A lawyers opinion that is actually non biased

Kefo

Instead of making YouTube videos and arguing how everything is a slam dunk for CIG here is a lawyer who takes an unbiased look at the facts and explains why it might not be a slam dunk as some other lawyers have said.

http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/

bartoni33

Well that looked pretty legit but I can't tell if he's wearing a ridiculous hat or not so I'm not sure.

What I did learn is the law does not care for small things which explains a lot.

Erillion

Thank you for the link.

I read this as "we cannot say yet, let's see what additional documents CryTek brings and how the court interprets certain words like exclusively ".

I like that the author explains certain legal principles which will be guidelines for the court when they read the arguments from both sides. 


Have fun

Cotic

Ah but his objectivity will not matter because he used to work for The Escapist and therefore he must clearly be biased.... or something.

That comment section though... wow and I thought this place was bad.

Kefo

Erillion said:

Thank you for the link.

I read this as "we cannot say yet, let's see what additional documents CryTek brings and how the court interprets certain words like exclusively ".

I like that the author explains certain legal principles which will be guidelines for the court when they read the arguments from both sides. 


Have fun

Erillion the moons must have aligned again cause I'm agreeing with you here. That was the same way I read it and really the only interpretation that is valid at this point.

Kefo

Cotic said:

Ah but his objectivity will not matter because he used to work for The Escapist and therefore he must clearly be biased.... or something.

That comment section though... wow and I thought this place was bad.

I didn't look at the comments but kinda want to now lol

MaxBacon

So it is not biased, yet it reaches similar conclusions as the ones you accuse of being biased? hm

The only difference is that this one stands a conservative approach to possibilities on what may happen.

flizzer

Whenever someone posts a link to article/video and say "unbiased" it simply means the person agrees with posters opinion.

Cotic

MaxBacon said:

So it is not biased, yet it reaches similar conclusions as the ones you accuse of being biased? hm

It is like this quote though, the wording and tone is what sets things apart. Instead of Game Over Crytek or Slam Dunk CIG or Lies, Lies, Lies it is a more measured impartial response and none of the obvious choosing a side.

Like @Erillion I appreciate the explanation of the legal terms.

Kefo

flizzer said:

Whenever someone posts a link to article/video and say "unbiased" it simply means the person agrees with posters opinion.

Didn't read it did you?

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

So it is not biased, yet it reaches similar conclusions as the ones you accuse of being biased? hm

The only difference is that this one stands a conservative approach to possibilities on what may happen.

Like @Cotic said the article isn't for or against any side. It explains how CIG's response is fair and how things might possibly be in their favour for a dismissal but at the same time it offers up counter points that could swing things back in favour of Crytek.

The other youtube videos were very much in favour of CIG as they just dismissed everything Crytek wrote and didn't stop to think maybe they have other evidence that would unseat CIG's arguments.

Vrika

MaxBacon said:

So it is not biased, yet it reaches similar conclusions as the ones you accuse of being biased? hm

The only difference is that this one stands a conservative approach to possibilities on what may happen.

Bias is not determined by the conclusion reached, it's determined by the way one uses to reach that conclusion.

MaxBacon

Vrika said:

Bias is not determined by the conclusion reached, it's determined by the way one uses to reach that conclusion.

By reading the contract and the complaint?

When I saw Leonard French and him reading and explaining through the complaint/defense for 1 hour, that's how the same points were brought.

Turrican187

Is there a reason why CIG didn't answer on all complaints? AFAIK there have been 5 complains and CIG wants to dismiss the case but answered on just 2 or 3 accusations.

MaxBacon

Turrican187 said:

Is there a reason why CIG didn't answer on all complaints? AFAIK there have been 5 complains and CIG wants to dismiss the case but answered on just 2 or 3 accusations.

• Claim: CIG was only given permission to make "the game" (singular) with CryEngine, selling a second game (SQ42) 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 established legal 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.

So 2 claims were not defended.

Have you noticed Crytek when they withdrawn the accusations of conflict of interest, have moved to edit the accusation to imply "they did it on purpose!"? I think they were trying to weaken the GLA with the conflict of interest claim, so now they have to get past the "no damages" clause in the contract and that seems to be how they are leveling it.

Elsabolts

If CIG's lawyer's see blood in the water they will settle out of court very quickly.

Pingu2012

MaxBacon said:

Turrican187 said:

Is there a reason why CIG didn't answer on all complaints? AFAIK there have been 5 complains and CIG wants to dismiss the case but answered on just 2 or 3 accusations.

• Claim: CIG was only given permission to make "the game" (singular) with CryEngine, selling a second game (SQ42) 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 established legal 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.

So 2 claims were not defended.

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.


This just seems bizarre...I mean if he has a signed waiver why are they even arguing to start with? 

Seems like we get such a small part of the information that we may as well know nothing.

Cotic

MaxBacon said:

Vrika said:

Bias is not determined by the conclusion reached, it's determined by the way one uses to reach that conclusion.

By reading the contract and the complaint?

When I saw Leonard French and him reading and explaining through the complaint/defense for 1 hour, that's how the same points were brought. Your point?

From what people were saying Leonard French skipped over certain parts which might have been beneficial to Crytek and only weighed in on the parts that were of benefit to CIG, which could easily be interpreted as bias.

Perhaps the point here is that an article that takes two minutes to read does a fairer job than a video that takes one hour to watch, leaving us with an extra fifty eight minutes to argue on the forums

Elsabolts

If this can be dragged out in court both sides of lawyers could make some money and delay SC even longer.

MaxBacon

Pingu2012 said:

This just seems bizarre...I mean if he has a signed waiver why are they even arguing to start with? 

Seems like we get such a small part of the information that we may as well know nothing.

It is bizarre alright.

Crytek does the accusation of conflict of interest, what could weaken the contract and level their case...

...yet Crytek forgot(?) they gave Ortwin a waiver letter. And that was their blunder forcing them to withdraw the accusation by amending the complaint.

Cotic said:
From what people were saying Leonard French skipped over certain parts which might have been beneficial to Crytek and only weighed in on the parts that were of benefit to CIG, which could easily be interpreted as bias.

Perhaps the point here is that an article that takes two minutes to read does a fairer job than a video that takes one hour to watch, leaving us with an extra fifty eight minutes to argue on the forums

I saw those accusations, there was validity drama, especially the one "oh he didn't address point 2.4!". Yet, and this article here explains it, that point is a biased perception by itself and it doesn't mean what it was being argued against French as well.

aliven

Is that lawyer a side of the lawsuit? If no then i assume he dont know jack shit because he dont have proper materials. 

Orinori

I didn't really read much different here. Nice to see another opinion though.

Wizardry

"non biased"oh so he just happened stumble onto this lawsuit?

Want to know the obvious,why was he seeking a letter of full approval.Likely because Crytek would never have thought some serious scams incoming through various wording.He would obviously know how to deal with Crytek having worked within the team.

Even on some of the ODD points,the lawyer nor ourselves know if those may not have been points created by the CIG team/Ortwin as a sort of smoke screeen to "appear" HONEST.You know,look at what we are willing to do for you if you sign this license contract.

Arillix

Yea, here's the thing, Crytek only has so much time left to respond to the MtD.
If nothing else is heard, it will likely mean they conceded.
Similar, to the Escapist, and CIG very quietly removing all traces of the event. 

MaxBacon

Arillix said:

Yea, here's the thing, Crytek only has so much time left to respond to the MtD.
If nothing else is heard, it will likely mean they conceded.
Similar, to the Escapist, and CIG very quietly removing all traces of the event. 

I do gotta say everyone thought they backtracked and didn't pursue on the threats, nobody had any idea of what was happening in the background that in the end got The Escapist to give in (and nobody still knows what was up and how/why did they settle).

As for Crytek I think the case goes to court because even if the judge agrees with CIG's motion to dismiss, the motion does not cover all the accusations.

Cotic

Arillix said:

Yea, here's the thing, Crytek only has so much time left to respond to the MtD.
If nothing else is heard, it will likely mean they conceded.
Similar, to the Escapist, and CIG very quietly removing all traces of the event. 

Another working week I believe, it will be interesting to see if it proceeds any farther.