Chris Roberts Space Garage Simulator: Star Citizen

[Eisberg]

Copyright lawyer going over CIGs response to Cryteks lawsuit. Good for an unbiased view from a relevant law professional.
[yt]uNJgrqQlim8[/yt]

I'm watching it now.

[Eisberg]

So I am 41 minutes into it:

TLDR: Crytek did not include the GLA in their complaint, but CIG did in their response, and things are not looking good for Crytek so far at this point in the video. Looking more and more like this was a publicity stunt than anything else.


My butchering of trying to summarize (Watch the video though)
CIG actually included the GLA in their response, something that Crytek did not include in their complaints at all. That really says a lot.
The GLA does talk about SC and SQ42 as 2 games.
The GLA also does not state they were required to use Crytek engine. They go over how they misconstrue the word "exclusive" in the "GRANT" section of the GLA, and they explain what that means, and how there was no exclusivity clause in the "RESTRICTIONS" part of the GLA. It is pretty long and I know I am butchering what it said, so I suggest watching it.


On December 14th, CIG notified Crytek that there is a written conflict waiver for Ortwin when they did the negotiations. But Crytek refused to remove that allegation of their complaint. According to the lawyer doing this video, he says it is a serious allegation to make about a lawyer in saying they did not do their duty when it comes to conflict of interest. It says a lot about Crytek that they refused to get rid of that allegation right away and instead waited till the last day before CIG was required to submit their response.

At around 1:11 or so, someone that is on the text chat with Leonard French and was arguing with him saying that something said in later in the GLA would negate something said earlier in the GLA, and Leonard French said no, that is not the case and not how that works... it lasts for 3 or 4 minutes, and the person he is having the argument is, is named "Derek" "Derek", hmm what are the chances?

[Napoleonic]

space citizen

So, get this, right up to Nov 20, 2012, not only did RSI/CIG NOT have rights to use CryEngine commercially, but CryTek had done all this work and given to them - FREE OF CHARGE. As they stated in their lawsuit.
As I mentioned in my thread from last week, when Chris Roberts was making public statements in 2012 that development was "one year in" - meaning since 2011 - not only was there NO development - at all, but the tech demos being passed off as such, were just tech demos.

it was a scam from the beginning of this thread, from the beginning of when the whole CR came back to attempt to make another space game became a news. Right there it was all a scam already

[Eisberg]

space citizen

Yeah, it was an error, though the right name is also used later in the GLA.

space citizen




it was a scam from the beginning of this thread, from the beginning of when the whole CR came back to attempt to make another space game became a news. Right there it was all a scam already

Where did your quote come from? Please give a link to the quote.


oh, nvm, no wonder you did not include the link, cause it is from Derek Smart.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...367469568.html

And Leonard French puts a smack down on alot of that stuff that Derek Smart mentions in that article regarding to the lawsuit.

So who is better to believe

Derek Smart who is extremely biased towards CIG and has a vendetta against them, and has proven to twist things for his own purpose of his vendetta

or

Leonard French, a Copyright Lawyer who actually knows about this stuff and has the experience, understands the laws. yes, he is a backer, though upset that the game is not released yet and that he can't even play the alpha 3.0. has shown to be unbiased in this. Also has a reputation to uphold for those who watch his videos.



Looking at the comments, apparently it was Derek Smart talking to Leonard at 1:11, and Leonard stated that Derek was stretching and basically what Derek was saying didn't make sense.


Found a place where you can read the packet of submissions from CIG

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...gd-hF-I5XoCQta

[Napoleonic]

Found a place where you can read the packet of submissions from CIG

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...gd-hF-I5XoCQta

3rd page

the entire legal GLA thing was signed on 20 november 2012!

in other words

Croberts had nothing, no legal basis whatsoever for his claims and his begging for money during the initial KS campaign

but obviously there's even more hilarity when you look at the fact that even after that GLA was signed, the truth is, everything they used to beg for money came from Crytek! while Croberts at that time claimed to have been developing SC for one year!



go ahead and tell us that's not a scam.

do I need to remind you the whole "it's a donation not a preorder" argument? Croberts basically begged for donations that was based on lies and dishonesty, from the beginning!

[Napoleonic]

this is not just a dishonesty toward backers, but more importantly and far too often and too easily overlooked, toward the whole KS/crowdfunding and gaming community!

the gaming community hate evil gaming companies for DLCs and MTs, but here Croberts have done far, far away worse!

[Eisberg]

3rd page

the entire legal GLA thing was signed on 20 november 2012!

in other words

Croberts had nothing, no legal basis whatsoever for his claims and his begging for money during the initial KS campaign

but obviously there's even more hilarity when you look at the fact that even after that GLA was signed, the truth is, everything they used to beg for money came from Crytek! while Croberts at that time claimed to have been developing SC for one year!



go ahead and tell us that's not a scam.

do I need to remind you the whole "it's a donation not a preorder" argument? Croberts basically begged for donations that was based on lies and dishonesty, from the beginning!

Your source of information comes from Derek Smart who is no doubt creating a narrative with no proof of what was going on prior to the signing of the deal. You have no idea if they had a preliminary agreement while they were working on the final agreement. It is all based on Derek Smarts assumptions to create a narrative on very little information. In other words completely useless.

But I know, you are a devout believer of your lord and savior Derek Smart, so you will believe anything he says with no use of any critical thought at all.

this is not just a dishonesty toward backers, but more importantly and far too often and too easily overlooked, toward the whole KS/crowdfunding and gaming community!

the gaming community hate evil gaming companies for DLCs and MTs, but here Croberts have done far, far away worse!

Sure if you want to forget about using critical thinking and become a devout follower of Derek Smart and believe his narrative based on very little information and a whole lot of assumptions.

This is the kind of person Derek Smart is
https://youtu.be/BL_dtu4zhhM?t=2m51s

Uses the death of the innocent person from the Swatting as material to use against Star Citizen's backers. That is kind of scumbag Derek Smart is, and you really should rethink about being a follower of his.

[Napoleonic]

Nothing to see there folks.

Fact : this project has been a scam from the beginning, source : both crytek and cig/rsi own legal statements.

[Eisberg]

Nothing to see there folks.

Fact : this project has been a scam from the beginning, source : both crytek and cig/rsi own legal statements.

Nope. It does not paint a full picture at all unless you add in a whole lot of assumptions into it. Nice try, but both you and Derek Smart failed.

You really can see how much Derek Smart likes to stretch facts to fit his narrative when he is talking to Leonard French on that video I linked. it really shows how much Derek Smart wants to take anything he can and then try to mold into a narrative that fits better with his vendetta. The guy is pathetic, and to take his narrative that is stretching the truth and then adding in all kinds of assumptions as some kind of fact is even more pathetic.

Derek Smart is going full out meltdown with this. Saying the exact opposite of what a Copyright lawyer has said.

[aviphysics]

It seems like Crytek's suit doesn't have anything to stand on.

[Eisberg]

Well this is interesting
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing...exclusive.html

basically explains what exclusive license actually means, and shows that Crytek is trying to change legal definitions

If you want to find different sources just google "software license agreement exclusive vs non-exclusive meaning"

Here is another one
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/revisit...and-exclusive/

I literally cannot find any place where it states when a licsensor grants the exclusive right to use their (IP) engine that it means the licensee cannot use a different engine (IP).

[Eisberg]

because no doubt Napoleonic will want to post this, I'll do it for him
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/950533533877096449

Of course Lawyers are going to be involved in the creation and signing of contracts with Amazon, which is what Brian Chambers is talking about. he states nothing about having to deal with other contracts before the signing of contracts with Amazon. The fact that Derek is trying to twist this this for his personal vendetta is even more proof of the lengths he will go to twist and stretch anything and everything for his own use.

[Napoleonic]

Here is common senses that is totally not disapproved by croberts and co... (because if they did, they would have screamed it loud)

Back to 2011-2012, croberts HAD NOTHING

He met with crytek, he probably went like : I want to make a new WC/freelancer, help me!

Eventually crytek agreed and what they claimed (and so far not disapproved by croberts) happened, truly happened.

So crytek made all that con demo, and granted croberts rights to cryengine at lower than average price with all those legal binding.

Why? it's easy to see why, some at crytek management must be fans of croberts games and they know for a fact that croberts had no money at that time in relation to the development of that game idea.

More common sense, of course crytek wasn't that stupid, they must want serious compensation for their efforts.

Again, by common sense that is not being disapproved by croberts so far, all of that really happened.

If you were crytek, and you gave this croberts a free demo (an AAA level demo nonetheless) and gave them rights to cryengine at lower price than what others should pay.

Then it's completely makes sense that you would demand cryengine exclusivity for that game that you helped geenrously to make, makes common business sense that you would demand such ROI.

Because by common sense, if you don't then you would be idiots.

Regardless of the shitty human POS law ruling, common sense says crytek is the right here, and croberts is the absolute total scumbag in this dealing.

[Eisberg]

Here is common senses that is totally not disapproved by croberts and co... (because if they did, they would have screamed it loud)

Back to 2011-2012, croberts HAD NOTHING

He met with crytek, he probably went like : I want to make a new WC/freelancer, help me!

Eventually crytek agreed and what they claimed (and so far not disapproved by croberts) happened, truly happened.

So crytek made all that con demo, and granted croberts rights to cryengine at lower than average price with all those legal binding.

Why? it's easy to see why, some at crytek management must be fans of croberts games and they know for a fact that croberts had no money at that time in relation to the development of that game idea.

More common sense, of course crytek wasn't that stupid, they must want serious compensation for their efforts.

Again, by common sense that is not being disapproved by croberts so far, all of that really happened.

If you were crytek, and you gave this croberts a free demo (an AAA level demo nonetheless) and gave them rights to cryengine at lower price than what others should pay.

Then it's completely makes sense that you would demand cryengine exclusivity for that game that you helped geenrously to make, makes common business sense that you would demand such ROI.

Because by common sense, if you don't then you would be idiots.

Regardless of the shitty human POS law ruling, common sense says crytek is the right here, and croberts is the absolute total scumbag in this dealing.

Common sense and you are often far from each other, and this is one of those times.

Crytek is in the wrong here. They did not make a contract that would force CIG to use their engine, if the did it would have been in the restrictions section. The fact is there is very clear law regarding "exclusive" per the law. So common sense says the law is the common sense thing to go with.

now you are just trying to say that Crytek simply made a mistake in their contract and they meant something else instead of what it actually says in the contract... common sense that is not how things work at all.

You do not know what work Chris Roberts did before the Kickstarter. You do not know the art he might have had done, the premise for the game, and so many other plans, in other words pre-production, and pre-production is still a part of development.

Also if CIG actually did any work for free before any contracts were signed, then that is on Crytek. Crytek got their money through the buyout, so they are not even due any kind of residuals anyways, so they have not lost any money from CIG.

This is clearly a cash grab from Crytek. And it was a scum bag thing to do with lying about Ortwin and leaving it in the public for as long as they did even after being notified 2 days after their initial filing of the lie they put in their fillings against him.

They purposely did not put the GLA in their complaint, and now we see why, cause it proves them wrong. And the only real reason to do something like that is to sway public opinion through misleading information.

If anybody are scums, it is Crytek.

[Napoleonic]

The contract still factually stated that crobertas is bound to use cryengine for the game...

And that has more to do with not the parts you were referring to but rather the other one...

The one that says that CIG must plaster the name of crytek and cryengine to their development and promotional videos.

Do you think amazon or epic or ea would like to see the name of crytek and cryengine plastered on the videos of a game that use their own engine?

And thus also correlate with another common sense as to which side of exclusivity mentioned in the contract.

Your spun next.

[Eisberg]

The contract still factually stated that crobertas is bound to use cryengine for the game...

And that has more to do with not the parts you were referring to but rather the other one...

The one that says that CIG must plaster the name of crytek and cryengine to their development and promotional videos.

Do you think amazon or epic or ea would like to see the name of crytek and cryengine plastered on the videos of a game that use their own engine?

And thus also correlate with another common sense as to which side of exclusivity mentioned in the contract.

Your spun next.

Nope

Read this
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/revisit...and-exclusive/
and this
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing...exclusive.html

It was a right granted to them, not a restriction put on them. Since it was in the granted section, they have the right to use it, but they do not have to practice said right.
So you are wrong about that. Exclusive in the law in contracts do not mean what you think it means and those links prove it.

They only have to plaster their logos if they are using Cryengine, and they are not. You have to take the contract as a whole, and not cherry pick. That stipulation is on the grounds that CIG is actually using the license in the first place. They quit using the license and went with a different engine. Since there is no clause that says they have to use Cryengine, therefore they do not have to use the license since they are not using cryengine, therefore they do not have to show the logos for something they are not using.
You are wrong on that.

The only one spinning things here is you.

2 articles + a copyright lawyer all show there is nothing there to show they have to use Cryengine. Common sense says if 2 articles + a copyright lawyer says that what you think the exclusive clause means in a contract is not what you think it means, it says you are wrong.

[SirBaron]

Crytek hasn't got a leg to stand on, the gla which cig produced shows that Crytek is going to lose badly.

Some smaller bits they may get a slight nudge on but the biggest crunch of the lawsuit they are going to get laughed out of court.

Crytek is desperate and are.l On the verge of bankruptcy.

[Eisberg]

Crytek hasn't got a leg to stand on, the gla which cig produced shows that Crytek is going to lose badly.

Some smaller bits they may get a slight nudge on but the biggest crunch of the lawsuit they are going to get laughed out of court.

Crytek is desperate and are.l On the verge of bankruptcy.

I could see the only thing left standing is CIG not giving their bug fixes/optimizations done to Cry engine in a timely manner. How much money can they possibly get for that?
And that is if they can even get money for it considering the waiver of damage clause in the contract. It might end up being a judge ordering CIG to give Cryek the bugfixes/optimizations by a certain date or be in contempt of court and be fined for that.
Leonard French was very surprised to see that waiver in there and he couldn't think why something like that even exists. If Crytek was having problems back then, Crytek might have put that in there to protect themselves because they were worried, but in the end it might be something that makes it so they get no money.

[nutcrackr]

Interesting again to see one side thinks that CIG are in dire trouble and the other thinking that Crytek stand no chance.

it is curious that they attached the private GLA but didn't attach the waiver, when they reference the waiver a few times.

[Eisberg]

Interesting again to see one side thinks that CIG are in dire trouble and the other thinking that Crytek stand no chance.

it is curious that they attached the private GLA but didn't attach the waiver, when they reference the waiver a few times.

Didn't say that Crytek stood no chance, just that things are looking good for CIG.

[acroig]

Star Citizen, I am disappointed

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...-3-impressions

[Eisberg]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/featur...-forgets-alpha

[Eisberg]

Another lawyer, tech lawyer, weighs in on the the lawsuit.

[yt]T4HPTs-j3Mk[/yt]

TLDW: Crytek is full of crap

[Greasy]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/featur...-forgets-alpha

The problem is people have been waiting for this way over due project for a while now, and they're calling it 3.0 "alpha". I think people expect the game to be in a better state that it is at this point given how late it is.

[Eisberg]

Another law professional weighing in on the lawsuit

http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/1...defense-lands/

As long as there is no communication between CIG and Crytek that supports Crytek's interpretation, then it looks like things are in favor of CIG at this point.

[Napoleonic]

[bobvodka]

And accusations of that being a DS goon in 5...4...3...

[aviphysics]

I just flew on Andromeda 15 minutes ago (owned by a friend.) It worked perfectly.

I also know people with Starfarers that have been flying them.

I flew a Caterpillar during the PTU test phase, but haven't had a chance to fly one sense. At the time, it seemed like they fixed the problem with the doors.

Top issues right now (IMO)
1) The game crashes almost as often as GTA Online.
2) The frame rate sucks.
3) There isn't enough stuff to spend credits on.

I am looking forward to those issues being fixed. If they can do that, I think they aren't that far off from having a real game.

[Napoleonic]

http://www.player.one/star-citizen-3...bat-rtv-123109

Roberts says “we’re still building a company and a game,” so there’s still lots of work to be done on a fundamental level

They are still building their companies, folks, real development would start at anytime on the next decade.

[nutcrackr]

crytek lawyers responded to the motion to dismiss and say that the motion to dismiss should be er...dismissed

https://www.pcinvasion.com/crytek-hi...zen-legal-case

Full documents: https://www.docdroid.net/v7yQ0LL/res...18.pdf#page=10

Freyermuth gets pounded in the doc

IT'S HEATING UP

[Eisberg]

crytek lawyers responded to the motion to dismiss and say that the motion to dismiss should be er...dismissed

https://www.pcinvasion.com/crytek-hi...zen-legal-case

Full documents: https://www.docdroid.net/v7yQ0LL/res...18.pdf#page=10

Freyermuth gets pounded in the doc

IT'S HEATING UP

yeah, that was disappointing, Crytek didn't provide anything new, they just doubled down on what they already said before for the most part, and didn't say anything new that is convincing, imo.

[logical]

We'll see what the courts say... they might decide to let it move forward. Imagine if they somehow ended up losing to crytek and have to pay out a ton of money. We are going to see new ship jpegs every week.

[acroig]

Imagine if they somehow ended up losing to crytek and have to pay out a ton of money. We are going to see new ship jpegs every week.

[Napoleonic]

Gee I wonder why the cultist not showing the youtube lawyer video.

[logical]

Which video?

[Eisberg]

Which video?

I think he might be talking about this:
[yt]DHoiLclXI2M[/yt]

I can't give a summary/opinion of what he said though, I haven't seen it yet. I barely had enough time to read the response after waking up this afternoon and before my son got home from school. I'm at work now, so I will be watching this soon and through my work day.



Edited:
Ok, I started it: First thing he said "It doesn't answer anybodies questions"

Edited 2: Read my thoughts as I watching it later in this same thread
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost...postcount=2524

[Napoleonic]

[Eisberg]

Don't worry, I know you fall on everything that Derek Smart says and think he is your infallible leader and everything he says is true and fact.

[Napoleonic]

Don't worry, I know you fall on everything that Derek Smart says and think he is your infallible leader and everything he says is true and fact.

From youtube lawyer to DS, without even need to trigger this cultist.



Now do post the entirety of Skadden response please

[Eisberg]

From youtube lawyer to DS, without even need to trigger this cultist.



Now do post the entirety of Skadden response please

In case you haven't noticed, the cultist is you. You belong to the cult of Derek Smart. You have shown not to be reasonable about anything here, far from it, you latch onto anything and everything that is negative then do what your cult leader Derek Smart tells you to do and exagerate it to the extreme.

At least I have well reasoned, sourced even many times or give examples, for what my opinion is, actually using critical thinking and common sense, something you have shown none of, which is typical of a cult member.