Thread by @dsmart

So there's been some activity in the Crytek v CIG lawsuit. The parties have asked the court to extend the trial date by 3 months.

docdro.id/wFyO34L

Aside from the fact that CIG has been pissing up a storm with pointless motions in a [failed] bid to frustrate Crytek and run up costs, their latest attempt (a bond) at forcing Crytek to the settlement table, failed spectacularly when Crytek put up the bond - in cold hard cash.

Not only did Crytek put up the cash, but as has happened twice in the past, they didn't settle the case with CIG; opting instead to dive headlong into discovery. If you've been following my coverage, this is PRECISELY what I had said was going to happen.

By sticking it out and going to discovery, Crytek has a far better chance of not only proving their case, but also quite possibly exposing other causes of action. Not to mention gaining complete access to the CIG finances (which is going to be a worthy battle to watch).

The discovery code review alone is going to be quite revealing.

Back in 2016 I wrote an extensive blog in which I explained why I had ZERO reason to believe that CIG actually switched from CryEngine to Lumberyard - as they had claimed.

Crytek sued CIG almost 1yr later.

As I explained in that Irreconcilable Differences" blog, there's no way in hell they could have done that; given the extensive modifications they had made to the licensed CryEngine (their custom version named StarEngine) beforehand.

dereksmart.com/2015/07/star-c…

And that's what this gem (below) is now about, and which - finances aside - is precisely what Crytek's case hinges on.

Remember that this key aspect of the lawsuit survived the CIG motion to dismiss.

It's going to be trivial for Crytek and any third-party expert to review the version control changelogs going as far back as when the project started, to the point (and beyond) at which CIG claims to have "switched" from CryEngine.

If it's discovered that even a single code routine from CryEngine proper remains in their code based, regardless of whether or not that code also appears in Lumberyard, then CIG is really up a creek.

To be clear, it matters not that Lumberyard is based off CryEngine.

At the end of the day, it's going to be up to the judge to determine how much code diffs between CryEngine and Lumberyard is enough to justify CIG's claim of having switched.

And btw there's case law precedent for this which is squarely in Crytek's favor.

Because Lumberyard was built from CryEngine, in much the same way that StarEngine was built from CryEngine, CIG has their work cutout for them in explaining what exactly constituted this switch.

e.g. Scaleform UI middleware in CryEngine isn't in Lumberyard (AMZ use their own); but CIG still used it - and apparently still are in some regard.

If CIG switched completely to Lumberyard, they wouldn't be using Scaleform - even though their CryEngine license allows it.

The really weird thing here is that even if CIG did switch, they had every legal right to do so (as the judge herself agreed in her MtD ruling); thus giving them a license to use BOTH CryEngine & Lumberyard.

But herein lies the rub...

1) If CIG is using CryEngine actual in ANY form, they are legally required to use the Crytek branding as per the agreement. Failure to do that is a breach of the license agreement.

CIG removed said branding when they switched to Lumberyard; and started using that branding.

2) If CIG is using ANY aspect of CryEngine in Squadron 42 game, that's an even bigger (and more damaging) material breach because Crytek is claiming that only Star Citizen is licensed to use their engine.

CIG is ofc claiming that they were allowed to develop 2 games with it.

The key aspects of the lawsuit that survived the MtD hinge on copyright infringement. Not to the mention the fact that the judge granted [Crytek] monetary damages, injunctive relief AND statutory damages - all of which combine to inflict serious damage to CIG if Crytek wins.

Basically, the minute this ruling happens, if Crytek prevails, as has happened in similar cases they could immediately file an injunction preventing the sales of both games. Even while the action is being appealed. See Silicon Knights v Epic Games for context.

The other downside (for CIG) here is that the amount of money they have generated for this project is a massive liability in this case because that's precisely what Crytek is going to use to claim damages. That's usually how it works.

Anyway, that's all for now. In the meantime, we wait for the judge's ruling on the protective order (which CIG filed), and whatever discovery shenanigans are afoot.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, CIG has once again extended the scope of the game to add new features OUT OF NOWHERE.

This time, it's a prison gameplay loop. Now added to the dozens of other promised but missing or unfinished gameplay loops.

I wish I was joking.

I am calling it now. This sets the stage for the inevitable upcoming prison ship JPEG sale in the coming months.

This shit is never not funny.