Yes of course I would troll if the situation presents itself. And I could easily have used that as an excuse - and got away with it. But I didn’t do that because I wasn’t trolling.
It’s cute how I post long threads outlining & explaining my position, while you post mostly one-liners in a poor attempt to attack me; then say I’m raging. You see, there’s a valley between brilliance and ignorance. It’s time you know your place even as you try to figure out which side of that mountain you’re sitting on.
I was going to leave this be, but this is just too good.
I love this. You took the Jun '19 and thought it was June 19th. If you click the date of those posts they are June 6th and June 7th, 2019, same day as the docket showing evidence of the settlement.
You didn’t pause for a moment to realize that you just claimed your posts saying no settlement came a week after the settlement announcement? You are just so bad at this.
Amazingly you yourself even quoted this before with the correct dates:
Nice try. I’m not even going to bother because aside from the fact that I have nothing further to add, my goal isn’t to convince you of anything nor to change your mind or opinion. The primary purpose is to give you the chance to - once again - display your ignorance. Keep going, you’re doing just fine.
You can’t be this dense. This is like correcting someone’s spelling error.
ps. On the off-chance that it never occurred to you, that was cut & paste gone bad, and I messed up the chronology. Big deal - and not only does it make my case stronger, it proves my point.
Bold words spoken from the smoking crater of your credibility.
Did you just skip over the post where I demonstrated you had your dates wrong and even quoted you own post with the correct dates that proves that you claimed it was going to trial on the same day as the settlement.
Dear god man, just stop. Why can’t you simply admit you were wrong about the there being no settlement in the Star Control case. WTF do you think you are accomplishing here?
Having removed the cut & paste that I did of your original summary, and replacing them with actual post links and corrected date, the chronology goes back to my original post:
“That’s shockingly how lawsuits tend to work.”
=============
Here, let me help you with your disingenuous excerpt. You’re never - ever - going to beat me at this because, unlike you, I do research.
“Wardell jumped in then to explain that he and Reiche hammered out the details of the entire settlement in a conversation lasting a couple of hours. The collection of attorneys attached to the case then spent several weeks transforming the quick agreement into a formalized settlement offer.”
Okay, great, so we now have definitively proven and are in agreement that not only were you wrong about there being no settlement, your comments came not weeks before but immediately before the settlement. I’m glad we agree and can put this all behind us.
Back to the subject of this thread, the most recent impression I got from perusing the Interwebs regarding the lawsuit was that CIG delivered a massive knockout to Crytek once Amazon provided a letter stating that they had licensed all of the Crytek engine, and that therefore there was no issue whatsoever with the license and CIG basically won this fight, ie. even though CIG hadn’t switched from Cryengine, it didn’t matter anymore.
I think that that’s about as likely to be true as the idea that CIG paid them 8 digits.
I can’t imagine that anyone landed a ‘knockout blow’ versus it mostly fizzling out.
I think that Crytek’s biggest problem was that they were trying to sue CIG for making two games with a license agreement for only one game but they are only making zero games.
That was nonsense perpetrated by the Usual Suspects.
It was actually an email exchange between Avni (co-owner of Crytek) and Amazon which ended up in a Jan 17th filing which you can read over here in its entirety. It’s hilarious.
All Amazon did was confirm - via Discovery and based on Crytek’s motion (to them) - that CIG had a CryEngine license from them [Amazon]. This was to confirm that Amazon’s CryEngine license allowed third-party sub-licensing - something that was never in dispute. It later set the stage as to whether or not CIG had in fact switched (they didn’t) to Lumberyard and whether or not they were using any aspect of CryEngine in SQ42.
“Court’s analysis on Crytek’s credit claim rested on CIG’s now refuted assertion that it had actually switched to the Lumberyard engine. Id. at 4 (“It is enough . . . that CIG switched the copyright and trademark notices only after it began using Lumberyard instead of CryEngine.”). In sum, this Court, by the Court’s own express statement to this effect, has provided no indication how it may ultimately rule on the issues in this case. And given that CIG has not provided any authority or support for the notion that its license with Amazon voids its obligations under the GLA, Crytek is confident no such adverse ruling is forthcoming.”
“CIG argues that it would have no obligation to credit Crytek if it switched to an engine different from the CryEngine covered by the GLA. Of course, the reverse is equally true, i.e., CIG does have an obligation to credit Crytek if it has not switched away from the CryEngine.”
“As detailed in Section I.A.2, CIG has already stated that it continues to rely on the same CryEngine code covered by the GLA—there was no switch. CIG’s actual contention is that taking a second license to the CryEngine from Amazon somehow voids the GLA. Crytek has never suggested that it agrees with that contention, nor has CIG ever provided any legal authority to support it.”
Part of that discovery was the [shocking] revelation that CIG hadn’t actually switched to Lumberyard as they had claimed. And since both SC and SQ42 were found to still be using CryEngine - exactly as I had stated back in 2016 - it put firmly them on the hook for using a single license for not one but two games. That was the most critical aspect of the Crytek case and which survived the CIG motion to dismiss.
The crazy part of all this is that CIG really hoped to get away with using CryEngine in SQ42 without a license, while claiming that they had switched to Lumberyard. In fact, all they did was switch licenses - not source code. And the only part of Lumberyard which they used were it’s hooks into AWS since they couldn’t continue using a competing cloud solution: Google Compute. Given my extensive knowledge of both engines, I wrote about this several times, while indicating that licensing switching is all they had done in order to circumvent their commitments to Crytek.
Once Crytek used all this to establish that they hadn’t actually switched, and so they decided to withdraw the lawsuit for now and refile when SQ42 released, it all fell apart. That was the pivotal moment in the case for Crytek because they had CIG over the barrel. Settlement followed shortly after - and on favorable (because CIG was adamant for over 3 years that they didn’t need to buy a license from Crytek for SQ42) terms to Crytek.
Basically, via their lawsuit, Crytek was able to prove that not only was CIG blatantly lying (as far back as Dec 2016) about any engine switch, but also that they were engaged in the very same infringement they were sued for.
You posted a timeline quoting yourself saying no settlement on the 6th, and this is going to trial on the 7th, the same day the docket shows evidence of a settlement.
What exactly do you think your timeline proves other than that you were wrong about the settlement and your statements were directly before the settlement not as you claimed that “It wasn’t until weeks (yup, we have a thread with that) later that they decided to settle.”?
How can you, given your own posted proof, still contend that you were not wrong? Or that you didn’t lie above about the timeline? There are not weeks between June 7th and June 7th. There aren’t even weeks between June 7th and the public announcement on June 11th. I mean really? Just give it up already. Surely your ego can survive admitting to such an inconsequential wrong?
Seriously, what do you even think you are arguing at this point? I mean it can’t possibly still be that you were correct when you said no settlement and that it’s going to trial on the very same day it settled.
