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 : : :
14.
 
Re: CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek
Jan 20, 2020, 04:01
14.
Re: CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek Jan 20, 2020, 04:01
Jan 20, 2020, 04:01
 
Cutter wrote on Jan 19, 2020, 18:27:
Hadn't seen that, thanks. Seems to me section 2.4 of that agreement covers CIGs obligations pretty specifically. And there is nothing in the amendments that changes that.
You'd be wrong. See here for a legal analysis: YouTuber Law.

Contract law has specific interpretations established over decades to define common contractual language. That's why it's important to consider the opinions of legal experts.

Please watch the video I linked to above and then explain to me how CIG is in breach of that provision.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
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
12.
Jan 19, 2020Jan 19 2020
 14.
Jan 20, 2020Jan 20 2020
      Re: CIG's Star Citizen Rebuttal to Crytek
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