NKD wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 09:17:
The concept of "intellectual property" was a mistake and is just a way to keep lawyers collecting hourly rates.

Indeed. https://mises.org/library/ideas-free-and-unfree-book-commentary

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:
It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Did Apple just start owning the OS and hardware under Trump? Or have they been like that for decades? Gee, you're not biased against Trump are you?

Vertical integration isn't a monopoly since other companies can also vertically integrate and compete on the exact same footing. The Paramount ruling was atypical.

Ronald Reagan explained why in his autobiography, "An American Life" (p. 116-118). He wrote:

"In those days Hollywood was run a lot like an old-fashioned candy store: You cooked it in the back and sold it in the front.

....But that all changed after the war. An anti-trust suit was brought by a private chain of theaters and as a result the Justice Department issued a series of decrees declaring that the studios could either make pictures or operate theaters - they couldn't do both.

This turned Hollywood inside out overnight. The studios chose to continue producing movies. But no longer could they afford stables of actors and other workers under contract because from now on, they had to make movies purely on the speculation theaters would want to show them.

....Nevertheless, I believe the government's decision to break up the studio system was wrong. It destroyed the stability of the industry under the justification that the studios monopolized the picture business. But they didn't have a monopoly; there was intense competition that worked well for everybody. You had seven companies who were always competing with each other to turn out a better movie than the guy down the street, and if people didn't like a picture, they'd show it by voting with their feet.

Owning the theaters provided a guarantee to the studios that if they guessed wrong on a movie and made it, at least they'd get some of their money back by playing it at their own theaters. This allowed them to take risks on people and stories."

The lack of risk taking is why we have so many reboots of the same damn movie. How many Spiderman reboots are we on now? I've lost track. Thankfully the ruling is being turned back...

Why movie theaters are in trouble after DOJ nixes 70-year-old case

On Friday, a federal judge agreed to the Department of Justice's petition to vacate the Paramount Consent Decrees, a landmark 1948 ruling that forbade vertical integration in the film sector and ended the Hollywood studio system.

...."Multiplexes, broadcast and cable television, DVDs, and the Internet did not exist" when Paramount was decided, Torres wrote.

I liked the Sonic movie and it did very well at the box office, thanks to the redesigned Sonic that was made after fans rebelled at the trailer. Turns out, if you actually try to make the movie agree with the game, instead of doing your own weird interpretation, it actually pays off!

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jul 5, 2019, 12:51:
....The remainder of their keys are bought in low price markets and resold, which is at best, in a gray area legally.

How is that a grey area in any way whatsoever? If Amazon is selling $20 basketballs for $10 and I buy a bunch of them and sell them for $15 once the Amazon price returns to normal, who has been cheated here? Everyone benefits: Amazon sold more basketballs than they otherwise would have, the person who bought them from me saved $5 more than they would have at $20, and I made money I wouldn't have for orchestrating the transaction.

If nobody calls to report the card stolen, they just bill the customer...

Well of course they do since their fraud check didn't consider it suspicious enough to stop and so they have to assume it was a legitimate purchase. I work as a fraud analyst at a major retailer and I can tell you that you have to let many suspicious transactions go through or else you will be canceling or holding up way too many orders. Fraud checks require balancing speed with suspicion.

if somebody does call, they just cancel those charges and the guy who bought that key from G2A ends up getting screwed eventually.

I doubt the guy that bought from G2A gets screwed. Here is how a similar situation works in my biz. If a fraudster steals a credit card and buys product from our store and then sells that product on ebay, the person who unwittingly bought the items from the fraudster on ebay has nothing happen to him. He keeps his products and will probably never be told by anyone that he bought stolen goods. Nothing happens to Ebay either since it wasn't their fault. The person who's card was stolen also gets their money back from the card company. The people who get screwed are either the credit card company that let the original fraud purchase go through at our biz, or our biz. It depends on a few circumstances whether we or the credit card pays.

All patents/copyrights should be abolished:
http://mises.org/daily/5108/Ideas-Free-and-Unfree-A-Book-Commentary
http://c4sif.org/resources/

So much for EA saying single-player is dead. How out of touch can you be?

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

That video was made before Cryteks devastating response. It's not frivolous as they state because first of all, CIG didn't even attempt to defend themselves against the Bugsmashers & Facewear source code exposure allegations, nor the lack of promised bug fixes allegation, therefore the case cant be dismissed because of that alone.

Crytek quotes the contract stating that the license is only for Star Citizen and Squadron 42 if they are sold together as one game and Squdron 42 is a feature of Star Citizen ("The Game" not "The Games") and isn't for, as the contract states, "any content being sold and marketed separately".  Is Squadron 42 now being sold and marketed separately? You bet your ass it is.

Finally, even if the court decides that CIG could switch to a different engine, the contract is still in effect. They state that in Section 2.4 CIG isnt allowed to promote any engine other than Cry's and that, "By its terms, Section 2.4 remains in effect for two years after the termination of the GLA (an event that has not yet occurred.)"

Derek Smart was right :p
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/954724633344913408.html

Derek Smart's responses to this from Twitter all rolled into one:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html

As is now made clear, Crytek did a bunch of free work for CIG, like creating the trailer that was used in the Star Citizen Kickstarter. They did that to promote their game engine, and they gave CIG a below-market offer to use their engine in exchange for them prominently promoting their engine. They weren't going to do that free work etc. only to have CIG turn around and not use CryEngine and switch to a competing engine like Lumberyard [they are NOT the same engine and Amazon has their own licensing agreement to use it].

The big question was whether the contract stated that CIG could terminate the contract and switch to a different engine. We now know that the contract states that they can't switch to another engine while under the contract and the only way they can get out of the contract is if CIG goes bankrupt or Crytek breaches their side of the contract.

We also now know that the contract states that Star Citizen is one game and the engine license is only for that one game, so CIG splitting it into two games (Star Citizen and Squadron 42) breaches the contract as well.

Here are the pertinent snips of the contract:

https://mobile.twitter.com/dsmart/status/949805236591439872/photo/2

https://mobile.twitter.com/dsmart/status/949802938549104641/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/dsmart/status/949781779010990080/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/dsmart/status/949781779010990080/photo/2

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2018, 11:23.

I loved the first game but I think the combat in this one is a step back. The magic/physical armor aspect removes important tactical planning. For example, when the battle starts and I lob a sleep grenade, it does not have the intended effect of making the enemy sleep. It just takes off a little of their magic armor. But having the person go to sleep was part of my plan for my next 3 moves. Instead I have to retreat until that armor is gone. I hope a mod will come out that makes the combat like it was in 1.

The free mods are not going to be a part of the premium paid mods according to Bethesda. All mods submitted to Bethesda have to be new ideas. Bethesda will work with the modder to implement their mod into the game, including doing quality assurance testing.