Crytek vs CIG June update

Vavrik

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
1,949
7,897
900
RSI Handle
Vavrik
The "markup language" is C++ source code. But this is meaningless unless CIG was actually displaying CryTek source code. That is not typically how this would be done - but it's hard to tell from our end. Also, the CryTek program source code was not freely downloadable until after the dates in question, but it is still covered by copyright. You can tell what CryTek is hoping here, because copyright was the primary unresolved issue. In order to get anything at all, they need to win something, and this is an issue that often confuses the courts when dealing with software copyrights in source code.
 

Bruce

Vice Admiral
May 23, 2017
516
1,876
550
RSI Handle
ABAP
Very true, so show us what the financial penalty was for breaking GLA and prove damages caused by the breach.

Was it $10 or was it $1.5M ?
Personally, I believe that it would be task of lawyers of CryTek to prove that
1) piece of the code in question was indeed CryTek's code [ otherwise everyone could blame almost everyone else that they display "their" code ]
2) that display of this code represent any material damage

And if 1) is true but 2) is 0 - it should come back to the original issue of violation of the contract ... and frankly I have no idea how to prove that display of couple of screen worth's of code could do any damage
 

Radegast74

Grand Admiral
Oct 8, 2016
1,958
7,376
1,100
RSI Handle
Radegast74
I'll preface this with the old "I'm not a lawyer, but..." so you can disregard everything else, BUT:

When we last left off, Crytek (having been told by the judge that she was throwing almost everything out except the Bugsmashers copyright claim, and one other thing, with any copyright damages being severely limited in scope) said, "You can't throw out our lawsuit because we are withdrawing it...for now..."

At which point, CIG then filed their bond motion seeking to start the process to get back some of their lawyer fees.

So, Crytek can't go back in time and bring up new stuff or try to re-hear their stuff that a) got thrown out or b) they said they weren't pursuing at this time. They can't bring up new stuff...they *must* respond to what CIG is filing here.

It appears that about 95% of those 18 pages (@Montoya , do you have a link?) are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I expect the judge to continue to show impatience with Crytek's filings and irrelevencies in their arguments.
 

Vavrik

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
1,949
7,897
900
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Very true, so show us what the financial penalty was for breaking GLA and prove damages caused by the breach.

Was it $10 or was it $1.5M ?
I don't think CryTek specified, that would be kind of odd. But 1.5 million in a case like this seems more normal for a copyright case, assuming CIG is actually in breach of contract. I don't think they are. I mean it could be, but it doesn't make a lot of sense that CryTek can't point to a single specific instance. It's almost like they're waiting for a gift to fall from the sky. If it hasn't yet, then it's not going to.
 

Mich Angel

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 19, 2016
2,678
9,982
1,110
RSI Handle
ARCHANGEL_666
I only have two thing to say about this...

Occam's razor: Simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.
And simplest answer for this event is CryTek are out of cash an are grabbing for straws or as some say, fight to the end or you might call it kamikaze solution..!

Or alternativ two: CryTek need to stop smoking what ever it is they are smoking so they see this for what it is, they are making a ass of them self on a sinking ship.
If I was them I swallow my pride and get of the ship before it sunk so deep so they can't get back up to the surface again.

For who in their right mind would ever want to go in to business with them again if they they keep it up.... Just saying.
I for one wont touch any of their products again ever, not even if it was given to me for free.. why? Cause I don't trust them or their TOS.


This is my opinion, I might be wrong, I might be right but what they're doing make no sense if they have no problem with cash as they state.
I mean if you are in a predicament and usually that mean you want to get out of it and get on with your life so why aren't they doing that they have the option to do it.
But they don't and that make no sense as they are a business that partly need to rely on customers trust in their product and them to have a business in the first place.

CHEERS! 🍻
 
Last edited:

Radegast74

Grand Admiral
Oct 8, 2016
1,958
7,376
1,100
RSI Handle
Radegast74
I only have two thing to say about this...

Occam's razor: Simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.
And simplest answer for this event is CryTek are out of cash an are grabbing for straws or as some say, fight to the end or you might call it kamikaze solution..!

Or alternativ two: CryTek need to stop smoking what ever it is they are smoking so they see this for what it is, they are making a ass of them self on a sinking ship.
If I was them I swallow my pride and get of the ship before it sunk so deep so they can't get back up to the surface again.

For who in their right mind would ever want to go in to business with them again if they they keep it up.... Just saying.
I for one wont touch any of their products again ever, not even if it was given to me for free.. why? Cause I don't trust them or their TOS.


This is my opinion I might be wrong, I might be right but what they're doing make no sense if they hav no problem with cash as they state.

CHEERS! 🍻
Agreed. On another forum I visit occasionally, a fellow there has a re-wording of "Bradford's Law" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford's_law), which he restates as "The exponentially diminishing returns of doubling down on stupid." I think Crytek is in that territory.
 

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
6,335
32,425
2,555
RSI Handle
Montoya
It appears that about 95% of those 18 pages (@Montoya , do you have a link?) are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I expect the judge to continue to show impatience with Crytek's filings and irrelevencies in their arguments.
Yes, here you go:

 

Radegast74

Grand Admiral
Oct 8, 2016
1,958
7,376
1,100
RSI Handle
Radegast74
Yes, here you go:

Thanks!

Again, Crytek is basically using some mis-direction here...I can't wait to hear what the court's response back will be.

FWIW, I went to the Amazon FAQ's for Lumberyard (https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/faq/), read a bit, and did a word search in the TOS (https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/#57._Amazon_Lumberyard_Engine), and the word "Crytek" came up exactly 0 (zero) times. Their argument that CIG is still bound by the original GLA because Crytek source code is embedded in Lumberyard is (to me) a "novel" legal theory. (Read "novel" as "last desperate attempt").
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
5,737
22,689
1,525
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
...their argument that CIG is still bound by the original GLA because Crytek source code is embedded in Lumberyard is (to me) a "novel" legal theory. (Read "novel" as "last desperate attempt").
Interesting... So by association, Crytech are saying they owe Lumberyard some if not all of the GLA fee too?

*goes to Lumberyard TOS*

*Searches for word "TEST"*

47 matches. So Crytech owe TEST some of the GLA fee because TEST is imbedded and woven deeply through the Lumberyard TOS...? All hail the Glorious Leader for his stunning forethought of Org Names!
 
Forgot your password?