Doesn't matter - as it was explained to me, the onus will effectively be on CIG to demonstrate why code that is identical to code from CryEngine should be retained in the event that they are order to remove it. That the code came from a different source but is otherwise identical won't be a solution unless they can prove it. What is fun is that LumberYard is based on CryEngine so there is bound to be a lot of crossover. A lawyer would be able to point out the loopholes and the details, but essentially CIG cannot claim to be removing CryEngine and then keep CryEngine code in place with the claim that it derived from LumberYard instead.
The Star Citizen Thread v9
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
Doesn't matter - as it was explained to me, the onus will effectively be on CIG to demonstrate why code that is identical to code from CryEngine should be retained in the event that they are order to remove it. That the code came from a different source but is otherwise identical won't be a solution unless they can prove it. What is fun is that LumberYard is based on CryEngine so there is bound to be a lot of crossover. A lawyer would be able to point out the loopholes and the details, but essentially CIG cannot claim to be removing CryEngine and then keep CryEngine code in place with the claim that it derived from LumberYard instead.
Effectively...yes. CIG tried some clever word play but the original S42 was still an integrated part of the SC whole. It was not a separate game and it was silly of CIG to even make the argument. Having bought a license for CE that allowed them to develop one game, they do not get to develop two games by simply claiming one has some link to it. Once they split S42 off into a separate standalone game, that did required is own launcher and could be run independently of SC, it was legally a separate game, one that required its own CE license to develop.
And no - it is not reasonable to force them to sell SC and S42 as bundles because that is still letting them develop TWO separate games. Plus there are the legal issues because CIG already ahs sold S42 as a standalone game., Plus there are the potential issues of forcing players to buy a product they do not want.
CT had no problem with S42 when it was an integrated part of SC. But for CIG to develop it as a standalone game, they most certainly DID need a separate CE license to do so. That it was once integrated into SC is totally irrelevant. CT sold them a license for ONE game - and CIG tried to develop two.
I think that's backwards: The presumption of innocence applies at all levels, so it would be down to CT & Skadden to prove it was taken from CT, not Amazon.
Or course, given the GLA, they're still shooting themselves in the face if they take that route.
CIG switched at a point where both they and Amazon claimed to have changed more than two thirds of the CE code.
"Near identical" assume they were lying.
Further, testing alone, to ensure compatibility, would be a time consuming process. CRs two days comment is ludicrous. If he had said two MONTHS I might have believed him.
More, there is video evidence that CryEngine, or at least parts of it were still in use AFTER the supposed switch. Further...I think it was Ben Parry who gave us a fair clarification of the process used to switch to Lumberyard...it basically involved changing the splashscreen and adding a couple of Amazon specific modules.
Leaving aside the nature of specific proof, I personally am convinced CIG essentially did not switch to Lumberyard. Or at least, did not do so when they say they did. Which is just as bad...worse in some ways as a later change would show they knew they were wrong.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Quick update on this. I reached out to Bootcha through his account in reddit 3 days ago. No response so far.
All they have to do is show that the code is theirs. Side by side comparison type of stuff. If it gets to the point CIG have been ordered to remove it, they've already been found guilty.
The question is if they CAN demand that and if they are OWED that. It was pretty clear that CryTek by themselves failed to uphold THEIR end of the bargain in request to what if any code they wanted updated and it got worse when they had to lay off personnel which in turn CIG hired since CryTek could not deliver the updates THEY owed to CIG.
It could be a question about who failed to uphold their end of the bargain first.
This i agree with.
By splitting into two separate games you get ALL the code required in each package instead of requiring people to purchase SC and then able to UPGRADE to SQ42 as a DLC.
Had they gone with the DLC approach then they would most likely be home free but risk less sales i bet. I bet they would not have gained any UK tax break in that case since it would then be ONE game and ONE expansion.
Ok, but how do they prove which code snippet from Lumberyard and the other from CryEngine if:
- The code as written is IDENTICAL in both cases?
- The base code in Lumberyard is from CryEngine and was ported ages ago when Lumberyard got their CryEngine code?
At most...timestamp identification?
And even if it was a measure of timestamp to identify WHEN a piece of code was written, if it is IDENTICAL to Lumberyard can one claim it is one or the other who "own" it?
It gets further convoluted when the core code Lumberyard is based on IS CryEngine AND a License Amazon has, making it a CryEngine code that is Licensed to Amazon and then, technically CryEngine and not really Lumberyard...
At what point is a codebase migrated by a license agreement the ownership of the new engine and not the original engine when there is no visible difference in the code?
Harbinger
Volunteer Moderator
[source]
Lumberyard went live in v2.6.0 on December 23rd 2016
Even if they actually completed the switch to Lumberyard in two days as they claim (and I think we're all pretty sceptical of that) they were still in breach of their CryEngine agreement by selling a wholly separate product for the 313 days between these dates.
The damning part of the first quote is CIG quite literally refer to Squadron 42 being available as a "stand alone game". Oops.
Last edited:
They need to prove to court that SQ42 does not exist at all -> Answer The Call: NEVER
Since SQ42 is missing for years maybe its possible, if they fail to do so they are in big trouble.
I would think there have to be version control numbers and audit numbers to show if code is newly introduced or ancient?
Also, I have no idea if LY still has all the (what I would describe as) CE REM statements plastered through it?
I don't think it is as simple as CiG being able to say "Well yes CRYFunctionCall #11 existed in CE 3.7, but our line of code was newly introduced from LY, so it isn't breach of copyright".
If it can be shown that code in functionality was in the game for a long time, let's say something controlling an MFD, or a door, or something, then it is hard for CiG to simply say "Yeah we took out the licensed code at some point and replaced it with stuff you can't sue us over", without being able to show exactly when that change was made?
I am 99 % sure, that LY is competitor to Cryengine so under signed GLA - its point 2.4 where GLA states that CIG can not use any competing engines = BIG trouble for CIG in court.
Except the exclusivity part was thrown and they had every right to switch engines.
Announcements, yes. Im talking about the actual date they took Lumberyard and started using it. Not COMPLETED the switch, STARTED.
If they switched (signed contract, license or otherwise) with Lumberyard the day before they split the packages and then spent a year moving the games to Lumberyard it would be the day before the split that would be counted as a switch in engine since it's the day for the contract.
To switch to non-Competitor engine - like engine that is not based in Cryengine code...
So maybe switch to Unreal would be OK, but to LY no...will see..
I thought that was only regarding what was in 2.12 (or whatever that part was). I was of the opinion that 2.4 superseded it and was valid. But I am not an expert, so not 100% sure.
LumberYard IS CryEngine. The whole stunt is useless from the infringement perspective, because there exists no CryEngine implementation free of CryTek's intellectual property.
"Presumption of innocence" exists only in criminal cases. It has nothing to do with what happens at civil courts.
In a civil case, every side has prove their claims. So the infringer has to prove, that they have a clean room implementation using the same API. The term "clean room" stems of the fact, that copyright infringement happens already, if you had people working at the copyrighted code and then let them write or edit other code - because they remember the copyrighted code (in their mind) and are therefore tainting the new code with it.
Means: If the same people worked on CryEngine and then LumberYard afterwards, the new tainted code still infringes CryTek's rights.
You guys have no idea, how far the scope of copyright goes. That is why an IP infringement suit is the death knell of a company.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Well, as per CR own admission the Lumberyard deal was not fully finalized until sometime after 2.5 release (which happened end of August 2016). So it seems CE was still very much the official code base after the split for SQ42 and well before the Lumberyard switch. Formal switch announcements, start, completion or otherwise.