Crytek vs CIG lawsuit: Motion to dismiss granted!

NaffNaffBobFace

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,234
44,977
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Rear_Intruder said:
French says "the issues are getting whittled down to the main meritorious issues"

Is that backtracking from his video title? What about the other outstanding issues did he get ahead of himself?
Click to expand...
Technically, no he's not got ahead of himself: If you watch the video, around 1.07 it clearly states in the legal document that "Having considered the parties written submissions the court grants the motion to dismiss"

The case, it has been dismissed.

The court has, however, also given Crytech the opportunity to revise their complaint for a third and final time to make some of their complaints cognitively resonant in the court of law: The words "Conclusiory" "Theory/Theories" "Claims" are used throughout the text, with with court saying, basically, "We can kinda see what you meant. some of your claims may have merit, but you jumped to a lot of conclusions that we can't take at face value at the pleading stage, so substantiate that claim with some proof and we'll take a look-see if CIG did do something contradictory to the GLA you both agreed to."

Watch the video, it has a lot of info 🙂

NaffNaffBobFace said:
From our other favorite Youtube law dude, Leonard French:

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth and Vavrik
Montoya

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
10,049
55,467
3,180
RSI Handle
Montoya
Thats is what Lior was saying, they have to prove breach of contract between Sept and Dec.

The window for everything they claim happened needs to happen in that window, and on top of that they can't claim statutory breach, so its all a big time waster for them. He did conclude by saying that CIG can just settle the whole thing for about $100k, or drag Crytek further and make them pay for everything.

CIG just settling for $100k would be the fastest and cleanest way to close it all up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth, Vavrik, Lorddarthvik and 1 other person
August

August

Space Marshal
Officer
Donor
Aug 27, 2018
2,789
10,364
2,250
RSI Handle
August-TEST
Montoya said:
Thats is what Lior was saying, they have to prove breach of contract between Sept and Dec.

The window for everything they claim happened needs to happen in that window, and on top of that they can't claim statutory breach, so its all a big time waster for them. He did conclude by saying that CIG can just settle the whole thing for about $100k, or drag Crytek further and make them pay for everything.

CIG just settling for $100k would be the fastest and cleanest way to close it all up.
Click to expand...
It would preclude CIG from going after Crytek for costs, but that assumes Crytek is still solvent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth, Vavrik and Lorddarthvik
Vavrik

Vavrik

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
5,476
21,988
3,025
RSI Handle
Vavrik
durandal12 said:
I'm not so sure on the source code in the bugsmashers video. There was such a small amount, scrolling rapidly on a screen and it's likely to be covered under fair use.

By the time SC is actually released, the time period on competing engines will be expired so they could make some considerable coin licensing that out. Which is something Crytek probably so desparatly wants a piece of.
Click to expand...
Fair use is a defence, not a license. If there is a copyright violation, it is pretty much the only thing with any teeth left, but Crytek seems to have seriously limited their options by registering their copyright in the US after the fact. That takes a lot of teeth out of the teeth they would have had. I have no idea why Crytek would have limited themselves like that. The amount of time the code was displayed is actually irrelevant, and fair use comes into the picture only after you've established that a copyright violation took place. That hasn't been done. So far it's just an unsubstantiated allegation.
It is possible that one or a few of the Bug Smasher's videos shows code covered by Crytek's copyright... it's incredibly weird that Crytek would have made the allegation and not had the decency to offer even basic evidence though. My bet is they were fishing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth and Radegast74
Radegast74

Radegast74

Space Marshal
Oct 8, 2016
3,009
10,702
2,900
RSI Handle
Radegast74
Vavrik said:
Fair use is a defence, not a license. If there is a copyright violation, it is pretty much the only thing with any teeth left, but Crytek seems to have seriously limited their options by registering their copyright in the US after the fact. That takes a lot of teeth out of the teeth they would have had. I have no idea why Crytek would have limited themselves like that. The amount of time the code was displayed is actually irrelevant, and fair use comes into the picture only after you've established that a copyright violation took place. That hasn't been done. So far it's just an unsubstantiated allegation. Incredibly weird of Crytek to continue to follow this, unless they had nothing but wanted CIG to get nervous about it and offer to negotiate.
It is possible that one or a few of the Bug Smasher's videos shows code covered by Crytek's copyright... it's incredibly weird that Crytek would have made the allegation and not had the decency to offer even basic evidence though. My bet is they were fishing.
Click to expand...
Yes, in a way, the copyright violation component would be one of the strongest claims, and would likely be the greatest source of $$$ via damages (as Lior points out, statutory damages are like $100,000 - $150,000 per violation) BUT...

(and it is a big "BUT" so I put it in caps)

....if they didn't register the copyright until 2017, and the window is some narrow number of months between September and Decemeber, 2016 then it is hard to imagine Crytek winning anything (besides the fact that the code is posted everywhere now online...hard to claim you have been damaged materially when you make the code available yourself...).

I don't think Crytek has anything...but I'm willing to bet that they will pursue this further, given the fact they started this without having anything to pursue anyway. The only question is, do they have enough money up front to pay their lawyers to keep going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth and Vavrik
Rear_Intruder

Rear_Intruder

Space Marshal
Donor
Jun 9, 2017
747
2,657
2,650
RSI Handle
Rear_Intruder
The paper work was dated 6th of December and they were given 21 days, so I am guessing that it will be on Thursday 27th.

Still the other matters to sort out anyway so no end is in sight yet
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth
Radegast74

Radegast74

Space Marshal
Oct 8, 2016
3,009
10,702
2,900
RSI Handle
Radegast74
Rear_Intruder said:
The paper work was dated 6th of December and they were given 21 days, so I am guessing that it will be on Thursday 27th.

Still the other matters to sort out anyway so no end is in sight yet
Click to expand...
Derp! Lack of sleep, you are right, they were given 21 days from when that was filed, NOT until Dec 21st.

Back to whatever I was doing...oh yeah, procrastinating from cleaning...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth
Montoya

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
10,049
55,467
3,180
RSI Handle
Montoya
  • Like
Reactions: Vavrik, Radegast74 and Deroth
Radegast74

Radegast74

Space Marshal
Oct 8, 2016
3,009
10,702
2,900
RSI Handle
Radegast74
Montoya said:
Crytek has asked to extend the deadline to Jan 17

" The December 27, 2018 deadline for Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint or notify Defendants and the Court that it does not intend to amend should be extended by 21 days, to and including January 17, 2019. "

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/50/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/
Click to expand...
Great, saved me asking again...at least, until January 17th.

(...hmmm, since they asked for an extension, it seems likely they are going to file something/amend their complaint *again*. I'm gonna stock up on popcorn...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth and Vavrik
NaffNaffBobFace

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,234
44,977
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
durandal12 said:
If they are paying them, so far the only winners for crytek is their legal firm.
Click to expand...
[Comment redacted as if I suggested lawyers might engage in any sort of dragging-it-out tomfoolery I fear I mey be sued]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth, Radegast74 and Vavrik
Vavrik

Vavrik

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
5,476
21,988
3,025
RSI Handle
Vavrik
This is normal procedural stuff. CIG agreeing to the extension is also normal.

There is a bit of a community misconception though, on potential copyright infringement. The 3 month window does not exist. I went back to 12 bugsmashers, and there is a lot of code displayed during 2016, and 2017. Yes, 2017. Switching to Lumberyard doesn't necessarily remove or limit risk - since Lumberyard is also based on code that Crytek claims is protected by their copyright. Displaying code though, doesn't mean there was a copyright violation.

Also, if it turns out CIG did make a few mistakes, this kind of thing happens all the time. It doesn't mean that CIG is bad. Just that they need to manage what gets published in videos a bit better. If they didn't breach any copyright, then no issue, and Crytek's Hail Mary fails - er - which also doesn't automagically remove their copyright protection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth and NaffNaffBobFace
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Forgot your password?