Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

ScotchUp · March 2018

Turrican187 said:

ScotchUp said:

After reading both sides on SC, when you purchase something like Crytek isn't the first thing you do with it is create your own engine out of it? Has CIG shown this engine they created in some Utube video?

Though Unity, UE and Cry are free for independent devs up to a limit it is strictly forbidden to backengineer them and create your own engine.
If you try you will die like the "Silicon Knights" who created an Engine off UE3 but didn't tell epic games. Unfortunately SK sued Epic over a minor thing and Epic found out that they used their engine for a second game with a heavy modified version of UE3 and called it their own (sounds familiar?). Epic counter sued SK and won ($4.45m) on top of that:
As a result, on November 7, 2012, Silicon Knights was directed by the court to destroy all game code derived from Unreal Engine 3
and
The case then led Silicon Knights to bankruptcy on May 16, 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Knights

This is stuff that happens if you try to break agreements with the provider of your base technology.

Thank you, for the explanation.

gervaise1 · March 2018

As said above you don't simply take an engine, tweak it and voila you have your own engine.

Putting the legal stuff to one side however:

Technically - if what has been said is accurate - then they could (have) replace(d) CryEngine by Lumberyard. Since - we are told - they are "the same". No back engineering imvolved.

I know the analogy I used pre-Christmas was "Does a Samsung phone run on the Android OS or a Samsung OS?"

Then of course you have the legal stuff which is what will play out going forward. The legal stuff.

Technically however moving from:

CryEngine fork provided by Crytek + CiG stuff to
CryEngine fork provided by Amazon + CiG Stuff + other LY stuff

Should have hinged on integrating the CiG stuff with the other LY stuff given that the forks were the same.

And the fact the technical side took a couple days whilst the legal side may take a couple of years .... is just one of those sad facts of life!

craftseeker · March 2018

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

Wizardry said:

** snip **

First of all having read everything ,i very strongly feel CIG was from day 1 up to no good and tried to screw over Crytek but Crytek also did not have very intelligent lawyers at the time.

** snip **

Or CryTek was pissed because they could not pay their own employees for months (twice !) and some of the best talent left the company and was hired by CIG. Which led to the "better" engine now being developed at CIG and not at CryTek anymore. And CryTek sees none of these improvements.

Have fun

Better engine how exactly?

For instance now you can use it for an area the size of a solar system, not only an 8x8 km map

Have fun

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
OK, maybe much bigger than an 8x8km map, but the size of a solar system. Get a grip sunshine.

Erillion · March 2018

craftseeker said:

Erillion said:

For instance now you can use it for an area the size of a solar system, not only an 8x8 km map

Have fun

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
OK, maybe much bigger than an 8x8km map, but the size of a solar system. Get a grip sunshine.

Go ahead. Do the math. Prove me wrong.... sunshine.

Have fun

PS:
Suggested reading if you do not want to do the math yourself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/2l19vm/with_32_bit_precision_maps_are_limited_to_about/?st=jeqp5jae&sh=cf304cee

Turrican187 · March 2018

gervaise1 said:

As said above you don't simply take an engine, tweak it and voila you have your own engine.

Putting the legal stuff to one side however:

Technically - if what has been said is accurate - then they could (have) replace(d) CryEngine by Lumberyard. Since - we are told - they are "the same". No back engineering imvolved.

I know the analogy I used pre-Christmas was "Does a Samsung phone run on the Android OS or a Samsung OS?"

Then of course you have the legal stuff which is what will play out going forward. The legal stuff.

Technically however moving from:

CryEngine fork provided by Crytek + CiG stuff to
CryEngine fork provided by Amazon + CiG Stuff + other LY stuff

Should have hinged on integrating the CiG stuff with the other LY stuff given that the forks were the same.

And the fact the technical side took a couple days whilst the legal side may take a couple of years .... is just one of those sad facts of life!

This whole LY thing could be a problem.
A big part of LY is still Cryengine and under the copyright of Crytek (Because Copyright is not sellable in Germany).
https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/search?utf8=✓&q=copyright+Crytek&type=

6,508 code results in aws/lumberyard

Amazon bought the source code and the right to modify and resell it. But technically its still Cryengine. There is a possibility that if Cry wins the case that they can forbid CIG to use any Cryengine code (100% pure LY is allowed) but the engine would be useless without all the underlying stuff.

Thought the court will decide if and whats part of the engine and if LY was a valid way out.

gervaise1 · March 2018

Turrican187 said:

gervaise1 said:

As said above you don't simply take an engine, tweak it and voila you have your own engine.

Putting the legal stuff to one side however:

Technically - if what has been said is accurate - then they could (have) replace(d) CryEngine by Lumberyard. Since - we are told - they are "the same". No back engineering imvolved.

I know the analogy I used pre-Christmas was "Does a Samsung phone run on the Android OS or a Samsung OS?"

Then of course you have the legal stuff which is what will play out going forward. The legal stuff.

Technically however moving from:

CryEngine fork provided by Crytek + CiG stuff to
CryEngine fork provided by Amazon + CiG Stuff + other LY stuff

Should have hinged on integrating the CiG stuff with the other LY stuff given that the forks were the same.

And the fact the technical side took a couple days whilst the legal side may take a couple of years .... is just one of those sad facts of life!

This whole LY thing could be a problem.
A big part of LY is still Cryengine and under the copyright of Crytek (Because Copyright is not sellable in Germany).
https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/search?utf8=✓&q=copyright+Crytek&type=
6,508 code results in aws/lumberyard
Amazon bought the source code and the right to modify and resell it. But technically its still Cryengine. There is a possibility that if Cry wins the case that they can forbid CIG to use any Cryengine code (100% pure LY is allowed) but the engine would be useless without all the underlying stuff.

Thought the court will decide if and whats part of the engine and if LY was a valid way out.

I don't think Amazon have "bought" the source code however. I would assume its a licence deal - as far as I know the specifics haven't been published but that would make more sense. (And it could get messy for Cry going forward if they had sold the base code.)

Looked at another way if it was a problem in Germany (or anywhere else) for SC it would be a problem for any game produced using LY. If Crytek could "forbid" SC using the CryEngine code in LY they could "forbid" the use of the code in any game. And I haven't seen anything suggesting that and can't believe that Amazon would agree to such a deal. And Amazon don't have exclusions in their sign-ups. e.g. You can use LY for free but can't publish in Germany; you can sign up with LY for free but not if you are SC.

A licence deal - I suggest - is more probable.

I do suspect that LY is at the heart of things however.

When Crytek and CiG (or RSI!) did their deal there was no deal with Amazon. And - maybe - when Crytek did their deal with Amazon they didn't consider the possibility that SC might jump ship - or maybe were not able to agree a deal with Amazon that excluded this possibility.

Amazon - reportedly - paid a large sum of money which I suspect made for a very "clean" deal.

Whatever. Its off to the legal racecourse. I think the technical side is pretty simple!

Vrika · March 2018

Erillion said:

craftseeker said:

Erillion said:

For instance now you can use it for an area the size of a solar system, not only an 8x8 km map

Have fun

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
OK, maybe much bigger than an 8x8km map, but the size of a solar system. Get a grip sunshine.

Go ahead. Do the math. Prove me wrong.... sunshine.

They can use current engine for absurdly large maps, but so far it's a bit of a pyrrhic victory because most of it needs to be unpopulated.

Babuinix · March 2018

Kefo · March 2018

Crytek filed their response to CIG's filing for a protective order.

https://www.docdroid.net/oxLxMkt/031127832839.pdf

Erillion · March 2018

Kefo said:

Crytek filed their response to CIG's filing for a protective order.

https://www.docdroid.net/oxLxMkt/031127832839.pdf

Are they really using a case against MONSANTO (!) to justify their actions against CIG ?
For real ?! (see page 5) One of the most infamous pesticide companies. So infamous that they got bought up by Bayer and are now continuing under their famous name.

And why all of the sudden all the excursions into anti-trust law ? "Anti-Monopoly vs. Hasbro" is an interesting name for a court case ;-) Page 12.

Image: https://forums.mmorpg.com/uploads/editor/ks/u4hnpgeux3d4.jpg

Whoever is tasked with analyzing that .. poor bastard ! But to me it shows what CryTek is REALLY after. They want all the engine improvements from CIG, going over the new code with a fine comb !

Have fun

frostymug · March 2018

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

Crytek filed their response to CIG's filing for a protective order.

https://www.docdroid.net/oxLxMkt/031127832839.pdf

Are they really using a case against MONSANTO (!) to justify their actions against CIG ?
For real ?! (see page 5) One of the most infamous pesticide companies. So infamous that they got bought up by Bayer and are now continuing under their famous name.

And why all of the sudden all the excursions into anti-trust law ? "Anti-Monopoly vs. Hasbro" is an interesting name for a court case ;-) Page 12.

Whoever is tasked with analyzing that .. poor bastard ! But to me it shows what CryTek is REALLY after. They want all the engine improvements from CIG, going over the new code with a fine comb !

Have fun

No.

They are using a case against Monsanto to show why a motion to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on forthcoming motion to dismiss was denied. It's one of many examples of: I. The District's General Practice Is Not To Stay Discovery Pending Resolution Of A Motion To Dismiss (page 6)

They are using Anti-Monopoly, Inc vs Hasbro to show that in some cases that the motion to stay discovery was approved it was due to the case being an antitrust action. They follow by stating, "This action involves contract and copyright claims, not antitrust claims." It's part of the complete argument that: II. The Special Circumstances That Have Warranted Discovery Stays In Some Actions Are Not Present Here (page 8)

It's all establishing legal precedence which is much of what current law falls to. Not terribly difficult to analyze, but we can wait for videos from the guy that defends file sharers from ISPs and RIAA or the other guy that does legal consults for internet sweepstakes.

You might be right on what they're really after, but what if... I know this is crazy, but work with me... what if, CIG is trying to stay discovery because they currently use code that might still have CryEngine code in it and some people may have claimed to have noticed such and possibly even pointed it out and that would kinda throw a wrench into some or all of CIG's defense? Maybe buying time to correct some deficiencies might help. I know it seems pretty farfetched. It's not like we're talking about something as important as "borrowing" art assets or something.

How can one not have fun when the circus is here?

Kefo · March 2018

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

Crytek filed their response to CIG's filing for a protective order.

https://www.docdroid.net/oxLxMkt/031127832839.pdf

Are they really using a case against MONSANTO (!) to justify their actions against CIG ?
For real ?! (see page 5) One of the most infamous pesticide companies. So infamous that they got bought up by Bayer and are now continuing under their famous name.

And why all of the sudden all the excursions into anti-trust law ? "Anti-Monopoly vs. Hasbro" is an interesting name for a court case ;-) Page 12.

Whoever is tasked with analyzing that .. poor bastard ! But to me it shows what CryTek is REALLY after. They want all the engine improvements from CIG, going over the new code with a fine comb !

Have fun

You didn’t read after the Monsanto or anti trust law examples did you? Just saw a big name to latch onto so you can claim Crytek is being absurd and reaching for straws?

And yeah going over the engine code is kinda one of the points of this entire lawsuit. So yeah it’s one of the things they are really after because it will prove them right or wrong and they can get damages for it.

Talonsin · March 2018

Hurray for the lawyers getting thousands of dollars of backer money!!!!

Durzax · March 2018

Vrika said:

No. You modify the engine so that it suits your game, but that isn't counted as creating your own engine. ""The old engine is still there, and what you have is only new modified version of that old engine.""

Crytek are fishing, as Vrika, pointed out here (emphasis added), the base is already Cryengine and will always be Cryengine.

Crytek are saying, Hey let us look through every line of code so we can distinguish what CIG changed to what was there so we can prove that CIG infringed on our copyright.

Does not work that way. You have the proof before hand or not at all.

@Talonsin,

You have receipts to prove that.

rpmcmurphy · March 2018

Durzax said:

Crytek are fishing, as Vrika, pointed out here (emphasis added), the base is already Cryengine and will always be Cryengine.

Crytek are saying, Hey let us look through every line of code so we can distinguish what CIG changed to what was there so we can prove that CIG infringed on our copyright.

Does not work that way. You have the proof before hand or not at all.

I thought part of the contention was that CIG agreed to send code changes to Crytek, which they then refused to do.
If Crytek are "fishing" it's because they feel they are owed those changes as it's something both parties agreed to.

MaxBacon · March 2018

rpmcmurphy said:
I thought part of the contention was that CIG agreed to send code changes to Crytek, which they then refused to do.
If Crytek are "fishing" it's because they feel they are owed those changes as it's something both parties agreed to.

You haven't read the GLA properly then, they did a buyout so they did not have to do that, the only agreement where Crytek gets CIG's code was on those bug-fixes Crytek mentions.

So they had no right whatsoever to access any part of CIG's codebase, even before they changed to LY.

Erillion · March 2018

Kefo said:

You didn’t read after the Monsanto or anti trust law examples did you?

I read the whole document. Surprise ! ;-)

Every time I read these things i know why i never want(ed) to be a lawyer.

Have fun

MadFrenchie · March 2018

Durzax said:

Vrika said:

No. You modify the engine so that it suits your game, but that isn't counted as creating your own engine. ""The old engine is still there, and what you have is only new modified version of that old engine.""

Crytek are fishing, as Vrika, pointed out here (emphasis added), the base is already Cryengine and will always be Cryengine.

Crytek are saying, Hey let us look through every line of code so we can distinguish what CIG changed to what was there so we can prove that CIG infringed on our copyright.

Does not work that way. You have the proof before hand or not at all.

@Talonsin,

You have receipts to prove that.

No, actually. You don't need the proof before hand or not at all. You need enough evidence to make a judge believe it's warranted to look at the other items you're requesting in discovery to get at the truth of the matter.

If the judge doesn't feel the evidence already presented warrants further exploration, that's where the motion to dismiss comes in.

Erillion · March 2018

rpmcmurphy said:

Durzax said:

Crytek are fishing, as Vrika, pointed out here (emphasis added), the base is already Cryengine and will always be Cryengine.

Crytek are saying, Hey let us look through every line of code so we can distinguish what CIG changed to what was there so we can prove that CIG infringed on our copyright.

Does not work that way. You have the proof before hand or not at all.

I thought part of the contention was that CIG agreed to send code changes to Crytek, which they then refused to do.
If Crytek are "fishing" it's because they feel they are owed those changes as it's something both parties agreed to.

In one of the previous documents it was said that CIG did offer something to CryTek, but CryTek did not want it. Presumably they wanted more. After CryTek refused to accept it, it may be that CIG stopped offering it (because CryTek would not accept it anyway). And with the switch to Lumberyard there was no longer a reason to offer anything to CryTek.

CIG agreed to send bug fixes. Not code changes. I assume CryTek expected to get all the code changes "for free" (well, CryTek may have assumed that the (presumably ?) low (?) buyout price that CIG paid for the whole code was basically the price to get the code changes ... but it is not explicitly mentioned in the contract, so CIG did not feel obliged to send it ... which pissed of CryTek). Sounds like the three brothers thought they outsmarted CIG ... and thought wrong.

Have fun

TiamatRoar · March 2018

Durzax said:

Vrika said:

No. You modify the engine so that it suits your game, but that isn't counted as creating your own engine. ""The old engine is still there, and what you have is only new modified version of that old engine.""

Crytek are fishing, as Vrika, pointed out here (emphasis added), the base is already Cryengine and will always be Cryengine.

Crytek are saying, Hey let us look through every line of code so we can distinguish what CIG changed to what was there so we can prove that CIG infringed on our copyright.

Does not work that way. You have the proof before hand or not at all.

If things worked that way, no one would ever be able to catch anyone else for wrongdoing except for all but the most obvious idiotic cases. Nor would there be a need for CiG to motion for a protective order in the first place.

The whole legal concept of discovery wouldn't exist at all if you needed to "have the proof beforehand or not at all."

Erillion · March 2018

MadFrenchie said:

No, actually. You don't need the proof before hand or not at all. You need enough evidence to make a judge believe it's warranted to look at the other items you're requesting in discovery to get at the truth of the matter.

If the judge doesn't feel the evidence already presented warrants further exploration, that's where the motion to dismiss comes in.

Should not a neutral third party do that "discovery" ?

Compare the two code bases, under NDA. Report to judge ?

It seems unusual to me that the "discovery" is being done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff will ALWAYS "discover" something to strengthen his case.

In Austria an expert witness would be commissioned by the court. The cost of his report (which will often be high) will then be covered by whoever is the loser of the court case. Austria has Roman law system. Not English case law.

Have fun

TalulaRose · March 2018

Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions.[2]

each party......can obtain evidence

Its not one sided.

MadFrenchie · March 2018

Erillion said:

MadFrenchie said:

No, actually. You don't need the proof before hand or not at all. You need enough evidence to make a judge believe it's warranted to look at the other items you're requesting in discovery to get at the truth of the matter.

If the judge doesn't feel the evidence already presented warrants further exploration, that's where the motion to dismiss comes in.

Should not a neutral third party do that "discovery" ?

Compare the two code bases, under NDA. Report to judge ?

It seems unusual to me that the "discovery" is being done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff will ALWAYS "discover" something to strengthen his case.

In Austria an expert witness would be commissioned by the court. The cost of his report (which will often be high) will then be covered by whoever is the loser of the court case. Austria has Roman law system. Not English case law.

Have fun

The judge is the neutral party that ensures the discovery is constrained to the appropriate scope and only duly discovered, relevant information is included in any possible trial. However, the onus falls to both parties to do the legwork to "discover" additional evidence to support their case. That is not limited to either party, as Talula mentioned.

MaxBacon · March 2018

MadFrenchie said:
The judge is the neutral party that ensures the discovery is constrained to the appropriate scope and only duly discovered, relevant information is included in any possible trial. However, the onus falls to both parties to do the legwork to "discover" additional evidence to support their case. That is not limited to either party, as Talula mentioned.

I think CIG's standing is reasonable on what they filed, they want to motion to dismiss judged on then discovery if the case stands, this would also include if parts of the case that would be dismissed it would render parts of the discovery process irrelevant; hence the protective standing from giving Crytek every single line of code they've written and all technologies surrounding it (that includes other companies like Faceware).

rpmcmurphy · March 2018

Erillion said:

In one of the previous documents it was said that CIG did offer something to CryTek, but CryTek did not want it. Presumably they wanted more. After CryTek refused to accept it, it may be that CIG stopped offering it (because CryTek would not accept it anyway). And with the switch to Lumberyard there was no longer a reason to offer anything to CryTek.

CIG agreed to send bug fixes. Not code changes. I assume CryTek expected to get all the code changes "for free" (well, CryTek may have assumed that the (presumably ?) low (?) buyout price that CIG paid for the whole code was basically the price to get the code changes ... but it is not explicitly mentioned in the contract, so CIG did not feel obliged to send it ... which pissed of CryTek). Sounds like the three brothers thought they outsmarted CIG ... and thought wrong.

Have fun

I remember reading that CIG had offered something but Crytek felt the way it was presented was completey useless to them and asked for it to be made available in a way that was useful, then they heard nothing again regarding code until after the suit started whereupon CIG responded rather petulantly about it.

Bug fixes are code changes

A bug exists because the code does something in a way the developer has not forseen, so to fix a bug requires a change to the code... hence a code change.

Perhaps Crytek don't expect to get all the code changes for free, perhaps they just want what both sides agreed to, perhaps the 3 brothers weren't trying to outsmart CIG and are just pissed that they feel CIG reneged on the terms despite getting a license at a bargain price etc.

I like how anyone who threatens CIG in any way is made out to be the villain, even in the absence of facts.

Howdy, Stranger!

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Comments

6,508 code results in aws/lumberyard

6,508 code results in aws/lumberyard

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Comments

6,508 code results in aws/lumberyard

6,508 code results in aws/lumberyard