CIG Responds to Crytek
- Thread starter Black Sunder
- Start date
SECOND!
So what does Leonard French think about this?
So what does Leonard French think about this?
I can't be bothered to read all that legal shit.
Here's the TL;DR
Crytek: whaaa! Whaaaa!
RSI: lolwut
Crytek: whaaaa! Whaaaa! Lawsuit.
RSI: Bitch, please.
Here's the TL;DR
Crytek: whaaa! Whaaaa!
RSI: lolwut
Crytek: whaaaa! Whaaaa! Lawsuit.
RSI: Bitch, please.
Heh. I read this shit. I'm a former and potential future entrepreneur (We'll know by May this year), who owns some intellectual property, and holds 2 patents, as well as several hundred copyrights in software, and has participated in the construction of several dozen license grants:
The wording of the GLA is very interesting, and my IP attorney would have written pretty much the same response. To summarize, I offer the following translation of CIG's response, in modern colloquial language :
"WTF?"
After reading the GLA, and comparing it to what I know of contract law, which is not MUCH compared with a lawyer - I am personally inclined to agree with CIG's response.
The wording of the GLA is very interesting, and my IP attorney would have written pretty much the same response. To summarize, I offer the following translation of CIG's response, in modern colloquial language :
"WTF?"
After reading the GLA, and comparing it to what I know of contract law, which is not MUCH compared with a lawyer - I am personally inclined to agree with CIG's response.
I'm too tired to read through this stuff can you give us a brief tldr?
Very brief summary from someone who is NOT a lawyer:
1. There is potential breach in the selling SQ42 separately from Star Citizen, BUT
2. SQ42 doesn't use the engine that GLA was talking about anymore anyway
3. In a carefully twisted way GLA could be read as obligation to CIG to use ONLY Crytech engine, BUT
4. Section of the statement is wrong for such understanding, and there are (allegedly) examples of usage of the same word in a sence that CIG sees as correct one => it is up to judge to decide (and it could be very long battle )
Feel free to correct as needed
1. There is potential breach in the selling SQ42 separately from Star Citizen, BUT
2. SQ42 doesn't use the engine that GLA was talking about anymore anyway
3. In a carefully twisted way GLA could be read as obligation to CIG to use ONLY Crytech engine, BUT
4. Section of the statement is wrong for such understanding, and there are (allegedly) examples of usage of the same word in a sence that CIG sees as correct one => it is up to judge to decide (and it could be very long battle )
Feel free to correct as needed
Takeiteasy
Admiral
Oh why or why is law so tedious.
I can't begin to even explain how uninterested in reading all that garbage I am.
However I see CIG responding which tells me it's at least going in the right direction, "motion to dismiss" is all I want to clear and the only thing I want to hear after that is "dismissed" or "not dismissed" or whatever the legal term is for not dismissing a motion to dismiss.
I can't begin to even explain how uninterested in reading all that garbage I am.
However I see CIG responding which tells me it's at least going in the right direction, "motion to dismiss" is all I want to clear and the only thing I want to hear after that is "dismissed" or "not dismissed" or whatever the legal term is for not dismissing a motion to dismiss.
Sure. It might take a couple of posts, but I'll do my best.
Just a point: The GLA is a document, the license agreement, negotiated between Crytek and CIG, but the document itself is the property of Crytek, since it is clearly not possible for CIG to grant itself a license to Crytek's intellectual property. This is the contract that is in dispute.
THis is probably TL;DR, but I split it up into short sections, read the bits that interest you.
The license indeed specifically includes both Star Citizen and Squadron 42, by name in the preamble of the license grant, and states in clear English that together both constitute "the game".
Exclusivity is the main argument point I think. It has problems.
The problem with this claim is that it is in the Grant section, and not the restrictions section. In other words, this defines Crytek's obligation under the grant. Crytek claims that CIG is obligated to use CryEngine. Section 2.1.2 of the License Grant reads:
SIC [Crytek grants to CIG a worldwide license ] to exclusively embed Cryengine in the game and develop the game which right shall be sublicencable pursuant to Sec. 2.6
In English: We're only licensing Cryengine itself, not any other software we have produced, so you can produce "the game" (defined as both Star Citizen and Squadron 42) and you have the right to sublicense it to your any contractors you need to do that.
SIC [Crytek grants to CIG a worldwide license ] to exclusively embed Cryengine in the game and develop the game which right shall be sublicencable pursuant to Sec. 2.6
In English: We're only licensing Cryengine itself, not any other software we have produced, so you can produce "the game" (defined as both Star Citizen and Squadron 42) and you have the right to sublicense it to your any contractors you need to do that.
I split copyright into two sections
Section 2.8 is about copyright, and covers CIG's obligations with respect to Crytek's copyright - which would only apply if CIG was actually using Crytek software. They are not, they are using Amazon Lumberyard. To the best of my recollection, you cannot compel someone in a contract or otherwise, to appropriate a copyright or trademark owned by a third party not in your agreement.
Crytek is going to argue that Lumberyard is in part, Crytek software - which is most likely true - CIG is likely under the requirement to use Lumberyard's copyright notice. If Crytek wants that to change, they have an issue with Amazon not with CIG.
Crytek is going to argue that Lumberyard is in part, Crytek software - which is most likely true - CIG is likely under the requirement to use Lumberyard's copyright notice. If Crytek wants that to change, they have an issue with Amazon not with CIG.
On sharing source code: this is a bit long, but kind of funny when you think about it.
Crytek contends that some Crytek source code was shown in some bugsmasher videos. This may be true, but this likely does not constitute a copyright violation, because under US copyright law, there is a fair use exemption which covers things such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
I say this, and US copyright law is considered draconian compared with other countries.
Under fair use, the court looks at among other things:
1. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: I say that showing a few lines of code on a screen that was video taped, does not show enough of the several hundred thousand, or even millions of lines of code to be construed as any kind of violation.
2. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: This refers to the damage done to the plaintiff. If there was a copyright violation, then sure CIG would be liable for the damages done to CryTek for the copyright violation. However, CryTek makes their source code publicly available, and has for some time.
(See https://www.cryengine.com)
for the click impaired this is an image of the sentient portion of the page, reproduced in compliance with the Fair Use clause under American Copyright law.
I say this, and US copyright law is considered draconian compared with other countries.
Under fair use, the court looks at among other things:
1. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: I say that showing a few lines of code on a screen that was video taped, does not show enough of the several hundred thousand, or even millions of lines of code to be construed as any kind of violation.
2. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: This refers to the damage done to the plaintiff. If there was a copyright violation, then sure CIG would be liable for the damages done to CryTek for the copyright violation. However, CryTek makes their source code publicly available, and has for some time.
(See https://www.cryengine.com)
for the click impaired this is an image of the sentient portion of the page, reproduced in compliance with the Fair Use clause under American Copyright law.
Most of the other claims made by Crytek seem frivolous to me. There is a really curiously worded section of the GLA though. This is clearly supposed to be the section that outlines part of Crytek's warranty, and is usually meant to reference a third party where Crytek has infringed their intellectual property. But it does not say this. This is section 6.1.2. It leaves out all references to the third party!
Keep in mind as you read this that it is written originally in very concise language, negotiated by lawyers so that the rights and obligations contained are spelled out very clearly. Every dot, iota, and idea it contains is thoughtfully written - and this document's content is owned largely, by Crytek.
As it reads now, in effect, it says that if there is a claim (a legal action... ANY legal acton) that seeks to stop CIG from using the code... Crytek will
i) seek to get CIG the required permission to use the code OR
ii) Fix and replace Cryengine so that it is not infringing OR
iii) Terminate the agreement, and refund CIG.
So. By virtue of their own agreement, Crytek now owes CIG a copy of their Cryengine software that doesn't violate Crytek's own copyright, or termination of the license, and a full refund!
I'm going to love watching this unfold.
Also: 8.2. of the agreement describes that if either party is insolvent or can't otherwise pay their obligations, they must inform the other in writing.
And that if they are insolvent or can't otherwise pay their obligations, the contract is terminated (ii)
Crytek may be in violation of this part of the agreement, if at any time during the contract duration, they could not afford to pay their obligations which is left undefined - and therefore would include their obligation to their employees. It is fairly well established that this occurred during 2014, 2015, and 2016 at least. There are both interviews with, and comments from their CEO that discuss this.
And that if they are insolvent or can't otherwise pay their obligations, the contract is terminated (ii)
Crytek may be in violation of this part of the agreement, if at any time during the contract duration, they could not afford to pay their obligations which is left undefined - and therefore would include their obligation to their employees. It is fairly well established that this occurred during 2014, 2015, and 2016 at least. There are both interviews with, and comments from their CEO that discuss this.
Leonard French said that if he were Judge Judy he would favor CIG. The part about there being no damages for breach in a 1.8 mil Euro contract was a laugh, he said he'd never seen anything like that.
The law, well contract law at least, is so tedious because it is very very concise language, meant to convey the conditions of the contract so that there can be no misinterpretation, and even over the passage of time with the inevitable change in the meaning of certain words, the intent of the contract will still be clear.
CIG is responding, simply because if they don't, they could be found in violation of the contract regardless of the facts, so don't look to that to be the "right directon". It's the knee jerk reaction at this point. Like I said originally - CIG read the complaint and went, "WTF".
All we're looking for now is to see which parts of the complaint are going to be disallowed as a result of their initial response. Crytek will have a chance to ammend the complaint to account for whatever weaknesses there are. CIG will have a chance to re-respond, etc. etc. Sometime in probably 2020 ish, if any grounds for a complaint remain, we'll have a trial.
But from where I sit, It seems to me that either
- the intent of the contract was closing the sale, rather than licensing the product (Tisk tisk! You never use a GLA to close a sale. The GLA is part of what you sell.)
- OR this is the sloppiest bit of contract wording I've seen in a while.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Going into this, my thoughts were either CIG had really incompetent lawyers, or CryTek is hiding something or twisting the facts.
It seems that it is CryTek who is hiding something and twisting the facts.
Getting to the meta:
1. I can't believe that CryTek's lawyers would have brought forth the complaint knowing what was in the contract, unless a) the didn't see the full GLA, and / or, they are asking for all their fees/money up front. I can't believe their lawyers will go much further with this complaint, unless they get all their fees up front...there isn't going to be a pot of gold ahead for them at the end of it, and it there is, it is going to be a really small pot of gold and they are going to have to fight long and hard for it. How much money does CryTek have to pay lawyers up front? I don't know...but I predict that soon somebody like Jacoby & Meyers will be repesenting them, lol!
2. Derek Smart yelling in caps on Leonard's stream was pretty hilarious, I'm sure he is having a melt down...
It seems that it is CryTek who is hiding something and twisting the facts.
Getting to the meta:
1. I can't believe that CryTek's lawyers would have brought forth the complaint knowing what was in the contract, unless a) the didn't see the full GLA, and / or, they are asking for all their fees/money up front. I can't believe their lawyers will go much further with this complaint, unless they get all their fees up front...there isn't going to be a pot of gold ahead for them at the end of it, and it there is, it is going to be a really small pot of gold and they are going to have to fight long and hard for it. How much money does CryTek have to pay lawyers up front? I don't know...but I predict that soon somebody like Jacoby & Meyers will be repesenting them, lol!
2. Derek Smart yelling in caps on Leonard's stream was pretty hilarious, I'm sure he is having a melt down...
@Radegast74 the lawyers are definitely being paid cash up front. That's the way corporate lawyers work. They don't give a crap if you have a real case or not - if you pay them, they'll sue.
Can somebody summarize this all into one sentence that a 6yr old might understand?
Please use small words!
Please use small words!
Whatever he's said, we'll need a video of it that we can post here 7 times. :grin:
PS: multi-quote seems to be giving me some trouble, in addition to the issues with profile pics.
My interpretation of the discussion so far is that RSI may have agreed to use exclusively Cryengine to build SC. When they switched to Lumberyard (which is itself based on Cryengine) the question is whether that was a (Crytek's view) breach of contract or (RSI's view) a termination of contract.
If indeed it was a breach (which would seem unlikely IMO since RSI paid Crytek and not the other way around) then the question is how much damage RSI did to Crytek as a result, if any.
Yeah I get it. There was always the possibility that Chris Roberts made a decision about dumping Crytek without consulting his lawyers, in fact this may actually be the case. That's how this kind of thing happens far too often. I used to say "If lawyers were involved when you bought your underwear, then you should involve your lawyers when you change your underwear". But Chris Roberts is experienced enough with contracts, licenses and litigation that he's also not a slouch when it comes to understanding what the words mean.
This is another common thing why these cases get brought up. This one smacks of the same kind of thing as SCO vs [some linux customers] back in 2001/2002 ish. That, and I believe this case, is a last ditch effort on the part of Crytek to save a failing company by turning rabid. What they'll often do is sue a former or even a current customer, partners, or anyone else they think they can can, in the hopes that some of the bs sticks.