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

[dsmart]

So, assuming you agree with what @Desslock wrote, does that mean Star Citizen is not owned by the bank under this agreement? Is it excluded as collateral in more than name only?

It has nothing to do with that.

And the bank doesn’t “own” anything. They have a “controlling interest” as per the charge. They will only own it if the loan defaults, and they succeed in securing the collateral through a court order.

I guess what Derek means is that, without clear definitions, it’s in a limbo. On one hand, IP related to Star Citizen is excluded (and that might include code), but on the other hand, source code is explicitely named (programmes) in the collaterals list as included, so which one applies is open to interpretation. In other terms, if CIG defaults, they’ll likely only know how big the damage was after a lengthy legal battle, unless those things are very clearly defined elsewhere, in some document (that’s part of the loan agreement) that was not made public.

Exactly. I’ve repeated this so many times, even used the word “ambiguous”. Instead, some people are trying to tell me - a 30 yr industry vet who has seen/signed his share of contracts - that “Intellectual Property” always or usually includes “source code” and “software”. This despite the fact the bank went to great lengths to itemized everything that could remotely be related to the Intellectual Property tied to Game (which we assumed to be SQ42).

My opinion remains that if this loan defaults, they are going to end up disputing whether or not the Star Citizen code, tech, assets etc which are used in SQ42, are part of that collateral, and whether or not that implies attachment to SC as well. Why? Because they didn’t clearly define what consists “Star Citizen” IP, as they did “Squadron 42”, the tax credits. etc. And that could be because the bank doesn’t really understand that SQ42 is built from SC. They think they are two separate games in name, code etc. They are not.

[dsmart]

If one was to accept that Intellectual Property includes the code, and that “Excluded Collateral” includes all intellectual property with respect to Star Citizen, and that the Excluded Collateral is excluded in all cases from the collateral under the definition of “Collateral”, then I’m not sure how you could interpret the code for Star Citizen as being part of the collateral.

If you were to accept that IP includes the code, then it seems like all you’re left with is whether the agreement was made in good faith.

That’s why smart attorneys don’t “assume”. They list it clearly, without any ambiguity. IP related lawsuits have erupted over less. You know this I think.

[dsmart]

Did i sell you the house and retain the foundation?

I’m fine with this. This is fine. ^^

Bingo!

[Ryan_Kelly]

Exactly. I’ve repeated this so many times, even used the word “ambiguous”. Instead, some people are trying to tell me - a 30 yr industry vet who has seen/signed his share of contracts - that “Intellectual Property” always or usually includes “source code” and “software”. This despite the fact the bank went to great lengths to itemized everything that could remotely be related to the Intellectual Property tied to Game (which we assumed to be SQ42).

Yes, @Desslock was trying to tell you that with this post:

There is a lot of complete nonsense being asserted in this thread, so I will try to set things straight:

software is intellectual property. Software is copyright protected: copyright does not need to be asserted or registered - it is automatically owned by the author.
In some countries, such as the U.S., that copyright is automatically owned by employers since employees don’t acquire any rights in work product for an employer. In other countries, such as Canada and the U.K., the employees will by default own the copyright to their work product, so it is important to have written employment contracts to assign those IP rights to the employer automatically (failure to do so is a common problem in M&A transactions in those countries).
whenever a software company is sold or enters into commercial transaction, the software and related rights are often described in great detail separately and not just lumped in with other “intellectual property” - but that’s just done for greater clarity given the importance of that asset and the nature of the company’s business: it does not mean that it would be excluded from a general reference to “intellectual property” owned by the company.

And you seemed to agree with his interpretation, hence my question. Were you being sarcastic when you said that @Desslock’s post cleared things up?

[dsmart]

And you seemed to agree with his interpretation, hence my question. Were you being sarcastic when you said that @Desslock’s post cleared things up?

I thought my response Desslock was clear and devoid of confusion. Here, let me quote his whole post again, this time highlight the point of contention and you - and some others - keep blissfully ignoring, despite many attempts by myself and one or two others to explain it.

There is a lot of complete nonsense being asserted in this thread, so I will try to set things straight:

software is intellectual property. Software is copyright protected: copyright does not need to be asserted or registered - >it is automatically owned by the author.

In some countries, such as the U.S., that copyright is automatically owned by employers since employees don’t acquire >any rights in work product for an employer. In other countries, such as Canada and the U.S., the employees will by >default own the copyright to their work product, so it is important to have written employment contracts to assign those >IP rights to the employer automatically (failure to do so is a common problem in M&A transactions in those countries).
whenever a software company is sold or enters into commercial transaction, the software and related rights are often >described in great detail separately and not just lumped in with other “intellectual property” - but that’s just done for >greater clarity given the importance of that asset and the nature of the company’s business: it does not mean that it >would be excluded from a general reference to “intellectual property” owned by the company.

My commentary about SC being excluded because it is referenced as “Intellectual Property” is that it’s absolutely NOT the case. And that without such clarity, any dispute is going to end up in litigation. Why? Because by including source code, digital media and similar, to “include” in SQ42, automatically calls into question whether or not the code from SC - which SQ42 uses - is included or excluded.

And because SC wasn’t detailed in what was excluded, I maintain that they unwittingly included it by way of the fact that SQ42 is built from SC.

[Timex]

it does not mean that it >would be excluded from a general reference to “intellectual property” owned by the company.

But there’s this part immediately after the part you bolded.

[kerzain]

Here’s a screenshot:

[dsmart]

But there’s this part immediately after the part you bolded.

That part is of no consequence, as it doesn’t play any part in my previous commentary.

In case you were missing the point, Desslock in his post, was encapsulating all the instances under which various assets could be manually or automatically included in an “Intellectual Property” definition. One of those - which I highlighted in his post - were the basis for my argument. But you already knew this, since you’ve been reading my posts and running around in circles trying to deflect the narrative into something else.

[dsmart]

Here’s a screenshot:

I like this one better. It’s from an AtV broadcast earlier today, showing the game running at 13 fps on a barran planetoid.

[Profanicus]

FTFY

[dsmart]

FTFY

ooooh, I totally see what you did there, man :D

[kerzain]

Fix this one too. 3D Printing your ships gives you something tangible with which to accessorize your bananas.

[Ryan_Kelly]

I thought my response Desslock was clear and devoid of confusion. Here, let me quote his whole post again, this time highlight the point of contention and you - and some others - keep blissfully ignoring, despite many attempts by myself and one or two others to explain it.

Of course I was confused by your response. How was I supposed to know that you were taking part of his post completely out of context while ignoring the point he was making in that same sentence? Especially when the point he was making is the exact opposite of what you were trying to extract from it.

[kerzain]

Oh yea, I just remembered Gary Oldman will be in the game.

When it comes to Gary Oldman in space, I prefer The Fifth Element over Lost in Space. I wonder how his performance in Star Citizen will compare.

[tomchick]

People is not skeptic because they are haters. People is skeptic because every Korean MMO is a grinder. Every Anime has flashy teenage skin and fanservice. And every Pyramidal scheme ends with the owner escaping in a helicopter.

I want a needlework sampler of this to hang in my kitchen.

-Tom

[Ryan_Kelly]

Here’s a screenshot:

At first I thought this might have been showing the new procedural planets coming in 3.0, in which case the textures looked much worse than the other material I’ve seen. Here’s what it’s actually from:

[dsmart]

Of course I was confused by your response. How was I supposed to know that you were taking part of his post completely out of context while ignoring the point he was making in that same sentence? [/quote]

That’s on you. If you were actually following the discussion flow, it would have been obvious what my stance was, as it hasn’t changed - one bit. And by extension, it would have been obvious which part of his all-encompassing post I was agreeing with. I deliberately didn’t excerpt it specifically as it would have broken the context and essence of what he was saying. Which is why, even when I was forced to excerpt it, I still quoted it completely, while used bold to highlight the point I was making, and which was carried in his.

[quote]Especially when the point he was making is the exact opposite of what you were trying to extract from it.

It didn’t. There are TWO parts to his discussion.

Again, you’re either i) not following the conversion or ii) ignoring it for whatever reason

It’s not rocket science. It’s just common sense, really.

[dsmart]

At first I thought this might have been showing the new procedural planets coming in 3.0

There are no procedural planets in 3.0

[Ryan_Kelly]

That’s on you. If you were actually following the discussion flow, it would have been obvious what my stance was, as it hasn’t changed - one bit. And by extension, it would have been obvious which part of his all-encompassing post I was agreeing with. I deliberately didn’t excerpt it specifically as it would have broken the context and essence of what he was saying. Which is why, even when I was forced to excerpt it, I still quoted it completely, while used bold to highlight the point I was making, and which was carried in his.

Especially when the point he was making is the exact opposite of what you were trying to extract from it.

It didn’t. There are TWO parts to his discussion.

Again, you’re either i) not following the conversion or ii) ignoring it for whatever reason

It’s not rocket science. It’s just common sense, really.

I imagine I was not the only one confused, as it only takes basic reading comprehension to know that @Desslock was saying that even though rights are often separately described in great detail, this does not matter because a general reference to intellectual property would adequately encapsulate said rights. To say that there are “two parts to his discussion”, one which affirms your beliefs, is absurd. The only reason he wrote that first part down is to explain why it does not matter. When you said that his post cleared things up, it would naturally mean you were speaking to the entire point he was making.

There are no procedural planets in 3.0

Moons, rather.

[scharmers]

I want a needlework sampler of this to hang in my kitchen.

-Tom

Don’t you ever ban Teiman, Tom. I don’t care if he posts CP and/or ISIS pictures on the board, you can never ban him.