Ship models
Flight model
NPC AI
Areas (if and sharing of areas going on or asset reuse)
Gameplay code (everything from picking up boxes to inner thought to mobiglass, etc)
There is going to be a hell of a lot of sharing going on between the games.
The Star Citizen Thread v9
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
Ship models
Flight model
NPC AI
Areas (if and sharing of areas going on or asset reuse)
Gameplay code (everything from picking up boxes to inner thought to mobiglass, etc)
There is going to be a hell of a lot of sharing going on between the games.
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
They can also claim costs. If they are awarded then Skaddens bill might be more than CIG can afford on its own.
At first glance, Skadden legal bills to one side for the moment, it seemed to me to be quite promising for CIG/RSI/Whatever-They-Are-Called-This-Week:
1) It's OK to "switch engines".
2) No punitive damages.
3) No Squadron 42 due to breach of Copyright unless they use a different engine, for example Lumberyard. At the least they could cancel it and tell backers "oh dear, we're sorry, but those mean nasty people out in the big wide world wouldn't let us do it - and we were sooooooo close".
Compensatory damages could still end up as a very unpleasant bill but I can see a new "Rescue Ship" being offered for sale for the Whales to keep the dream alive.
1) It's OK to "switch engines".
2) No punitive damages.
3) No Squadron 42 due to breach of Copyright unless they use a different engine, for example Lumberyard. At the least they could cancel it and tell backers "oh dear, we're sorry, but those mean nasty people out in the big wide world wouldn't let us do it - and we were sooooooo close".
Compensatory damages could still end up as a very unpleasant bill but I can see a new "Rescue Ship" being offered for sale for the Whales to keep the dream alive.
IANAL but I think that punitive damages are probably the least important thing here. If it's proven that CIG are in breach of contract or copyright then ... it'll get messy. These are definately not minor things.
Also I think that the reason that the court dismissed CT's claim that they are meant to be using CryEngine in Star Citizen (and breached the contract by switching) is due to the lawyers using 2.1.2 of the GLA as supporting evidence. (I haven't got a copy of the original claim to check)
So the court has agreed with CIG in so much as that clause only grants them (but no other 3rd party) the rights to develop their game using CryEngine - and that the clause itself doesn't make any other stipulations - so that part of CT's original claim is dismissed as unsupported.
HOWEVER. What's also said in the document (footnote 6,page 11) is that 2.4 probably does support the claims that they cannot use/switch to another engine.
CT's lawyers didn't claim for a breach due to that clause in their original/amended complaint which could possibly be an error on their part. No idea if the 21 days to respond means that they could amend the complaint to correct that or if it'd just come out anyway if it all ends up in court.
As for the test to SQ42 being standalone. Well it's been advertised and sold as a separate entity. AFAIK through out the development it's been said that it shares core tech with the online SC and hasn't that been given a number of times as the reason for it being delayed, waiting for tech to be implemented?
Doesn't look good for the project tbh. If it does go against them, then it won't just be financial damages that will be the issue but potentially having the license revoked, any CT code & documentation deleted (as per GLA terms) and perhaps injunctions to cease work.
Last edited:
Oooh, that would be bad....
Reposted because it is already disappearing into the "Ancient History of Posts" after only a few hours.
Last edited:
As a layman also, what are the Compensatory Damages?
If these are the statutory damages awarded to an IP owner then I seem to recall they can be as high as $10,000 per breach. So if you copy a DVD and sell 1,000 of them without permission from the IP holder, then could you be liable for $10,000 x 1,000?
What I do have some experience of is IP issues and assessing risk in this area (as an IP licensor and licensee), and I would say that in nearly all cases the courts side with the IP holder, as use of their IP without adequate compensation is normally deemed inequitable. Also the path of least resistance, without the court getting tied up in knots making multiple determinations, normally results in the court resetting circumstances to the state before the contract is in force i.e. removal of the IP and proof this has been done.
"Normally" of course doesn't mean in every instance, so its not ever a clear thing one way or the other until the court has decided...
If these are the statutory damages awarded to an IP owner then I seem to recall they can be as high as $10,000 per breach. So if you copy a DVD and sell 1,000 of them without permission from the IP holder, then could you be liable for $10,000 x 1,000?
What I do have some experience of is IP issues and assessing risk in this area (as an IP licensor and licensee), and I would say that in nearly all cases the courts side with the IP holder, as use of their IP without adequate compensation is normally deemed inequitable. Also the path of least resistance, without the court getting tied up in knots making multiple determinations, normally results in the court resetting circumstances to the state before the contract is in force i.e. removal of the IP and proof this has been done.
"Normally" of course doesn't mean in every instance, so its not ever a clear thing one way or the other until the court has decided...
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Total speculation on my part, but I should imagine that compensatory damages would be to make up the discount given for the licence fee. Paying for the work CT did on the kickstarter demos and something on top to compensate for the failure to supply CT with the bug fixes and updates they were supposed to pass on but didn't.
Edit:
I forgot about the breach of copyright (publishing CT code) and using CryEngine for the second game (S42). I expect that will amount to a significant figure as well.
Last edited:
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Yes, and this has also been discussed previously. It's very hard for Crytek to make a case using 2.4 (although it could hardly be as frivolous as the exclusivity argument they tried to pull with 2.1.2).
The problem with 2.4 is that the argument Crytek would need to bring (paraphrasing that clause) is, "Licensee shall not engage in the business of selling or licensing any game engine which competes with Cryengine" (my emphasis). The context and meaning of the clause is to ensure CIG doesn't compete with Crytek in the game engine licensing business.
Having said all of that, I still don't know why they didn't try that approach as well. I think they knew their "exclusivity" argument was a huge long shot, but can't blame them for trying.
Last edited:
It seems like there are enough "granted"s and "denied"s that there will be claims of victory from armchair lawyers on all sides, as usual. Although ultimately CIG's goal was to make the whole thing go away, which they've clearly failed to do.
I'm assuming we now wait for yet another slow motion back-and-forth from the parties as they amend and reply and so on?
I'm assuming we now wait for yet another slow motion back-and-forth from the parties as they amend and reply and so on?
" in the business of selling or licensing any game engine"
One of those is buying an engine license, the other one is selling it.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Do you mean that in this context "licensing" can only mean "buying"?
And that, of course, is the type of long-shot layman's argument the Crytek lawyers would need to attempt, rather than the more reasonable meaning being that you are in the business of licensing a game engine to other people. FWIW, my company has been licensing our software to clients for over 20 years. We are in the business of licensing software.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Yeah. The interesting bit is that the judge does not seem to have an issue for this to be considered at least and even nudges/winks CryTek/Skadden to do it. Personally I would wager that the "promoting" bit in 2.4 has more chances to pan out than the "licensing" one
LOL, that's almost like the judge going "Oy, Crytek/Skadden you numpties, why didn't you file using this? Ok, you've got 21 days to refile, fix this, and i'll deny them on that one as well, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!"
Yeah. The interesting bit is that the judge does not seem to have an issue for this to be considered at least. Personally I would wager that the "promoting" bit in 2.4 has more chances to pan out than the "licensing" one
Agree. It will be very interesting to see whether CIG ever displays the Lumberyard logo.
Edit: Perhaps they already are? Anybody?
Well it looks like the ruling has woken he who must not be named from his political commentary.
His take on it is as reserved as you might expect. Need to see what those internet lawyers have to say in comparison!
His take on it is as reserved as you might expect. Need to see what those internet lawyers have to say in comparison!
Last edited:
It would be interesting to know what he originally said about the parts that ended up getting ruled in CIG's favour, because I expect he was adamant they'd be denied too. But you'd have to trawl through thousands of tweets, blogs and forum posts to find out. Predictably, his take seems to be that the judge essentially channelled him directly into the ruling, that's how right he was about absolutely everything. I almost wanted the MTD to be upheld, just to spite him. Almost.