Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A lawyers opinion that is actually non biased

KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
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/
CoticOctagon7711
«1

Comments

  • bartoni33bartoni33 Member RarePosts: 2,044
    Well that looked pretty legit but I can't tell if he's wearing a ridiculous hat or not so I'm not sure. :p

    What I did learn is the law does not care for small things which explains a lot.
    KefoCotickikoodutroa8

    Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.


  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    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
    bartoni33
  • CoticCotic Member UncommonPosts: 268
    edited January 2018
    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.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    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.
    bartoni33Octagon7711
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    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
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    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.
    bartoni33
  • flizzerflizzer Member RarePosts: 2,438
    Whenever someone posts a link to article/video and say "unbiased" it simply means the person agrees with posters opinion.

    Shodanas
  • CoticCotic Member UncommonPosts: 268
    edited January 2018
    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.
    bartoni33
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    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?
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    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.
    bartoni33
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,438
    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.
    bartoni33Pingu2012Kefo
     
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited January 2018
    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.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    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.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited January 2018
    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.
  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476
    If CIG's lawyer's see blood in the water they will settle out of court very quickly.
    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • Pingu2012Pingu2012 Member UncommonPosts: 34
    MaxBacon 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.
  • CoticCotic Member UncommonPosts: 268
    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 :D
    JamesGoblinbartoni33Kefo
  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476
    If this can be dragged out in court both sides of lawyers could make some money and delay SC even longer.
    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited January 2018
    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 :D
    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.
  • alivenaliven Member UncommonPosts: 346
    Is that lawyer a side of the lawsuit? If no then i assume he dont know jack shit because he dont have proper materials. 
  • OrinoriOrinori Member RarePosts: 751
    I didn't really read much different here. Nice to see another opinion though.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,885
    "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.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • ArillixArillix Member UncommonPosts: 88
    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. 
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited January 2018
    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.
  • CoticCotic Member UncommonPosts: 268
    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. 
    Octagon7711
Sign In or Register to comment.