I took a quick look; and will delve into it briefly now.
Dec 2017: CryTek sues CIG/RSI for a litany of things which all but guarantee to put them out of business
Jan 2018: CIG answers suit, and files a Motion To Dismiss (MtD) all of it
Aug 2018: Judge rules on the MtD
I covered the MtD ruling and the SAC (updated at bottom of article below) here:
When you consider that punitive damages are of no relevance to this case (see MtD ruling), the only single item granted in the MtD, was that the GLA didn't require CIG to "exclusively" develop Star Citizen using CryEngine.
They're also accusing Crytek of countering the judge's original April order regarding discovery.
The judge denied that motion because according to FCRP, discovery at that point was voluntary
Let me explain...
1) breach of contract in several causes of action
2) copyright infringement brought on by Squadron 42 being developed without a valid CryEngine license
2) use of CryEngine in SC/SQ42
3) improvements to CryEngine
It's from the standard playbook in all such cases. And you can do it. until you piss off a Federal judge.
They have the right to do so.
But read 2.4 again, and see if you spot ANYTHING in there which would move the judge to grant them a dismissal on that - for ANY reason
1) Lumberyard isn't a competing engine because it's based on CryEngine
2) The GLA is no longer in effect, and that they're not even using CryEngine anyway
These were the same guys who claimed that 2.1.2 meant that only CIG had a license to use CryEngine. Even when we were all falling over ourselves trying to logically and reasonably decipher the context of "exclusive" in the GLA.
Amazon licensed CryEngine to develop their own engine which they had a license to sell (they opted to release is free) as middleware.
They called it Lumberyard.
After 4 yrs of dev, it's still in Beta and is extensively different from CE
They then used it to build their own custom engine which they were NOT allowed to sell as a separate engine.
They called it Star Engine.
I already covered this in yesterday's thread:
Amazon is currently giving away free Lumberyard licenses, while selling AWS (their core business).
Until you run out of rope.
As there is ZERO evidence that the GLA terminated (as per Section 8.x), I have no idea if they will even go for that one.
"As long as you have a valid contract (GLA) that's neither terminated, nor outside the additional + 2 yrs post-termination scope, you can't do this, or that, or that, or that, or all of THAT..."
"Defendants may elect to file a motion to dismiss Crytek’s new
claim added to the Second Amended Complaint"
Here they're saying that even though this isn't their response to the SAC, they may respond later.
From where I'm sitting, this is going to trial.