Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A lawyers opinion that is actually non biased
Kefo
Member EpicPosts: 4,229
in Star Citizen
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/
http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/
Comments
What I did learn is the law does not care for small things which explains a lot.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
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
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
The only difference is that this one stands a conservative approach to possibilities on what may happen.
Like @Erillion I appreciate the explanation of the legal terms.
Didn't read it did you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Defense: This obligation only applies if CIG is using CryEngine, which they are not.
Defense: Ortwin received a signed waiver from CryTek dismissing any conflict of interest.
Defense: No defense provided, though FaceWare was after the switch to Lumberyard.
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.
MAGA
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.
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
MAGA
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.