifferent to them hostile, causing problems for them and anything they try to do in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIG's answer to CryTek's SAC. Basically just CIG further clarifying their previous position as to why CryTek has no case. 

https://www.docdroid.net/WPfo6Rw/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp-et-al-cacdce-17-08937-00530.pdf

 

It was interesting to read that after CIG had announced the SQ42 split CryTek contacted them about it by phone and claimed it would be a breach of the GLA but after CIG clarified it CryTek's counsel concluded it was not a breach and retracted their complaint (only to pretend it's now a breach again for their lawsuit).

Quote

 

24.

Defendants admit that, on a February 5, 2016 telephone call, Crytek’s counsel expressed to Mr. Freyermuth Crytek’s concern about Defendants distributing “Squadron 42” as a standalone game. Defendants aver that, on this phone call, Mr. Freyermuth clarified Defendants’ plans with respect to “Squadron 42,” which Crytek’s counsel agreed would not violate the GLA. Defendants further aver that, on February 7, 2016, Mr. Freyermuth sent an email to Crytek’s counsel memorializing their telephone conversation and stating that Defendants would publish a corrective statement to clarify that “Squadron 42” would remain functionally tied to “Star Citizen” and only accessible through the “Star Citizen” game client, which Defendants did on February 8, 2016.

 

 

It's also good to see CIG's legal counsel bringing up CryTek's failure to register their CryEngine3 at the copyright office and how CryTek is now effectively trying to claim copyright infringement for unregistered works (which is why they can't claim statutory damages). :P

Quote

 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Register)

Crytek has failed to register the copyrights in one or more of the versions of the

CryEngine computer program it alleges Defendants infringed and thus is not permitted to

file this suit or maintain this action as to those unregistered works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There hasn't been much happening for a while apart from some minor stuff that wasn't really worth mentioning but yesterday CIG has filed a motion with the Judge for CryTek to provide money for a bond in the amount of $2,193,298.45 to secure the award of attorneys’ fees and costs that Defendants will be entitled to receive as the prevailing party in this action.

This sounds like CIG wants to make sure that CryTek will be forced to transfer funds into a holding account now so that CIG can lay claim to those funds later for their legal fees should they be deemed the prevailing party in the lawsuit (which is very likely now). Especially since CryTek was proven to have many financial issues in the past already and CIG doesn't want to be stuck holding the bill if CryTek has no intention to pay up should they lose (which is very likely as well).

CryTek has already refused to agree to this bond voluntarily hence why CIG is now filing a motion through the court for an Order by the Judge.

From what I understand this bond would make sure that CIG's legal team gets paid as per California Civil Code § 1717(a) should CIG be deemed the prevailing party instead of continuing with what's going on with CryTek attempting to play a game of high-stakes bluff poker without ever putting (or having) any money in the pot themselves.

This bond money would prevent CryTek (a foreign company) from simply jumping ship, flat-out refuse to pay, or filing for bankruptcy or something after losing in court just so they can stiff CIG on the estimated $2 Million+ in legal fees that CryTek is now forcing upon CIG for their defense while the 3 Yerli brothers could then simply run away back to Turkey with all the money they already funneled away from their dying company. They already performed a stunt where 1 brother stepped down as CEO and then the other 2 brothers became the new CEOs (with the former CEO naturally getting a lucrative severance package in the process). To me this entire lawsuit was done out of spite and I suspect that the Yerli brothers have no intention of paying CIG's legal costs after CryTek loses in court and ordered by the Judge to pay CIG's legal fees.

Also, the Director of Product Development at Faceware chimed in (Attachment 15) basically stating that CryTek are lying as Faceware was never provided with any CryEngine sourcecode as CryTek was claiming. :P

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/?order_by=desc

CIG-Crytek-BOND1.thumb.png.1b737f35800eb26887a9cb23f64a5194.png

CIG-Crytek-BOND.thumb.png.d958ff8ffccbd7224420f82d537fb657.png

CIG-Crytek-BOND3.thumb.png.f5aa5eab105428619a364726276214bb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like CryTek is finally realizing that they are on the losing end and are now aware of the risks involved with CIG's motion for the Judge to order a $2.2M bond from CryTek as they suddenly appear open to more realistic settlement talks now that CIG has a good chance at being deemed the prevailing party. CryTek has already agreed to put their demands for Discovery on hold with this Motion for Bond now looming over them.

As such I expect that CryTek is finally coming to the table in earnest and will be forced to agree to a reasonable (and likely much smaller) settlement or risk losing $2.2M if they persist in continuing this farce. Lior Leser already made a guess that it will likely be settled for $100k-$150k and then it's over. Ofcourse this might still be the final nail in the coffin for CryTek as a company once their expensive lawyers present their bill to them as each party would have to pay for their own legal fees. But that was the risk CryTek was willing to take when filing this joke of a lawsuit so them potentially going bankrupt over it is entirely their own fault. ;)

Ofcourse such a settlement would also cost CIG around $200k-$250k in settlement and legal fees but that's a drop in the bucket for CIG and I would be more than happy to buy another concept ship just to mitigate CIG's losses while CryTek will finally go away. :P

Quote

Joint STIPULATION to Continue HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR BOND PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE CIV. P. 1030 from April 26, 2019 to June 28, 2019 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Bond for Costs and Fees Pursuant to CCP ยง 1030 57 filed by plaintiff Crytek GmbH. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation To Continue Hearing On Defendants Motion For Bond Pursuant To Cal. Code Civ. P. 1030)(Pak, James) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

Quote
  • "the parties have conferred and agree that postponing the hearing on the Motion for Bond will facilitate the complete briefing of the Motion for Bond and the parties’ ongoing efforts to resolve this matter through settlement"
  • "the parties further agree that a stay of Defendants’ obligation to respond to the pending discovery is appropriate pending the resolution of the Motion for Bond"

 

The Judge has already given her Order on the 8th of April regarding this matter but I wasn't able to get a copy of that document yet (as I don't want to pay for it). I assume she merely accepted the Proposed Order (Attachment 1) to postpone the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer and some of this goes past me.
Is this a Put Up Or Shut Up strategy?
Forcing them to accept the possibility of costs when they lose?
Or just business as usual in these affairs? - DRUM out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 11:37 PM, Drum said:

Not a lawyer and some of this goes past me.
Is this a Put Up Or Shut Up strategy?
Forcing them to accept the possibility of costs when they lose?
Or just business as usual in these affairs? - DRUM out

I'm not a lawyer either but it does appear to be as you say: "Put up or shut up"

Apparently there are actual procedures that serve to protect a defendant when they are being sued by a foreign plaintiff in a US California Court by demanding a bond from the foreign party if it can be reasonably shown that the defendants have a chance at being declared the prevailing party and then there is the concern that this foreign plaintiff may not (be able to) adhere to a ruling where they have to pay the defendant's legal costs.

As Crytek's big-ticket items have already been thrown out during the pleading stage with their remaining complaints being more of the minor "filler" variety while their own financial state is questionable at best CIG's legal team has shown that there is a reasonable chance of CIG being declared the prevailing party and wants to make sure their client won't get stiffed on the bill should CryTek refuse to pay for CIG's legal costs. 

The way I see it, if the Judge rules that the Motion for Bond is warranted and makes it an Order then CryTek has to make $2.2M available to a holding account (most likely set up and held by the Court). But if CryTek refuses to comply (or is unable to comply due to their financial state) the Judge may throw their entire case out and declare CIG to be the prevailing party right then and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Nord
      I'm curious, what is the average salary for a developer at CIG?
      Doing a quick google search the lowest is around $44k a year to $120k a year for a game developer. This is in the US. CIG has multiple studios around the world which also differentiate the average income. Let's say the average across all studios is $60k a year (a "wild" guess) and they now have around 500 employees. That's $30 million each year.
      Do we know how much CIG has used on salaries since 2012? I don't know the math here since I don't know all the numbers, but my wild guess would be around $80-90 million since 2012. If you add properties and other costs I'm thinking we are around $130 million in total. Giving them a $70 million + buffer, which is a 2 year salary guarantee for those 500 employees.  
       
      If this is even close, I feel comfort in knowing the funding is still going strong and they have at least 2 years to finish it up if money stops flowing. 
       
    • By VoA
      Reduced price for five game packages (free fly event) = Time to get your friends into SC for cheap 😃
        See https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/game-packages
      GAME PACKAGES
          All Sort by: PriceName   AURORA MR STARTER PACK 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $35.00 USD$45.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART MUSTANG ALPHA STAR CITIZEN + SQUADRON 42 COMBO - 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $55.00 USD$65.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART AURORA MR STAR CITIZEN + SQUADRON 42 COMBO 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $55.00 USD$65.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART

      MUSTANG ALPHA STARTER PACK 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $35.00 USD$45.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART

      RELIANT KORE SC STARTER 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $75.00 USD$85.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFO
       
    • By VoA
      Star Citizen Development Process Interview Summary
      Inside the Star Citizen Development Process Full Article | https://wccftech.com/inside-the-star-citizen-development-process-exclusive-interview/
       
       
    • By Gremlich
      CIG cancelled due to technical difficulties. will show tomorrow, 22 Dec.
      I cannot defend them in public over this after they've had a literal freaking year to get their shit together.
    • By Donut
      Apparently it seems that Crytek wants a piece of the cake after the success CIG brought with using the founding elements of CryEngine. They now are suing for copyright infringement. I feel like this is a last dick move to try and save themselves before they finally go under.
       
      https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG

×
×
  • Create New...