CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek

Eurogamer reports on a new court document (which inspires a warning from Google, so use caution) filed by Cloud Imperium Games in response to Crytek's recent motion to dismiss their own lawsuit (thanks Korrd). The suit concerns whether CIG properly licensed the CryENGINE for Star Citizen and Squadron 42, their upcoming space games. Crytek asked the suit be dismissed without prejudice so it can be reopened in the future. Cloud Imperium is seeking a dismissal with prejudice, which would end the case for good and force Crytek to compensate them for some of their legal costs. Here's some of Eurogamer's summary of the new filing:
Following Crytek's motion to dismiss its own lawsuit, CIG has had its say, and in a strongly-worded court document moved to discredit Crytek's lawsuit. It described it as "meritless in light of CIG's separate licence with Amazon", and insisted GLA expressly grants CIG the right to use CryEngine and to develop Squadron 42.

CIG said in May 2019, Crytek "sheepishly and belatedly" emailed Amazon to ask if it had truly granted CIG a licence covering prior versions of CryEngine as well as Lumberyard. According to CIG, in that email, "Crytek conceded that an affirmative answer would likely tank its Squadron 42 claim." Amazon confirmed it licensed Lumberyard to CIG in 2016 - and that it included CryEngine in that licence.

"CIG's separate licence with Amazon operates as a complete defense against Crytek's remaining claims so they too never should have been brought," CIG says.

"Instead of acting responsibly even at that late moment, Crytek persisted, fought the bond motion, and dithered another seven months before bringing this motion."
View : : :
10.
 
Re: CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek
Jan 19, 2020, 17:16
10.
Re: CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek Jan 19, 2020, 17:16
Jan 19, 2020, 17:16
 
Cutter wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 16:53:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 16:27:
Cutter wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 14:16:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 13:06:
Now we have confirmation from Amazon that not only did it licence Lumberyard to CIG (which was publicly known) but also CryEngine, meaning that CIG cannot be in breach of the GLA with Crytek. Not that Crytek's claim had any merit, as the GLA specifically included Star Citizen AND Squadron 42.

Crytek attempted to extort CIG and now it looks like it will be on the hook for over $500,000 in legal costs, possibly a lot more. Crytek should be focused on paying its own employees rather than filing baseless lawsuits that will create even more of a blackhole in its finances.

Are you privy to the original contract between Crytek and CIG? If not than how would you possibly know? All I've seen is the usual convoluted mess of their PR people engaging in he said/she said.

Haven't they been releasing the contract text? I could have sworn I read some of it last year.

Since when are contract specifics public knowledge? Anywhere? All I've read since this bullshit began is claim vs. counterclaim - same as any public dispute - that's long on claims and short on actual facts.

They have released to the court and public viewing the GLA, or game license agreement, which is the contract between CIG and Crytek. The court ruled previously that the GLA does not require CIG to use Cryengine as provided by Crytek, but rather allows them to do so.
Date
Subject
Author
2.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
6.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
7.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
8.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
 10.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
    Re: CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek
12.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
14.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
17.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
26.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
27.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
28.
Jan 22, 2020Jan 22 2020
4.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
13.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
18.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
20.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
21.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
22.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
23.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
24.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020