RSI/CIG breached the GLA in so many ways, that I don't even know where to begin.
Thread coming later.
The fact that they spent more pages lamenting Ortwin's feelz, than defending a specific cause of action, says it all.
The whole section is to address a cursory conflict of interest issue, part of which were already removed in the amendment.
A paralegal could write this for $250 and file it before lunch.
ofc Ortwin couldn't do it, for obvious reasons.
I hope they're talking about settling by now because this is just a lot of noise. And we're laughing.
The GLA is a template contract and that section didn't apply to this agreement. So it was deleted that way.
This is standard practice to prevent having to re-number sections in a document.
But damn, they are so screwed, I don't even know how to express it in words. So, here's a meme.
Because Goddamn, the response by RSI/CIG is so hilariously inept and fraught with lol-worthy bullshit, that I'm actually impressed they decided to use a multi-million Dollar lawsuit to troll Crytek
I am going to resume this thread. At the end, I will unroll & provide an HTML link to the full thing.
Remember, I am NOT an attorney, but have almost 30 yrs of reviewing & signing licensing contracts
I will be posting this one there as well after I complete and unroll it.
1) CryEngine was to be used exclusively with Star Citizen
2) Only one game, Star Citizen was licensed for use with CryEngine
3) Ortwin is a lying double dipping, dick
There are 3 key docs filed in their response. I am not going to discuss or delve into them in detail, but I will be discussing the key relevant parts.
Trust me, it's hilarious. All of it.
He basically starts off by crying foul over allegations that Ortwin was involved in a conflict of interest.
I would bet cash money that Ortwin drafted this nonsense. It has his trademark all over it.
As I had written a week ago, the attorneys were already in contact over this conflict of interest issue; and that is confirmed here.
That is NOT standard procedure for attorneys walking into a case. It's basically, guns drawn.
Again, that's an Ortwin move. He's THAT guy. I've dealt with him, so I know.
Which is where the lols come in...
He never recused himself from the negotiations
A conflict waiver does NOT alleviate nor remove the liability of same. They usually just ALLOW the attorney to proceed for both parties.
And FKKS also being known as a "reputation management" firm, decided to respond to it anyway, for the mere fact that the allegation existed in the ECF and not the FAC.
So a conflict of interest, waiver or not, is something that is vital to an attorney's reputation.
In fact, in two responses to my attorneys, he spent more time attacking me, than in addressing the issue I was threatening him with.
That's WHO these people are.
They are scum.
If you compare Skadden's original filing, with the FKKS response, it's clear to see which side isn't making it personal.
Depositions are going to be a blast.
1) was removed in the FAC
2) were immaterial & inconsequential to the causes of action in the complaint
So, putting ALL this in the response, was about reputation management.
The 3rd and last part will deal with the FKKS Motion To Dismiss.
It's NOT standard practice to throw contracts into an initial filing.
In fact, most contracts are filed "under seal or camera view only" specifically for confidentiality reasons
I can't think of any other explanation or reason for it.
The name change to Star Citizen, came via the amendment, which we will get to later.
Note that aside from the incorrect name right on the FIRST PAGE of the GLA, there is NO description of what kind of game Space Citizen is.
But Squadron 42 has a description.
During all that, nobody actually noticed that the primary name of the title was not only incorrect - right there on the 1st page - but was used correctly everywhere else in the GLA.
While this may be semantics, you would be surprised at how contract law works, where a simple misspelling can make all the difference.
There is NO dispute here.
This goes to INTENT
Note that as development progressed, several other modes primarily Arena Commander (space combat) and Star Marine (fps combat) evolved out of Star Citizen
Again, all very clear.
And as far as we know, they have never used, nor prototyped, any other engine for Star Citizen besides CryEngine.
This is Chris Roberts in Oct 2012 not only describing both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 as a SINGLE experience, but also - again - saying that development was one year in.
It says CIG are NOT the only ones who would be doing what is listed in that section. Other licensees would too. In order words, they do NOT have the exclusive right to do those things with CryEngine
It's pathetic. Here's why.
That EXCLUSIVE clause means they can't use ANY other engine for Star Citizen.
Period. End of story.
CIG owns the GAME; so of course they would retain the exclusive rights to do all those things in that section.
It doesn't matter how many sub-contractors (besides Faceware named in the FAC), if just ONE entity not listed in the GLA had access to any part of CryEngine, that's a material breach of the GLA.
That's why there is a list in Exhibit 3
The GLA has NO provision for what percentage of code disclosure would be a violation. It basically says, don't do it.
This relates to the display of the Crytek and CryEngine marks and logos.
CIG was doing this, right up to the point where they claimed to have switched to Lumberyard.
1st, Erin Roberts and others at CIG have done on the record claiming that they bought out their CryEngine license. I had written that this was false. And the GLA proves this to be the case.
Instead of sticking with a perpetual royalty on the GAME for the term of the GLA, they opted to pay it up front instead.
They paid 600K Euros for the license + 1.25M Euros for the "future" royalties.
CIG claim to have raised $175M to date.
Do the math.
They got less than 1% of 2017 gross, back in 2012.
They paid a license fee.
Paid a buyout fee of FUTURE royalties.
It's hilarious to me that they signed this back in Nov 2012 when they hadn't even raised enough money to cover it!!
I guess that's what depositions and discovery are for. We'll know soon enough.
LOL!! Yeah, me too.
I present to you Section 6.1.3
Which attorney on planet Earth, drafts an agreement with NO DAMAGES CLAUSE?
That aside, even if CIG were to be found negligent, the max liability would be the cost of what they paid: 1.85M Euros.
CIG could have done a GLA amendment, agreed to pay some damages while not admitting fault. Problem solved.
They don't have the money
Basically, CIG was locked to using CryEngine with NEAR ZERO chances of termination the agreement.
And without such termination, they had NO grounds to switch to another engine.
They couldn't terminate it because they had NO grounds to terminate it.
Even if they were still using it, along with Lumberyard, they would be violating the GLA because well, remember Section 2.1.2 and 2.1.4?
So 2.4 which says they can't do that for 2 yrs after, pretty much means NEVER.
They used CryEngine 3.7x to build a custom engine for Star Citizen, call StarEngine.
They switched to Lumberyard which is a custom build of CryEngine 3.7x
Collectively ALL of that makes Lumberyard a competing engine.
To wit: a violation of 2.4 in the GLA.
LOL!!! I'm in stitches.
Next thing you know, they're switching engines in Dec 2016.
Tomorrow, time permitting, I will do pt 3 regarding the hilarious Motion To Dismiss which I envision the judge is going shred & turn into puree without even reading past the first page. It's just that ridiculous.