Star Citizen - Chris Roberts, lots of spaceship porn, lots of promises

Well as sharp/concise as lawyerese can be :-)

(But thanks from me too)

FALSE

Also, not relevant because the Amazon license has ZERO relevance to the CIG license or there wouldn’t have been a lawsuit to begin with. Jeez.

FALSE

There were NO new claims filed following the ruling on the MtD.

Bonus : he bond was a completely separate issue that’s standard in most lawsuits. Crytek put up the bond as per the ruling.

Not relevant. As shown - and proven via the lawsuit - they were already developing two games using CryEngine prior to the split. It still didn’t absolve them of liability or the MtD wouldn’t have been denied on this point alone.

Not relevant. Switching (which they didn’t actually do, as it turns out) a license isn’t the same as switching the code base. Especially since the underlying CryEngine code used in Lumberyard was VASTLY different than the base version. If you were a dev, you’d know the difference. Heck, thousands of software based lawsuits have been lost and/or settled on this point alone. I mean, look at Oracle.

To wit, a function in base CryEngine that doesn’t appear in Lumberyard means that snippets from both engines are in use. This is PRECISELY why CIG tripped up because they were developing TWO titles - not one. If they hadn’t split SQ42, it wouldn’t matter as any CryEngine (paid) or Lumberyard (free) license would have been covered under Star Citizen.

FALSE

And the judge agreed when she denied the MtD on these grounds alone.

Not relevant because this was NEVER in dispute. Ever.

FALSE

If you read the lawsuit filing, you’d know this. The original filing was pretty clear on this claim alone. In fact, the judge - in the MtD ruling - agreed that CIG could switch engines if they wanted to. That was never the issue after that. The issue was whether or not they had a prior license to develop SQ42 - a second title.

Except that’s not how software licensing laws work. It doesn’t matter if it’s one day or one decade. What’s relevant are the ensuing damages for said breach. And in this regard, had this gone to trial, and assuming that Crytek prevailed, the biggest weapon they would have would be damages as well as an injunction against SQ42. See Epic v Silicon Knights

You missed the part where this was always the issue because prior to the Amazon email exchange with Avni and CIG subsequently (because they would have to submit to source code discovery otherwise) admitting that they never really switched (code base), SQ42 was always going to be released stand-alone (it’s in the filings. You should read them). The issue at this moment in time was when. We’ve known since Dec 2018 that CIG had taken a $46M bailout in the Summer of 2018; and during that revelation, they announced that it was for SQ42 marketing etc. At the same time, they also released the first SQ42 roadmap with a Beta launch date of Q2/2020.

Amid all this, the trial was set for March 24, 2020. They settled Feb 20, 2020. And it was finalized by the court on Mar 23, 2020.

A defendant (CIG) with a strong case has ZERO motivation or reason to settle a case shortly before trial. Unless they knew the risks of LOSING. The same goes for the plaintiff. So with a looming trial date, CIG has no reason to settle - because they didn’t have|or need to - unless they knew something bad would ensue. Not only that, even when Crytek filed to dismiss the suit with prejudice (so they could refile after SQ42 released), CIG opposed it. Guess why that would be the case.

Next thing we know, it’s settled. Shocking.

Man, you are just choosing to be willfully ignorant at this stage. Crytek fucked this up. They did not properly consider the implications of their agreement with Amazon and brought a suit that, while seemingly having merit, significantly lost its sting once it came to light CIG’s Lumberyard licensing agreement gave them access to the exact same source covered under the Crytek GLA, thereby effectively nullifying it as it relates to SQ42. That this came to light only in mid 2019 is kind of bonkers, but whatevs.

If CIG didn’t switch engines immediately, or in a timely fashion, or at all, it’s moot - it’s because they simply didn’t need to - Lumberyard had them covered.

If you think Crytek’s claim goes all the way back to 2012 because CIG carried some liability for developing two games prior to 2016, you’re wrong. Crytek brought the suit once CIG announced SQ42 would be sold separately in late 2015, that’s what broke GLA. They state that. In their complaint. 22 through 25. You should read it. Until that point, SQ42 was feature of SC and defined as such in the GLA.

If CIG broke GLA in late 2015 and Lumberyard had them covered in early 2016, sure Crytek can argue they still breached. Would they have brought suit if they knew back then that Lumberyard had cut their lunch? Maybe, maybe not, there’s plenty of reasons for or against, but who cares now, it doesn’t matter.

Fact is, this suit is not the straw that breaks CIG’s back and they sure as hell didn’t line Crytek’s pockets with gold to get it settled.

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

But I see you are backing your points with actual documents, don’t you have any impressions based on rumors from secret inside sources that you can’t expose? I’m not sure if I can trust a simply fact based analysis.

That was a good writeup, @sharaleo.

That’s not how copyright works. Once something becomes derivative, it’s always derivative, and once in breach (i.e. being developed during those months, if nothing else), it’s always a derivative of something that was in breach.
Also, having “the same source [code]” is meaningless.

I don’t believe you are correct there, Goth. Amazon actually controls that IP now, and can (and apparently did) license it’s use to organizations.

If Amazon solely owns the rights to CryEngine (I can’t remember anymore), it can choose not to care. Like those developers who use the GPL stop caring when the source for embedded is eventually distributed and the license complied with. But it’s no secret that they could.

Not quite sure what you mean by this? Count 2 in the complaint covered copyright infringement as it related to CIG using copyrighted code in a second game (63) and displaying/sharing code on bugsmashers and with 3rd parties (64, 65, 66).

The latter three were dismissed or dropped, as per that table I posted (which to be fair is in CIG’s opposition to dismiss), but they are all referenced.

The first (63) is so intrinsically tied to Count 1’s breach of contract (lack of license for standalone SQ42) as to be inseperable and in turn is also nullified CIG’s license agreement with Amazon - to the extent, of course, that GLA breach potentially still existed between Jan and April 2016 (though I agree that if it did exist, then it always exists, up to statutes of limitations). CIG had licensed access to (and thereby granted copyright access to) the necessary version of CryEngine source under Cytek’s GLA and their agreement with Amazon. CIG obviously own copyright to their own code and any modification they made to CryEngine source, so that would not be subject to a copyright claim from Crytek.

What I mean is they had no license for the second game, which terminates the rights for the first game (unless I forgot some explicit clause in the GLA), so everything added in that period, as well as everything developed on top after, is tainted by the violation of being a derivative of something that is illegal.
That’s about as far as my knowledge goes, and about as much as I care to know, because it starts getting complicated. Well, I lie, it’s also clear CryTek fucked up on damages along with other clauses.

Ah, see your point - single breach invalidates/terminates entire GLA. There is indeed termination clause in the original GLA:

But Crytek didn’t execute this clause, they instead sued for breach. License entitlement for SC remained perfectly valid through litigation. Regardless, termination would not have invalidated any IP created by CIG, it only enforced return of CryEngine related materials. None of CIG’s produced code or IP were at risk of being invalidated had the termination clause been executed. Also, termination would almost certainly have come with a wrongful termination suit from CIG and Crytek still would have been forced to prove breach.

Even prior to settlement and in light of discovery, the termination clause would have become somewhat of a toothless threat to CIG, since all the exact same CryEngine material they would need to destroy/return is available to them under their Lumberyard agreement, allowing all their developed code and IP to work completely non-disruptively.

You can’t be serious. Not even a little bit. Unlike some of you guys who just jumped into this with listless opinions, ignorant assumptions, guesswork - and fake news, I have been involved in this since the very start and long before most of you even knew what Star Citizen was before you jumped on the bandwagon and declared Chris Roberts (yeah, that guy) the savior of PC gaming. Give me a break.

Let me add to that the facts that every step of the way, any critical and/or meaningful thing coming out of that scam has originated from me breaking the news. Every. Single. Time. I even knew about the lawsuit long before it was filed; and those people on my Discuss server knew this because we had a private channel (still there btw) since the start of this downhill. Similarly this same Lumberyard fiasco came from me - and I did write a massive blog explaining why they were blatantly lying about “switching”, why the engine - like CryEngine was woefully inadequate etc.

But yeah, OK man.

That’s not how licensing or IP laws work. I’ve done licensing agreements for over three decades. And they’re only as good as the outcome of any litigation. Heck, even contracts by the best minds get dismantled at litigation - regularly.

A license is a license. Have you even read the Lumberyard license? You should. While you’re at it, read the CryEngine one as well - all iterations (all up on Internet archives) of them.

Bonus: The judge disagrees with your assumptions when she found that Crytek’s lawsuit did have some merit. The biggest one being count 4 of the MtD which is the heart of the licensing agreement.

You literally can’t be serious. All of the above are breathtakingly details in the lawsuit complaint filed Dec 2016. Try reading it.

Jesus Christ. Dude, the judge ruled that CIG could switch to another engine if they wanted to. That has nothing to do with Lumberyard other than Crytek claiming that the agreement was that they would use it exclusively, promote it etc.

The surviving issues in the lawsuit revolve around them using CryEngine for MORE THAN ONE product. NOTHING to do with Lumberyard or any other engine. Then, after incessantly LYING about it for YEARS, they were recently forced to admit that they didn’t actually switch after all. And THAT revelation is what meant that they were squarely on the hook as per count 4 of the lawsuit which survived the MtD. How else should I explain this? With crayons? And the Amazon confirmation that they got a license in 2016 is what sealed the fate of the lawsuit. BOTH of these two damaging revelations happened on the eve of the trial. And just like that, we have a settlement.

It’s hard to take seriously people who, in the face of facts, still don’t argue in good faith. It’s tiresome.

I never claimed otherwise. Stop going around in circles. The split of one game into two is only one cause of action in the lawsuit. In fact, it’s the most damaging claim that survived the MtD and which, with the recent revelations, made it the most serious liability that CIG would face at trial.

OK I’m convinced that either 1) you’re obtusely ignorant or 2) intentionally arguing in bad faith

The lawsuit has SEVERAL causes of action. They are all laid out in detail. CIG filed a MtD to dismiss ALL of them. And in that, 2/6 were granted. What does that tell you?

As per the lawsuit filings, Crytek knew about them developing for more than one title back in 2016. In fact, CIG announced this in Feb 2016. THAT spat was already brewing in the background and not publicly known; though I already knew since April 2016 that they were planning to switch engines. I suspected that it would be Unreal 4 - and I laughed out loud. Then sources confirmed and told me that it was Lumberyard. I almost died of laughter.

Once I was given the all-clear to make it public, I posted about it the minute they released the build they claimed was the first Lumberyard enabled build. Except, it wasn’t. They only changed the license, removed Crytek logo, switched from GC to AWS.

Except that’s not how the law works.

  • Crytek sues CIG for 6 causes of action breaches
  • CIG objected and filed an MtD to dismiss all claims
  • Court agrees with Crytek in a devastating 2/6 ruling in FAVOR of Crytek
  • Crytek finds that this whole time when CIG was clamoring for a settlement (which Crytek rebuffed THREE (as per court filings) times, they were actually LYING about a key claim (the most damaging one btw
  • Having been caught Red handed and on the hook for the most devasting cause of action in any trademark/copyright infringement lawsuit (the kind that KILLS companies), they try to settle again - barely a month before the trial.
  • Crytek, now in a much stronger position, agrees to settle
  • The End

Twist that however you want, it won’t matter. What’s relevant is that CIG was caught LYING about a key claim (which had survived the MtD) in the lawsuit, and which forced them to settle. The amount, substantial or not, isn’t relevant in the least. What’s relevant is that, like all the LIES about the game, they were caught lying in a lawsuit - something that has it’s own set of liabilities btw.

Once again:

  • Switching a license isn’t the same as switching a code base
  • One line of code found to be infringing on someone’s work or mark, is the most devastating aspect of an IP lawsuit. This has always been the case

Argue semantics all you want, but the laughable part is that you actually believe that CIG would settle a case they thought they could win, barely a month before trial.

Time to come to grips with the fact that your investment in Star Citizen is vapor. There will never - ever - be a game as claimed. Ever.

BONUS: Read up on what CIG was facing in monetary damages if this went to trial (they would have LOST since they already admitted that they didn’t switch to Lumberyard after all, and thus were still using base CryEngine for two titles), then maybe - maybe - you will understand why they had to settle and why Crytek finally agreed.

I am pretty sure he knows all of that. But arguing with a true believer is always an exercise in patience.

Wrong. Crytek still owns & controls their IP. Amazon has a sub-license which allows them to use it in their own custom (Lumberyard) engine and to sub-license it as part of that. Amazon doesn’t own or control it. Crytek does. This is no different from third-party middleware (e.g. those in UE4, Unity etc) to which devs (e.g. Epic Games, Unity) have a sub-license that we as devs then use without needing our own license.

If Amazon controlled CryEngine, Crytek wouldn’t have cause to sue and that would have been the first thing in the MtD. They don’t. They have a sub-license and are subject to whatever is in their agreement with Crytek. That contract is confidential and could only have been filed under seal if it were a point of contention in the lawsuit. It wasn’t. What was vital is the date of the CIG license obtained from Amazon. Which is why the email exchange between Avni and Amazon was so pivotal as it set the tone and confirmed the timeline of CIG’s use of that license. And above all else, it confirmed Crytek’s claims in the lawsuit that CIG did all of this in 2016 - after splitting SQ42 as a separate title. In doing so, it demonstrated intent by CIG to bypass their license obligation to Crytek in obtaining a second license for SQ42.

erm, no. Did you read the graphic you posted? No? Please read 8.3 in its entirety. See the part about “shall delete and/or destroy any and all copies of the CryEngine, whether in object code or source code, in whole or in part, permanent or temporary”? What do you think that means in terms of the embedded code in Star Citzen?

Also, Crytek had no cause or reason to terminate the license. And as per the GLA, it’s not something that is one-sided. Which means that unless one of those clauses were in effect, neither side could terminate it. CIG could just stop using it if they wanted to, but Crytek couldn’t terminate it without cause.

lol!! See above

If it were that simple, they wouldn’t have reason to LIE about having switched from CryEngine to Lumberyard. They LIED because the CryEngine code in Lumberyard is all but non-existent due to the massive revisions that AMZ did in order to develop their own custom engine (Lumberyard). I have access to and have used both CryEngine and Lumberyard. Have you?

ps. But none of that is relevant to Star Citizen because CIG had a valid license to use both core CryEngine or the Lumberyard derivative. It’s all about SQ42 which uses the same custom code as Star Citizen. That’s the problem.

I think I understand Derek’s problem. He’s so invested in this thing falling apart one way or another, that he reads plaintiff filings like they are the fucking gospel and defendant filings like they are the whispers from the devil.

It is my understanding of the law (expressed by other people many years ago on some case or another, most likely multiple) that if you’re not fulfilling whatever obligations you have, you no have copyright rights whatsoever, from running to editing. Which is usually expensive to prove and subject to some leniency of the court depending on willingness.
Which includes all game code (during that period, at least). That’s kind of how you get some C&Ds for distribution of game mods and translations - which usually no one cares about if there’s no money involved, but you may have noticed some companies explicitly allowing it because it is an issue. Yeah, modders wrote the code, and I guess the code is fine because free speech trumps copyright, but distributing a derivative in functional form? Haha, no. Try to distribute a hack for single-player pay2win games to see how that goes.


I’m not going to touch the license, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know much case law, but dsmart sounds rightish. At the very least, there’s no clear cut about it.

Very funny. I’m no more invested than the next guy. You know, aside from the fact that I wasn’t even involved until this happened. It went downhill from there.

It’s pretty funny how some people feel like their involvement and opinions have more weight and/or credibility than others. We ALL have our biases, but only courage allows very few people to exhibit and/or defend their bias. Yes, I’m biased, but I’m neither stupid nor ignorant to the facts when laid out in front of me.

I get why some invested backers hate me so much, after all I’ve been at the forefront of this thing for so long and have been proven right time and time again due to how CIG has failed at this for nigh on five years now. I mean, who would’ve thought that we’d still be here discussing a broken game and the waste of backer money to a group of grifters? I sure didn’t see that coming.

lol-fucking-wot

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Pot, kettle, black.