F42, and EVERYTHING that is F42, and EVERYTHING that F42 has done, or will do, work wise, is covered by the floating charge.
How much of that coding work, and that asset work, has been produced by F42?
Multiple studios work and contribute code and assets to SC that is used to SQ42, things like PG tech that they are implementing in SQ42 were not developed by FQ42.
Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick; from the groundwork, it is not possible to tell wich company (studio) made what.
Also, say using Lumberyard and the bank wants to sell their engine with Lumberyard's code to third parties when it from the ground up, it is licensed (not owned) by CIG.
F42, and EVERYTHING that is F42, and EVERYTHING that F42 has done, or will do, work wise, is covered by the floating charge.
How much of that coding work, and that asset work, has been produced by F42?
Multiple studios work and contribute code and assets to SC that is used to SQ42, things like PG tech that they are implementing in SQ42 were not developed by FQ42.
Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick; from the groundwork, it is not possible to tell wich company (studio) made what.
Also, say using Lumberyard and the bank wants to sell their engine with Lumberyard's code to third parties when it from the ground up, it is licensed (not owned) by CIG.
Let me get this straight.
Are you trying to say that Foundry 42 (F42) have not produced any work at all, on SQ42 or SC?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Are you trying to say that Foundry 42 (F42) have not produced any work at all, on SQ42 or SC?
No, I'm saying that several companies did, and the core codebase engine, last reported 50% of the code is one engine licensed to CIG.
Ok, say you are just posting irrelevancies.
It does not matter what other companies did or did not do.
Any and all work that F42 have done, or will do, is covered by the floating charge, which mean's that work will belong to the bank if they default on the loan.
Sorting out which work was done by who may well be a difficult task, but that is also irrelevant to the discussion.
They probably will make good on the loan payment, and all this discussion may well end up being pointless, but I still wonder why they needed the loan in the first place, and why they needed it so badly that they were willing to put up the entirety of F42 on top of a government tax credit payment to secure it.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
It does not matter what other companies did or did not do.
Any and all work that F42 have done, or will do, is covered by the floating charge, which mean's that work will belong to the bank if they default on the loan.
Sorting out which work was done by who may well be a difficult task, but that is also irrelevant to the discussion.
They probably will make good on the loan payment, and all this discussion may well end up being pointless, but I still wonder why they needed the loan in the first place, and why they needed it so badly that they were willing to put up the entirety of F42 on top of a government tax credit payment to secure it.
Are you a lawyer? For sure everyone in this thread from sudden is a professional laywer and a banker.
Again, go prove this with lawyer providing a legal opinion in the document, then yes, we're just throwing unprofessional opinions influenced by our own views in CIG/SC and not from neutral standpoints.
But he is allowed to defend all of these things with statements presented as facts without any qualification requirements. The logic of a rabid fanboi.
He is making a STATEMENT on what it is, on an interpretation of a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
So say whatever, I'm not saying how I see it it's how it is, this is all opinions, now when it comes to proof go grab a lawyer to review this from a neutral standpoint and that's it.
Unless you are lawyer to make provide a legal statement within the British law, the claims being made are not proven to be as they say they are.
There is a lot of egg on people's faces today. I can't even imagine the secret inner humiliation, that must be swirling around in this thread now that the truth is out and it's so mundane and reasonable.
It does not matter what other companies did or did not do.
Any and all work that F42 have done, or will do, is covered by the floating charge, which mean's that work will belong to the bank if they default on the loan.
Sorting out which work was done by who may well be a difficult task, but that is also irrelevant to the discussion.
They probably will make good on the loan payment, and all this discussion may well end up being pointless, but I still wonder why they needed the loan in the first place, and why they needed it so badly that they were willing to put up the entirety of F42 on top of a government tax credit payment to secure it.
Are you a lawyer? For sure everyone in this thread from sudden is a professional laywer and a banker.
Again, go prove this with lawyer providing a legal opinion in the document, then yes, we're just throwing unprofessional opinions influenced by our own views in CIG/SC and not from neutral standpoints.
Please, stop using "are you a lawyer" as a straw man.
You do not need to be a lawyer to be able to read a document. You do not need to be a lawyer to understand a document you are reading. You do not even need to be a lawyer to understand how charges, floating charges, and negative pledges work.
Nothing I have said, or asked in my post's require's any interpretation of law.
I do conveyancing work, and contract out to numerous Soliciting firm's, so work with legal document's pertaining to transfer's of ownership, and I could say this probably make's me as qualified to discuss this as an entertainment lawyer is, but what would be the point?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
There is a lot of egg on people's faces today. I can't even imagine the secret inner humiliation, that must be swirling around in this thread now that the truth is out and it's so mundane and reasonable.
You're late to the thread. Now go catch up and read the Reddit post that breaks this down rather logically
Please, stop using "are you a lawyer" as a straw man.
You do not need to be a lawyer to be able to read a document. You do not need to be a lawyer to understand a document you are reading. You do not even need to be a lawyer to understand how charges, floating charges, and negative pledges work.
Nothing I have said, or asked in my post's require's any interpretation of law.
I do conveyancing work, and contract out to numerous Soliciting firm's, so work with legal document's pertaining to transfer's of ownership, and I could say this probably make's me as qualified to discuss this as an entertainment lawyer is, but what would be the point?
But you need to be a lawyer to prove the statements that you were defending rewarding to how it applies to SC, it ain't black and white there and it requires a professional opinion, also with possible dependencies in the British law.
Even if you are experienced, you are biased and so am I (your posting history here is clear on it), there needs to exist a professional neutral standpoint or it's not trustable, neither that guy in the refunds reddit (that is a known echo-chamber where he multiple times implied CIG as criminals), neither would yours, neither would mine.
Please, stop using "are you a lawyer" as a straw man.
You do not need to be a lawyer to be able to read a document. You do not need to be a lawyer to understand a document you are reading. You do not even need to be a lawyer to understand how charges, floating charges, and negative pledges work.
Nothing I have said, or asked in my post's require's any interpretation of law.
I do conveyancing work, and contract out to numerous Soliciting firm's, so work with legal document's pertaining to transfer's of ownership, and I could say this probably make's me as qualified to discuss this as an entertainment lawyer is, but what would be the point?
But you need to be a lawyer to prove the statements that you were defending rewarding to how it applies to SC, it ain't black and white there and it requires a professional opinion, also with possible dependencies in the British law.
Even if you are experienced, you are biased and so am I (your posting history here is clear on it), there needs to exist a professional neutral standpoint or it's not trustable, neither that guy in the refunds reddit (that is a known echo-chamber where he multiple times implied CIG as criminals), neither would yours, neither would mine.
So Ortwin's letter can then be taken as bias and probably bullshit since he has a highly vested interest in the project so guess we can't trust it
There is a lot of egg on people's faces today. I can't even imagine the secret inner humiliation, that must be swirling around in this thread now that the truth is out and it's so mundane and reasonable.
You're late to the thread. Now go catch up and read the Reddit post that breaks this down rather logically
No need. My wife is an intellectual property lawyer. I trust her word, over any number of lemmings with a grudge on the internets.
There is a lot of egg on people's faces today. I can't even imagine the secret inner humiliation, that must be swirling around in this thread now that the truth is out and it's so mundane and reasonable.
You're late to the thread. Now go catch up and read the Reddit post that breaks this down rather logically
No need. My wife is an intellectual property lawyer. I trust her word, over any number of lemmings with a grudge on the internets.
So Ortwin's letter can then be taken as bias and probably bullshit since he has a highly vested interest in the project so guess we can't trust it
Ortwin's letter is one company statement, not one opinion from the interpretation of a contract.
It's coming from the lawyer who has a vested interest in keeping the company going and who comes across as kinda a putz when you read their legal correspondence.
You clearly rly stated it needs to be a neutral source and Ortwin does not fall under that category.
Please, stop using "are you a lawyer" as a straw man.
You do not need to be a lawyer to be able to read a document. You do not need to be a lawyer to understand a document you are reading. You do not even need to be a lawyer to understand how charges, floating charges, and negative pledges work.
Nothing I have said, or asked in my post's require's any interpretation of law.
I do conveyancing work, and contract out to numerous Soliciting firm's, so work with legal document's pertaining to transfer's of ownership, and I could say this probably make's me as qualified to discuss this as an entertainment lawyer is, but what would be the point?
But you need to be a lawyer to prove the statements that you were defending rewarding to how it applies to SC, it ain't black and white there and it requires a professional opinion, also with possible dependencies in the British law.
Even if you are experienced, you are biased and so am I (your posting history here is clear on it), there needs to exist a professional neutral standpoint or it's not trustable, neither that guy in the refunds reddit (that is a known echo-chamber where he multiple times implied CIG as criminals), neither would yours, neither would mine.
Piggy one, I asked how much work F42 has produced, code wise, and asset wise, that is being used for SQ42 and SC.
Why do I need to be a lawyer for that?
Also, yes, we are biased, but guess what? so is everyone else, in one way or another, posting anywhere about SC/CIG/CR.
Since this is only a forum, a place for discussion, not a court of law, there does not need to be any "professional neutral standpoint", all of us, whichever side of the line our bias places us, are just typing opinion's, unless stated otherwise, and if stated otherwise, proof should be provided.
You can keep stating "your" need for a lawyer to throw their hat in the ring, and you can keep stating "your" need for a professional standpoint, but that is all it is, "your" need.
All I have done is state that I wonder why they needed the loan, why they needed it badly enough to put up the collateral they did, and offer my opinion's on the whole subject.
My first post in this thread, was a counter to the implied doom and gloom of the Op.
You have replied a lot, but you have not actually engaged in the discussion, or answered any of my question's, all you have done is use straw men and clicked "wtf" a lot.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
I get that you have no reason to trust me, or my word. I have no reason to believe you aren't paid derek smart shillites. And in the grand scheme of the internets, it really doesn't matter. The game will continue to get funded. It will continue to get developed. And nothing you can do .. no matter what rooftops you scream from, will do anything at all to stop that. It's silly to even try, expecially when all you have as evidence is blatant fear mongering. Even your fake news outlets walked back their articles so fast they got whiplash.
But he is allowed to defend all of these things with statements presented as facts without any qualification requirements. The logic of a rabid fanboi.
He is making a STATEMENT on what it is, on an interpretation of a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
Unless you are lawyer to make provide a legal statement within the British law, the claims being made are not proven to be as they say they are.
Yes he is and he is perfectly allowed to do so. You are also making a STATEMENT on what it is, on an interpretation of a LEGAL DOCUMENT, see exhibit F.O-MAX below
"Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick"
Unless you are a lawyer with thorough understanding of the intricacies involved in this loan agreement you are not allowed to make a STATEMENT on a subject covered in the LEGAL DOCUMENT.
Why does a company that raised 150mil need the services of a bank to get a loan for a tax rebate? Because they are broke. This isn't rocket science people. You don't go and pay a bank a fee to do this if you can just wait until the end of the year. Why would they just now be doing this? They didn't bother with it before probably because they had money in the bank and didn't need to. I swear the paid shills and fanboys on this site just suck up all the spin and repeat it like it is some kind of religious cult at this point.
I get that you have no reason to trust me, or my word. I have no reason to believe you aren't paid derek smart shillites. And in the grand scheme of the internets, it really doesn't matter. The game will continue to get funded. It will continue to get developed. And nothing you can do .. no matter what rooftops you scream from, will do anything at all to stop that. It's silly to even try, expecially when all you have as evidence is blatant fear mongering. Even your fake news outlets walked back their articles so fast they got whiplash.
Well at least you're smart enough to realize no one will probably believe your claim and that talking on a outside forum will not magically stop funding.
I don't read those sites so they aren't my news sites lol I went right to the document when this thread was posted instead of reading someone else's interpretation of it
Also, yes, we are biased, but guess what? so is everyone else, in one way or another, posting anywhere about SC/CIG/CR.
It's irrelevant in a very strong point, if we are to make a statement to claim that as proven information and not one's opinion and understanding of it, then we need someone who has no involvement to review the contract, the claims, and so clarify what it is or isn't.
I accept what I say about this isn't anything side of my opinion and so should everyone else because when it comes to legal matters what the internet says several times falls in opposites of reality, especially when discussing ongoing lawsuits.
Yes he is and he is perfectly allowed to do so. You are also making a STATEMENT on what it is, on an interpretation of a LEGAL DOCUMENT, see exhibit F.O-MAX below
"Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick"
Unless you are a lawyer with thorough understanding of the intricacies involved in this loan agreement you are not allowed to make a STATEMENT on a subject covered in the LEGAL DOCUMENT.
I already claimed it is MY OPINION.
Nobody can claim this as fact until it can be done so, a war of opinions and even speculation over something won't settle as a fact. It's a very complex area, especially within legal matters where only professionals from a neutral standpoint could do a proper review, even so, it still requires speculation in how a situation would play out.
From legal terminology having different meanings in different areas to the law and regulations of each country, it's all things to consider to be able to accurately claim something.
Comments
Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick; from the groundwork, it is not possible to tell wich company (studio) made what.
Also, say using Lumberyard and the bank wants to sell their engine with Lumberyard's code to third parties when it from the ground up, it is licensed (not owned) by CIG.
Are you trying to say that Foundry 42 (F42) have not produced any work at all, on SQ42 or SC?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/6jear8/star_citizen_now_belongs_to_the_bank/djdxa18/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/6jgfq0/official_cig_response_to_the_loan_news/djeboq8/
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
It does not matter what other companies did or did not do.
Any and all work that F42 have done, or will do, is covered by the floating charge, which mean's that work will belong to the bank if they default on the loan.
Sorting out which work was done by who may well be a difficult task, but that is also irrelevant to the discussion.
They probably will make good on the loan payment, and all this discussion may well end up being pointless, but I still wonder why they needed the loan in the first place, and why they needed it so badly that they were willing to put up the entirety of F42 on top of a government tax credit payment to secure it.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
For sure everyone in this thread from sudden is a professional laywer and a banker.
Again, go prove this with lawyer providing a legal opinion in the document, then yes, we're just throwing unprofessional opinions influenced by our own views in CIG/SC and not from neutral standpoints.
So say whatever, I'm not saying how I see it it's how it is, this is all opinions, now when it comes to proof go grab a lawyer to review this from a neutral standpoint and that's it.
Unless you are lawyer to make provide a legal statement within the British law, the claims being made are not proven to be as they say they are.
There is a lot of egg on people's faces today. I can't even imagine the secret inner humiliation, that must be swirling around in this thread now that the truth is out and it's so mundane and reasonable.
You do not need to be a lawyer to be able to read a document.
You do not need to be a lawyer to understand a document you are reading.
You do not even need to be a lawyer to understand how charges, floating charges, and negative pledges work.
Nothing I have said, or asked in my post's require's any interpretation of law.
I do conveyancing work, and contract out to numerous Soliciting firm's, so work with legal document's pertaining to transfer's of ownership, and I could say this probably make's me as qualified to discuss this as an entertainment lawyer is, but what would be the point?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Even if you are experienced, you are biased and so am I (your posting history here is clear on it), there needs to exist a professional neutral standpoint or it's not trustable, neither that guy in the refunds reddit (that is a known echo-chamber where he multiple times implied CIG as criminals), neither would yours, neither would mine.
You clearly rly stated it needs to be a neutral source and Ortwin does not fall under that category.
If it was someone saying the same but agreeing with the guy in that reddit how sure I am you would be super supportive. hehe
For the contract yes, the company statement clarifies is what was it for and in what context, information that wasn't present in such contract.
Why do I need to be a lawyer for that?
Also, yes, we are biased, but guess what? so is everyone else, in one way or another, posting anywhere about SC/CIG/CR.
Since this is only a forum, a place for discussion, not a court of law, there does not need to be any "professional neutral standpoint", all of us, whichever side of the line our bias places us, are just typing opinion's, unless stated otherwise, and if stated otherwise, proof should be provided.
You can keep stating "your" need for a lawyer to throw their hat in the ring, and you can keep stating "your" need for a professional standpoint, but that is all it is, "your" need.
All I have done is state that I wonder why they needed the loan, why they needed it badly enough to put up the collateral they did, and offer my opinion's on the whole subject.
My first post in this thread, was a counter to the implied doom and gloom of the Op.
You have replied a lot, but you have not actually engaged in the discussion, or answered any of my question's, all you have done is use straw men and clicked "wtf" a lot.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Yes he is and he is perfectly allowed to do so. You are also making a STATEMENT on what it is, on an interpretation of a LEGAL DOCUMENT, see exhibit F.O-MAX below
"Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick"
Unless you are a lawyer with thorough understanding of the intricacies involved in this loan agreement you are not allowed to make a STATEMENT on a subject covered in the LEGAL DOCUMENT.
and for the record I did say that reddit post might be bullshit but easy to ignore that to support your agenda eh?
The statement made is damage control. I'm surprised Ortwins tongue isn't brown from the verbal diarrhea he likes to spout
I don't read those sites so they aren't my news sites lol I went right to the document when this thread was posted instead of reading someone else's interpretation of it
edited to make sense lol
I accept what I say about this isn't anything side of my opinion and so should everyone else because when it comes to legal matters what the internet says several times falls in opposites of reality, especially when discussing ongoing lawsuits.
Nobody can claim this as fact until it can be done so, a war of opinions and even speculation over something won't settle as a fact. It's a very complex area, especially within legal matters where only professionals from a neutral standpoint could do a proper review, even so, it still requires speculation in how a situation would play out.
From legal terminology having different meanings in different areas to the law and regulations of each country, it's all things to consider to be able to accurately claim something.