I know there's an American flag beneath me... but I'm Canadian. We don't sue anyone, we ruin them with "Sorry, eh"
Crytek vs CIG lawsuit: Motion to dismiss granted!
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
Radegast74
Space Marshal
In a nutshell, Crytek still has one or two claims they could pursue (like the Bugsmashers code) that probably have little chance of succeeding...BUT...will take more legal back and forth, cost time and effort, and "little chance of succeeding" does not mean 0%.
I'm predicting that both sides have more incentive now (for opposite reasons) to settle than they did before, and that in a couple weeks they will announce that they have reached some sort of settlement in which neither side will admit any wrong doing, and the amount will be confidential, etc. But I don't think Crytek can squeeze much more than $150k out of CIG. But nobody has to know how much/how little they got, and both sides can claim a moral victory. But more importantly, CIG can just put this behind them and move forward.
The code we see on Bugsmashers is markup language, not Crytek source code from the engine.
Correct me if Im wrong, but CIG sharing the actual Cryengine code with a 3rd party, that is issue being raised here, not some markup language from Marks bug hunting.
I'm hoping they do, or just drop it. I'm sure we'd all like to just forget about this.
You see how meaningless it is to show source code like that. There were in fact, C++ classes that inherit from apparent Cryengine classes - and a lot of it. Everything I saw was an inherited class though, so not necessarily written by Crytek. And, yes there are potential issues with contractors working for CIG, especially FOIP, but we don't have any evidence from Crytek, just alligation in both source code and contractors actually. Fortunately that's not enough for a lawsuit.
I think it's telling that Crytek hasn't pointed to a single incident of copyright violation yet. For example, just because FOIP technology is being incorporated doesn't mean that a copyright violation occurred - even if the developers of the FOIP tech have a copy of Cryengine source code. Crytek source code is freely downloadable on GitHub, and has been for a fairly long time. Also, the date of the FOIP announcement is in mid-2017, after the migration to Lumberyard... and Lumberyard source code is freely available to download.
I mention that because if you make something freely available to all, it's incredibly hard to claim you suffered damages even if someone shares your source code under the old copyright laws. It might boil down to "did CIG claim they owned the copyright on Cryengine?"... because that's almost the only thing that's left.
Correct.
They just said it happened, but did not specify to the exact time and place. Does the court have to guess? Why can't they just give a link and time stamp to the violation?
I just want to point out that the original dates they were given to refile largely fall during days traditionally considered a holiday season. The law firm representing them may want to allow its staff to have a vacation which is a valid reason for asking for an extensions and is rather common. I haven't read the request yet though.
Edit: yeah it appears to just be a regular request due to the holidays.
Edit: yeah it appears to just be a regular request due to the holidays.
Tomorrow is the last day, I haven't seen anything new and the last bit of info on the court listener was the order being approved for the extension till the 17th.
Raither
Captain
Feels like they are just taking a shot in the dark and hoping for the best, trying because nothing to lose, everything to gain etc
CiG wins imo.
CiG wins imo.
We have an update.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/52/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/
Short answer they dropped it, but I don't quite understand the legal-eez at the end there?
Plaintiff reserves its rights to seek leave to
amend its pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) at a later
stage of the proceedings in this action.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/52/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/
Short answer they dropped it, but I don't quite understand the legal-eez at the end there?
Plaintiff reserves its rights to seek leave to
amend its pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) at a later
stage of the proceedings in this action.
I think they are trying to get to a point where they can bring another suit against CIG if they can put together an argument that can withstand the dismissal motions. I am not sure if they had just let things go if that would have prevented them from ever filing again on this issue. I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are two ways a suit is dismissed. With and without prejudice With prejudice means no further suits (I think), and without means they can refile again later.
I suspect this will be the last of it unless they can put together something really solid and damning showing something actionable.
This whole thing had an air of desperation about it.
I suspect this will be the last of it unless they can put together something really solid and damning showing something actionable.
This whole thing had an air of desperation about it.
Just means drink more beer as it will help you to understand... or not give a shit. Never did figure it out, which is why i say cheers.
We'll just have to watch and wait.
Raither
Captain
...but...but...but...DS clearly stated this is the final nail in the coffin for CIG!
The reference seems to be this...
15 a (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires
What that seems to mean in this context is, "We ask the court to agree to open this case again if we find something eventually ..."
This was clearly a fishing expedition, but if Crytek ever does find a copyright violation... they're just putting CIG on notice. They haven't given up, just conceding the round.
15 a (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires
What that seems to mean in this context is, "We ask the court to agree to open this case again if we find something eventually ..."
This was clearly a fishing expedition, but if Crytek ever does find a copyright violation... they're just putting CIG on notice. They haven't given up, just conceding the round.
Eventually he will be correct.
Maybe in 2039 when this game has had its run and we are bored of it.