Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

MaxBacon

rodarin said:

that is as usual one of the worst (nothing new for you) strawman arguments ever.

Tiamat64 said:

Yea, it's pretty sad how he keeps resorting to an argument that's basically akin to saying "Hey everyone, some random copyright lawyer without access to the legal contracts says something might be true, so your comments are all invalid!"

Far more valuable insight on this than both of you together as the bias factor is removed I would say.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

rodarin said:

that is as usual one of the worst (nothing new for you) strawman arguments ever.

Tiamat64 said:

Yea, it's pretty sad how he keeps resorting to an argument that's basically akin to saying "Hey everyone, some random copyright lawyer without access to the legal contracts says something might be true, so your comments are all invalid!"

Far more valuable insight on this than both of you together (partners in bias) I would say.

See, there you go again derailing the argument with ad hominem attacks and goal-post moving.  The discussion isn't about how insightful his statements are.  It's about how useless your statements about his statements invalidating everyone else's statements are.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

See, there you go again derailing the argument with ad hominem attacks and goal-post moving.  The discussion isn't about how insightful his statements are.  It's about how useless your statements about his statements invalidating everyone else's statements are.

You were the one who derailed the thread to talk about me just now so I responded you back, drop the "I'm being attacked" play. You want your own personal opinions and perceptions of this to be of the same weight than those of someone who professionally works on this, they're not, we'll have to agree to disagree.

gervaise1

Octagon7711 said:

gervaise1 said:

Octagon7711 said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
<snip>

<snip>

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

<snip>

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

Whilst I think they probably switched to LY for other technical orientated reasons - Amazon seem to be throwing a lot of resource at LY - I think this is probably the core of the issue. Is LY "Crytek CryEngine" or not? 

@Octagon7711 what you say would be the case if they had switched to e.g. Unity (assuming they could do so etc.) I don't see any suggestion here though that that are using anything but "CryEngine".
<snip>

According to the complaint part of the agreement was to only use their engine, and to only use it for one game SC, which would have prohibited them from switching, using multiple engines, or using it for multiple games.  No one has mentioned Amazon except for forum posters. Crytek is clearly focused only on CIG's original agreement at this point.

The part about only using their engine i.e. CryEngine would, subject to any caveats, prevent them using Unity etc. for sure. The "engine" bit in LY though is still CryEngine - would you dispute this? Now a court may decide it is a "different" engine but I don't think its clear cut. And all the other stuff that Amazon has added has the same status as "bespoke code" - which no one says they cannot add. 

Only use it for one game. Well currently there are 0 games - so in a way that part is moot. Now I think the core of this is Crytek wanting to make sure that any royalties they get "per game" will accrue from SC / SQ42 / SC+SQ42 packages. 

In "good faith" RSI can say they have not changed their planned content. Yes they have changed their "pledge packages". 0 "games" have been launched however - or exist - and RSI could say "sorry" we will revert to a single pledge package: SC+SQ42 - so back to just one "game". All existing SQ42 development pledge packages will now get SC - so nothing taken away from people who have pledged for SQ42 only; no character slots to be provided however for these ex-SQ42 packages. So no change. As I said though I think this is Crytek wanting to make sure that they get royalties on "all sales". 



As to the provision of "bug fixing stuff" is also mentioned above:

Crytek's own words: 

"Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version" 

make it 100% clear that RSI have provided "bug fixes". That is the only possible way the words can be read.

What Crytek are complaining about is that Crytek have not provided them in a way that makes it easy for them. And it will presumably cost them money etc.

And to this end they talk about "good faith". What they don't talk about is "as required by GLA x.x.x". Interpretation: nothing specificed. RSI could provide the bug fixes in Ancient Greek chiseled on to stone tablets and meet the "letter of the agreement". 

Which is why I - purposefully - used the phrase "good faith" in the bit about one game vs, two games above. "Good faith" and "exact wording of agreements" can - and often do - cut both ways. 

The intent of the agreement would be that only their engine is used.  CR announced they were switching to a different engine, Lumberyard.  He made the official announcement if I remember correctly.

Only for use of one game would include ongoing development of that game.  Wouldn't be much of a contract if it only applied to a finished game.

Yes I am pretty sure they announced they switched to Lumberyard as well. Which Amazon - and I paraphrase - stuff including some Crytek "middleware". Does that mean CryEngine isn't an engine its just middleware; or that Amazon is wrong; or - maybe - there is "ambiguity" in the way language is used. Which is what often leads to lawyers ....

As for 1 game vs. 2 as I said the "product" being developed hasn't changed and could easily be changed back. Regarding "developed" vs. "finished" however there is a big difference that comes down to potential royalties on finished games. Which is why I suggested that that is what Crytek are interested in - any and all potential royalties. Today "development licences" are typically based on team size - which has been common for years but I don't know what the specific agreement between RSI and Crytek was. If so however it will make no difference at all how many games they are working on. The key - for Crytek - is being paid royalties on release. Another increasingly ambiguous term as well these days!

If this was "clear cut" it wouldn't even be a story. Which implies strongly that its not. Assuming the response is made public that will provide the other side. 

Tiamat64

gervaise1 said:

Yes I am pretty sure they announced they switched to Lumberyard as well. Which Amazon - and I paraphrase - stuff including some Crytek "middleware". Does that mean CryEngine isn't an engine its just middleware; or that Amazon is wrong; or - maybe - there is "ambiguity" in the way language is used. Which is what often leads to lawyers ....

Where did Amazon say that?  I just googled it and can't find anything about Amazon saying something like that.

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

See, there you go again derailing the argument with ad hominem attacks and goal-post moving.  The discussion isn't about how insightful his statements are.  It's about how useless your statements about his statements invalidating everyone else's statements are.

You were the one who derailed the thread to talk about me just now so I responded you back, drop the "I'm being attacked" play. You want your own personal opinions and perceptions of this to be of the same weight than those of someone who professionally works on this, they're not, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Oh cry me a river (seriously.  I like rivers).  Now you're (again) trying to spin this back on me because you can't come up with a proper counter argument of your own.  So typical.

Octagon7711

gervaise1 said:

Octagon7711 said:

gervaise1 said:

Octagon7711 said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
<snip>

<snip>

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

<snip>

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

Whilst I think they probably switched to LY for other technical orientated reasons - Amazon seem to be throwing a lot of resource at LY - I think this is probably the core of the issue. Is LY "Crytek CryEngine" or not? 

@Octagon7711 what you say would be the case if they had switched to e.g. Unity (assuming they could do so etc.) I don't see any suggestion here though that that are using anything but "CryEngine".
<snip>

According to the complaint part of the agreement was to only use their engine, and to only use it for one game SC, which would have prohibited them from switching, using multiple engines, or using it for multiple games.  No one has mentioned Amazon except for forum posters. Crytek is clearly focused only on CIG's original agreement at this point.

The part about only using their engine i.e. CryEngine would, subject to any caveats, prevent them using Unity etc. for sure. The "engine" bit in LY though is still CryEngine - would you dispute this? Now a court may decide it is a "different" engine but I don't think its clear cut. And all the other stuff that Amazon has added has the same status as "bespoke code" - which no one says they cannot add. 

Only use it for one game. Well currently there are 0 games - so in a way that part is moot. Now I think the core of this is Crytek wanting to make sure that any royalties they get "per game" will accrue from SC / SQ42 / SC+SQ42 packages. 

In "good faith" RSI can say they have not changed their planned content. Yes they have changed their "pledge packages". 0 "games" have been launched however - or exist - and RSI could say "sorry" we will revert to a single pledge package: SC+SQ42 - so back to just one "game". All existing SQ42 development pledge packages will now get SC - so nothing taken away from people who have pledged for SQ42 only; no character slots to be provided however for these ex-SQ42 packages. So no change. As I said though I think this is Crytek wanting to make sure that they get royalties on "all sales". 



As to the provision of "bug fixing stuff" is also mentioned above:

Crytek's own words: 

"Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version" 

make it 100% clear that RSI have provided "bug fixes". That is the only possible way the words can be read.

What Crytek are complaining about is that Crytek have not provided them in a way that makes it easy for them. And it will presumably cost them money etc.

And to this end they talk about "good faith". What they don't talk about is "as required by GLA x.x.x". Interpretation: nothing specificed. RSI could provide the bug fixes in Ancient Greek chiseled on to stone tablets and meet the "letter of the agreement". 

Which is why I - purposefully - used the phrase "good faith" in the bit about one game vs, two games above. "Good faith" and "exact wording of agreements" can - and often do - cut both ways. 

The intent of the agreement would be that only their engine is used.  CR announced they were switching to a different engine, Lumberyard.  He made the official announcement if I remember correctly.

Only for use of one game would include ongoing development of that game.  Wouldn't be much of a contract if it only applied to a finished game.

Yes I am pretty sure they announced they switched to Lumberyard as well. Which Amazon - and I paraphrase - stuff including some Crytek "middleware". Does that mean CryEngine isn't an engine its just middleware; or that Amazon is wrong; or - maybe - there is "ambiguity" in the way language is used. Which is what often leads to lawyers ....

As for 1 game vs. 2 as I said the "product" being developed hasn't changed and could easily be changed back. Regarding "developed" vs. "finished" however there is a big difference that comes down to potential royalties on finished games. Which is why I suggested that that is what Crytek are interested in - any and all potential royalties. Today "development licences" are typically based on team size - which has been common for years but I don't know what the specific agreement between RSI and Crytek was. If so however it will make no difference at all how many games they are working on. The key - for Crytek - is being paid royalties on release. Another increasingly ambiguous term as well these days!

If this was "clear cut" it wouldn't even be a story. Which implies strongly that its not. Assuming the response is made public that will provide the other side. 

This is the interesting part.

"Crytek is asking for direct damages, indirect damages and a permanent injunction to prevent CIG and RSI “from continuing to possess or use the Copyrighted Work.” That could mean poring over the code of an incredibly complex game"

It's also interesting that CR said they had been working with Amazon for more than a year before they made the official announcement to change.  He also said they were still using parts of the original engine.  

If CIG is using some of Cryteks copyrighted works then it's possible everything could be brought to a stop until a conclusion is reached.  

It is hard to tell with only reading the accusations.  I'm sure a more detailed response from CIG will be just as interesting.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

Oh cry me a river (seriously.  I like rivers).  Now you're (again) trying to spin this back on me because you can't come up with a proper counter argument of your own.  So typical.

I'm not the one crying. I have my opinion, I stated it, that attorney has more weight in his professional opinion and perception from the same position as you, than you or me do; instead of me coming up with any possible argument I do prefer to see what is backed up by actual professionals on their takes on this considering the very limited info.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

Oh cry me a river (seriously.  I like rivers).  Now you're (again) trying to spin this back on me because you can't come up with a proper counter argument of your own.  So typical.

I'm not the one crying. I have my opinion, I stated it, that attorney has more weight in his professional opinion and perception from the same position as you, than you or me do; instead of me coming up with any possible argument I do prefer to see what is backed up by actual professionals on their takes on this considering the very limited info.

So now you've derailed the topic into being about what you like to see.  Not surprising at all.   But it only just confirms what we were just talking about.  That your posts are just trying to write off everyone else's posts instead of offering anything of substance.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

So now you've derailed the topic into being about what you like to see.  Not surprising at all.   But it only just confirms what we were just talking about. That your posts are just trying to write off everyone else's posts instead of offering anything of substance.

Nope, very much on the topic of this thread. Your substance here is pages of speculation over something you don't actually know, neither does anyone else here at this point. This thread can get to 100 pages that its substance will be its lack of substance for the most part until now.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

So now you've derailed the topic into being about what you like to see.  Not surprising at all.   But it only just confirms what we were just talking about. That your posts are just trying to write off everyone else's posts instead of offering anything of substance.

Nope, very much on the topic of this thread. Your substance here is pages of speculation over something you don't actually know, neither does anyone else here at this point. This thread can get to 100 pages that its substance will be its lack of substance for the most part until now.

Didn't I just say your posts are just nothing but trying to write off everyone else's posts?  Now you go and prove me right by saying we should all write off this entire thread.  That was a rhetorical question by the way, but I'm sure telling you that isn't going to stop you from answering with the same thing over and over again anyways.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:
Didn't I just say your posts are just nothing but trying to write off everyone else's posts?  Now you go and prove me right by saying we should all write off this entire thread.  That was a rhetorical question by the way, but I'm sure telling you that isn't going to stop you from answering with the same thing over and over again anyways.

Weird, you are speculating yourself but when I posted earlier about stuff I was speculating as well you come in to write me off because of a sorts "my speculation is better than yours!". lol but ok.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Didn't I just say your posts are just nothing but trying to write off everyone else's posts?  Now you go and prove me right by saying we should all write off this entire thread.  That was a rhetorical question by the way, but I'm sure telling you that isn't going to stop you from answering with the same thing over and over again anyways.

Weird, you are speculating yourself but when I posted earlier about stuff I was speculating as well you come in to write me off. lol but ok I don't even want to continue this just for yet another moralist response...

You want to continue it enough that now you're just completely making things up and putting words into my mouth.  Where did I mention speculation anywhere in my post?  Perhaps a few pages back but that's far from the current discussion (far enough that I'm still not sure what the heck you're talking about) and thus is just another derailment by you. I'm honestly thinking you're just spouting logical fallacies at random now instead of actually putting any thought into your posts because you clearly didn't think to actually read what you are replying to.  Instead you've fabricated this bizarre strawman of me talking about speculation when my post has nothing of the sort, then claim you don't want to continue yet keep going, before finishing off with an ad hominem attack.

This is pretty hilarious considering that the whole initial discussion was about your logical fallacies attempting to just write everyone off about not being worthwhile to read (despite how you're still here reading these things.  ...or maybe not since you clearly didn't read what you're responding to).

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

You want to continue it enough that now you're just completely making things up and putting words into my mouth.  Where did I mention speculation anywhere in my post?  I'm honestly thinking you're just spouting logical fallacies at random now instead of actually putting any thought into anything because you clearly didn't think to actually read what you are replying to.  Instead you've fabricated this bizarre strawman of me talking about speculation when my post has nothing of the sort, then claim you don't want to continue yet keep going, before finishing off with an ad hominem attack.

This is pretty hilarious considering that the whole initial discussion was about your logical fallacies attempting to just write everyone off about not being worthwhile to read (despite how you're still here).

Another moral speech I guess.  Nope, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I countered your speculation with my speculation, you write it off because of this and that reason, and the loop continues. And yes, imagining and picturing multiple scenarios is speculating; even if you were a copyright attorney yourself.

Tiamat64

Amature statement 

“We are aware of the Crytek complaint having been filed in the US District Court,” the spokesperson said. “CIG hasn’t used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon’s Lumberyard. This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against, including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter.”

Professional statement

“Crytek is a technology company and intellectual property is its greatest asset,” they said. “It is unfortunate that this lawsuit had to be brought, but Crytek has been left with no option but to protect its intellectual property in court.”

Oi, CiG better hope that their co-founder Ortwin Freyermuth royally messed up when he wrote Crytek's initial contract that CiG signed, because if this does go to court, they're clearly outclassed in the legal professionalism department here.

Pretty funny how his own contract that he wrote might come back to bite him in the rump.

Erillion

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

You need to read the whole sentence.

I did. The whole sentence, paragraph, article, Definition and the whole court document. And watched a half dozen analysis videos w.r.t. this topic. 

I THINK you want to make a point here. But forgot to mention the point. 


Have fun

Kefo

Tiamat64 said:

Amature statement 

“We are aware of the Crytek complaint having been filed in the US District Court,” the spokesperson said. “CIG hasn’t used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon’s Lumberyard. This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against, including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter.”

Professional statement

“Crytek is a technology company and intellectual property is its greatest asset,” they said. “It is unfortunate that this lawsuit had to be brought, but Crytek has been left with no option but to protect its intellectual property in court.”

Oi, CiG better hope that their co-founder Ortwin Freyermuth royally messed up when he wrote Crytek's initial contract that CiG signed, because if this does go to court, they're clearly outclassed in the legal professionalism department here.

Pretty funny how his own contract that he wrote might come back to bite him in the rump.

Ortwin screwed up when he didn't excuse himself from the negotiations between CIG and Crytek so in my opinion Crytek's lawyers see Ortwin as a gold mine of screwups waiting to happen that they can exploit.

adamlotus75

Erillion and Max - however much CIG are paying you it isnt enough, defending this crap must be painful. 

Erillion

adamlotus75 said:

Erillion and Max - however much CIG are paying you it isnt enough, defending this crap must be painful. 

It is not. Actually it is quite fun. 

And for me personally I can answer: no payment. I am a backer and a fan. That is enough. 


Have fun

sgel

adamlotus75 said:

Erillion and Max - however much CIG are paying you it isnt enough, defending this crap must be painful. 

They don't seem that distraught tbh.
A little bit out of shape considering the gymnastics they need to pull off for this one but they're handling it ok.

You seem to forget how long these guys have been on the defense force.. the amount of self-imposed mind-conditioning they've had to endure to actually believe literally every single nugget of bullshit CIG feeds them. These guys are white knight veterans.

It's quite a commendable feat

That's without taking into consideration the obsession in having to type "Have fun"  8.316 times

kikoodutroa8

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

You need to read the whole sentence.

I did. The whole sentence, paragraph, article, Definition and the whole court document. And watched a half dozen analysis videos w.r.t. this topic. 

I THINK you want to make a point here. But forgot to mention the point. 


Have fun

Sorry. My point is that the sentence you quoted as a very clear meaning and it seems you missed it.

Erillion

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

You need to read the whole sentence.

I did. The whole sentence, paragraph, article, Definition and the whole court document. And watched a half dozen analysis videos w.r.t. this topic. 

I THINK you want to make a point here. But forgot to mention the point. 


Have fun

Sorry. My point is that the sentence you quoted as a very clear meaning and it seems you missed it.

Then please explain that "very clear meaning" from your perspective.


Have fun

Scot

No game, but we can have lawsuits, a joy of modernity.

kikoodutroa8

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

You need to read the whole sentence.

I did. The whole sentence, paragraph, article, Definition and the whole court document. And watched a half dozen analysis videos w.r.t. this topic. 

I THINK you want to make a point here. But forgot to mention the point. 


Have fun

Sorry. My point is that the sentence you quoted as a very clear meaning and it seems you missed it.

Then please explain that "very clear meaning" from your perspective.


Have fun

CIG breached the contract.

Erillion

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

Vrika said:

If RSI agreed to give those updates to Crytek, then it was RSI's responsibility to give them. Changing your actions so that you become unable to fulfill your contractual obligations is breaking the contract.

Maybe CIG DID give updates to Crytek, but not in a way that Crytek liked.

"....On November 16, 2015, Crytek requested long overdue bug fixes and optimizations from Defendants. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to  provide Crytek with the promised bug fixes and optimizations to the CryEngine as a complete compilable version. ..."

I am neither a lawyer nor is English my mother tongue, but i do not read "Defendants did NOT provide the promised bug fixes....". I read "did not make a good faith effort..."

"In law, the phrase “good faith” refers to a requirement to act honestly and to keep one’s promises without taking unfair advantage of others or holding others to an impossible standard. "
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-good-faith/

As others have already said upthread, we are lacking a lot of information (contractual details, CIG's response at court, conditional clauses, international law that may apply and is different from US federal law, additional agreements that may apply etc.) and the case is most likely not as clear cut as the plaintiff presents it.


Have fun

You need to read the whole sentence.

I did. The whole sentence, paragraph, article, Definition and the whole court document. And watched a half dozen analysis videos w.r.t. this topic. 

I THINK you want to make a point here. But forgot to mention the point. 


Have fun

Sorry. My point is that the sentence you quoted as a very clear meaning and it seems you missed it.

Then please explain that "very clear meaning" from your perspective.


Have fun

CIG breached the contract.

Maybe. We will know when we hear the other side. If we ever will.


Have fun

SlyLoK

I forget which website I was reading. The discussion went around the file directories and names. In a recent SC video revealed file names and locations that matched cryengine and not lumberyard. So if they indeed did switch they likely just took what they wanted like the networking bits without migrating everything over.

Doesn't matter either way.