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.
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.
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.
You don’t even have to listen to me, just read the license agreement section (above graphic) above, it’s all in there. Heck, even when Epic won against Silicon Knights (who did have a valid license!), they killed the company and ALL their UE3 games because SK were forced (by the court) to remove UE from their game. Without that, there was no game. The result? The SK games died, as did SK as a company.
“The ruling, dated November 7, also orders Silicon Knights to cease using Epic Games’s “Licensed Technology” and remove it from the company’s game engine. Furthermore, Silicon Knights has until December 10 to destroy any code built using Epic’s technology; the court order includes Too Human , X-Men: Destiny , Siren in the Maelstrom , The Sandman , and The Box/Ritualyst . Silicon Knights must notify the court by December 21 and again on February 21, 2013, concerning all injunctions ordered, and they are to be carried out at the company’s expense.”
And that is PRECISELY what CIG would have been facing with SQ42 if this went to trial and they lost. That’s why Crytek, once it was revealed that CIG didn’t actually switch (code base) and were still using base CryEngine, opted to dismiss their lawsuit with leave to refile after SQ42 actually launched as it would be MORE damaging then.
I’m not at all a law expert and cannot judge what you’re saying, especially since there’s a competing narrative present here that I can’t discern, and the settlement happened in private. You do seem to be better versed in the facts of the case, but a settlement one month before trial – you see how that could be interpreted either way, right? Since the results weren’t announced publicly for us illiterates, I have no obvious way to tell who ‘won’.
However, could you explain your point here:
Why wouldn’t Crytek force a similar action to Epic v SI now, eviscerating CIG, rather than waiting to carry out a very expensive process ‘once SQ42 was released’ (assuming that happens)?
Another question: if Crytek really wins big time, CIG would have to pay them an enormous sum to settle. But CIG doesn’t have that kind of money. Where would/did it come from?
They won’t now because the parties have settled, the terms of which have put the issues remaining in this suit to rest with prejudice, so they can’t be brought again.
Recently a CIG angel investor executed an option to acquire more stake, to the tune of $17 million or so. It is Derek’s supposition that some (significant) portion of this money was used to settle the case with CIG.
We are agreeing to disagree that either party paid large sums to settle.
Yes - of course. But it’s the facts and how/why cases get settled that matter.
Crytek didn’t have ANYTHING hanging over their head; so they had ZERO incentive (other than a pay day in excess of their costs) to settle. In fact, CIG tried three times and Crytek rebuffed it. We know this because both parties mentioned it in their filings. Also, if it had gone to trial and CIG won, Crytek loses nothing - other than the legal fees for which they already put up a cash bond (for fees) in order to bring the case as far as trial. It was another tactic that CIG used to force a settlement - and it failed spectularly.
CIG on the other hand now had a massive liability (with more teeth) following the revelation as to 1) when the Lumberyard license was obtained 2) that they didn’t actually switch to it as per the code that’s used in both SC & SQ42.
On #2 alone, a judge and jury would take that very unfavorably because in several filings and in public statements, as we now know (despite my saying this since 2016 in several blogs) CIG had blatantly LIED that they had in fact switched to Lumberyard and that they were no longer using it. On the outside looking in, that alone gives motive for a blatant and intentional copyright infringement. Couple that with the fact that CIG would have needed to pay Crytek a substantial (following their funding windfall, due to how custom licenses are priced) amount for a SQ42 license, and the fact that Lumberyard is free, you don’t need idiots in the jury to put 2+2 and see the reasons for CIG to have lied about switching from a license that would cost them millions of Dollars, to one that is free - in violation a prior contract they signed for one title.
This sort of last minute settlement happens all the time, which is why very few cases like this go to trial.
Settlement isn’t about “winning” - it never was. It’s about a bird in the hand. And in most settlements, both sides take what they can live with, not necessarily what they want. Read this and this for an idea of what I am talking about. More importantly, this - if you have the time and care enough to invest said time.
“A settlement is an agreement between parties to a dispute. In everyday parlance and in academic scholarship, settlement is juxtaposed to trial or some other method of dispute resolution in which a third-party factfinder ultimately picks a winner and announces a score. The “trial versus settlement” trope, however, represents a false choice; viewing settlement solely as a dispute-ending alternative to a costly trial leads to an anemic understanding of how dispute resolution should and often does work.”
For us on the outside looking in, who “won” is about perspective and whose side you’re on. If Crytek settled in a manner whereby they paid their own costs, but got $1 above that from CIG, they won. I don’t see any win for CIG because they spent three years fielding bad press, legal costs etc - then had to settle at the last minute when, to some, it seemed that victory was on their side.
I know for an absolute fact that what Crytek got paid, covered their costs and then some. So in the end, they got what they wanted in the first place: a paid license for SQ42.
For CIG, it was the difference between paying, for e.g. $2M for a SQ42 license, and spending $1M on a lawsuit, plus $1M on settlement. So they ended up paying for a license anyway. And that came with the baggage and stigma of a 3 year lawsuit which now creates more stigma as per this settlement. Why? Because they were adamant - until the last minute - that they didn’t need a license for SQ42, that they had switched etc.
Despite my biases, I still believe that Crytek should have settled this back in 2018-19 when CIG was trying to do that after the lawsuit was filed. Had they done that, they would have saved on legal costs but still got some money for a SQ42 license. But it wasn’t - and never was - about money for them. It was personal because of what CIG had done to their company. I have said* this since day one. So there was seemingly no incentive for Crytek to settle at this moment in time - when they had the upper hand in some regard - and go to trial which would have cost them less than $25K for as long as it lasted. You don’t spend $1M on a three year lawsuit, then settle it suddenly one month to trial with about $25K left to spend. It’s not as if they were ever in danger of running out of money with one month to go to trial.
*Read my first 12/13/17 thread on this when the lawsuit was first filed. To wit:
As I previously outlined, following the two recent key revelations, that was the whole strategy they now planned to use when they decided to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice (allowing them to continue it at a later date), thus halting activities, costs etc, and waiting for SQ42 to launch. CIG recognized what they were doing, saw the danger, then opposed it - and without waiting for the judge to rule either way - they settled rather quickly.
Remember that $17.5M stock option sale to the original investors (of the $46M from Summer 2018) which happened merely weeks before settlement? I wrote about that here:
