Some juicy Crytek news to wrap up the week for you

[Montoya]

Filed just an hour ago: https://www.docdroid.net/jvZtFTX/document.pdf


Here is the good part:

"

Second, evidence uncovered in discovery on the Amazon license shows that in May 2019 - a year and a half after launching the action - Crytek sheepishly and belatedly emailed Amazon to ask if it had truly granted CIG a license covering prior versions of CryEngine, including those licensed to CIG under the GLA. In that email, Crytek conceded that an affirmative answer would likely tank its SQ42 claim. Amazon confirmed that, yes indeed, it had done just that.

In addition to being unripe, the evidence shows that Crytek filed its SQ42 claim based on the false assumption that CIG’s license from Amazon covered only the publicly released version of Lumberyard. What Crytek did not know is that the license also included rights to prior versions of CryEngine itself, rights which Amazon granted in order to minimize the engineering time it would take CIG to migrate to Lumberyard. It was not until May 22, 2019 - a year and a half after filing this lawsuit - that Crytek finally decided to ask Amazon whether it “licensed the Cryengine itself directly to CIG,” conceding that the answer “might potentially have quite some influence on our evaluation of the legal situation . . . .” Amazon confirmed that yes, it had “included Cryengine (what you licensed to us) as part of that license to CIG.” On October 25, 2019, CIG produced a copy of the Amazon license to Crytek so it could see for itself: CIG’s separate license with Amazon operates as a complete defense against Crytek’s remaining claims so they too never should have been brought.

"

Suck it Crytek!

 

[thanatos73]

So take your deflated, broke ass ball and go home, Cryrek.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Thank you, Glorious Leader!

 

[SanPatricio]

THIS is the best part:

In year three, the case docket is littered with the detritus of reckless Crytek allegations, subject to fee shifting, thrown out as a matter of law or dropped under pressure.

Crytek should not be allowed to aim its car at CIG’s storefront window, stomp the accelerator, smash through, do doughnuts for years, then back out and drive away to maybe circle around and crash CIG again another day.

Crytek richly deserves having its keys taken away for all time

 

[August]

It was savage, and completely warranted.

 

[Vavrik]

Ah geez. It's not even April first yet.

 

[maynard]

here's wishing CIG the best of luck collecting lawyers' fees from Crytek...

 

[Cugino83]

Well as I state in the previus episode Crytec finally realize thay are in deep shit with this lawsuite and that the licese trick doesn't work as intended since at CIG are not so stupid as they think. Now they are try to retreat and behave like noting happen... too bad for them CIG is not on the same advise...

"License trolling.... you are doing it the wrong way"

 

[deradevil]

Crytec go home!!!

 

[BUTUZ]

Who's Crytek? Aren't they those peeps who made a game 10 years ago??

 

[CosmicTrader]

It was all just a SCAM........ I hope this nonsense is finally finished.

 

[Black Sunder]

This is good news.

 

[Sky Captain]

Who's Crytek? Aren't they those peeps who made a game 10 years ago??

Crytek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crytek and https://www.crytek.com/

Looking back at their history, it sounds like they haven't been having a good time since at least 2013.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Filed just an hour ago: https://www.docdroid.net/jvZtFTX/document.pdf


Here is the good part:

"


"

Suck it Crytek!

Most excellent news! Thanks GL for bringing this to our attention!

 

[Black Sunder]

CIG's lawyers when they write that document:

 

[DirectorGunner]

It needs ONE ruling from the Judge. Dismiss with Prejudice, Crytek to pay CIG's legal fees.

This is gold
"Crytek Is Swerving From a Near-Certain Adverse Ruling."

h the summary judgment and trial deadline on the horizon, Crytek seeks to “avoid a near-certain adverse ruling” that the last claims are unripe, meritless, or both. Maxum, 299 Fed. App’x at 666. Crytek admits an adverse ruling is on its way because its excuse for why the SQ42 claim should be dismissed—that the claim is not ripe—is one of the very adverse rulings it seeks to avoid. The Court’s Order on the bond motion, which found merit in CIG’s legal defenses, gave Crytek reason to Case 2:17-cv-08937-DMG-FFM Document 104-2 Filed 01/17/20 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:1418
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272818DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO CRYTEK GMBH’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41 change its tune. ECF 81 at 3 (“The Court concludes that Defendants have a reasonable possibility of prevailing.”). But as the Ninth Circuit held in Maxum, the fact that a party’s motion for voluntary dismissal follows a court’s indication of how it might rule weighs in favor of dismissal with prejudice. 299 Fed. App’x at 666; see also Fischer v. Zespri Fresh Produce N. Am., Inc., No. CV 07-5729 ODW (CTX), 2009 WL 10659754, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2009) (Wright, II, J.) (finding “it appropriate to dismiss [p]laintiffs’ claim against [defendant] with prejudice” where “[p]laintiff’s motion appear[ed] [to be] a studied response to avoid a final adjudication on the merits”). In sum, taking into account CIG’s effort and expense defending against Crytek’s claims and preparing for trial, Crytek’s excessive delay and lack of diligence in investigating and prosecuting its case, the late stage of the proceedings, and Crytek’s insufficient explanation for dismissal, it would be inequitable to allow Crytek to refile its claims against CIG. See Microhits, 2011 WL 13143434, at *2 (dismissal with prejudice proper where defendant “engage[d] in significant pretrial preparation, and possibly even trial preparation, before it was discovered that Plaintiffs did not have standing”).

Spoiler: Boring stuff unless interested in the other referenced cases

CIG cited Maxum, 299 Fed. App’x at 666 (From 9th Circuit court). I assumed concerning dismissal with prejudice, supported by Crytek's lack of due diligence in the lawsuit. So I went looking for that case,
the one I found with that criteria was
Kelly v. MAXUM SPECIALTY INSURANCE GROUP
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5338034473828883728&q=Maxum,+299+Ninth+Circuit&hl=en&as_sdt=3,29
I reviewed to get educated on what CIG was referencing... I feel like perhaps I found the wrong case?

They also referenced Fischer v. Zespri Fresh Produce N. Am., Inc
This one I think I did find
Fischer v. ZESPRI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2013
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16221856408719673184&q=+Fischer+v.+Zespri+Fresh+Produce&hl=en&as_sdt=3,29

Because the contracts entitle HortResearch to its fees, we need not address alternative arguments. The order denying its fees is VACATED and the case is REMANDED so that the district court can award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to HortResearch, including its costs on appeal.

I think the Microhits one could be this
Microhits, Inc. v. Deep Dish Productions, Inc.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4145410/microhits-inc-v-deep-dish-productions-inc/

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of January 6, 2011 dismissing plaintiffs Microhits, Inc. and Ronald Magness’ (“Plaintiffs”) copyright infringement claim with prejudice for lack of standing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Deep Dish Productions, Inc. (“Defendant”) shall have judgment in its favor against Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs take nothing and that Defendant shall have its costs of suit. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Which was appealed to 9th Circuit and denied.

MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 110, CCA # 11-56411. Deep Dish's belated motion to file a supplemental brief is denied. The district court's denial of the motion to withdraw is AFFIRMED;

That's a NICE reference!

 

[Hybus]

Boredgamer has a summary of the latest update. Some seriously juicy stuff in there.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfzPyo-exRQ&t=525s


This snippet in particular amuses me to no end,

All of the factors applicable to the Court’s discretion cry out for the action’s dismissal with prejudice. At the very least, the Court should dismiss Crytek’s credits claim with prejudice and order that the security bond be released to CIG. Crytek should not be allowed to aim its car at CIG’s storefront window, stomp the accelerator, smash through, do doughnuts for years, then back out and drive away to maybe circle around and crash CIG again another day. Crytek richly deserves having its keys taken away for all time, so that CIG can conduct responsible business without further interference from Crytek or its series of lawyers. The security bond, which the Court generously limited in size so Crytek could make it to the end of a case it now flees, would barely cover a portion of the wreckage. The “proper” ending is the action’s dismissal with prejudice. Any other dismissal should end with the bond paid over to CIG.

*source* https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/106/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/

 

[Devil Dog Hog]

Holy crap, I feel like I just got firebombed. Are my eyebrows on fire?

View: https://media.giphy.com/media/VsMKqWt9pElC8/giphy.gif

That wasn't just a counter argument to dismissal without prejudice, that was a shark smelling blood in the water and going ape shit.

View: https://media.giphy.com/media/iyYNdXJ0bTZug/giphy.gif

Sorry Crytek, you cant swim away that fast.

 

[FZD]

Oh wow. Crytek is a mess. What sort of license deal have they made with Amazon that they have to ask if Amazon has been going around granting licenses to 3rd parties for the earlier versions of their engine?
I thought Amazon had just a license for the fork. Guess they got more of a "Yeah give us a bucket load of money and do whatever you want" kinda deal.

 

[Devil Dog Hog]

I believe Crytek sold the whole kitten ka poodle to Amazon and just retained basic developer rights and royalties, but no say in who Amazon can then license too. They didn't mind being Amazons bitch until they saw someone else getting it from their sugar daddy and were like "But what about meeeeeeee."