Jump to content
Gremlich

Updates to Crytek's lawsuit vs CIG

Recommended Posts

CryTek filed their 'opposition' to the Motion for Bond ... consisting of 15 pages where these new lawyers are regurgitating the entire case with even more random allegations thrown in (including complaints that were already dismissed by the Judge) which as far as I am aware is not even relevant to a bond hearing as that stuff should have been in a Third Amended Complaint during the pleading stage and we have already moved beyond that stage when CryTek decided not to amend any further back in January.

Apparently they also forgot that this was supposed to just be an opposition to the Motion for Bond and only at the end did they apparently remember as the conclusion feels rather tacked on. Effectively they wrote 15 pages of random gibberish while grandstanding with claims that CryTek has no financial issues and is loaded with cash just to ask the Judge to either dismiss the Motion entirely or set it much lower for no reason. If CryTek has no financial issues and are loaded with cash I wonder why they take such issue with this measly $2.2M bond... ;)

Hell, this whole 'opposition' felt more like reading one of DS' incoherent blargs. :P

 

 

Also strange to see CryTek claiming that even if CIG is using Lumberyard they would still be bound by CryTek's GLA ... because Lumberyard is CryEngine. It's almost like they now want to claim that Lumberyard is still CryTek's property or something. Not sure if Amazon sees it the same way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Also strange to see CryTek claiming that even if CIG is using Lumberyard they would still be bound by CryTek's GLA ... because Lumberyard is CryEngine. It's almost like they want to claim that Lumberyard is still CryTek's property or something. Not sure if Amazon sees it the same way...

BAH GAWD, THAT'S AMAZON MUSIC! AND HE'S COMIN' IN WITH A STEEL CHAIR!

Holy shit! That's tempting fate if I've ever seen it. Arguing that everything using Amazon's Lumberyard is retroactively bound to CryTek's License Agreement sounds like a good way to get your entire case thrown out at best, or possibly restarting a whole new case that now involves the world's largest company on the side of the accused at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIG's legal team has responded to CryTek's rambling 'opposition' and it looks like they are wiping the floor with CryTek's new legal team. :P

 

document: DEFENDANTS ’ REPLY TO CRYTEK GMBH ’ S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ’ MOTION FOR BOND

  • NO SHOWING THAT CRYTEK IS GOOD FOR THE MONEY
  • NO SHOWING THAT CIG’S ESTIMATE IS UNREASONABLE
  • NO SHOWING AGAINST “REASONABLE POSSIBILITY”
  • Opposition Argument on Newly-Deflated Objectives is Inconsistent With Crytek’s Numerous Pleadings
  • Crytek Makes No Showing on the Merits
  • Crytek ignores the two big wins CIG already achieved.
  • Crytek does not even try to back up its Faceware claim.
  • Crytek concedes that it cannot prove the essential element of damages on the Bugsmashers claim.
  • Crytek provides no proof or legal support for its bug fixes claim.
  • Crytek fails to show why it should get credited for Amazon’s code or how Crytek was damaged by the loss of credit.
  • Crytek fails to show how the development of Squadron 42 breached the GLA or was impermissible under the Amazon license agreement.

re: Faceware:

In support of its bond motion, CIG submitted sworn declarations not only from CIG but also from non-party Faceware, verifying that, contrary to Crytek’s reckless allegations, Faceware did not have access to the CryEngine source code. Caught red-handed, Crytek submits nothing in response. The last gasp that it has “good reason to believe this disclosure occurred” lacks even an attempt at showing evidence underlying any such belief. This telling, naked, and irresponsible falsehood only underscores the propriety of the requested security.

re: Bugsmashers:

Moreover, Crytek sat on its hands for years before making any objection to the Bugsmashers videos. The record is devoid of Crytek demanding that CIG take any video down. That is not the behavior of a party with“meaningful and legitimate concerns” about the confidentiality of its code.

re: Amazon:

Crytek makes much of the fact that the code is the same, but that is only because Crytek cashed out on the code by selling it to Amazon, making CIG’s license from Amazon possible. If Crytek did not want Amazon to take credit for the code, Crytek should not have sold the code to Amazon. Suing Amazon’s licensees is not the solution.

...

Crytek has not argued, much less shown, that Amazon lacked the right to grant CIG a license to use the same CryEngine source code. Crytek cannot use the GLA to deprive CIG of the benefits of its separate license from Amazon.

TL;DR; In conclusion:

Crytek makes no showing about anything. The need for and propriety of bond security stand effectively undisputed. CIG’s broad freedom under the Amazon license was enabled by Crytek’s sale of the game engine to Amazon (for a lot of money that Crytek cannot show it even still has). The one-sided record empowers the Court to secure a future award of fees and costs flowing from Crytek’s defeats to date and the reasonably possible future defeats as outlined herein.

Imgur album containing images of all the pages from the pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update from Judge Dolly M. Gee regarding the Motion for Bond

Quote

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendants' Motion for a Bond Pursuant to Cal. Civ. P. Code ยง 1030 57 presently scheduled for hearing on June 28, 2019, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/27/2019)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/#minute-entry-92605146

Apparently the Judge does not need any additional information to make a decision regarding the Motion for Bond so the hearing is no longer needed. :)

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 Pharesm
      Those in Concierge may have noticed Third's topic on the $0 CCU removal having backfired completely, by formulating the database operation incorrectly.
      Some $0 CCUs that originally cost money before pricing changes were removed
      A lot of $0 CCUs that were free, now have a value due to price changes and have been left on accounts.
       
       
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...