theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 16, 2018, 12:55:
Look, I get it's easy to hate on the game and jump on any hint of wrongdoing but when you actually look into the lawsuit there really isn't any merit. The contract even includes a provision stating neither party can sue each other. The intention by Crytek was to get CIG to settle for an easy payday but CIG has decided to fight it all the way, which will be extremely costly for Crytek.
You must have missed the filing which stated that CIG asked Crytek to settle but Crytek refused.
Derek Smart: "There is another huge Red flag in the Crytek filing.
That being, CIG requested that Crytek also list a settlement demand.
Ponder: If CIG were confident in their case, why would they ask for this?
In a Rule 26 procedure no less. Because, you know, that's totally how that works.
Granted, most cases settle before going to trial. But almost always, breach of contract or copyright cases, do not settle ahead of trial. I checked.
CIG is basically saying 'Yeah, OK - we know you want money. Give us a number already'.
Crytek rebuffed it. And rightfully so.
Aside from it being premature, it's akin to to the plaintiffs thinking they stand a chance of getting $100 at trial, but decide to take $1 now.
Make no mistake, damage awards are HUGE in cases like this. Especially given the strength of the Crytek claims.
Crytek's lawyers know this. They also know how much money has been raised - regardless of the potential for the project to fail.
So they would rather go through discovery, figure out the financials and other things - THEN - determine if a settlement is worth doing.
The 1st mistake that CIG did, right from the start, was allowing a case like this to even be filed. I've said this from the start.
The 2nd mistake was their hostile wording in filings, in which they were basically playing to their toxic backer base with 'sick owns' on Crytek."https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968845172279783456.html