Crytek Responds
- Thread starter Black Sunder
- Start date
Takeiteasy
Space Marshal
Watched the whole thing and Crytek might have one or two valid points but hardly going to threaten SC. And if any of it is to be taken to court surely the no damages clause will be a major part of the settlement which being on Lumberyard now will mean they get nothing?
I hate all this complicated law stuff. I try to avoid it.
I hate all this complicated law stuff. I try to avoid it.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Ok, was going to wait until I had read the entire CryTek filing, but I only made it a page and a half in and everything I've read so far is complete BS.
CryTek keeps using hyperbole in their filing (i.e., "CryTek's powerful video game engine", "licensed CryEngine at a discounted rate," "record-breaking amounts") that is meaningless to the court and seems more intent on capturing PR releases in blogs, and keeps making complaints about the "one game issue" and "promised to use CryEngine and not any other development platform," etc., that are clearly covered in the GLA and clearly show that CIG is well within their rights, according to the contract to do what they did.
Sheesh! On another list, a fellow has a sig line about an extension of Bedford's Law, being, "the exponentially diminishing returns of doubling down on stupid." CryTek is indeed exploring the extreme asymptote of that curve.
Back to reading...
EDIT: Ok, Leonard French's summary begins at 1:20:00, and his summary of his summary starts at about 1:23:00, where he calls it a "complicated, frankly, shitshow of a lawsuit..." Yeah, I can see this going on for a bit, as the judge wants to see more evidence come out and get to the bottom of the facts. I can see a lot of CryTek's arguments getting struck down quite quickly, but the judge will want to have more info on a couple of other points.
CryTek keeps using hyperbole in their filing (i.e., "CryTek's powerful video game engine", "licensed CryEngine at a discounted rate," "record-breaking amounts") that is meaningless to the court and seems more intent on capturing PR releases in blogs, and keeps making complaints about the "one game issue" and "promised to use CryEngine and not any other development platform," etc., that are clearly covered in the GLA and clearly show that CIG is well within their rights, according to the contract to do what they did.
Sheesh! On another list, a fellow has a sig line about an extension of Bedford's Law, being, "the exponentially diminishing returns of doubling down on stupid." CryTek is indeed exploring the extreme asymptote of that curve.
Back to reading...
EDIT: Ok, Leonard French's summary begins at 1:20:00, and his summary of his summary starts at about 1:23:00, where he calls it a "complicated, frankly, shitshow of a lawsuit..." Yeah, I can see this going on for a bit, as the judge wants to see more evidence come out and get to the bottom of the facts. I can see a lot of CryTek's arguments getting struck down quite quickly, but the judge will want to have more info on a couple of other points.
Last edited:
just caught the end of the stream and was waiting on someone to post this, thank you!
Meanwhile, i did read parts of the filing and summaries of it in reddit, and at first glance, nothing really changed. Maybe except for cryteks lawyers now sounding like a really uninteligent agressive 10 year old crying about not getting his icecream, even though he said it before that he wants one...
This whole lawsuit is bs, regardless, I want to look into some dates, when did they switch engines, when the buyout happened and such.... to me i feels like that most armchair, and real lawyers keep ignorimg the fact that looking into When things happened could make 99% of the case irrelevant, but i guess its cos in that legal system, you have to wait for the "discovery phase" for that to matter?
I'm just gonna weigh in without watching ninety minutes of video
.
.
well.....what is your weight?
Apparently....
The contract is sufficiently ambiguous to most likely negate CIG's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
CryTec makes conflicting claims (most of which are repeats of the earlier stuff) as well as seeking damages for both contract breach and copywrite infringement, which Leonard French says that in almost all cases is a one or the other type affair. The contract breach seems to have the strongest argument (not that their argument is all that persuasive to begin with), and that even if CIG was found to have breached the contract, there could be valid reasons for doing so. In addition, IF CIG is found to have breached the contract, CryTec would have to show damages suffered from the breach. It will likely be a shit-show for both companies and a feeding frenzy for the lawyers (my opinion).
The contract is sufficiently ambiguous to most likely negate CIG's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
CryTec makes conflicting claims (most of which are repeats of the earlier stuff) as well as seeking damages for both contract breach and copywrite infringement, which Leonard French says that in almost all cases is a one or the other type affair. The contract breach seems to have the strongest argument (not that their argument is all that persuasive to begin with), and that even if CIG was found to have breached the contract, there could be valid reasons for doing so. In addition, IF CIG is found to have breached the contract, CryTec would have to show damages suffered from the breach. It will likely be a shit-show for both companies and a feeding frenzy for the lawyers (my opinion).
In my expert experience, its basically "Im rubber, you're glue, what ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!", but written over 30 pages.
For those who don't want to slog through a 90 minute video, @Radegast74 has isolated the summary in 1 sentence.
If it was CryEngine code, or code that CIG did not own the copyright on, then it was very unprofessional at the very least. Even once, by accident. I think it becomes a different question then. Was it done in a way that would be covered by Fair Use, or other provisions defined by the US Copyright Act? I'm pretty sure that is the case, even if something unprofessional happened.
As a software developer, architect et al, there is one piece of the complaint I remain unconvinced of the outcome. Did Bugsmashers show "code" in videos? Yes, they did. What code did they show? Was it game code, or CryEngine code? This is going to become an important point, as the two are very distinct from one another.
If it was CryEngine code, or code that CIG did not own the copyright on, then it was very unprofessional at the very least. Even once, by accident. I think it becomes a different question then. Was it done in a way that would be covered by Fair Use, or other provisions defined by the US Copyright Act? I'm pretty sure that is the case, even if something unprofessional happened.
Last edited:
Radegast74
Space Marshal
lol, I can't take credit for that, those were Leonard French's *exact* words describing the lawsuit.
While there are some ambiguities in the contract (no document is perfect) I'm betting that some of the precedents that CIG cited in their briefings will be enough for the judge to strike down some of CryTek's claims...but yeah, there will be some things leftover that they will wind up in court. Sad, total waste of time and effort for CIG.
sounds elaborate.... yet childish.
Would it still be copyright infringement if the code shown was available to anyone for free when the video was released to the public? (through Crytek by downloading the now-free cryengine, which I'm not sure if it was free back when bugsmashers started)
Also, I think this is one point that CIG didn't reply to. Kinda interesting, we will have to see where this goes.
- Wellcome to my Lets Play: Internet Lawyer 2019 TEST edition (not made with Cryengine)
After watching Mr. French go through the reply, I think that the above 1 sentence summary fits really well. It's a shitshow.
Some stuff still seems to be up to interpretation, though most of these are supposedly covered by previous cases, and the judge will probably side with CIG on most points.
Some things that either he said or were pointed out on reddit:
- a contracts parts are broken, not the "whole thing", so they only have to pay the price for the parts that were broken, so not "omg everything is lost" just cos they didn't uphold all the points in the contract
- Crytek has to show how much they lost (damages) by CIG breaking certain points of the contract, they won't get a huge payout "just because"
- the argument for SQ42 being a separate game is bullshit, cryteks lawyers are citing conflicting parts from the GLA, it most likely won't stick
- the "exclusivity" part is just bullshitting on cryteks end. CIG does not Have To use Cryengine, but they Can use Cryengine. This is clear as day now, according to multiple lawyers, both real and armchair.
- the "previously cryteks lawyer" controvesry has been dropped by Crytek, although they kindly remind everyone that they are still butthurt about it
- the contract has errors in it and that could end up costing a lot! How the hell do you get the name of the game wrong in the first place?
- Crytek wants CGI's code, twisting the meaning of "bugfixes" way beyond it's limits, but according to the GLA, they have no right to any of the tools, assetts, or anything that was Created by CGI, Unless it is a bugfix in the ORIGINAL cryengine and it's tools. This is the norm for game development as far as I heard. Fixing the original code goes back to engine maker, everything else stays. Where "fixing" ends is to be determined, though I'm sure there are previous cases that dealt with this kinda problem that the judge will lean on.
- Cryteks lawyers are coming off as agressive little children, to me personally. I really want to give em a good slap, tell em to stop whining, and get their shit together. Tons of meaningless hyperbole, really loud words, for nothing:
CryLays.: - mommy, I got a paper in english, you prmised icecream, gimme icecream, NOW!
CIG: now now little Timmy, I told you, you would only get it if you get an A in English class, but you got an F. It's right here on the paper.
CryLays.: - but I Got a paper in a English, tahts good 'nugh, you prmised, now gimme gimme gimme Icecream! GIMME NOW!
And here comes where CIG should slap em as hard as possible so the wall gives em the next one...
One thing seems certain though, the case won't be dismissed. CIG didn't argue some points and that in itself is enough to take this case forward.
We are still missing most facts. Who did what , when they did it, what millions of agreements, emails, and other contracts were made we don't know about... Do you have "oral contracts" over there? Cos that will get really funny when they start talking about who promised what on the phone...
Fun example: Just look at the agreement that was signed by CR as both RSI and CIG (22min in video)! Even the signature dates are like what, 7 months apart? Is that even legal, lol?? It seems like zero shits were given to contracts, it was all a "formality" to them. Also, Leonard pointed out that it could be interpreted as a totally separate contract, so so RSI wouldn't have had the rights to use Cryengine, this copyright infringement, Or it can interpreted as one contract, in which case RSI is part of this lawsuit's other points. Sooo, yeah, complicated.
BTW, by looking at that date, I bet CIG could be sued for starting development well before June of 2013, using tools they didn't have the right to use lol... Or not so lol, hope they don't get any ideas from here :D
TL.DR: There are points to be argued here, so this will go to trial, it will be a long shitshow, unless they settle quietly out of court.
Some stuff still seems to be up to interpretation, though most of these are supposedly covered by previous cases, and the judge will probably side with CIG on most points.
Some things that either he said or were pointed out on reddit:
- a contracts parts are broken, not the "whole thing", so they only have to pay the price for the parts that were broken, so not "omg everything is lost" just cos they didn't uphold all the points in the contract
- Crytek has to show how much they lost (damages) by CIG breaking certain points of the contract, they won't get a huge payout "just because"
- the argument for SQ42 being a separate game is bullshit, cryteks lawyers are citing conflicting parts from the GLA, it most likely won't stick
- the "exclusivity" part is just bullshitting on cryteks end. CIG does not Have To use Cryengine, but they Can use Cryengine. This is clear as day now, according to multiple lawyers, both real and armchair.
- the "previously cryteks lawyer" controvesry has been dropped by Crytek, although they kindly remind everyone that they are still butthurt about it
- the contract has errors in it and that could end up costing a lot! How the hell do you get the name of the game wrong in the first place?
- Crytek wants CGI's code, twisting the meaning of "bugfixes" way beyond it's limits, but according to the GLA, they have no right to any of the tools, assetts, or anything that was Created by CGI, Unless it is a bugfix in the ORIGINAL cryengine and it's tools. This is the norm for game development as far as I heard. Fixing the original code goes back to engine maker, everything else stays. Where "fixing" ends is to be determined, though I'm sure there are previous cases that dealt with this kinda problem that the judge will lean on.
- Cryteks lawyers are coming off as agressive little children, to me personally. I really want to give em a good slap, tell em to stop whining, and get their shit together. Tons of meaningless hyperbole, really loud words, for nothing:
CryLays.: - mommy, I got a paper in english, you prmised icecream, gimme icecream, NOW!
CIG: now now little Timmy, I told you, you would only get it if you get an A in English class, but you got an F. It's right here on the paper.
CryLays.: - but I Got a paper in a English, tahts good 'nugh, you prmised, now gimme gimme gimme Icecream! GIMME NOW!
And here comes where CIG should slap em as hard as possible so the wall gives em the next one...
One thing seems certain though, the case won't be dismissed. CIG didn't argue some points and that in itself is enough to take this case forward.
We are still missing most facts. Who did what , when they did it, what millions of agreements, emails, and other contracts were made we don't know about... Do you have "oral contracts" over there? Cos that will get really funny when they start talking about who promised what on the phone...
Fun example: Just look at the agreement that was signed by CR as both RSI and CIG (22min in video)! Even the signature dates are like what, 7 months apart? Is that even legal, lol?? It seems like zero shits were given to contracts, it was all a "formality" to them. Also, Leonard pointed out that it could be interpreted as a totally separate contract, so so RSI wouldn't have had the rights to use Cryengine, this copyright infringement, Or it can interpreted as one contract, in which case RSI is part of this lawsuit's other points. Sooo, yeah, complicated.
BTW, by looking at that date, I bet CIG could be sued for starting development well before June of 2013, using tools they didn't have the right to use lol... Or not so lol, hope they don't get any ideas from here :D
TL.DR: There are points to be argued here, so this will go to trial, it will be a long shitshow, unless they settle quietly out of court.
Oh and another thing seems certain: Both sides already Lost! (overdramatising a bit, but do read on)
Even if through some miracle, Crytek wins every single point of this argument, comes out on top, and pounds CIG into nonexistence, they have irreparably damaged what remained of their image and the trust they built throughout the years. Or whatever was left of it, anyways.
At this point, it seems pretty certain that they won't win much, if anything at all. No matter what happens next, they will be remembered by developers as the company that sued the single developer who was their last hope for survival, in a really sketchy lawsuit. I'm sure some will still do business with them, if they promise not to sue them later...
Just like they promised they would provide updates and fixes and support on their end to CIG... which they didn't do, yet they are suing CIG for the same thing. Really trustworthy bunch, those crytek guys...
(I do remember devs pointing out on ATV-like shows that crytek was late and not delivering on their ends, maybe as far back as the hangar module? It was ages ago)
On the other side, CIG is already suffering from the toxic environment the corrupt modern games media promotes and feeds. Most "major" sites dismiss SC as a scam, and only post when they can spin it into "CIG is a terrible evil, let's clickbait the haters, whom we created, into posting on our site yaaay".
This lawsuit is the perfect shitstorm, the perfect clickbait. CIG cannot outright win this lawsuit, and it will most likely get settled outside of court. If it gets settled, or they have to pay Any damages, even if it's a 1000 bucks, that will be in the news as a Loss for CIG. This will serve as "proof" for the haters and the media to create more haters, and most importantly, sway the uninformed! This will have long-term consequences, as CIG will be remembered by such would-be backers/buyers, as the company that screwed over and ruined that big-name company they used to love.
(I especially despise Crytek for this part; I have to hold 3 hour long speeches for my friends every time about SC not being a scam. They are into space games, but still see SC as a "Not-a-game/most likely scam", no matter how many times I let em play with it... Cos they only hear what the big news sites say, and those all repeat the same hate mongering bullshit.)
All that said, I still think the best way to mitigate all the damage, would be to settle out of court, as quietly as possible. I know this goes against what CIG said, that they will fight this with everything, and all will be well yada yada bullshit. It is certainly not "heroic indie strikes again", it might not seem like the morally right choice cos it will take money away from backers, but in the real world, it is the one choice that will keep the game going for the longest time I think, and thus we will get the most game for our money.
Crytek would end up with a nice amount of money, without getting their name trashed even more. Cos believe me, if CIG wins any part of this in court, I will post that shit as far and wide on the internet as I can, and I'm sure loads of citizens will do the same! Also, CIG and it's community would be spared from more fake drama and hate which will come from Crytek winning any part of the lawsuit....
TLDR: this cannot end well for anyone.
Well done to whomever decided to do this at Crytek, I hope you overdose on your cocaine while on your yacht you bought with the salaries you still didn't pay out... Or just choke on your 24 carat gold pendrive that would have held the patches, fixes and improvements you promised, yet so conveniently forgot to deliver or even make, which basically forced CIG to switch over to Lumberyard in the first place, and led to this lawsuit...
Even if through some miracle, Crytek wins every single point of this argument, comes out on top, and pounds CIG into nonexistence, they have irreparably damaged what remained of their image and the trust they built throughout the years. Or whatever was left of it, anyways.
At this point, it seems pretty certain that they won't win much, if anything at all. No matter what happens next, they will be remembered by developers as the company that sued the single developer who was their last hope for survival, in a really sketchy lawsuit. I'm sure some will still do business with them, if they promise not to sue them later...
Just like they promised they would provide updates and fixes and support on their end to CIG... which they didn't do, yet they are suing CIG for the same thing. Really trustworthy bunch, those crytek guys...
(I do remember devs pointing out on ATV-like shows that crytek was late and not delivering on their ends, maybe as far back as the hangar module? It was ages ago)
On the other side, CIG is already suffering from the toxic environment the corrupt modern games media promotes and feeds. Most "major" sites dismiss SC as a scam, and only post when they can spin it into "CIG is a terrible evil, let's clickbait the haters, whom we created, into posting on our site yaaay".
This lawsuit is the perfect shitstorm, the perfect clickbait. CIG cannot outright win this lawsuit, and it will most likely get settled outside of court. If it gets settled, or they have to pay Any damages, even if it's a 1000 bucks, that will be in the news as a Loss for CIG. This will serve as "proof" for the haters and the media to create more haters, and most importantly, sway the uninformed! This will have long-term consequences, as CIG will be remembered by such would-be backers/buyers, as the company that screwed over and ruined that big-name company they used to love.
(I especially despise Crytek for this part; I have to hold 3 hour long speeches for my friends every time about SC not being a scam. They are into space games, but still see SC as a "Not-a-game/most likely scam", no matter how many times I let em play with it... Cos they only hear what the big news sites say, and those all repeat the same hate mongering bullshit.)
All that said, I still think the best way to mitigate all the damage, would be to settle out of court, as quietly as possible. I know this goes against what CIG said, that they will fight this with everything, and all will be well yada yada bullshit. It is certainly not "heroic indie strikes again", it might not seem like the morally right choice cos it will take money away from backers, but in the real world, it is the one choice that will keep the game going for the longest time I think, and thus we will get the most game for our money.
Crytek would end up with a nice amount of money, without getting their name trashed even more. Cos believe me, if CIG wins any part of this in court, I will post that shit as far and wide on the internet as I can, and I'm sure loads of citizens will do the same! Also, CIG and it's community would be spared from more fake drama and hate which will come from Crytek winning any part of the lawsuit....
TLDR: this cannot end well for anyone.
Well done to whomever decided to do this at Crytek, I hope you overdose on your cocaine while on your yacht you bought with the salaries you still didn't pay out... Or just choke on your 24 carat gold pendrive that would have held the patches, fixes and improvements you promised, yet so conveniently forgot to deliver or even make, which basically forced CIG to switch over to Lumberyard in the first place, and led to this lawsuit...
I don't know the US legal system at all, so pls correct me here:
I expect that a long silence will follow, as the process of going through "evidence", hearings, looking up precedents and such law-stuff starts?
Unless something really drastic happens, I guess this will continue throughout the year(s)?
Am I right in thinking that this is about the second to last time we hear about this for quiet a while? Next small bit of news will probably be that this goes onto trial, but apart from that, I don't expect that the proceedings will be much publicized, right?
Btw, can you win a fight like this by pointing at the other guy and yelling "they did it first! yer honor"? What I'm asking is, is it a valid argument, that one party broke something in the contract, so the other party decided to break the contract in an equal way until the first party fixed it's shit? (thinking of the "deliver bugfixes" part here, which is one of the points that can still stick, unless CIG shows that they did send fixes until the switcharoo)
Many thanks for posting this, good to be able to keep up with events and thanks once again to Mr. French for this time and efforts in producing these rundowns.
Takeiteasy
Space Marshal
If Crytek did show CryEngine code during Bugsmashers then the judge must surely ask Crytek "How does this damage you and to what extent?" which being a tiny amount of code on a video that had no I'll intent, in a 1.8 million euro contract well I can see them being given possibly monetary damages but then the GLA no damages clause comes in and strikes that money away.
I don't get it, either the GLA gets invalidated and Crytek gets nothing or the GLA stands and they get nothing?
I want to know the impact that no damages clause has (sorry I can't remember the correct term).
I don't get it, either the GLA gets invalidated and Crytek gets nothing or the GLA stands and they get nothing?
I want to know the impact that no damages clause has (sorry I can't remember the correct term).
Right now there is no fight over the contract itself - it's a fight over whether this goes to a Jury Trial or not.
Right now thats the crux of it - going for a trial by jury.
As people who move in the industry are having a hard enough time of interpreting whats going on it'll come down to who has the most persuasive guy in-front of 12 people who won't know their arse from their elbow in regard to GLA contracts.
Get the jury thinking your way and you'll get what you're after.
Doesn't matter what charge they get the case in front of a jury with, it's getting it in front of a jury of people who don't know the difference between the way the word "Exclusive" is used in Game Licenses vs Real Life and can be talked round to the offended parties way of thinking.
Takeiteasy
Space Marshal
Well CIG can quote what a lot of jury members will be familiar with, video games, if EA gets exclusive rights to Porsche for their games does that mean they can only use Porsche and nothing else? No.
Xbox gets exclusive DLC, does that mean they don't get any other DLC at all? Hell to the no.
CIG have every industry imaginable who do deals and offers in "exclusive" manners. Even CIG give exclusive offers to subscribers, that doesn't forbid giving offers to the other backers as well.
I love the reach that Crymoar are attempting and I just hope if it goes to trial there is a half competent jury.
A quote usually attributed to Eisenstein:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe!"